Judge Simandle Enforces “Gag Order”

Mr. Snyder also stated “Defendants expect to cross move for futher sanctions,
more sever than the money judgments that clearly have failed to deter Damiano’s
contempt, for his continued contempt of this Court and abuse of process
against Defendants”.

“…..this situation is no longer one involving civil contempt as a remedy for violations of a discovery order…..” Steven D. Johnson Esq. Attorney for Bob Dylan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of New Jersey

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
CHAMBER OF
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE
ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA
PO BOX 888
CAMDEN NJ 08010
(856) 757-5167

December 23, 2002

ORIN SNYDER, ESQUIRE
PARCHER HAYES & SNYDER
500 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10110

STEVEN D. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE
HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP
1700 Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769

Mr. James Damiano
Route
NJ 0780

RE: Damiano v. Bob Dylan & Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
Civil No. 95-4795 (JBS)

Dear Litigants:

This will reply to Mr. Snyder’s letter of December 18, 2002, which requests an
extension of time to respond to Mr. Damiano’s motions from December 20, 2002
until January 20, 2003.

Under the circumstances in Mr. Snyder’s letter, his request is granted. In my
preliminary review of these motions, I have noted that they do not conform to
the requirements of the Federal motions, and that the 40-page limit for motions
has also been exceeded.

Notwithstanding the procedural defects in the motions, and in light of Mr.
Damiano’s pro se status, I will not dismiss the motions and require rebriefing.
as I would do if an attorney filed these papers.

I will, however limit the length of defendants’ opposition to the 40-page limit
of L. Civ. R. 7.2, and request that special attention be given to the motion to
vacate the protective order. That motion may not be timely to the extent that
it seeks relief from an ongoing injunctive order regarding the use of
confidential discovery materials. Although the defendants must address all of
the pending motions, I would appreciate if special attention is given by
defense counsel and by Mr. Damiano to the current status of the confidentiality
order.

The issue arises whether, with the passage of time, the protected materials will continue to have the heightened degree of confidentiality which they were found to enjoy in earlier years. If not, is the future continuation of the injunction against use of the confidential materials warranted? In other words, Mr. Damiano has asked that the court re-examine the continued validity of the protective order against his use of confidential discovery materials, and the court is willing to do so after all parties have had a chance to be heard.

In summary, all motions remain pending, and the defendants’ opposition will be
due January 20, 2003. Mr. Damiano’s reply papers, if any are due 14 days after
receiving defendants’ opposition papers. Mr. Damiano’s reply is also limited by
L. Civ. R. 7.2(b) to 15 pages. After all submissions have been received by the
court, I will determine whether or not to grant Mr. Damiano’s recusal motion
and, if recusal is denied, whether to convene oral argument or decide the
matter upon the basis of the papers received under Rule 78. Fed. R. Civ. P.

Very Truly yours,

JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge

JBS/mm
cc: Steven D. Johnson, Esquire
900 Haddon Avenue, Suite 412
Collingswood, NJ 08108-1903

ORIN SNYDER, ESQUIRE
PARCHER HAYES & SNYDER
500 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10110

Dear Mr. Snyder:

I found your partner, Steven D. Johnson’s statement “…..this situation is no longer one involving civil contempt as a remedy for violations of a discovery order…..” a bit intimidating so I took the liberty of e-mailing it along with this E-mail it to federal prosecutors at the United States Attorney’s office. I Hope you don’t mind.

The problem you have Mr. Snyder is that I have already discussed the facts and
issues of this case with the United States Attorneys Office. As you know a CD ROM of this motion and a four-hour videotape of segments of various depositions taken during discovery have been produced to the United States Marshall’s Service. After reviewing said materials the marshall didn’t seem to think I was delusional in fact he commented that he thought that it was a “shut tight” case that I (James Damiano) should have won.

Also all in all depositions witness’s were sworn to tell the truth. The truth is a perfect defense for libel therefore it is not possible to exploit the truth.

So please file for criminal contempt and lets talk to the prosecutor.

It has already been brought to light that Bob Dylan’s publicist Elliot Mintz’s testimony at [page 82 par. 16]: “In my opinion Mr. Damiano was at the time of these telephone conversations delusional” is blatantly conflictive to Mr. Mint’s testimony at [page 45 para. 20] “Under the subject of mistruths spoken to your client during the course of these telephone conversations he would frequently ask me to pass along information, ask questions about Bob or to Bob about him and I in fact told him that I would and that I did…and on those occasions that of course was a mistruth.” Elliot Mintz deposition On a more serious note please keep in mind that I have served a subpoena upon Bob Dylan via your e-mail address for any hearings arising from this litigation. Surely you would not deny a man the basic civil right to confront his accuser (like you did in the last contempt hearing) would you?

Plaintiff stipulates that the following evidence did not exist until after the dismissal of this lawsuit. This evidence also did not exist until after Plaintiff filed his last reconsideration motion thus could not have raised these issues prior to summary judgment.