Proof Bob Dylan Supports Communistic Modus Operandi
Proof Bob Dylan Supports Communistic Modus Operandi
In a letter to federal Judge Jerome B. Simandle counsel for Bob Dylan, Orin
Snyder of Parcher Hayes & Snyder stated the following “Moreover, this Court
has twice found Damiano in contempt of Court for his repeated postings on the
Internet of confidential discovery materials from this litigation, in violation
of confidentiality orders that were entered in this case…”
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”.
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
