Posted by Lake, LawJournalreview@yahoo.com, on 11/04/03

More | Report Post

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of New Jersey

CHAMBER
OF
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
JEROME B.
SIMANDLE
ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA
DISTRICT
JUDGE
PO BOX 888

December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ
08010

(856) 757-5167

In a letter to federal Judge Jerome B. Simandle counsel for
Bob Dylan, Orin 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".

At the 1995 Grammy awards "Dignity" was nominated for a
Grammy as the best Rock song of the year.

At a time when public confidents, in our court system seem
to be at an all
time low, it has been published in the media that the
integrity of the United
States Federal Judicial System has diminished to the level
that it is unable
to adjudicate a simple copyright infringement lawsuit.

This motion not only supports that allegation it
conclusively documents, to the
record the validity of the statement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of New Jersey

CHAMBER
OF
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
JEROME B.
SIMANDLE
ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA
DISTRICT
JUDGE
PO BOX 888

December 23, 2002 CAMDEN NJ
08010

(856) 757-5167

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 46
Mine Hill, NJ 07803

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

Motion link:

http://www.geocities.com/proposal112000/James_Damiano.html

Seeking attorney to file infringement suit aginst Bob Dylan

Seeking attorney to file infringement suit aginst Bob Dylan, 11/04/03, by Lake.

Intellectual Property Law Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST