Subj: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGE JEROME B. SIMANDLE'S
Date: 02/09/2003 6:46:47 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: FEDEXcept
To: FEDEXcept


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff C 95-4795 (JBS)

against

SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC DATED 10/17/2002
and BOB DYLAN 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

In a letter to federal Judge Jerome B. Simandle counsel for Bob Dylan, Orin
Snyder of Parcher Hayes & Snyder stated the following

---

Other Sites:
Litigation update link

---

Email: proposal112000@yahoo.com