Proof Bob Dylan Supports Communistic Modus Operandi

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