Bob Dylan’s legal professionals in search of ‘financial sanctions’ over sexual abuse case


Legal professionals for Bob Dylan are in search of “financial sanctions” in opposition to the authorized crew that filed a swimsuit accusing the musician of sexual abuse.

The lawsuit, which claimed Dylan sexually abused a 12-year-old woman in 1965, was dropped in July and Billboard studies that the singer’s legal professionals at the moment are pursuing sanctions, citing “brazen misconduct”.

Orin Snyder, who leads Dylan’s authorized crew, wrote to a federal decide to say that the legal professionals for the lady, Daniel W Isaacs and Peter J Gleason, “mustn’t have introduced this motion – accusing [Dylan] of a heinous crime – if they didn’t intend to responsibly litigate it”.

The girl, recognized as JC, alleged that Dylan abused her in his room on the Chelsea Lodge in Manhattan when he was 23 or 24 years outdated. Dylan denied the claims, together with his representatives stating the “chronological impossibility” of the allegation given his well-documented whereabouts in the course of the interval and describing the case as a “lawyer-driven sham”.

Previous to the lawsuit being dropped, Dylan’s authorized crew accused the lady of destroying proof after she did not submit emails and textual content messages by a court-mandated deadline. She additionally appeared to have discharged her authorized crew – a declare that Snyder disputed in his letter, pushing again in opposition to the declare “that Plaintiff had voluntarily ‘discharged’ her counsel”.

Snyder wrote to the decide: “Mr Isaacs and Mr Gleason failed to provide paperwork they need to have possessed and reviewed earlier than ever bringing this lawsuit within the first place.

“As we mentioned in open courtroom final week, lots of the paperwork now we have seen, together with scores of emails between Plaintiff and key third events whom counsel apparently by no means even bothered to interview, undermine and contradict Plaintiff’s allegations.”

Snyder referred to as it a “paradigm case for sanctions to handle counsel’s brazen discovery misconduct”, including that “counsel flouted their discovery obligations for months and ignored warnings from the Courtroom about their failure to provide paperwork”.

Isaacs responded in a letter saying the lawsuit was “introduced in good religion and with the intent of responsibly litigating the matter”. He blamed the problems on the “recalcitrance” of his consumer, whom he mentioned refused handy over key supplies regardless of repeated requests.

“At no level did both Mr Gleason or I wilfully withhold discovery or interact in discovery misconduct,” he wrote. “We tried to conform as greatest we may given the circumstances, together with plaintiff struggling PTSD, which was exacerbated when her identification was illegally made public following the graduation of this motion.”

It’s unclear how a lot compensation Dylan’s legal professionals are in search of; one type of sanctions may entail Isaacs and Gleason replaying Dylan’s authorized charges, in line with Billboard.

Supply hyperlink