Dylan’s attorneys have said the two lawyers behind the failed sex abuse lawsuit never had any intent to responsibly litigate the case.
Bob Dylan has filed a lawsuit against the attorneys who represented a woman who claimed that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by the singer-songwriter in a Manhattan apartment in 1965.
As LegalReader.com reported earlier this month, the woman had filed her own lawsuit against Dylan. However, the complaint was dismissed by a New York court after Dylan’s attorneys said that the Jane Doe plaintiff had mishandled evidence and destroyed communications relevant to the case.
Now, Dylan is seeking serious sanctions against the lawyers who filed the suit, alleging “brazen” misconduct in a case they “should not have brought.”
According to Billboard, the plaintiff—who is now 69 years old—had alleged “salacious” sexual misconduct. However, historians who reviewed the case said that Dylan could not have possible raped the woman, as he his touring schedule conflicted with the dates provided in the initial lawsuit.
Billboard says that Dylan’s legal team is “out for blood,” demanding “real consequences” for the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, Daniel Isaacs and Peter Gleason.
The lawsuit alleges “systematic discovery violations,” and claims that the attorneys should not have filed a complaint they could not have reasonably litigated.
“Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Gleason should not have brought this action—accusing defendant of a heinous crime—if they did not intend to responsibly litigate it,” Dylan attorney Orion Snyder wrote in an August 4 letter to the judge. “It is more than appropriate to hold them accountable.”
Dylan and his attorneys, adds Billboard and Rolling Stone, have long maintained that the entire lawsuit was a “lawyer-driven sham,” saying that it was “outrageous it was ever brought in thee first place.”
“This is a paradigm case for sanctions to address counsel’s brazen discovery conduct,” Snyder wrote. “Counsel flouted their discovery obligations for months and ignored warnings from the Court about their failure to produce documents.”
Billboard notes that it is unclear how much money Dylan’s attorneys are seeking.
One common form of sanctions, Billboard writes, would be a demand that Isaacs and Gleason repay the money that Dylan spent litigation the case, which could amount to tens of thousands of dollars.
While Dylan’s request for sanctions has yet to be approved, the federal judge overseeing the case has already ordered a formal hearing to determine whether penalties should be levied.
Isaacs has already responded to some of the accusations, writing in a document dated August 9 that the case was “brought in good faith and with the intent of responsibly litigating the matter.” He blamed the discovery-related problems on the “recalcitrance” of his client, who he said categorically refused to furnish key materials “despite [his] repeated requests.”
“At no point did either Mr. Gleason or I willfully withhold discovery or engage in discovery misconduct,” Isaacs said. “We attempted to comply as best we could given the circumstances, including plaintiff suffering PTSD, which was exacerbated when her identity was illegally made public following the commencement of this action.”
However, Dylan’s attorneys already seem to have address Isaacs’ defense, saying that—even if the client was problematic—the accuser’s lawyers “should have possessed and reviewed before ever bringing the lawsuit in the first place.”
“Many of the documents we have seen, including scores of emails between plaintiff and key third parties whom counsel apparently never even bothered to interview, undermine and contradict plaintiff’s allegations,” Snyder wrote in a letter to the court.