'Brazen Discovery Misconduct:' Bob Dylan's Legal Team Files Suit Against Lawyers Behind Sexual Abuse Case

Earlier this month, a lawsuit that alledging Bob Dylan for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 12-year-old in 1965 was dropped, reports say. Dylan's legal team has filed a lawsuit against the lawyers behind the sexual abuse case, citing "brazen discovery misconduct," and is calling for "monetary sanctions."

Dylan's legal team now asks for "real consequences" for the two lawyers behind the sexual abuse case, Daniel Isaacs and Peter Gleason, for "systemic discovery violations."

Dylan's lawyers questioned the timeline of the case filing, dated a day before time ran out for the window of the New York's Child Protective Act. This act opens the statute of limitations, allowing survivors of decades-old abuse to seek justice.

Additionally, his lawyers noted that the timeline did not coincide with Dylan's public movement during the said time. Dylan and rock historians shut this argument down, claiming that he was not in New York City during the alleged timeline.

The First Suit

The first lawsuit was filed the previous year by a woman only identified as J.C. She accused the American singer-songwriter of abusing her multiple times in April and May 1965 at the Chelsea Hotel in Manhattan.

The "End of the Line" singer was about 23 or 24 years old during the said events and had used his status as a celebrity to "sexually molest" her.

Following the dismissal of the case, reports say that there had been claims that the accuser's legal team was refusing to comply with court orders. Dylan's legal team hurled accusations that the woman destroyed evidence following her failure to turn over text messages and emails as evidence.

The Current Suit

That was the last straw for Dylan's camp. They called the previous case a "lawyer-driven sham," adding that Isaacs and Gleason "should not have brought this action-if they did not intend to responsibly litigate it," said Orin Snyder, Dylan's lead counsel.

"It is more than appropriate to hold them accountable," he added.

"This is a paradigm case for sanctions to address counsel's brazen discovery misconduct," Snyder wrote in a letter to the judge, asking for monetary penalties against Isaacs and Gleason."

In a response to this, Isaacs wrote a response saying that the suit was "brought in good faith and with the intent of responsibility litigating the matter," as reported by Billboard. "At no point did either Mr. Gleason or I willfully withhold discovery or engage in discovery misconduct."

"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," he added.

As for the monetary sanction, no amount demanded has been made public as of this writing. According to Consequence Sound, usually, the opposing legal team pays for the defendant's legal fees. This could amount to tens of thousands of dollars, given how high-profile the case is.