acastro STK050 03

Twitter trial judge agrees to fight Musk buddy subpoena for podcast clout

Lawyers for Twitter argued that David Sachs had the main reason to fight a subpoena filed in their case against Elon Musk because he said he would appear on a podcast, and in a ruling issued Friday, a judge agreed.

Chancellor Kathleen St. Jude McCormick (pdf):

In an apparent attempt to keep Sachs’ promise to his podcast listeners, the movants created the burden they now complain about.

Motion to quash denied.

It closes as a side story to the main story of Twitter’s lawsuit over Elon Musk’s attempt to get out of their $44 billion buyout deal after the company’s lawyers subpoenaed Sachs, saying “a potential investor Musk is trying to avoid in a merger.” Sacks is a venture capitalist and, along with Musk, a member of the so-called “PayPal Mafia,” made up of the company’s former power players.

As Elizabeth Lopato explained earlier this week, Sachs responded to the subpoena on an episode of her All-In podcast, saying, “I had no involvement in this, but they sent me an extensive subpoena. It’s like 30 pages of requests. And now I have to hire a lawyer to get this thing over with.

What happened next, Twitter lawyers described in their motion opposing the request: “That evening, he tweeted a virtual middle finger at “Twitter Lawyers” and then shouted to a cheering audience a video of a man urinating on a subpoena. .”

That strategy might work if you want some internet clout, but it didn’t help his case. Twitter’s attorneys filed additional subpoenas covering Delaware and California, and attorneys representing Sachs based their motion to dismiss on arguments that the action placed an undue burden on him. Judge McCormick ruled that Twitter had “valid concerns” based on Sacks’ own actions and denied his request.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.