Luigi Crispo v. Elon R. Musk

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

KATHALEEN ST. JUDE MCCORMICK LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

October 13, 2022

Michael Hanrahan, Esquire Edward B. Micheletti, Esquire Samuel L. Closic, Esquire Lauren N. Rosenello, Esquire John G. Day, Esquire Ryan M. Lindsay, Esquire Robert B. Lackey, Esquire Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. One Rodney Square 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19899 Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Re: Luigi Crispo v. Elon R. Musk et al., C.A. No. 2022-0666-KSJM

Dear Counsel:

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiff Luigi Crispo filed a Motion for Judicial Notice of

statements made by Defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc.

(“Defendants”) in Twitter Inc. v. Elon R. Musk, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM.1 The

following day, I issued a Memorandum Opinion largely granting Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss2 while identifying one area that warranted supplemental briefing.3

I believe that my decision on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss rendered Plaintiff’s

Motion for Judicial Notice largely moot. If Plaintiff believes that his Motion for Judicial

Notice is not moot, he may advance those arguments in the supplemental briefing requested

in my October 11 decision.

1 C.A. No. 2022-0666-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 40.

2 See Dkt. 15, 18, 25, and 35.

3 Dkt. 41.

C.A. No. 2022-0666-KSJM October 13, 2022 Page 2 of 2

Sincerely,

/s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick

Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Chancellor

cc: Counsel of Record (by File&ServiceXpress)