Twitter, Inc. 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

August 25, 2022

Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esquire Edward B. Micheletti, Esquire Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire Lauren N. Rosenello, Esquire Christopher N. Kelly, Esquire Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Mathew A. Golden, Esquire 920 N. King Street, 7th Floor Callan R. Jackson, Esquire P.O. Box 636 Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Wilmington, DE 19899-0636 1313 N. Market Street Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801

Brad D. Sorrels, Esquire Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Twitter, Inc. v. Elon R. Musk et al., C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM

Dear Counsel:

This letter resolves issues raised in the August 19, 2022 letter to the court from

Defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc. (“Defendants”),

which this decision refers to as Defendants’ “Third Discovery Motion.” The motion seeks

to compel Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to collect and review documents from a more

extensive date range. 1

1 C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 189 (Defs.’ Third Disc. Mot.); see also Dkt. 232 (Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Third Disc. Mot.). C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM August 25, 2022 Page 2 of 2

I have carefully reviewed Defendants’ Third Discovery Motion and Plaintiff’s

response. Given the timing of Defendants’ demand that Plaintiff expand its date range, the

additional burden it would place on Plaintiff, the large volume of documents produced by

Plaintiff to date, and the outcome of Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion, the Third

Discovery Motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick

Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Chancellor

cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)