Elon Musk continues to rack up authorized milestones. From waiving due diligence and belatedly studying that he might now not dip out on shopping for Twitter to submitting a “thermonuclear” lawsuit alleging aggravated truth speaking, Musk navigates the authorized world with all of the reliability of the SpaceX Starship. But he’s not managed to get a legislation agency sanctioned.
Yet!
In a brand new movement, attorneys for Benjamin Brody, the coed that Musk publicly tied to a neo-Nazi combat suggesting that it was “a probable false flag” operation, filed a movement for sanctions in opposition to Quinn Emanuel’s Alex Spiro over his conduct within the case.
It begins off with a heater:
Spiro, a Madison Avenue movie star lawyer, doesn’t really feel compelled to obey our guidelines. As proven under, he has critically overstepped his bounds, and sanctions ought to situation.
Did not know there was an official antonym to the “I’m just a simple country lawyer” trope, however we’ve discovered it.
The coronary heart of the movement is Musk’s March twenty seventh deposition — which Musk and Spiro tried unsuccessfully to maintain sealed — the place Musk managed to bumble his approach into admitting many of the components of the swimsuit, shrugging off the entire “making incorrect statements of fact” with “There’s some risk that what I say is incorrect, but one has to balance that against having a chilling effect on free speech in general, which would undermine the entire foundation of our democracy.” No, in reality, you don’t.
In any occasion, Spiro confirmed as much as defend Musk in that deposition, notably with out native counsel.
However, neither of those attorneys have been current at Musk’s deposition. Instead, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff ’s counsel, out-of-state legal professional Alex Spiro confirmed as much as the deposition with no discover. Spiro will not be licensed in Texas, neither is he admitted professional hac vice.
Perhaps if he’d had native counsel current he may’ve recognized that the bid to mark the deposition confidential after it concluded would run right into a brick wall with the courtroom. Texas requires protecting orders be litigated out earlier than the invention takes place, whereas Musk’s lawyer solely requested for the safety as he ready to leap off the deposition.
Things veered into the wall quicker than a Tesla on a foul day.
Q. Mr. Musk, I’m referring to the truth that on June twenty fourth, 2023, as described within the plaintiff Ben Brody’s lawsuit, there was a brawl in Oregon between proper wing extremists. Were you conscious that that was the subject material of the lawsuit?
MR. SPIRO: I don’t know that that’s the subject material of the lawsuit. I feel the subject material of the –
MR. BANKSTON: An issue of the lawsuit. And, Mr. Spiro, once more, your objections to questions in an oral deposition below Rule 199.5 are restricted to objection; main and objection; type, or objection; nonresponsive. Those objections are waived if not acknowledged as phrased. All different objections needn’t be made or recorded through the oral deposition to be raised to the courtroom. You should not give any suggestive or argumentative or any explanations through the deposition.
MR. SPIRO: Well, then don’t say issues which might be deceptive.
MR. BANKSTON: No. That’s not — that’s why it’s best to object to the type of the query.
MR. SPIRO: No, no, it’s not –
MR. BANKSTON: That’s deceptive. Mr. Spiro, — Mr. Spiro —
MR. SPIRO: Listen, if you wish to commute with me and waste your time, you possibly can. Go on to your subsequent query.
MR. BANKSTON: Oh, we’re going to get extra time in the event you maintain doing this.
MR. SPIRO: No, you’re not. No, you’re not. Go to the decide —
MR. BANKSTON: You’re violating Rule 199, you’re not even professional hac admitted.
MR. SPIRO: Okay. Okay. You’re simply giving speeches that no one’s listening to however you. You’re simply doing them for your self.
MR. BANKSTON: Oh, they’re for the report, Mr. Spiro, they’re for the courtroom to take heed to.
MR. SPIRO: Okay. So maintain —
MR. BANKSTON: And I’d admire it — I’m going to present you an instruction. I’d admire it in the event you would abide by Rule 199.5 of the Texas Rules.
MR. SPIRO: I heard you the primary thrice.
MR. BANKSTON: Mr. Spiro, please don’t interrupt me.
MR. SPIRO: I heard you the primary thrice.
MR. BANKSTON: Mr. Spiro, please don’t interrupt me. I’m asking you on the report to obey Rule 199.5. If you proceed to violate Rule 199.5, I’ll transfer for sanctions in opposition to you. So I please ask you to obey the principles within the the rest of this deposition.
Pushing the envelope on talking objections is a time-honored follow, however most legal professionals a minimum of play it off with mock contrition and a “did I do that?” The flipside can be…
MR. SPIRO: I’m going to interrupt once more, and I don’t actually care that rule you retain studying as a result of it has nothing to do with –
MR. BANKSTON: I do know you don’t.
MR. SPIRO: Good.
There might be one other a number of references to Rule 199.5 all through the deposition regardless of ample breaks that may’ve afforded anybody a chance to look it up. But the sanctions request goes past the type of objections:
MR. SPIRO: This isn’t like an actual case. This is just a few silly —
MR. BANKSTON: Mr. Spiro.
MR. SPIRO: Yeah, so —
MR. BANKSTON: Lawyers don’t — It will not be in accordance with the Lawyer’s Creed to simply begin making random statements concerning the alleged frivolity of a case to a lawyer in a deposition. You know that’s not correct. You know that.
MR. SPIRO: Do you give these lectures in your entire depositions?
Hopefully not? Because most depositions don’t contain legal professionals insulting the case on the report. Or the opposite attorneys:
“I’m surprised you don’t know they’re not proper questions.”
“Maybe just ask proper questions.”
“There’s nothing about me saying that that changes what he’s going to answer. That’s not how witness coaching works. I’m surprised you don’t know that.”
“Any judge reviewing this will tell you it’s not a proper question.”
It stays to be seen whether or not or not “any judge” will say these are improper questions, however given the Musk crew’s observe report with the confidentiality requests, I’m not sanguine about their probabilities.
Look, Texas isn’t precisely recognized for genteel depositions…
For extra of the most recent in litigation, regulation, offers and monetary providers developments, join Finance Docket, a partnership between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
But even that combat was a product of attempting to maintain objections in verify, so Spiro ought to’ve recognized the state’s attorneys get testy with objections that they don’t suppose conform to native guidelines.
The movement lodges extra arguments for sanctions primarily based on disagreements over relevance and the scope of the deposition that current contestable disputes for the decide to resolve. But utilizing a deposition to denigrate the plaintiff’s case and the attorneys concerned is a breach {of professional} decorum whatever the particular Texas guidelines. Musk might want “hardcore” legal professionals, however this conduct is much less hardcore than petulant. Call the case “meritless” and name the questions “wildly improper” in a short, however maintain the “This isn’t like a real case. This is just some stupid –” remarks off the report. Especially a video report!
And then there’s this footnote…
Another troubling situation must be famous for context. During his deposition, Musk was requested a couple of Twitter account referred to as @ermnmusk that he was rumored to make use of. (Id. at 44:11-12; see additionally Ex. 2, @ermnmusk account). Musk testified that he used the account through the summer time of 2023, which implies he seen and interacted with tweets on this account across the time when Brody was defamed. (Id. at 45:17). Thus, data Musk interacted with on this account close to the time of the defamation may very well be related to Brody’s claims. However, when Plaintiff ’s counsel checked the account after the deposition, they found it had been deleted. According to @BigTechAlert, an automatic bot that tracks Twitter exercise, it seems the @ermnmusk account was deleted on or about February 21, 2024….
This deletion is alarming as a result of February 21, 2024 is the date of the Court’s discovery order. In different phrases, after virtually a yr of inactivity on the account and with no latest public dialogue about it, it seems Musk selected to delete the account on the day the Court ordered discovery to go ahead, which is both intentional spoliation or a rare longshot coincidence.
Um. That’s… not good.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to e-mail any suggestions, questions, or feedback. Follow him on Twitter in the event you’re fascinated with legislation, politics, and a wholesome dose of faculty sports activities information. Joe additionally serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
