Is Elon Musk About To Get Quinn Emanuel Sanctioned?

Elon Musk continues to rack up authorized milestones. From waiving due diligence and belatedly learning that he could no longer dip out on buying Twitter to submitting a “thermonuclear” lawsuit alleging aggravated fact talking, Musk navigates the authorized world with all of the reliability of the SpaceX Starship. However he’s not managed to get a Biglaw agency sanctioned.

But!

In a new motion, attorneys for Benjamin Brody, the coed that Musk publicly tied to a neo-Nazi struggle suggesting that it was “a possible 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 significantly overstepped his bounds, and sanctions ought to problem.

Didn’t know there was an official antonym to the “I’m just a simple country lawyer” trope, however we’ve discovered it.

The guts of the movement is Musk’s March twenty seventh deposition — which Musk and Spiro tried unsuccessfully to keep sealed — the place Musk managed to bumble his approach into admitting many of the parts of the go well with, shrugging off the entire “making incorrect statements of reality with “There’s some threat that what I say is inaccurate, however one has to stability that in opposition to having a chilling impact on free speech typically, which might undermine your complete basis of our democracy.” No, actually, you don’t.

In any occasion, Spiro confirmed as much as defend Musk in that deposition, notably with out native counsel.

Nonetheless, neither of those attorneys have been current at Musk’s deposition. As an alternative, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff ’s counsel, out-of-state lawyer Alex Spiro confirmed as much as the deposition with no discover. Spiro is just not licensed in Texas, neither is he admitted professional hac vice.

Maybe 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.

Issues veered into the wall quicker than a Tesla on a nasty 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. Had been 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: A subject 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; kind, or objection; nonresponsive. These 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. It’s essential to not give any suggestive or argumentative or any explanations through the deposition.
MR. SPIRO: Nicely, then don’t say issues which might be deceptive.
MR. BANKSTON: No. That’s not — that’s why it is best to object to the type of the query.
MR. SPIRO: No, no, it’s not –
MR. BANKSTON: That’s deceptive. Mr. Spiro, you understand — Mr. Spiro —
MR. SPIRO: Pay attention, if you wish to commute with me and waste your time, you’ll be able to. Go on to your subsequent query.
MR. BANKSTON: Oh, we’re going to get extra time should you hold doing this.
MR. SPIRO: No, you’re not. No, you’re not. Go to the choose —
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 person’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 hold —
MR. BANKSTON: And I’d respect it — I’m going to offer you an instruction. I’d respect it should you would abide by Rule 199.5 of the Texas Guidelines.
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. When 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 observe, however most attorneys at the least play it off with mock contrition and a “did I try this?” 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 which may’ve afforded anybody a chance to look it up. However the sanctions request goes past the type of objections:

MR. SPIRO: This isn’t like an actual case. That is just a few silly —
MR. BANKSTON: Mr. Spiro.
MR. SPIRO: Yeah, so —
MR. BANKSTON: Legal professionals don’t — It isn’t in accordance with the Lawyer’s Creed to only begin making random statements concerning the alleged frivolity of a case to a lawyer in a deposition. You already know that’s not correct. You already know that.
MR. SPIRO: Do you give these lectures in your whole depositions?

Hopefully not? As a result of most depositions don’t contain attorneys insulting the case on the report. Or the opposite attorneys:

• “I’m shocked you don’t know they’re not correct questions.”
• “Perhaps simply ask correct questions.”
• “There’s nothing about me saying that that adjustments what he’s going to reply. That’s not how witness teaching works. I’m shocked you don’t know that.”
• “Any choose reviewing this can inform you it’s not a correct query.”

It stays to be seen whether or not or not “any choose” 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…

However even that struggle was a product of attempting to maintain objections in test, so Spiro ought to’ve recognized the state’s attorneys get testy with objections that they don’t assume conform to native guidelines.

The movement lodges extra arguments for sanctions based mostly on disagreements over relevance and the scope of the deposition that current contestable disputes for the choose to resolve. However 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” attorneys, however this conduct is much less hardcore than petulant. Name the case “meritless” and name the questions “wildly improper” in a quick, however hold the “This isn’t like an actual case. That is just a few silly –” remarks off the report. Particularly a video report!

After which there’s this footnote…

One other troubling problem must be famous for context. Throughout his deposition, Musk was requested a few 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 season 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, info Musk interacted with on this account close to the time of the defamation might be related to Brody’s claims. Nonetheless, when Plaintiff ’s counsel checked the account after the deposition, they found it had been deleted. Based on @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 docket’s discovery order. In different phrases, after nearly a yr of inactivity on the account and with no current public dialogue about it, it seems Musk selected to delete the account on the day the Court docket ordered discovery to go ahead, which is both intentional spoliation or a unprecedented longshot coincidence.

Um. That’s… not good.

Earlier: Elon Musk Will Beat Twitter! WSJ Says It’s Obvious… Assuming You Change Every Single Fact And Law.
Elon Musk’s ‘Thermonuclear Lawsuit’ Is Here And It’s… Positively Tepid.
Elon Musk Takes Time Out From Failing To Buy Twitter To Fail To Build His Own Law Firm

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Legislation and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Be at liberty to email any ideas, questions, or feedback. Observe him on Twitter should you’re thinking about legislation, politics, and a wholesome dose of faculty sports activities information. Joe additionally serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.