A federal court blocks efforts to compel testimony from non-party advisers tied to X acquisition.
Wilmington, DE – A federal judge has granted a motion to quash subpoenas issued to several high-profile advisers connected to Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, now known as X, rejecting efforts by former employees to compel their testimony in ongoing litigation over layoffs.
The ruling also denied a cross-motion by plaintiffs seeking to force compliance with the subpoenas, marking a significant limitation on discovery in the case. The lawsuit, brought by former Twitter employees, challenges actions taken during and after Musk’s takeover of the company.
Court finds subpoenas place undue burden on non-parties
The subpoenas targeted six non-parties—Antonio Gracias, Brad Sheftel, David Sacks, Jared Birchall, Jason Calacanis, and Sam Teller—whom plaintiffs described as advisers involved in the acquisition and subsequent restructuring.
The court found that requiring these individuals to comply would impose an undue burden, particularly because the requested information could be obtained through other sources already involved in the case.
“Rule 45 obligates the party…to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden,” the court noted, emphasizing that non-parties are entitled to greater protection in discovery disputes.
Key Points
- Judge quashed subpoenas issued to Elon Musk advisers
- Court denied plaintiffs’ effort to compel testimony and documents
- Ruling limits discovery in lawsuit over Twitter layoffs
Lawsuit centers on post-acquisition layoffs
The plaintiffs, all former employees of X Corp., allege that layoffs following Musk’s acquisition violated contractual and legal obligations. They argue the non-party advisers played roles in shaping decisions related to terminations and restructuring.
According to filings, some of the advisers were embedded within the company and given internal roles during the transition period, including access to company systems and communications.
Despite those claims, the court determined that discovery should focus on the named parties—X Corp., its affiliated entities, and Musk—rather than extending broadly to outside individuals when alternative sources are available.
The decision underscores the limits of third-party discovery in federal litigation, particularly when courts determine that compliance would be overly burdensome relative to the potential value of the information sought.
