Luigi Crispo v. Elon R. Musk ( 2022 )

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) 2