Twitter, Inc. v. Elon R. Musk

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
September 7, 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 decision resolves the Motion for Leave to Amend Defendants’ Verified
Counterclaims, Answer, and Affirmative Defenses and Motion to Extend Case Schedule
filed by Defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc.
(“Defendants”) on August 29, 2022. 1 Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. filed its opposition on
September 3, 2022, 2 Defendants filed their reply on September 5, 2022, 3 and I heard oral
1
C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 282 (“Mot. to Amend”).
2
Dkt. 390 (“Opposition”).
3
Dkt. 405.
C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM
September 7, 2022
Page 2 of 5
argument on September 6, 2022. I assume that the reader is familiar with the background
of this dispute and will skip to the facts germane to the motion at issue.
On July 6, 2022, former Twitter employee Peiter “Mudge” Zatko filed a
whistleblower complaint with various federal authorities (the “Whistleblower
Complaint”). 4 The Washington Post published the Whistleblower Complaint on August
23, 2022. Defendants have represented to the court that “Defendants had no awareness of
and never reviewed the Whistleblower Complaint until it was reported by the Washington
Post on August 23, 2022.” 5 On August 29, 2022, Defendants sent Twitter a letter
purporting to terminate the merger agreement on new grounds, claiming that the allegations
in the Whistleblower Complaint, “if true, demonstrate that Twitter has breached the . . .
provisions of the Merger Agreement.” 6 Defendants moved to amend their counterclaims
later that night to assert additional claims based on the Whistleblower Complaint. They
simultaneously requested that the court bump trial, which is presently scheduled to begin
on October 17, to mid-November.
Defendants’ motion to amend is granted. Court of Chancery Rule 15(a) provides
that leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires.” 7 This court
interprets Rule 15(a) to “allow for liberal amendment in the interest of resolving cases on
4
Dkt. 244, Ex. A.
5
Mot. to Amend ¶ 24.
6
Opposition, Ex. 16 at 2–5.
7
Ct. Ch. R. 15(a).
C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM
September 7, 2022
Page 3 of 5
the merits.” 8 Leave to amend is typically granted unless the non-moving party can
establish “undue prejudice, undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive or futility.” 9 This court
rarely declines amendments under Rule 15(a) based on futility. 10 Such arguments require
the court to assess the merits of a claim on a highly truncated posture and before such claim
has been pled; such arguments are therefore antithetical to the policy of resolving cases on
the merits. 11
The newly published Whistleblower Complaint would be grounds in most instances
to permit an amendment under the low bar of Rule 15(a). Twitter argues that the
amendment would be futile, but their arguments falter against the exceedingly movant-
friendly standard of Rule 15(a). I am reticent to say more concerning the merits of the
counterclaims at this posture before they have been fully litigated. The world will have to
wait for the post-trial decision.
Twitter also argues that the amendment would be prejudicial to the extent it would
expand discovery and extend the case schedule, and Twitter’s arguments to this effect are
8
Gould v. Gould, 2011 WL 141168, at *7 (Del. Ch. Jan. 7, 2011).
9
In re TGM Enters., L.L.C., 2008 WL 4261035, at *2 (Del. Ch. Sept. 12, 2008) (quoting
Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Cantor, 1999 WL 413394, at *2 (Del. Ch. June 15, 1999)).
10
See, e.g., In re Trust for Gore, 2010 WL 5561813, at *2 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2010)
(granting leave to amend to add a claim because the claim was supported by “at least an
arguable interpretation of the facts”).
11
See NACCO Indus., Inc. v. Applica Inc., 2008 WL 2082145, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 7, 2008)
(“Rule 15(a) reflects the modern philosophy that cases ‘are to be tried on their merits, not
on the pleadings.’ Therefore, courts generally will not test the sufficiency of the pleadings
in ruling on a motion to amend.” (quoting In the Matter of Transamerica, Inc., 2006 WL
587846, at *2 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2006))).
C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM
September 7, 2022
Page 4 of 5
far more forceful than Twitter’s futility arguments. But that prejudice can be mitigated by
cabining additional discovery to the new allegations and maintaining the existing case
schedule. So that is what I will do.
Defendants are permitted only incremental discovery relevant to the new
allegations. That discovery can be made through targeted document discovery and minimal
additional experts and fact witnesses. The parties are ordered to confer immediately to
attempt to negotiate reasonable parameters for the additional discovery.
Defendants’ motion to extend the case schedule is denied. “A trial judge has broad
discretion to control scheduling and the court’s docket.” 12 In arguing that trial should be
delayed by at least four weeks, Defendants contend that no external deadline creates any
urgency. They observe that the merger agreement’s “termination date of October 24, 2022
is automatically stayed if litigation is commenced, and debt financing has an outside date
of April 25, 2023.” 13 They adduce, therefore, that “any prejudice to Twitter can be easily
mitigated by . . . continu[ing] the trial date.” 14 But the opposite is true. I previously rejected
Defendants’ arguments in response to Twitter’s motion to expedite, making clear that the
longer the delay until trial, the greater the risk of irreparable harm to Twitter. 15 Indeed,
Twitter has represented that the anticipated risk of harm has materialized over the course
12
Goode v. Bayhealth Med. Ctr., Inc., 931 A.2d 437, 2007 WL 2050761, at *3 (Del. July
18, 2007) (TABLE).
13
Mot. to Amend. ¶ 8.
14
Id. ¶ 37.
15
Dkt. 103 at 63.
C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM
September 7, 2022
Page 5 of 5
of this litigation. Twitter “has suffered increased employee attrition,” which “undermin[es]
the company’s ability to pursue its operations goals. The company has been forced for
months to manage under the constrains of a repudiated merger agreement, including
Defendants’ continued refusal to provide any consents for matters under the operating
covenants.” 16 I am convinced that even four weeks’ delay would risk further harm to
Twitter too great to justify.
In maintaining the case schedule, I am further comforted by the fact that Twitter has
represented that it can handle reasonable requests for additional discovery while
maintaining the October 17 trial date. 17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
Chancellor
cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)
16
Opposition ¶ 26.
17
Id. ¶ 40.