Giuseppe Pampena v. Elon R.Musk

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:22-CV-05937-CRB
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED (PLAINTIFFS’ OPP TO MTN TO INTERVENE)
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
Joseph W. Cotchett (SBN 36324)
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
Mark C. Molumphy (SBN 168009)
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
Tyson C. Redenbarger (SBN 294424)
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
Elle D. Lewis (SBN 238329)
elewis@cpmlegal.com
Gia Jung (SBN 340160)
gjung@cpmlegal.com
Caroline A. Yuen (SBN 354388)
cyuen@cpmlegal.com
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, California 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
Francis A. Bottini, Jr. (SBN 175783)
fbottini@bottinilaw.com
Aaron P. Arnzen (SBN 218272)
aarnzen@bottinilaw.com
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, California 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
GIUSEPPE PAMPENA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ELON R. MUSK,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-CV-05937-CRB
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED (PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO INTERVENE)
Date: 	February 17, 2026
Time: 	2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 	6, 17th Floor
Judge: 	Hon. Charles R. Breyer
Case 3:22-cv-05937-CRB Document 428 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:22-CV-05937-CRB
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED (PLAINTIFFS’ OPP TO MTN TO INTERVENE)
1
AND NOW, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether
Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed (Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene), filed
February 10, 2026, all responses and replies thereto, all authorities cited therein, the evidence,
arguments of counsel, and for other good cause known to the Court,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Another Party’s Material
Should Be Sealed (Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene) is GRANTED (IN
PART) / DENIED (IN PART).
2. 	The requested portions of 	shall be sealed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
February 18, 2026
Exhibit 1
Case 3:22-cv-05937-CRB Document 428 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 2