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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GIUSEPPE PAMPENA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELON MUSK,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-05937-CRB
ORDER RE PRETRIAL MOTIONS
The Court held a pretrial conference on February 17, 2026. This Order summarizes
the Court’s rulings on the motions for the convenience of the parties.
A. 	Musk’s Motion in Limine 1
The Court GRANTS the motion as to the Tesla tweets and Bankman-Fried/Combs
messages. The Court DENIES the motion as to the issues related to the SEC
investigation, but not the investigation itself or the subsequent litigation due to unfair
prejudice.
B. 	Musk’s Motion in Limine 2
The Court GRANTS the motion as to the book, with the exception of the excerpt
agreed upon by the parties. The parties may still use the book to refresh a witness’s
recollection in accordance with the procedures outlined by the Court during the pretrial
conference.
C. 	Musk’s Motion in Limine 3
The Court GRANTS the motion as to Musk’s politics. The Court will evaluate
evidence of Musk’s management of Twitter on a case-by-case basis.
Case 3:22-cv-05937-CRB Document 459 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
D. 	Musk’s Motion in Limine 4
The Court DENIES the motion. See Dkt. 454 (explaining the Court’s reasoning in
detail).
E. 	Musk’s Motion in Limine 5
The Court DENIES the motion.
F. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 1
The Court DEFERS ruling on this motion because the evidence may be relevant
and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The parties are not permitted to refer to the
extraneous legal proceedings in their opening statements.
G. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 2
The Court GRANTS the motion because any evidence related to what lawyers
thought or said regarding the transaction implicates the attorney-client privilege and advice
of counsel, which Musk has declined to raise as a defense. Evidence of public statements
by lawyers is still admissible.
H. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 3
The Court DENIES this motion as Musk may, within reason, discuss damage
calculation.
I. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 4
The Court DENIES the motion because what Musk saw or was told during the time
period at issue is relevant. The Court DEFERS ruling on the privilege redactions for
communications to third-party data scientists. If Musk wishes to pursue that evidence, he
must provide the Court with unredacted copies to determine admissibility.
J. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 5
The Court DEFERS ruling on agent statements and will evaluate the evidence on a
case-by-case basis.
K. 	Musk’s Motion to Exclude (Adam Badawi)
The Court GRANTS the motion to the extent that the expert opines on party intent.
Testimony regarding industry terms and practices is admissible.
Case 3:22-cv-05937-CRB Document 459 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
L. 	Musk’s Motion to Exclude (Emily Strauss)
The Court GRANTS the motion as the expert does not opine on the facts at issue
and her testimony would not aid the jury.
M. 	Musk’s Motion to Exclude (Christine Davis)
The Court GRANTS the motion as the expert is not necessary for motive evidence.
N. 	Musk’s Motion to Exclude (David Tabak)
The Court DENIES the motion as Musk’s arguments are more suited for cross-
examination.
O. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude (Kenneth Lehn)
The Court DENIES the motion as Plaintiffs’ arguments are more suited for cross-
examination.
P. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude (Edward Rock)
The Court DENIES the motion as Musk’s expert is an appropriate rebuttal expert to
Professor Badawi, Plaintiffs’ own expert. Musk’s expert is subject to the same limitations
as Professor Badawi in his testimony.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2026
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-05937-CRB Document 459 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3