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 26, 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 addresses the motion filed by Defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I,
Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) on September 16, 2022, which
seeks to compel Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to produce additional discovery. This
decision refers to the motion as Defendants’ “Seventh Discovery Motion.” 1 Defendants’
Seventh Discovery Motion seeks three categories of discovery: a deposition of Plaintiff’s
former General Manager of Revenue Product; unredacted versions of Slack threads
produced by Plaintiff; and additional account data.
1
See C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 524 (“Defs.’ Seventh Disc. Mot.”).
C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM
September 26, 2022
Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ Seventh Discovery Motion on September 23,
2022, 2 representing that Defendants’ first two requests are now moot. I agree. The former
employee agreed to sit for a deposition and Plaintiff’s counsel re-reviewed its Slack threads
and adjusted certain of its redactions. 3 That leaves one unresolved request—Defendants’
motion for additional account data.
I assume that readers are familiar with the background of this dispute and will skip
to the facts relevant to this decision. On August 25, 2022, I ordered Plaintiff to produce a
“historical snapshot” of approximately 9,000 accounts reviewed in connection with
Plaintiff’s Q4 202 mDAU audit. 4 Plaintiff represented, and it was understood, that this
would require a massive undertaking. 5 And it did. Plaintiff represents that more than fifty
people, including data scientists, engineers, and members of the legal policy team, globally
gathered hundreds of gigabytes worth of data from multiple sources. 6 Many had to be
specifically trained to help with the project; their usual work was halted completely. 7 On
September 9 and 13, Plaintiff produced the account data generated by these efforts. 8
2
Dkt. 594 (“Opposition”).
3
Id. at 3–5.
4
See Dkt. 247 (Letter Decision Resolving Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion).
5
Id. at 3.
6
Opposition at 6.
7
Id.
8
Id.
C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM
September 26, 2022
Page 3 of 4
The production did not include two categories of account information that
Defendants view as important: (i) time stamps associated with the unique combinations of
User IDs and IP addresses that access the platform; and (ii) data regarding certain historical
account actions by Plaintiff, including suspensions and “read only phone ownership”
(“ROPO”) status. 9
Plaintiff argues that this additional data is not relevant to any aspect of the case, but
Plaintiff endeavored to produce the time-stamp information in any event. On September
20, Plaintiff produced an additional 900 gigabytes of data, including fifteen million
additional data points that reflect unique combinations of User IDs and IP addresses that
accessed the platform for the accounts in the Q4 2021 mDAU audit sample. 10 Defendants
have confirmed that this production mooted their request for time stamps. 11
Defendants continue to press for the historical account data. Specifically,
Defendants seek all information that the reviewers who conducted the mDAU audit had
access to through an application called “Guano Notes,” including but not limited to
information regarding accounts that were suspended or placed in ROPO status. Plaintiff
maintains that Defendants are not entitled to this data under my August 25 Order and that
it is not relevant in any event, because the agents who performed the quarterly mDAU audit
9
Defs.’ Seventh Disc. Mot. at 11–12.
10
Opposition at 7.
11
Opposition, Ex. 1 at 1.
C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM
September 26, 2022
Page 4 of 4
were not instructed to consider it. 12 Still, Plaintiff has attempted to moot this issue, offering
to produce additional data other than Guano Notes reflecting the suspension and ROPO
status of each of the 9,000 accounts. 13
I confess that I do not totally comprehend the significance of or burden in collecting
Guano Notes. The parties should be prepared to drill into this issue—albeit in layman’s
terms—during the September 27 hearing. I will hold my determination on Defendants’
Seventh Discovery Motion in abeyance until then.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
Chancellor
cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)
12
Opposition at 8; Opposition, Ex. 4 at 378:13–379:6.
13
Opposition, Ex. 1 at 3.