Musk lawyers seek to strike key testimony in OpenAI trial

Elon Musk’s courtroom battle with OpenAI took a procedural turn that could matter as much as the flashier testimony: after the jury was sent out, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers heard arguments over whether parts of Jared Birchall’s testimony should be struck from the record. Birchall, who manages Musk’s family office, testified after Musk on April 30 in federal court in Oakland, California, and the disputed material included comments about xAI’s bid to acquire OpenAI and possible limits on Musk’s donor-advised funds.

That fight over what the jury is allowed to hear is more than housekeeping. Musk sued OpenAI, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman in 2024, arguing that the company abandoned commitments tied to its nonprofit roots. The case centers on breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment, and Musk is asking for remedies that could force OpenAI to change course or unwind parts of its restructuring. OpenAI’s lawyers, meanwhile, have argued that Musk knew for years the company was moving toward a for-profit structure, turning the lawsuit into a dispute over whether this is a genuine governance case or an effort to slow a rival.

The stakes are amplified by the money now flowing around OpenAI. Its latest funding round reportedly closed last month at $122 billion, and the company’s restructuring opened a path toward a public offering. Microsoft has invested more than $13 billion in OpenAI since 2019, making it a central financial backer even as the litigation is formally pitched as a fight over nonprofit obligations, not investor returns.

Musk’s own testimony added another layer to the credibility fight. He said xAI had partly used OpenAI models through distillation, a detail that gives OpenAI ammunition as it argues that Musk is not simply objecting to commercialization but is also building a competing business of his own. Musk also told the court that Tesla, SpaceX, X and Neuralink are socially beneficial, underscoring his effort to cast his companies as public-minded while he attacks OpenAI’s business shift.

The procedural dispute over Birchall may prove decisive because it goes to what the jury will weigh when it decides whether Musk’s claims have force. Birchall is more than a peripheral witness. As Musk’s money manager and fix-it man, he sits close to the financial mechanics at the center of the case, and any ruling that trims his testimony or related discovery could shape how the jury sees Musk’s own fundraising and competitive strategy. For a case already seen as a major test of OpenAI’s post-restructuring future, that may matter more than the headline testimony itself.