Reposted by Kellybird 💙
Kellybird 💙
@kellybird.bsky.social
1K followers 1.4K following 13 posts
🌊 🌈💙 Grieving hard and working to get to the healing part. I block MAGAts, Trumpy Trolls, Q & anything that remotely resembles a bot. Ain't nobody got time for that nonsense. #voteblue #resistance #democracy #pro-choice #freedom
![Corp.'s highest ranking official first-before they depose any lower-level employees, and before submitting interrogatories to Musk. They clearly have not exhausted other, less intrusive means of discovery.3 And again, simply using the 9 hours of Musk deposition testimony they already have access to is clearly less intrusive than ordering another deposition. See Reif, 248 F.R.D. at 452 (citing case denying deposition where plaintiff already had copy of "prepared statement" from the apex witness).
And the presumed undue burden from a deposition is heightened because Musk is not only X Corp.'s (and other companies) highest executive, but he is a high-ranking government official. Cf.
Apple v. Samsung, 282 F.R.
259, 263 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (weighing "a person's degree of 'apex-ness'
in relation to these factors"). The White House has designated Musk a "special government employee" in charge of Establishing and Implementing the President's Department of Government Efficiency ("DOGE"). 90 FR 8441, https://tinyurl.com/26vey9vr Such "high level government officials [must be] permitted to perform their official tasks without disr lion" by depositions, given their "greater duties and time constraints than other witnesses." Johnson v. Atty Gen. of N.J., 2015 WL 4915611, at *3 (D.N.J. 2015). This rule raises Plaintiffs' bar under the apex doctrine, which they clearly have not met.
C. There is palpable risk of harassment here. Plaintiffs have not satisfied either requirement necessary to justify an apex deposition. Both requirements ultimately serve to deter depositions that would harass or unjustifiably burden executives and government officials. See, e.g., In re Transpac. Passenger, 2014 WL 939287, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2014). All available evidence suggests that Plaintiffs seek to depose Musk for an improper purpose, which the Court should not indulge.
At the meet and confer, Plaintiffs' counsel would not agree to limit the topics of the deposition, no matter whether information is av…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:t4x2ruk2qmob2b2cx55h4v7r/bafkreifqzrykkdd6elb6rjujn5gl4b22lipxln6rx66v76p2actbaqxr5m)
