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 DENYING X CORP.’S
MOTION TO INTERVENE
The motion to intervene is DENIED because the Rule 24 requirements are not met.
This ruling assumes familiarity with the facts, the applicable legal standard, and the
arguments made by the parties.
First, the Court can still protect X Corp.’s privilege. “District courts have broad
discretion in controlling the conduct of a trial,” including “the presentation of evidence and
interrogation of witnesses.” Penk v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher Educ., 816 F.2d 458, 465
(9th Cir. 1987); see also Fed. R. Evid. 611(a). The Court can and will intervene if
testimony implicates privileged territory.
Second, Musk can adequately protect the privilege as the controlling owner and
Chairman of X Corp. Cf. Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., 42
F.4th 1013, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2022) (“If the proposed intervenor’s interest is ‘identical to
that of one of the present parties, a compelling showing should be required to demonstrate
inadequate representation.’” (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir.
2003))). That Musk is not himself a lawyer is of no consequence given that he will have a
capable team of lawyers present during trial.
Third, X Corp.’s motion is untimely. Timely filing is a “threshold requirement” to
Case 3:22-cv-05937-CRB Document 424 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 2

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
intervene. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th
Cir.1997). “[A]ny substantial lapse of time weighs heavily against intervention.” United
States v. State of Wash., 86 F.3d 1499, 1503 (9th Cir. 1996). This action was filed in 2022
against Musk, the controlling owner of X Corp., and the same general allegations have
continued to be at issue. Dkt. 1. X Corp.’s counsel was present at witness depositions as
early as March 18, 2025. Molumphy Decl. (dkt. 413-1) ¶ 2. Yet X Corp. only moved to
intervene on January 30, 2026—a month before trial. Mot. (dkt. 384). While X Corp.
states that it only filed after learning of Plaintiffs’ witness list, it offers no explanation for
why it did not move sooner, given that some of its former employees were deposed almost
a year earlier.1 See id. at 2.
Fourth, intervention would prejudice Plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3) (courts
must consider whether intervention will “prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’
rights”). Plaintiffs’ counsel has been preparing for trial and having an additional party
present to object would be disruptive.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to intervene.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2026
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
1 Permissive intervention also has a timeliness element, so the same concerns would doubly apply
there. Wilson, 131 F.3d at 1308 (“In the context of permissive intervention, however, we analyze
the timeliness element more strictly than we do with intervention as of right.”).
Case 3:22-cv-05937-CRB Document 424 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 2