TWITTER, INC. v. Elon R. MUSK et al C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM Court of Chancery of Delaware August 25, 2022 Counsel Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esquire, Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire, Christopher N. Kelly, Esquire, Mathew A. Golden, Esquire, Callan R. Jackson, Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, 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 Edward B. Micheletti, Esquire, Lauren N. Rosenello, Esquire, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, 920 N. King Street, 7th Floor, P.O. Box 636, Wilmington, DE 19899-0636 McCormick, Kathaleen St. J., Chancellor Opinion *1 Dear Counsel: This letter resolves issues raised in the August 19, 2022 letter to the court from Defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc. (“Defendants”), which this decision refers to as Defendants’ “Third Discovery Motion.” The motion seeks to compel Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to collect and review documents from a more extensive date range.[1] I have carefully reviewed Defendants’ Third Discovery Motion and Plaintiff's response. Given the timing of Defendants’ demand that Plaintiff expand its date range, the additional burden it would place on Plaintiff, the large volume of documents produced by Plaintiff to date, and the outcome of Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion, the Third Discovery Motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Sincerely, /s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Chancellor Footnotes [1] C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 189 (Defs.’ Third Disc. Mot.); see also Dkt. 232 (Pl.’s Opp'n to Defs.’ Third Disc. Mot.).