Redacted Version of Exhibits A-J to Letter to The Honorable Kathaleen St. J. McCormick from Edward B. Micheletti, Esquire, regarding Twitter, Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions against Defendants' for discovery misconduct (with Certificate of Service)
This document contains hundreds of text messages to and from Elon Musk involving the proposed purchase of Twitter, Inc.
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Re: Twitter, Inc. v. Musk, et al., C_A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM (Del. Ch.)
Dear Mr. Mader:
Last night, defendants represented that they had substantially completed their
document production. We have grave concerns about that representation. We have identified
several major deficiencies that cast substantial doubt on defendants’ discovery efforts across the
board:
First, our preliminary review of the text messages produced from Mr. Musk’s and
Mr. Birchall’s devices has revealed substantial gaps in production corresponding to critical time
petiods. For example, Mr. Musk’s production includes just four text messages from May 6
(three of which are non-substantive messages with Sean Combs, and the fourth of which is aPage 3 WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATz
David 8. Mader, Esq.
August 30, 2022
Page 2
message from Twitter’s Ned Segal) and zero text messages from May 7 through May |1 — a
particularly critical period during which defendants allege Mr. Musk was reconsidering his
acquisition of Twitter. Mr. Musk has likewise produced zero texts from a weeklong period
around June 4, the date on which he determined to adopt the position that Twitter had breached
the Merger Agreement. /d.
Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall’s text message productions have other unexplained
omissions. Most notably, defendants have not produced a single text message between Mr.
Musk and Mr. Birchall from the period between May 2 and May 12, even though it is clear that
these custodians texted each other regularly about relevant subjects. And the respective text
message productions of both Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall include messages that are missing from
the other’s production. Moreover, in a text exchange from June 17, Robert Steel of Perella
Weinberg Partners engages in a dialogue with Mr. Musk for which all of Mr. Musk’s replies are
missing.
We ask that you account for these apparent deficiencies by 8:00 this evening,
August 30.
Second, during the meet-and-confer process, you identified a review population of
50,435 documents for Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall’s custodial records. This population has
necessarily increased in light of defendants’ multiple agreements to add email accounts and
search terms to their review. Yet defendants have produced only 1,660 documents, yielding a
responsiveness rate of about 3%.
This improbable result causes us to question the responsiveness criteria that
defendants have applied in their review process. By way of example, there were 4,086
documents returned just by the targeted term (“Mdau* OR MAU * OR Dau* OR UAM OR
mMAU”) for Mr. Musk — but apparently /ess than half of those documents were identified for
production. We do net understand how this could be so.
We ask that you account for defendants’ implausibly low rate of production by
8:00 this evening, August 30.
Third, defendants are subject to a court order requiring them to supplement their
deficient responses to Twitter’s Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 12, and 17, including by providing full
disclosure of “‘all persons with knowledge of or involvement in” the topics listed in those
Interrogatories. Dkt. 221 at 5. On August 26, defendants purported to supplement their
responses to bring them into compliance with the Court’s Order. Those supplemented responses
identified only persons and entities Twitter already knew had relevant knowledge, and thus
disclosed nothing.
Defendants’ production of text messages yesterday confirms that your revised
interrogatory responses omitted many other individuals with whom Mr. Musk had substantivePage 4 WacHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & Katz
David S. Mader, Esq.
August 30, 2022
Page 3
communications about the merger, including: Mr. Steel, Michael Kives of K5 Global; Ari
Emanuel of Endeavor; Adeo Ressi of VC Lab; and Andrea Stroppa.
We believe defendants’ unwillingness to prepare complete interrogatory is
inexcusable and we intend to seek appropriate relief from the Court. In the meanwhile, we ask
that you provide complete revised interrogatory responses by 8:00 this evening, August 30.
Sincerely,
fyb he b how
Bradley R. WilsonPage 5 Exhibit BPage 6 From: David Mader
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:34 PM
To: Kirk, David E.
Cec: Silpa Maruri; Kathryn Bonacorsi; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossman; Alex Spiro;
Christopher Kercher; Matthew Fox; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom LLP); Rosenello, Lauren N; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP);
Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP); Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC); Sorrels, Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
PC); Savitt, William D.; Wilson, Bradley R.; Eddy, Sarah K.; McLeod, Ryan A,; Reddy,
Anitha; Yavitz, Noah B.; Goodman, Adam L; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk et al. - Significant Production Deficiencies
Counsel, we are in receipt of the correspondence attached to your e-mail of 10:04 a.m. this morning and expect to
provide a response, as well as supplemental interrogatory responses, tomorrow.
Regards,
David
David Mader
Partner
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
646.241.8334 Cell
212.849.7148 Direct
212,849,7100 FAX
davidmader@quinnemanuel.com
WWW..gUuinnemanuel.com
NOTICE; The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential, If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
From: Kirk, David E.
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:04 AM
To: David Mader
Ce: Silpa Maruri ; Kathryn Bonacorsi ; Emily
Kapur ; Andrew J. Rossman ; Alex Spiro ; Christopher Kercher ; Matthew Fox ; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) ; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter
Anderson & Corroon LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP) ; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Wilson, Bradley R. ; Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha ; Yavitz, Noah B. : Goodman, AdamPage 7 L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: Twitter v. Musk et al. - Significant Production Deficiencies
[EXTERNAL EMAIL from dekirk@wlrk.com]
Counsel,
Please see the attached correspondence from Brad Wilson.
Regards,
David
Please be advised that this transmittal may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail (helodesk@wirk.com) or by
telephone (call us collect at 212-403-4357) and delete this message and any attachments.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance.Page 8 Exhibit CPage 9 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TWITTER, INC.,
Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant,
Vv. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM
ELON R. MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC.,
and X HOLDINGS II, INC.,
Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
Smee” ge names” “names” ames” meee” acme” amet” acme nee et” ee”
DEFENDANTS’ FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS
Pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 26 and 33, Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc.
(“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby provide their
Fourth Supplemental Responses and Objections to the First Set of Interrogatories to
Defendants, dated July 22, 2022 (each an “Interrogatory” and together the
“Interrogatories’’), served by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Twitter, Inc. in
the above-captioned action (the “Action”).
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
l. Defendants hereby incorporate herein the General and Specific
Objections in their August 5, 2022 Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set
of Interrogatories. By making these Supplemental Responses, Respondents do notPage 10 waive any of those General or Specific Objections or concede that their original
responses do not fully answer the Interrogatories as limited by Respondents’
objections or are otherwise deficient. Respondents reserve the right to further amend
any of their Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all Persons with knowledge concerning, information relevant to,
and/or possession, custody, or control over Documents or Communications relating
to any of the allegations in the Complaint and/or any of the claims or arguments in
the July 8, 2022 Letter, and, as applicable, describe the general subject matter of
each such Person’s relevant knowledge or information or the general subject matter
of the relevant Documents or Communications in their possession, custody, or
control.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Defendants object to this Interrogatory as overbroad and as seeking
information not relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses.
Subject to and without waiving their General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants state that, based upon a reasonable inquiry and to the best of
their knowledge at this time, the following is a list of persons with unique knowledge
concerning the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and the parties’ claims and/or
defenses in this Action:
1. Elon R. Musk (“Musk”). Knowledgeable as to the negotiation,
execution, and termination of the Merger Agreement.
2. Jared Birchall. Knowledgeable as to the negotiation, execution,
and termination of the Merger Agreement.
2Page 11 10.
11.
12,
13,
Bob Swan. Knowledgeable as to business and financial modeling
for Twitter’s operations should the transaction have closed.
Antonio Gracias. Knowledgeable as to business and financial
modeling for Twitter’s operations, and transaction financing, should
the transaction have closed.
Twitter, Inc. The full extent of Twitter directors, officers,
employees, and contractors with relevant knowledge as to the
negotiation, execution, and termination of the Merger Agreement,
and Twitter’s business and operations, is information known only
by Twitter itself.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Mike Ringler,
Sonia Nijjar. Knowledgeable as to the negotiation, execution, and
termination of the Merger Agreement.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. Alex Spiro.
Knowledgeable as to the negotiation, execution, and termination of
the Merger Agreement.
Morgan Stanley. Anthony Armstrong, Owen O'Keefe, Michael
Grimes, Kate Claassen. Knowledgeable as to financial analysis and
negotiation of the transaction.
Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. Andrew = Earl.
Knowledgeable as to the bank debt financing commitments for the
transaction.
Andreessen Horowitz, AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (a16z).
Scott Kupor. Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
A.M. Management & Consulting. Andrew Medyuck.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Aliya Capital Partners LLC. Ross Kestin. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
BAMCO, Inc. (Baron). Patrick Patalino. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.Page 12 14.
15,
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21,
22.
23,
24.
25.
26.
27.
Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd. Kaiser Ng.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. Nicholas Sammut, Nicholas
Goodman. Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
DFJ Growth IV Partners, LLC. Randall Glein. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC. Chris Maher.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Honeycomb Asset Management LP. Vick Sandhu.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Key Wealth Advisors LLC. Ahmad Razi Karim. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Lawrence J. Ellison Revocable Trust. Paul Marinelli.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Litani Ventures. Peter Rahal. Knowledgeable as an equity co-
investor alongside Musk.
Qatar Investment Authority. Ahmad Al-Khjani. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Sequoia Capital Fund, L.P. Douglas Leone. Knowledgeable as
an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Strauss Capital LLC. Daniel Strauss. Knowledgeable as an equity
co-investor alongside Musk.
Tresser Blvd 402 LLC (Cartenna). Peter Avellone.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
VyCapital. Katja Lake, Daniel Schwarz. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Witkoff Capital. Zachary Witkoff. Knowledgeable as an equity
co-investor alongside Musk.Page 13 28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33,
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39,
40,
HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud
(Kingdom). Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
Bank of America, N.A. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of
the Merger.
BOFA Securities, Inc. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of
the Merger.
Barclays. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
MUFG. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
Societe Generale. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
Mizuho Bank Ltd. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
BNP Paribas. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. Knowledgeable as to the debt
financing of the Merger.
Goldman Sachs. Knowledgeable as to the value of Twitter in
connection with its modeling of the transaction and preparation of a
fairness opinion.
J.P. Morgan. Knowledgeable as to the value of Twitter in
connection with its modeling of the transaction and preparation of a
fairness opinion.
Allen & Company LLC. Knowledgeable as to the value of Twitter
in connection with its modeling of the transaction.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Alan Klein. Knowledgeable
as to the negotiation, execution, and termination of the Merger
Agreement.Page 14 Al.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC. Marty Korman.
Knowledgeable as to the negotiation, execution, and termination of
the Merger Agreement.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities, who are equity co-investors
alongside Musk and as such, have knowledge of their equity investments:
42,
43.
44.
45,
46.
47.
48,
49,
50.
51.
52.
53.
54,
AJG Growth Fund, LLC
Bandera Partners, LLC
Debala Trust (aka Karim Hakimzadeh)
Eden Global Investments L.P.
GFNCI LLC
Manhattan Venture Partners X LLC
Opportunity Fund X, a Series of Factorial Funds I LLC
Qatar Holding LLC
Santo Lira LLC
Section 32 Fund 4, LP
Tomales Bay Capital CGF ZHR IX, LP
Tru Arrow Technology Partners CIV II, LP
Yuxiang (Robin) Ren
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities as having knowledge
regarding the topics called for in this Interrogatory:Page 15 Knowledgeable as investors approached by Morgan Stanley on Defendants’
behalf regarding an equity investment:
55. Access Industries
56. Advent
57. Andrew Finn, Tim Urban, Quentin Koffey
58. Apollo
59. Aristotle Capital
60. ARK Investment Management LLC
61. Ashler Capital
62. Balyasny
63. BlackRock
64. Blackstone
65. Block.one (Michael Lubin)
66. BOND (Mary Meeker)
67. Boston Management/Eaton Vance
68. Brian Armstrong
69. Brinley Partners
70. California Regents
71. Capital Group
72. Carlyle
73. CDPQ
74, Centerbridge
75. Claure Group (Marcelo Claure)Page 16 76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83,
84.
85.
80.
87.
88,
89,
90.
91.
92.
93.
94,
95.
96.
97.
98.
ClearBridge
Clearlake
Coatue
Combs Enterprises
Cowbird Capital
CPPIB
Craft Ventures
D1 Capital
DaGrosa Capital Partners
Dash Wasserstein
Diameter
Dorilton Capital
Dragoneer
EL Acquisitions Steve Ellman
Emilio Masci
First Republic (Joe Gebbia)
Founders Fund
Francisco Partners
Frank McCourt
General Atlantic
General Catalyst
GIC
GigafundPage 17 99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106,
107.
108.
109.
110.
111,
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
GoldenTree
Gregory Cohen (Rambleside)
Greycroft
Grok Ventures
GSAM
Guggenheim
Hellman & Friedman
Hither Creek Ventures (Zander Farkas)
HPS Partners
HRS Management
Iconiq
Insight
IVP
Jack Dorsey
Jill Smoller
John Catsimatidis
K5 Global (Michael Kives)
Ken Griffin
Ken Howery
Larry A Mizel
LAUNCH (Jason Calacanis)
Level Four LLC (Joe Rogan)
LiontreePage 18 122.
123.
124.
125.
126,
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133,
134.
135.
136.
137,
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
Long View (Crown)
Lutetia Capital
Marc Benioff
Mark Cuban
Mayor Bloomberg (Willett Advisors)
Michael Pollack
Mirae
MSD Partners
MSIM Private
MSIM Public
Naval Ravikant
Nelk (John Shahidi)
Nikesh Arora
Nikko Asset Mgmt. (Americas)
Norges
North Fifth Services (Bill Ford)
Nuveen (FIAA)
Oaktree
OTPP
Owl Rock (Blue Owl)
Palm Tree Crew
Paradigm (Matt Huang)
Pegasus Ventures
10Page 19 145,
146.
147.
148.
149,
150.
151.
152.
153.
154,
155.
156,
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162,
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
Peltz
Pershing Square
PIMCO
Pomegranate (Clay Whitehead)
Prometheus
Red Apple Holdings, Inc.
Reid Hoffman
Reprogrammed Interchange LLC
Revere Capital
Revere Securities
Ross Gerber
Safra
Samuel Bankman-Fried (FTX)
Scott Nolan
Security Benefit
Senator
Sixth Street
Skip Capital
Skip Enterprises Pty Ltd
Snowdevil Capital / Thistledown (Matt Cowin)
Softbank
Southpoint Capital
S.P. Hinduja Private Bank Ltd
11Page 20 168. SRS Investment Mgmt.
169. T. Rowe Price
170. TCV
171. Teknecap
172. Thor Halvorssen
173. Thrive
174. Thrivent
175, TPG
176. UC Regents (Jagdeep Bachher)
177. University of Michigan
178. Veritas Capital
179. Viking Global
180. Warburg
181. Web3 Foundation
182. YLEM (Bastian Lehmann)
Knowledgeable as individuals with whom Mr. Musk discussed Twitter/the
Merger generally:
183. Steve Jurvetson
184. Jason Calacanis
185. Joe Lonsdale
186. David Sacks
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities and tndividuals as having
12Page 21 knowledge regarding the topics called for in this Interrogatory based on
communications produced by Defendants in this litigation:
187. Aaron Levie
188, Aaron Rappaport
189. Aashish Sharma
190. Abram Brown
191. Adeo Ressi
192, Adil Bhatia
193. Alanah Pearce (96997907 - @Charalanahzard)
194. Alex Berenson
195. Alex Stillings
196. Alex Swieca
198. Alexander Chernyak
199. Alexander Sherman
200, Alexandra Musk
201. Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud
202. Alwaleed Tlal
204. Amir Efrati
205. Andraz Razen
13Page 22 207. Andrea Stroppa (541882699 => @andst7)
209. Andrew Earls
210. Andrew Finn
211. Andrew Perlman
212, Andy Harrison
213. Angus Berwick
214. Anish Shah
215. Annie Palmer
216. Anshuman Mishra
217. Anthony Armstrong
218. Anthony Cicia
219. Anthony Scaramucci
220. Antoine Gara
221. Anton.Mayr
223. Ari Emanuel
224. Arif Ahmed
225. Ashlee Vance (81961201 - @ashleevance)
14Page 23 226.
227.
228,
229.
230.
231.
232,
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238,
239.
240,
241,
242.
243,
244,
245.
Audra Johnson
Austin Pang
Bastian Lehmann
Beau Davidson
Ben Enowitz
Ben Silverman
Ben Wormsley
Benjamin Goodman
Benjamin Holland
Benny Johnson
Berkeley Fondren
Bill Lee
Blake Hall
Bob Steel
Bobby Allyn
Brad S. Sheftel
Bradford Betz
Bradley Diener
Brandon J. Sanford
Brandon Kaufmann
15Page 24 246,
247,
248.
249,
250.
251.
252.
253.
254,
255.
256,
257,
258,
259,
260.
261.
262,
263.
264,
265,
Bret Johnsen
Bret Taylor
Brett Rochkind
Brian Acton
Brian Kingston
Brian Schwartz
Brian Snyder
Bryan Baum
a
C Ndu Ozor
Cameron Winklevoss
Carlos Slim
Cary Thompson
Cat Zakrzewski
Cathie Wood (2361631088 => @CathieD Wood)
Charles Sheehan
Ching Liu Huang
Chris Anderson
Chris Stokel-Walker
16Page 25 266. Chris Zhang
267. pe
269. Colin Stewart
270. Corey T. Kozak
271, CPG Grey (176774540 => @cgpgrey)
272. Craig Farr
273. Craig Robins
275. Dan Sundheim
276. Dana Hull
277. Daniel Brunt
278. Daniel Freeman
279. Daniel Tay
280. Darren Rovell
281. Dave Rubin
282. Dave Smith
283. David Dwek
284. David E. Kaufman
285. David George
17Page 26 286,
287.
288.
289,
290,
291.
292,
293,
294.
295.
296.
297,
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
David Sacks
David Solomon
Dennis Baughman
Derek Dillon
Dick Costolo
Dickson Law
Diesel Peltz
Dimitar Valchev
Dinesh D-Souza
Doug Leone
Douglas M. Palmer
Douglas MacMillan
Dr. Bradley Jabour
Dr. Ulf Poschardt
Edward Ludlow
Elif Bilgi
Endeavor
Eric A. Gray
Eric Kirkland
Errol Musk
18Page 27 306.
307,
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319,
320.
321.
322.
323.
324,
325.
Evan Fiedler
Faisal Baloch
Faiz Siddiqui
Fiona Osullivan
Frank Malone
Frank McCourt
Gabrielle Bienasz
Gabrielle S. Burke
Garett Varricchio
Gary Black
Gavin Baker
Gayle King
George Galloway
George Zachary
Glenn Fuhrman
Graham Brandt
Grimes (276540738 => @Grimezsz)
Hannah Murphy
Henry Blodget
19Page 28 326.
327,
328.
329,
330.
331,
332.
333,
334.
335.
336.
337.
Hindenburg Research
Hiromichi Mizuno (72862939 - @hiromichimizuno)
History In Pics (1582853809 => @HistoryInPics)
Hyun Joo Jin
Ian Miles Cheong
Jan Osborne
Idena Team
Thsan Essaid
Imran Salahuddin
Iqbaljit Kahlon
Ira Ehrenpreis
Ishay Levin
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
344.
345.
Jack Dorsey
James and Kathryn Murdoch
James Demare
James Fontanella-Khan
James Gorman
James Star
Jamie Star
20Page 29 346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
357.
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364,
365.
Jared Groth
Jason Calacanis (3840 - @Jason)
Jason Zins
Jean-Francois Astier
Jeff Collins
Jeff Gramm
Jeff Skoll
Jeff Wood
Jeffery Stein
Jeffrey Sprecher
Jehn Balajadia
a
Jennifer King
Jeremy Erlich
Jeremy Parsels
Jessie Mae Atkinson
Jia Yang
Jillian Svendsen
Joe Lonsdale
Joel Carter
21Page 30 366.
367.
368.
369.
370,
371,
372.
373.
374,
375,
376.
377,
378,
379,
380.
381.
382.
383.
384,
385,
John Carmack
John Darsie
John Glaister
John Hering
John Lamb
John M. Brandow
John P. Zito
John Rich
John Rose
John Shahidi
John Stoll
a
John Tuttle
John-Christian Bourque
Johnna Crider
Johnna Lesch
Jon Neuhaus
Jonah Nolan
Jonathan Schlecht
Jonathan Silverman
22Page 31 386
387
388
389
390.
391.
392.
393.
394,
395.
396.
397,
398,
399,
A400.
401.
402.
403.
404.
405.
. Jordan Grossman
. Joseph Jackson
. Joseph Menn
. Josh Raffaelli
a
Julia Bae
Julian Mettmann
Justin Riblet
Justin Roiland
Justin T. Smith
Kara Swisher
Karen Heller
Karen Klores
Karim Hakimzadeh
Karin Fronczke
Kassem Shafi
Keith Cowing
Kxelvin Ik. Chan
Ken Griffin
Ken Howery
23Page 32 406.
407.
408.
409.
410,
411.
412,
413,
414.
415.
416.
417.
418.
419.
420.
421.
422.
423.
424.
425.
Kevin C. Brunner
Kevin Fronczke
Kevin Mitnick —
Kevin Tu
a
Kimbal Musk
Kojiro Shizuka
Koushaw Ghaffarian
Kristina Salen
Kristy Mullen
Kyle Corcoran
Kyle Mann
Lance Ulanoff
Lauren Feiner
Lauren Hirsch
Laurence Braham
Lawrence J. Ellison
Leeder Hsu
Lewis Shepherd
Liana Baker
24Page 33 426.
427.
428,
429.
430,
431.
432,
433.
434.
435.
436.
437.
438.
439,
440,
441,
442.
443,
444,
445.
Liv Boeree
Lori Nicolet
Ludwig Kiermaier
Luke Nosek
Lynn Martin
Mansoor Ebrahim Al-Mahmoud
Marc Andreessen
Mare Merrill
Mark Matousek
Mark Pincus
Martha Lane Fox
Martin Viecha
Mason Bissada
Massimo (177101260 - @Rainmaker1973)
Mathias Dépfner
Matilda Simon-Ferrigno
Matt Cowin
Matt Durot
Matt Huang
25Page 34 446,
447,
448.
449,
450.
451,
452.
453.
454,
455.
456.
457.
458.
459,
460.
461,
462,
463.
464,
465,
Matt Lichtenberg
Matthew Koder
Matthew Savage
Maureen Dowd
Melissa MacPherson
Michael Dell
Michael Izard
Michael Kives
Michael Liedtke
Michael Tucker
Michael Tully
Michelle Lu
Mike Huckabee
Mike Schroepfer
Nagesh Saldi
Naor Amiel
Natalie Moses
Navaid Farooq
Naval Ravikant
Ned Segal
26Page 35 466.
467.
468.
469.
470.
471,
472.
473.
474,
475,
476.
477.
478.
479,
480.
481.
482.
483.
484,
485.
Neil J. Parikh
Nelson Peltz
Nichie Gamer (1558996520 => @nichegamer)
Nicholas Reimann
Nicholas Sammut
Nico Fine
Nilam Ganenthiran
Noah Echavarria
Olivier Osty
Omead Afshar
Orlando Bravo
Ortenca Aliaj
Ottilie Hoyell —
Owen O'Keeffe
Parag Agrawal
Pat O’Malley
Paul Barrett
Paul Cheung
Paul Graham
Paul Griffiths
27Page 36 486. Paul Joseph Watson (18643437 => @PrisonPlanet)
487. Paul T. Marinelli
488. Peter Marsh
489. Peter P. Jones
490. Peter Weinberg
491. Philippe Laffont
492. Pinki Chaudhuri
493. Pueo Keffer
494. Quentin Koftey
495. Randy Glein
496. Reed Albergotti
497, Reed B. Rayman
498. Rehan Khursheed
499, Reid Hoffman
500. Richard Gallivan
501. Richard Hardegree
502, Richard Park
503. Richard Spencer
504. Richard von Wildemann
505. Rick Polhemus
28Page 37 506
507,
508.
509.
510.
511.
512.
513,
514.
515.
516,
517.
518.
519.
520.
521.
522.
523.
524.
525.
Rishi D. Mangal
Robert Herring
Robert Ruberton
Robert Zubrin
Robin Ren
Roelof Botha
Ron Baron
Ronald Gong
Ross Gerber
Ross Menachem Kestin
Rupert Murdoch
Ryan Israel
Sam Fort
Sam Harris
Sam Shead
Sam Teller
Samiuddin Sami
Sarang Gadkari
29Page 38 526.
527,
528.
529.
530.
531,
532.
533.
534.
535.
536,
537.
538.
539.
540.
541.
542.
543.
544,
545.
Satoshi Nakajima
Satya Nadella
Scott Adams
Scott Belsky (15698507 => @scottbelsky)
Scott Coulter
Scott Deveau
Scott Harries
Scott Nolan
Scott Painter
Sean C. Coburn
Sean Combs
Sean Edgett
Sean Lynch
Sekulic, Masa
Serkan Savasoglu
Shannon Bond
Shaun Maguire
Shawn W. Liu
Shervin Pishevar
Shivon Zilis (446719282 => @shivon)
30Page 39 546. Shoaib Qureshi
547. Sindhu Sundar
548. Solomon Bier
549.
550. Sonu Kalra
551. Stacey Ferreira
- Hock
554. Stephen Oskoui
552.
553.
555. Stephen Pesche
556. Stephen Wolfram
557. Steve Davis
558. Steve Jurvetson
559. Steve Weiner
560. Steven Brown
561. Steven Crowder
562. Steven Messina
563. Steven Rattner
564. Stockton Bullitt
565. SwiftOnSecurity (2436389418 -> @SwiftOnSecurity)
31Page 40 566,
567.
568.
569.
570.
571.
572.
573.
574.
575.
576.
577,
578.
579.
580.
581.
582.
583,
584.
585.
Sylvia Kaminska
Talulah Riley
Taly Kogon
Tamim Jabr
Tarik Brooks
Tatum Hunter
Taylor Wright
Teddy Gleser
Terrence Kontos
Thierry Breton
Thomas J. Sheehan
Thor Halvorssen
Tim Hughes
Tim Urban
Timothy Draper
Todd Morgenfeld
Tom Fitton
Tom Krisher
Tom Loef
Tom Maloney
32Page 41 586.
587.
588.
589.
590.
591.
592.
593.
594.
595,
596.
597.
598.
599.
600.
601.
602.
603.
604,
605.
Tom S. Hals
Tom Swerling
Tom van Loben Sels
Tracey Chenoweth
Trung Phan
Universal Sci (2993230373 => @universal_sci)
Vijaya Gadde
Vikas Shah
Vinod Jetley
Viv Hantusch
Wendi Murdoc
Will Knight
Will MacAskill
William Ackma
Willie Yglesias
Winnie Kong
Xavier Niel
Yousef Mohamed
Zheng Wang
@billym2k Shibetoshi Nakamoto
33Page 42 606.
607.
608.
609.
610.
611.
612.
613.
614,
615.
616,
617.
618.
619.
620.
621.
622.
623.
624,
625.
@erdayastronaut Everyday Astronaut
@Teslarati
@DoctorJack16
@waitbutwhy Tim Urban
@evafoxU Eva Fox
@murtakpak
@LexFridman Lex Fridman
@Cernovich Mike Cernovich
(@WSBCHairman
@MrStevenSteele Steven Steele
@stevenmarkryan
@Liz_Wheeler Liz Wheeler
(@Boztank Boz
@ostynhyss Ostyn Hyss
(@ppathole Pranay Pathole
@stockmktNewz
@jspeedymorris22 Joe Morris
@johnnaCriderl Johnna Crider
(@wholemarsblog
@uksaguy
34Page 43 626.
627,
628.
629.
630.
631.
632.
633.
634.
635.
636.
637.
638.
639.
640.
641.
642.
643.
644,
645.
@blkmdl3
@teslaownersSV
@politicalshort Nick Short
@somospostpc Alex Barredo
@BTC_Archive
@ICannot_Enough James Stephenson
@redletterdave Dave Smith
@chrisjbakke Chris Bakke
@garyblack00 Gary Black
@johnkrausphotos John Kraus
@engineers_ feed
@dogeofficialceo
@watcherguru
@spideycyp_155
@RenataKonkoly Renata Konkoly
@andst7 Andrea Stroppa
@sawyermerritt Sawyer Merritt
@cybrtrck
@truth_tesla
@cb_doge
35Page 44 646.
647,
648.
649.
650.
651.
652.
653.
654.
655.
656.
657,
658.
659,
660.
661.
662.
663.
664.
665,
@ajtourville
@realmeetkevin Meet Kevin
@shacknews
@bloomberg
@itsallrisky
(@sourpatchlyds
@libsofticktok
(@obaidomer Obaid Omer
@mn_google Patel Meet
@catturd2
(@coindesk
@squawksquare
@its_menieb Mohamed Enieb
@rationaletienne
@mazemoore
@dawggabriel Harold O Koenig
@coffeetabletsla
@fintwit_news
@blkmdI3
@modl3pilot
36Page 45 666. @teslarati
667. @occupymars42069
668. @mrstevensteele Steven Steele
669. @tarabull808
670. @jrdavidmitchell David Mitchell Jr
671. @veespike
672. @d2dev David Dales
673. @thecryptodaddi
674. @JaneidyEve Evelyn Janeidy Arevalo
675, @hamblinzeke
676. @drknowitalll6
677. @ajtourville
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify all Persons with knowledge concerning, information relevant to,
and/or possession, custody, or control over Documents or Communications relating
to Your efforts to arrange, obtain, syndicate, and/or consummate the Debt Financing
or the Equity Financing, including without limitation (i) any law firm, financial
advisor, or other institution engaged to advise or assist You in connection with the
Debt Financing or the Equity Financing; (ii) any other Person that worked on Your
behalf and/or represented Your interests in connection with the Debt Financing or
the Equity Financing; (iii) any actual or potential provider of the Debt Financing;
(iv) any law firm, financial advisor, or other institution engaged to advise or assist
any actual or potential provider of the Debt Financing; (v) any actual or potential co-
investor in the Equity Financing; and (vi) any law firm, financial advisor, or other
institution engaged to advise or assist any actual or potential co-investor in the
Equity Financing, and, as applicable, describe the general subject matter of each
37Page 46 such Person’s relevant knowledge or information or the general subject matter of the
relevant Documents or Communications in their possession, custody, or control.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Defendants object to this Interrogatory as overbroad and as seeking
information not relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses.
Subject to and without waiving their General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants state that, based upon a reasonable inguiry and to the best of
their knowledge at this time, the following is a list of persons with knowledge
regarding efforts to arrange, obtain, syndicate, and/or consummate the Debt
Financing or the Equity Financing in connection with the Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and the parties’ claims and/or defenses in this Action:
1. Elon R. Musk. Knowledgeable as to the debt and equity financing
of the Merger.
2. Jared Birchall. Knowledgeable as to the debt and equity financing
of the Merger.
3, Antonio Gracias. Knowledgeable as to business and financial
modeling for Twitter’s operations, and transaction financing, should
the transaction have closed.
4. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Mike Ringler.
Knowledgeable as to the debt and equity financing of the merger.
5. Morgan Stanley. Anthony Armstrong, Owen O'Keefe, Michael
Grimes, Kate Claassen. Knowledgeable as to financial analysis and
negotiation of the transaction.
6. Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. Andrew Earl.
Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
38Page 47 10,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16,
17.
18.
19,
20.
Bank of America, N.A. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of
the Merger.
BOFA Securities, Inc. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of
the Merger.
Barclays. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
MUFG. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
BNP Paribas. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. Knowledgeable as to the debt
financing of the Merger.
Mizuho Bank, Ltd. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
Societe Generale. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
Andreessen Horowitz, AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (al16z).
Scott Kupor. Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
A.M. Management & Consulting. Andrew Medjuck.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Aliya Capital Partners LLC. Ross Kestin. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
BAMCO, Inc. (Baron). Patrick Patalino. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd. Kaiser Neg.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. Nicholas Sammut, Nicholas
Goodman. Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
39Page 48 21.
22,
23.
24.
25.
26,
27,
28.
29,
30,
31.
32.
33.
DFJ Growth IV Partners, LLC. Randall Glein. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC. Chris Maher.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Honeycomb Asset Management LP. Vick Sandhu.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Key Wealth Advisors LLC. Ahmad Razi Karim. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Lawrence J. Ellison Revocable Trust. Paul Marinelli.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Litani Ventures. Peter Rahal. Knowledgeable as an equity co-
investor alongside Musk.
Qatar Investment Authority. Ahmad Al-Khjani. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Sequoia Capital Fund, L.P. Douglas Leone. Knowledgeable as
an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Strauss Capital LLC. Daniel Strauss. Knowledgeable as an equity
co-investor alongside Musk.
Tresser Blvd 402 LLC (Cartenna). Peter Avellone.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
VyCapital. Katja Lake, Daniel Schwarz. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Witkoff Capital. Zachary Witkoff. Knowledgeable as an equity
co-investor alongside Musk.
HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud
(Kingdom). Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
40Page 49 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities as equity co-investors
alongside Musk, who, as such, have knowledge of their equity investments:
34.
35,
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44,
45.
46.
AJG Growth Fund, LLC
Bandera Partners, LLC
Debala Trust (aka Karim Hakimzadeh)
Eden Global Investments L.P.
GFNCI LLC
Manhattan Venture Partners X LLC
Opportunity Fund X, a Series of Factorial Funds I LLC
Qatar Holding LLC
Santo Lira LLC
Section 32 Fund 4, LP
Tomales Bay Capital CGF ZHR IX, LP
Tru Arrow Technology Partners CIV II, LP
Yuxiang (Robin) Ren
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities as having knowledge
regarding the topics called for in this Interrogatory:
Knowledgeable as mvestors approached by Morgan Stanley on Defendants’
behalf regarding an equity investment:
47.
48.
Access Industries
Advent
41Page 50 A9,
50.
51.
52.
53,
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68,
69.
70.
71,
Andrew Finn, Tim Urban, Quentin Koffey
Apollo
Aristotle Capital
ARK Investment Management LLC
Ashler Capital
Balyasny
BlackRock
Blackstone
Block.one (Michael Lubin)
BOND (Mary Meeker)
Boston Management/Eaton Vance
Brian Armstrong
Brinley Partners
California Regents
Capital Group
Carlyle
CDPQ
Centerbridge
Claure Group (Marcelo Claure)
ClearBridge
Clearlake
Coatue
Combs Enterprises
42Page 51 72.
73.
74,
75,
70.
77,
78.
79.
BQ.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
Cowbird Capital
CPPIB
Craft Ventures
D1 Capital
DaGrosa Capital Partners
Dash Wasserstein
Diameter
Dorilton Capital
Dragoneer
EL Acquisitions Steve Ellman
Emilio Masci
First Republic (Joe Gebbia)
Founders Fund
Francisco Partners
Frank McCourt
General Atlantic
General Catalyst
GIC
Gigafund
GoldenTree
Gregory Cohen (Rambleside)
Greycroft
Grok Ventures
43Page 52 95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100,
101.
102,
103.
104.
105.
106.
107,
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
GSAM
Guggenheim
Hellman & Friedman
Hither Creek Ventures (Zander Farkas)
IIPS Partners
HRS Management
Iconiq
Insight
IVP
Jack Dorsey
Jill Smoller
John Catsimatidis
K5 Global (Michael Kives)
Ken Griffin
Ken Howery
Larry A Mizel
LAUNCH (Jason Calacanis)
Level Four LLC (Joe Rogan)
Liontree
Long View (Crown)
Lutetia Capital
Marc Benioff
Mark Cuban
44Page 53 118.
119.
120.
121,
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
Mayor Bloomberg (Willett Advisors)
Michael Pollack
Mirae
MSD Partners
MSIM Private
MSIM Public
Naval Ravikant
Nelk (John Shahidi)
Nikesh Arora
Nikko Asset Mgmt. (Americas)
Norges
North Fifth Services (Bill Ford)
Nuveen (TIAA)
Oaktree
OTPP
Owl Rock (Blue Owl)
Palm Tree Crew
Paradigm (Matt Huang)
Pegasus Ventures
Peltz
Pershing Square
PIMCO
Pomegranate (Clay Whitehead)
45Page 54 141,
142.
143.
144,
145,
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154,
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
Prometheus
Red Apple Holdings, Inc.
Reid Hoffman
Reprogrammed Interchange LLC
Revere Capital
Revere Securities
Ross Gerber
Safra
Samuel Bankman-Fried (FTX)
Scott Nolan
Security Benefit
Senator
Sixth Street
Skip Capital
Skip Enterprises Pty Ltd
Snowdevil Capital / Thistledown (Matt Cowin)
Softbank
Southpoint Capital
S.P. Hinduja Private Bank Ltd
SRS Investment Memt.
T. Rowe Price
TCV
Teknecap
46Page 55 164. Thor Halvorssen
165. Thrive
166. Thrivent
167. TPG
168. UC Regents (Jagdeep Bachher)
169. University of Michigan
170. Veritas Capital
171. Viking Global
172. Warburg
173. Web3 Foundation
174. YLEM (Bastian Lehmann)
Knowledgeable as, or about, actual or potential co-investors in the Equity
Financing:
175, Anthony Scaramucci
176. Ari Emanuel
177. Ben Silverman
178. Brian Kingston
179. Carlos Slim
180. David Sacks
181. Dickson Law
182. Endeavor
183. Glenn Fuhrman
184. Jason Calacanis
47Page 56 185. Joe Lonsdale
186. John Rose
187. Steve Jurvetson
188. Ken Griffin
189. Kimbal Musk
190. Lawrence J. Ellison
191. Navaid Faroog
192. Rick Polhemus
193. Satya Nadella
194, Sean Combs
195. Sean Lynch
196. Tamim Jabr
197. Thierry Breton
198. Will MacAskill
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify all Persons with knowledge concerning any review or assessment
conducted by You or on Your behalf (including without limitation any review or
assessment conducted by or at the direction of Defendants’ Advisors), whether
before or after the date of the Merger Agreement, relating to (1) the prevalence of
false or spam accounts or bots on the Twitter platform; or (2) Twitter’s API or
“firehose” data, including without limitation all experts, consultants, advisors, or
other service providers that You and/or Defendants’ Advisors contacted, consulted,
or retained in connection with any such review or assessment.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Defendants object to this Interrogatory as seeking information not relevant to
the parties’ claims and defenses. Defendants further object to this Interrogatory
48Page 57 because it seeks information protected from disclosure as attorney work product or
under the attorney-client privilege. Defendants further object to this Interrogatory
because it seeks information that may be the subject of expert testimony. Defendants
will make expert disclosures at the appropriate time, as required by the applicable
tules and any further stipulations of the parties or Orders of the Court.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the following persons and entities with knowledge
regarding analysis performed on Defendants’ behalf regarding the aforementioned
topics: ToSomeone Inc. dba CounterAction (Trevor Davis and Andrew Therriault),
Halo Privacy, Inc. (Mark Kearns, Seth Rodin, Kevin Casey, Dennis Duckworth),
and Cyabra Strategy Inc. (Dan Brahmy, Yossef Daar, Ido Shraga). Defendants will
make further expert disclosures regarding any underlying analysis at the appropriate
time, as required by the applicable rules and stipulations of the parties or Orders of
the Court.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants state that Elon Musk and Jared Birchall communicated with
and reviewed work produced by the entities and some or all of the tndividuals
previously identified in response to this Interrogatory, and that Skadden, Arps, Slate,
49Page 58 Meagher & Flom LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP engaged,
communicated with, and reviewed the work of the individuals and entities previously
identified in response to this Interrogatory.
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants state Mike Ringler from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP and Alex Spiro, Andrew Rossman, Christopher Kercher, and Silpa Maruri
from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP engaged, communicated with,
and/or reviewed the work of the individuals and entities previously identified in
response to this Interrogatory.
OF COUNSEL:
Alex Spiro
Andrew J, Rossman
Christopher D. Kercher
Silpa Maruri
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
5] Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
(212) 849-7000
DATED: August 31, 2022
917334-WILSROLA - MSW
AS TO OBJECTIONS ONLY:
/s/ Edward B. Micheletti
Edward B. Micheletti (ID No. 3794)
Lauren N. Rosenello (ID No. 5581)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 636
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0636
(302) 651-3000
Attorneys for Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
Elon R. Musk, X Holdings [, Inc.,
and X Holdings If, Inc.
50Page 59 Exhibit DPage 60 From: Jaclyn Palmerson
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 12:37 AM
To: BRWilson@wlrk.com
Cc: Kathryn Bonacorsi; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossman; Alex Spiro; Christopher Kercher;
Silpa Maruri; David Mader, Micheletti, Edward B; Rosenello, Lauren N; Matthew Fox;
DEKirk@wirk.com; kshannon@potteranderson.com; ckelly@potteranderson.com;
jslights@wsgr.com; bsorrels@wsgr.com; wdsavitt@WLRK.com; SKEddy@wirk.com;
RAMcLeod@wirk.com; AReddy@wirk.com; NBYavitz@wirk.com; ALGoodman@wirk.com;
APSadinsky@wirk.com
Subject: Twitter v. Musk
Attachments: 2022.09.01 - Letter from Mader.pdf
Dear Counsel:
Please see the attached correspondence.
Best,
Jackie
Jaclyn Palmerson
Associate
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY LO010
212-849-7104 Direct
212-849-7000 Main Office Number
212-849-7100 FAX
jaclynpalmerson@quinnemanuel.com
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.Page 61 GUINM GIMME trial lawyers | new york
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 1aare-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
WRITER’S DIRECT DIAL No.
(212) 849-7148
WRITER’S EMAIL ADDRESS
davidmader@quinnemanuel.com
September 1, 2022
VA E-MAIL
BRWILSON@WLRK.COM
Bradley R. Wilson, Esq.
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Re: Twitter, Inc. v. Elon R. Musk, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM (Del. Ch.)
Dear Counsel:
I write in response to your August 29, 2022 and August 30, 2022 letters regarding purported
deficiencies in Defendants’ document productions and interrogatory responses.
L Plaintiff's August 29, 2022 Letter
A. Defendants’ Response to Interrogatery No. 3
Plaintiffs August 29, 2022 letter states that “Defendants’ response to Interrogatory No. 3
continues to fail to identify all natural persons with the specified knowledge, including in particular
individual attorneys of the identified law firms.” Defendants disagree that their response to
Interrogatory No. 3 is in any way deficient. However, to resolve this issue, Defendants will serve
a supplemental response to Interrogatory No, 3 listing the partners from the law firms previously
disclosed who have knowledge regarding the reviews or assessments discussed in Interrogatory
No. 3.
B. Defendants’ Production of Data Scientist Analyses
Defendants intend to fully comply with the Court’s August 25, 2022 Order. That Order
clearly defined the Analyses that the Court found to have been put at issue and therefore not subject
to the protection of Rule 26(b)(4)(B). Specifically, the Court defined the relevant “Analyses” as
follows:
In May 2022, Defendants demanded information pursuant to Section 6.4
concerning Plaintiff's methods of calculating monetizable daily active usage or
QUINN emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, lip
ATLANTA | AUSTIN | BOSTON j BRUSSELS | CHICAGO | DOHA | HAMBURG | HONG KONG | HOUSTON | LONDON | LOS ANGELES | MANNHEIM |
MIAMI | MUNICH | NEUILLY-LA DEFENSE | NEW YORK | PARTS { PERTH | RIYADH | SALT LAKE CITY | SAN FRANCISCO [SEATTLE | SHANGHAI |
SILICON VALLEY | STUTTGART | SYDNEY | TOKYO | WASHINGTON, DC | ZURICHPage 62 users (“mMDAU”). In response, Plaintiff provided its “firehose” data—t.e., a live
feed of data concerning public accounts on Plaintiff's platform. Defendants then
provided Plaintiffs firehose data to the Data Scientists, who conducted a
“preliminary analysis” of that data. Based expressly in part on that preliminary
analysis, Defendants terminated the Merger Agreement on July 8, 2022. Plaintiff
filed suit, and Defendants responded with counterclaims that reference analyses
performed by the Data Scientists (with the preliminary analysis, the “Analyses”) at
least eight times.
August 25, 2022 Order on Plaintiffs Second Discovery Motion at 2 (footnotes omitted).
Consistent with the Order, Defendants or their advisors (who have been subpoenaed) will produce
the Analyses, together with documents and communications and drafts concerning the Analyses
that do not contain any work product. If Defendants withhold any such documents,
communications, or drafts on the basis that they contain or reflect work product, Defendants will
provide a log.
IL. Plaintiff's August 30, 2022 Letter
A, Defendants’ Text Message Production
Defendants disagree with any suggestion that their collection, review, or production of text
messages has been mm any way deficient. At Plaintiffs request, Defendants conducted a linear
review of all text messages with any contact sent or received between May 3, 2022 and May 16,
2022, a counterparty-specific linear review, and a review of text messages that hit on agreed-upon
search terms. At Plaintiff's request, Defendants also reviewed all texts within an agreed-upon
buffer period. After conducting this extensive review, Defendants produced over 1200 text
messages from Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall. Defendants’ document production—and, specifically,
Defendants’ production of text messages—was substantially complete as of August 29. Plaintiffs
accusations that there are “yust four text messages” on a certain day or “zero text messages” during
a certain time period, in addition to being inaccurate, provide no support for Plaintiff's suggestion
that there are responsive texts that Defendants have failed to produce. !
Nevertheless, Defendants will investigate Plaintiff's complaints and, in the event any
responsive texts are found to have been inadvertently withheld, they will be produced promptly.
Defendants will also produce any text messages between Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall that were
previously produced from the custodial files of one and not the other, although we confirm that
Plaintiff has at least one copy of every such text.
B. Defendants’ Rate of Production
As to your second point, Defendants have reviewed over 49,000 custodial documents after
threading and deduping. During the course of our early meet and confers, we repeatedly advised
you that Plaintiff's search terms were not weil tailored to result in the likely identification of non-
duplicative responsive documents. The fact that our good faith observations were borne out by
' Defendants did, in fact, produce text messages from May 11, 2022.
Page 2 of 3Page 63 the review should not be the basis for negative inferences. Nor is it surprising, given what we told
you.
To take your example of the search string “Mdau* OR MAU* OR Dau* OR UAM OR
mMAU,” Defendants’ review of documents hit on by that term revealed a significant number of
irrelevant, nonresponsive hits, including unsolicited e-mails asking Mr. Musk for money, e-mails
containing the word “daughter,” and image files that the keyword search tool reads as random
strings of characters, which are likely to hit on short search terms with a wildcard at the end, like
MAU* or Dau*. Other irrelevant, nonresponsive hits include employee rosters or other documents
that contain employee names that hit on one or more of the common names Plaintiff requested as
search terms, such as Martha*, Bret*, Taylor*, Jack*, and Marty*.
Further, we fail to understand why a responsiveness rate of “less than half’ could be
incomprehensible to you, given that your own review of documents hitting on the term “mDAU”
(without a wildcard at the end) resulted in the exclusion of 76% of those documents from
production. Indeed, such a substantial exclusion is far more surprising from Twitter, which
uses the term “mDAU” extensively within its organization, than it is from Defendants.
Notwithstanding the above, you misstate our production figures by nearly 25%, since
Defendants had in fact produced 2,065 documents as of August 29, 2022 (the date preceding that
of your letter). Your calculations are therefore incorrect.
Cc. Defendants’ Interrogatory Responses
While Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ supplemental responses “identified only
persons and entities Twitter already knew had relevant knowledge, and thus disclosed nothing,”
Plaintiff is now asking Defendants to supplement their interrogatory responses based on text
messages and other documents already within Plaintiff's possession. Such supplements will,
again, disclose nothing new. Further, while you suggest Defendants “omitted... Michael Kives
of K5 Global,” Mr. Kives and his affiliation with K5 Global are clearly disclosed in Defendants’
interrogatory responses. See Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. |.
In any event, together with this letter, Defendants will serve amended interrogatory
responses that Defendants trust will resolve Plaintiffs concems.
Defendants reserve all rights. We are available to discuss upon request.
Very truly yours,
/s/ David Mader
David Mader
Page 3 of 3Page 64 Exhibit EPage 65 From: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:49 PM
To: Wilson, Bradley R.
Cc: Silpa Maruri; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossman; Alex Spiro; Christopher Kercher; David
Mader; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP); Rosenello,
Lauren N; Matthew Fox; Kirk, David E; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP); Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP); Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC); Sorrels, Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
PC); Savitt, William D.; Eddy, Sarah K; McLeod, Ryan A; Reddy, Anitha; Yavitz, Noah B.;
Goodman, Adam L; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
Attachments: 2022.08.30 Mader Letter.pdf
Counsel:
On behalf of Defendants, please see the attached correspondence.
Regards,
Kate
Kathryn Bonacorsi
Associate
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-849-7312 Direct
212-849-7000 Main Office Number
212-849-7100 FAX
kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com
www. quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential, If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this decument in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.Page 66 CLULTERED GOVAAEVOIEL triatiawvers | new york
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York rooro-i6ar | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
WRiITER’S DIRECT DIAL No.
(212) 849-7148
WRITER’S EMAIL ADDRESS
davidmader@quinnemanuel.com
August 30, 2022
Via E-MAIL
BRWILSON@WLRK.COM
Bradley R. Wilson, Esq.
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
Re: Twitter, Inc. v. Elon R. Musk, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSIM (Del. Ch.)
Dear Counsel:
Yesterday at 4:05 p.m. Twitter represented that it had substantially completed its document
production. Twitter’s productions, however, reveal clear deficiencies that must be remedied
immediately. We are continuing our review of Twitter’s productions, including the more than
80,000 pages that Twitter has produced in the last two days afone, and we reserve our rights to
raise additional deficiencies. We nevertheless give notice of the following deficiencies that must
be rectified immediately.
First, it appears that Twitter is either withholding obviously relevant and responsive
documents or has not in fact made a “substantially complete” production. For example, a
comparison between Twitter’s search term results and the materials it has produced reveal
numerous obvious gaps in Twitter’s production, including the following:
1. Twitter has produced only 4,144 documents hitting on the term “mDAU,” even though,
according to Twitter’s hit count, 17,527 documents hit on that term. It is highly
implausible that 76% of the documents hitting on the term “mDAU” fall outside the scope
of what Twitter has agreed to produce, which includes “(1) Board-level documents
concerning mDAU; (2) management-level documents concerning mDAU; (3) documents
concerning Twitter’s belief that mDAU is a key metric for Twitter, (4) documents
concerning Twitter’s disclosure of its mDAU metric; (5) documents concerning Twitter's
spam-estimation process for the fourth quarter of 2021; (6) documents concerning the
relationship between mDAU and Twitter’s revenue or EBITDA; (7) Twitter’s recast of its
mDAU on April 28, 2022; (8) Twitter's criteria for determining whether an account is
quinn emmanuel Urquhart & sullivan, fp
ATLANTA | AUSTIN | BOSTON | BRUSSELS | CHICAGO | DOHA | HAMBURG | HONG KONG | HOUSTON | LONDON | LOS ANGELES | MANNHEIM |
MIAMI f MUNICH | NEWILLY-LA DEFENSE { NEW YORK ] PARIS} PERTH | RIYADH | SALT LAKE CITY | SAN FRANCISCO [| SEATTLE | SHANGHAI |
SILICON VALLEY | STUTTGART | SYDNEY | TOKYO | WASHINGTON, DC | ZURICHPage 67 included in mDAU; (9) documents relating to the impact of mDAU on Twitter’s
performance metrics; and (10) communications with advertisers regarding the importance
of mDAU and its impact on performance metrics.” Please describe what nonprivileged
documents Twitter has that use the term mDAU and which are being withheld as non-
responsive.
2. Twitter has produced only 817 documents hitting on the term “UAM,” even though,
according to Twitter’s hit count, 5,679 documents hit on that term. This tiny production is
staggering, particularly given that the Court has ordered Twitter to produce all documents
in Twitter’s review database “reflecting discussion of any other key metric identified by
Defendants.” Indeed, even under Twitter’s narrower articulation of responsiveness, which
the Court has rejected, it is implausible that over 85% of documents containing the phrase
“UAM” do not “relate to Twitter’s belief that mDAU, and its related growth, is a key
metric Twitter uses to measure success against its objectives and to show the size of its
audience and engagement” or that those documents do not involve a comparison between
the relative importance of mDAU and UAM. Please confirm when you intend to remedy
this deficiency, which is in violation of the Court’s August 25 Order.
3. Twitter has produced only 130 documents hitting on the term “stickiness,” even though,
according to Twitter’s hit count, 945 documents hit on that term. Once again, it would be
remarkable if more than 85% of the documents hitting on the term “stickiness”—-which is
a measure Twitter uses to measure the engagement levels of its mDAU—would not “relate
to Twitter’s belief that mDAU, and its related growth, is a key metric Twitter uses to
measure success against its objectives and to show the size of its audience and
engagement.” Please explain the basis on which you have withheld more than eight
hundred documents relating to this relevant term.
4. Twitter has preduced only 107 documents hitting on the term “TYTT”—which is an
acronym for “too young te tell,” a phrase used to describe users counted in mDAU that are
too new to be served any ads—even though, according to Twitter’s hit count, 289
documents hit on that term. It is facially implausible that more than 50% of the documents
hitting on the term “TYTT” would not “reflect[] Twitter’s knowledge or awareness that its
mDAU count includes accounts that were not served or rendered any ads on one or more
days when said accounts were included in the mDAU count.”
Further demonstrating the deficiency in Twitter’s production, Twitter has to date produced
fewer than 100 documents total from its 23 Cognizant custodians. It is simply not believable that
more than twenty individual document custodians would collectively produce fewer than 100
documents, suggesting either that Twitter has not substantially completed its production of
documents from the custodian files of these individuals, or that Twitter has not adequately located
all sources of responsive materials for these custodians, or that Twitter has withheld relevant
documents. So that we may more comprehensively assess the deficiency in Twitter’s production
with respect to these custodians, please provide hit counts for each and identify the total number
of documents collected from each. Please also confirm when Twitter was first aware of the hit
counts for these twenty-one custodians, and please describe the steps yon have taken to identify
relevant sources of responsive materials for each, including the identification of non-email sourcesPage 68 of relevant materials (e.g., Slack, email, text). Finally, we note that if there are in fact only 100
responsive documents from the Cognizant custodians, it is disturbing that in opposing Defendants’
motion to compel on custodians Twitter touted its addition of these custodians without informing
the Court that they only possessed a de minimis number of responsive documents.
Second, as we have already indicated, the volume of materials Twitter produced in the
hours and days immediately preceding the substantial completion deadline demonstrates a
manifest failure by Twitter to comply with its obligations under the Scheduling Order. As of the
substantial completion deadline, Twitter had produced approximately 41,000 documents. Of
those, more than 18,000 documents—representing more than 40% of the total production—were
produced within one hour of the substantial completion deadline. More than 25,000 documents—
representing approximately 60% of Twitter’s total production—were produced on or after
Saturday, August 27, two days before the substantial completion deadline. Moreover, Twitter
appears to have intentionally held back many of the most relevant documents in its production
until the end of the substantial completion period. For example, over 60% of the documents
produced by Twitter that hit on the search term “mDAU,” 80% of the documents that hit on the
search term “UAM,” 91% of the documents that hit on the search term “Stickiness,” and 96% of
the documents that hit on the search term “TYTT” were produced less that one hour before the
substantial completion deadline. These delayed productions suggests that Twitter is attempting to
deprive Defendants of a reasonable opportunity to review Twitter’s documents in advance of
depositions. We reserve all rights.
Third, with respect to the documents of Mr. Egon Durban in particular, Twitter’s
production contains only 10 custodial documents—none of them e-mails—and has produced fewer
than 100 e-mails to or from Mr. Durban, all from the custodial files of other custodians. The
production of only four e-mails sent by a document custodian is cause for concern, and it suggests
that Mr. Durban was using other forms of communications to discuss the matters at issue in this
litigation. Accordingly, we reiterate our earlier request that Twitter agree to produce text and other
non-email messages for Mr. Durban. To the extent Twitter continues to refuse to produce Mr.
Durban’s texts and other non-email messages, please confirm that Mr. Durban’s texts and other
messages are in fact within Twitter’s possession, custody, and control. Given that Twitter has
previously agreed to collect documents from Mr, Durban’s non-Twitter e-mail account, we assume
that they are.
Finally, Twitter’s productions raise significant concems regarding the manner in which
Twitter has collected responsive materials. For example, Twitter has applied inappropriate
responsiveness redactions in contexts where responsiveness is apparent. Twitter has produced a
Slack Channel titled “tmp-uam-discussions,” (TWTR_ 000079793) which was explicitly set up to
“consolidate[e] the various questions about UAM as a goaling metric for initiatives.” Obviously,
the entire substantive content of this channel is highly relevant to Defendants’ counterclaims, yet
more than half of the communications in this channel have been redacted as purportedly non-
responsive. Although Defendants agreed to allow Twitter to redact portions of large Slack
conversations that did not hit on any search terms (and were not in close proximity to any search
terms), Defendants have not agreed to allow Twitter to intentionally withhold responsive
information, The same is true of the “tundra-deal-team’” Slack Channel (TWTR_000079519),
which likewise has dozens of pages of communications redacted as non-responsive despite thePage 69 obvious relevance of the entire Slack Channel. Please confirm that you will produce these
Channels without redaction.
In addition to Twitter’s inappropriate responsiveness redactions, Twitter has produced, to
date, only a handful of text messages in the form of screen shots, suggesting that Twitter has not
conducted a forensically comprehensive collection and review of its custodians text
messages. Please confirm that Twitter has collected all text messages from, at the very least,
Twitter’s six agreed text custodians, and that Twitter has reviewed all of those texts according to
its proposed August 23, 2022 protocol. If Twitter has not done so, please immediately explain
why it has not. Please confirm whether Twitter has completed its production of text messages. If
not, please explain why it has not, identify the custodians whose text messages have not been
produced, and state when the production of text messages will be complete. Defendants of course
reserve all rights, including the right to postpone depositions and/or seek relief from the Court.
Given the existing discovery schedule, Defendants request answers to the points raised
above by the close of business tomorrow.
Very truly yours,
David MaderPage 70 Exhibit FPage 71 From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 11:07 PM
To: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Cc: Silpa Maruri; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossman; Alex Spiro; Christopher Kercher; David
Mader; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP); Rosenello,
Lauren N; Matthew Fox; Kirk, David E.; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP); Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP); Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC); Sorrels, Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
PC); Savitt, William D.; Eddy, Sarah K,; McLeod, Ryan A.; Reddy, Anitha; Yavitz, Noah B,;
Goodman, Adam L,; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
[EXTERNAL EMAIL from brwilson@wirk.com]
Counsel,
We write in partial response to your August 30 letter.
In that letter, defendants raise concerns about certain redactions for responsiveness in Slack channels
titled “tmp-uam-discussions” and “tundra-deal-team.”
e® As to the tmp-uam-discussions Slack channel, because Twitter conducted its review of this
document before the Court’s Order on Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion, not all messages
discussing the UAM metric were identified as responsive by the reviewers. We advised you of this
issue in an email sent on August 25, and offered to re-review any Slack channels we had gathered
that contained the term “UAM” (among other terms) and modify the responsiveness redactions to
take account of the Court’s Order. However, we explained in that email that “[o]ur willingness to
do this is subject to the condition that it be understood that changing our responsiveness criteria
for Slack messages in the midst of our review will result in Twitter producing a smaller number of
Slack messages prior to the substantial completion deadline,” and accordingly asked defendants to
“let us know by tomorrow [i.e. August 26] whether defendants would like us to re-review Slack
messages in this manner.” Defendants did not get back to us on this inquiry, and thus Twitter
produced this Slack channel without undertaking the re-review it had offered. Nevertheless, we
have now re-reviewed the tmp-uam-discussions Slack channel in light of your letter, and we are
producing this evening a replacement version that takes account of the Court's Order.
e We likewise undertook to re-review the tundra-deal-team Slack channel after receiving your
letter. Having done so, we agree that given the subject matter of the Slack channel, the
responsiveness redactions were applied in error. We are therefore producing this evening a
replacement version that will contain only privilege-based redactions.
We will endeavor to respond to the other issues raised in your August 30 letter tomorrow, as we
previously advised.
Regards,
BradPage 72 From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:24 AM
To: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Cc: Silpa Maruri ; Emily Kapur ; Rossman, Andrew
J. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Alex Spiro ; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Mader, David S. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) ; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Matthew Fox ; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP) ; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha :
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
Counsel,
We are preparing a response to your August 30 letter. We expect to send it tomorrow.
Regards,
Brad
From: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:49 PM
To: Wilson, Bradley R.
Ce: Silpa Maruri ; Emily Kapur ; Rossman, Andrew
J, (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Alex Spiro ; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Mader, David S. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) ; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Matthew Fox ; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP) ; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) : Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha ;
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
*F* EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
Counsel:
On behalf of Defendants, please see the attached correspondence.Page 73 Regards,
Kate
Kathryn Bonacorsi
Associate
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-849-7312 Direct
212-849-7000 Main Office Number
212-849-7100 FAX
kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com
www.guinnemanuel.com
NOTICE; The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message,
Please be advised that this transmittal may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail (helpdesk@wirk.com) or by
telephone (call us collect at 212-403-4357) and delete this message and any attachments.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance.Page 74 Exhibit GPage 75 From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 9:01 PM
To: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Ca Silpa Maruri; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossrnan; Alex Spiro; Christopher Kercher; David
Mader; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP); Rosenello,
Lauren N; Matthew Fox; Kirk, David E.; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP); Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP); Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC); Sorrels, Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
PC); Savitt, William D, Eddy, Sarah K.; McLeod, Ryan A,; Reddy, Anitha; Yavitz, Noah B.;
Goodman, Adam L,; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
Attachments: BRW letter to David S. Mader (9.2.2022).pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL from brwilson@wirk.com]
Counsel,
Please see the attached letter.
Regards,
Brad
From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 11:07 PM
To: ‘Kathryn Bonacorsi'
Ce: 'Silpa Maruri' ; ‘Emily Kapur’ ; Rossman,
Andrew J. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; 'Alex Spiro' ; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Mader, David S, (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) ; 'Rosenello, Lauren N' ; 'Matthew Fox’ ; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP) ; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D, (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha ;
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L, ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v, Musk
Counsel,
We write in partial response to your August 30 letter.
In that letter, defendants raise concerns about certain redactions for responsiveness in Slack channels
titled “tmp-uam-discussions” and “tundra-deal-team.”Page 76 e As to the tmp-uam-discussions Slack channel, because Twitter conducted its review of this
document before the Court’s Order on Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion, not all messages
discussing the UAM metric were identified as responsive by the reviewers. We advised you of this
issue in an email sent on August 25, and offered to re-review any Slack channels we had gathered
that contained the term “UAM” (among other terms) and modify the responsiveness redactions to
take account of the Court’s Order. However, we explained in that email that “[o]ur willingness to
do this is subject to the condition that it be understood that changing our responsiveness criteria
for Slack messages in the midst of our review will result in Twitter producing a smaller number of
Slack messages prior to the substantial completion deadline,” and accordingly asked defendants to
“let us know by tomorrow [i.e. August 26] whether defendants would like us to re-review Slack
messages in this manner.” Defendants did not get back to us on this inquiry, and thus Twitter
produced this Slack channel without undertaking the re-review it had offered. Nevertheless, we
have now re-reviewed the tmp-uam-discussions Slack channel] in light of your letter, and we are
producing this evening a replacement version that takes account of the Court’s Order.
e We likewise undertook to re-review the tundra-deal-team Slack channel after receiving your
letter. Having done so, we agree that given the subject matter of the Slack channel, the
responsiveness redactions were applied in error. We are therefore producing this evening a
replacement version that will contain only privilege-based redactions.
We will endeavor to respond to the other issues raised in your August 30 letter tomorrow, as we
previously advised.
Regards,
Brad
From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:24 AM
To: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Cc: Silpa Maruri ; Emily Kapur ; Rossman, Andrew
J. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Alex Spiro ; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Mader, David S. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) ; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Matthew Fox ; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP} ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP) ; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha ;
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
Counsel,
We are preparing a response to your August 30 letter. We expect to send it tomorrow.
Regards,
BradPage 77 From: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:49 PM
To: Wilson, Bradley R.
Ce: Silpa Maruri ; Emily Kapur ; Rossman, Andrew
J. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Alex Spiro ; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Mader, David S. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) ; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Matthew Fox ; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP) ; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha ;
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
We turn now to the specific deficiencies that your letter identified:
First, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents containing the term
“mDAU,” your statement in the August 30 letter that only 4,144 documents containing this term
were deemed responsive is inaccurate, Twitter has produced more than 4,600 documents that
contain the term “mDAU.” Your calculation also fails to account for documents Twitter is
withholding on privilege grounds, which will be reflected on Twitter’s forthcoming privilege log.
The reality is that Twitter has deemed responsive more than 40% of the
documents that contain this term. This responsiveness rate aligns with reasonable expectations:
Given the Court’s Order on Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion, not all documents that
reference the term “mDAU” are required to be produced.
To test Twitter’s responsiveness determinations on documents containing the term
“mDAU,” we reviewed a random sampling of documents contaimng that term that had been
coded non-responsive. Most of the documents in the sample had been properly designated, but
the sample did include a small number of documents that, although immaterial, are technically
responsive. We are investigating this issue further and will provide an update over the weekend.
Second, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents containing the term
“UAM,” your letter was premature. Twitter expects to produce by tomorrow a significant
number of additional “UAM” documents, in accordance with the Court’s Order on Defendants’
Second Discovery Motion.
Third, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents containing the term
“stickiness,” we expect that additional documents containing this term will be produced by
tomorrow as part of Twitter’s production of documents in response to the Court’s Order on
Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion.
Fourth, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents containing the term
“TYTT,” your understanding of this acronym is mistaken: It does not refer to accounts that “are
too new to be served any ads.” Aug. 30 Letter at 2, As you know, defendants served a specific
document request targeting TYTT accounts. In its response to this request, Twitter agreed to
produce non-privileged documents that concer the “treatment of TYTT accounts in connection
with the mDAU Audit for Q4 2021, or the actual or potential discussion of TYTT accounts with
Defendants in connection with the Merger Agreement.” See Response to Request No. 1,
Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendants’ Revised Second Requests for Production ofPage 81 WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & Katz
David S$. Mader, Esq.
September 2, 2022
Page 3
Documents Directed to Twitter, Inc. (Aug. 19, 2022). Twitter has endeavored to produce such
documents, and defendants have made no colorable showing that the production is deficient.
Fifth, with regard to the “Cognizant custodians”——whose emails were searched
for the period November 1, 2021 to January 14, 2022, in accordance with our agreement on the
email search protocol—our calculations indicate that Twitter has produced approximately 260
documents from their files, out of a total of approximately 4,600 such documents in the review
population. Insofar as these individuals’ work on the mDAU Audit was only a small portion of
the work they did for Twitter, these figures are not entirely surprising. Nevertheless, Twitter is
investigating this issue further and will revert in prompt due course.
In response to your inquities regarding non-email document sources for these
custodians, as you know, Twitter did not agree to collect or review Slack messages or text
messages for the Cognizant custodians, This issue is currently pending before the Court as it
pertains to Slack messages.
Sixth, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents from Mr. Durban’s Silver
Lake email account, your letter was premature. Twitter has now substantially completed its
production of documents from that email account.
We do not agree to add Mr, Durban as a Messaging Platform Custodian and
review and produce his text messages. As you know, we reached an impasse on that issue more
than a week ago.
Finally, we do not understand the basis for the assertion in your letter that Twitter
has produced only a “handful” of texts. Twitter has produced hundreds of text messages from its
Messaging Platform Custodians, ali in accordance with Twitter’s August 23 Message Protocol.
Twitter expects to make a final production of text messages from these custodians tomorrow.!
Sincerely,
fyb he [how
Bradley R. Wilson
} We responded separately yesterday to the concerns you raised in the August 30 letter
about certain Slack channels in Twitter’s production.Page 82 Exhibit HPage 83 WeaA
(LSD) THSETZ Pe-TO-2z0z
pd}! AJLUIPIOOI WAY] AACY OF SUILU OG U! B/qe|IEAe NoA aly alqeua-s/ ued
NOA usyy PUe LU! NOA Jay [LIM YIM JUNIE INGA JO} WAZ [12 AUIGesIp Agi xy ues AeyL, pexn
(153) 60:85:02 7Z-T0-ZZ0Z
23! SJEUIPIOOD WAY] BABY OF SUIL OG Ul a[qe[IeAe NoA vty VW ajqeua
“34 UPD NOA UB] PUR UI NOA 33] [JIM Y2IYM JunoIe sNOA 305 YAz |e SUNGesIp Agi xij ue AayL
(189) EE:25:02 PZ-LO-ZZ07
(
Has SBUIIIS X8|V
yead yO
(189) LEBEOZ VZ-TO-Zz0z
aw & Uodn eouo ‘mau au] AjaA 0} auoYd plo JNOA pasn am auNsse |
(LSD) 6S:¥T-02 ¥2-L0-¢z07z
| EE 2241195 21
Mou Aqayes 3g ISML JO Peay slay? YM Sureuuo}
(15D) 71-02 7Z-TO-Z2z0z
(
HAS “( SdUl||DS X81
a B
"apo
dnyseq ayl asn 2,upip | se ‘aud mau SILA UO JOM atm | BYEW 07 B/Ge SEM | MOY ans JON
(159) 8E°ET:OzZ v2-LO-Zz0z
Appaiip suijese4 oy AddeY
(183) 82:50:02 7Z-LO-2z0z
“71 YENI SUDLOM aue Aay | “SWesy sau Aq siy7 3%!| saZUBYI BYEW O} pley
Aran UI apew aa,Aauy os asayz JdA0 Aypeutaqul ajyord Ysiy patapisuod s| JuNOIIe INOA UpIL
(159) SS:€0:02 72-L0-Zz0z
lua|goid 2 (jas yi Way) YIM BWIYS2ey Os|e UeD |
(LSD) Le LZ6T PZ-10-2202
pood spunos
(183) 9E‘TZ:6T vZ-TO-2Z0Z
sauly|aS X3[V
a 2
=: ES 224s ew
| ee - CC eS
(
| a HE «2015 x21
(
ES»: <2 25201
{
a .-: EE «2495.21
a 5204S XIV
MOU azepdn ve JO} Susy “UOOS SIS OF WAZ INOA
yasas euuod Ajjnyadoy ase Au pue (YEY)AQUaD! AW WuyUOd 0} LUeY3 YIM PSull1adk3 - SA
(15D) £0:BT:6L vZ-TO-2Z0Z
JaTUM | {Nod 0} ssaa3e peY [9S NOA ainsua 0} 93949 0} PaIWEM ING JdWARe JOWWeIS E SI S14
Suluuinssy “sjlewWa Jase/ puomssed uszop e pue lela UOReADeSp BUD Bas | ING Sunsod JON
(159) TE*6T-€t TZ-TO-ZZ07
| CO
(
A EE
eduiujAue dursod Junosse 457M} AW 5|
(1S) BS:ZT-€% Lz-ToO-Ecoz
sidwiaye sjasad piomssed swios duipnpu|
‘weds Ul pjay S|IPUe Jo Jaquunu e Mes | 240 JUNODIe JADIM LINDA ssaoJe 0 alge NOA ase - UO}Z
(15D) ES:60:E2 TZ-L0-Zz0zPage 84 SBIDEIS OUOIUY
“SSaUXJEP BY} 02150] Be 9M JO SAA] Ind WJM Puajap Sulyany 0} peau
am ajdiouud esi siyy "Jey JOWeU! OU SassalyewW BuyINY ayy OL “UO[Y NOA LAIM %OOT WE |
(13) O€°LT"20 SO-£0-ZZ0Z
| s
|, Papaau BW!LaIe4 ON “a|Geua-as PUP UI UBS Ajayelpawiu! Ud NOA
UBU] pue y4Z alqesip Aaya aau0 UL UBIs 0} Nod Bunxe3 Isnl WW,} Alje=spl Ply “Pood spunos, Payxr
(1$D) 82:85:12 PZ-LO-ZZ02
| EE £24415 217
“papaau sul |aIe4 ON ‘a|qeua-a pue ul ues Ajajelpauutu! ued
NoA ualy pue y3zZ a[qesip Aayy aauo U! UBIs OF NOA Sulyxay ysnf w,| A[/Bep! Puy “Pood spunos
(LSD) S#:Ov'TZ pZ-L0-2z07
es
2g pasu J! Way} au jaaey 0} Ayatig |/29 242 Yo days ued | Ing
(159) 80:SE:1Z ve-T0-2z0z
JLNSQISNOSD ATHOIRPage 85 a]Epsuo7 aor
) a}2psuo7 sor
a | °: EE 5-12-25 o1woay
—I——, 2:
Soe
zz
eee
SEIEIDH OIUOIUY
men EE «2225 cay
Bap! Susaiaqul Jadns
(103) 70-85-02 97-£0-7z0z
“JeTIM] OF pauaddey Sey JEYUM 0} JUAl|ISaJ 531 OS JUS BUOP Sq O} Sey YSN! 4! Jom payesyjdwo.
3Us! SIY] “paysee sg [1M 1 3) pulyaq Aue pazljejueo eB sey 41 J) “}OQUOD pue soUaN|U! OF
Ad] [JIM SJaSTUSAPE PU SJUSLWULISAOS JEU] BAJE SIBLINS BABY NOA asIMUsUIO "jepOW BuisiusApe
Ue BABY 3,Ue3 3 “SUOp Sey [URIS JEYM dy] JIG VY “Ul SeQuUeApe AlLO ‘[oI0jO1d BLA UMO
7,US0p Jey} SHOs JO UONepUNo e Aq papuny ‘}o20}01d aaunos Uado Ue aq ISNW! UI aAaljaq |
(LO3) TE:ZS:0Z 9Z-E0-Zz0z
spel pel
ye] | Ayn si siuy *Auedwos @ aq 3,Ue9}| ‘papssu si Wuopeld mau eB ‘sa,
(19) OD:ZT!ST 9Z-£0-2207
a/Epsuoy aor
iMONGN103 UAPPIY SI MOU USL BABY aM JeUM,, PBACT
(103) ZE:ZT:ET Z-E0-ZzZ0z
32S
jUodnu02 Uapply si mou YSU aveU am Jeu,
(LOD) TEZTET pe-E0-7702
des
Ajainjosay
(109) ST:ZT:ET ¥2-£0-ZZ0Z
dss
« G|Y4ssosuad Ayrjays AIeIVIqIe BABY JOU O} paau sasenbs ayqnd ing -(: sjashw
Azes9 $$3] PUNOS ||,| OS NOA SUI UED| MON "4282 Bq AZeID UW! Suiusiay Joy Sulysnd w,| seap!
BY} JO BUO S! SIU] pue jeasjad Adi|od GOD ay} Je MOLOWWO} SSB18U03 JO SJaquiaw OT Jano
0} dulyeads Ajjenqe w,|-1aaM] ,201Nos vado aq pjnoys WYIJos]e Jay, JNOA BAq] |,, Pax
(109) TEZT:€L $2-£0-2202
xx jdjay 0} FuiuyAue op |]M | “Wisi-ayom JYBY
0} SUILIALUOS OP Op asea|d “PiJOM Jy} SuAIaJUI SI 11YS SIU} Puy “ajeIs SAIssewW e UO Suaauisua
Je190s Joy sjea1pes Aq pasn dulaq 51 pue yojdxa oj Asea AUSASAljng ‘aya YO! yy UeY Suipueys
PYOM-\E21 S1OWW Sey OS PU “WOpe|d |el30s e se ||aM SE Wea1s SMa E Os|e S31 asNeIaq
“JETIM] SI Je 40 1SJOM ayy pue ‘aj!| Wapow Jo aBynoIs |yj SI eIPSW |BIDOS YUU AQseuay |
(Ld) OS:TO:EL Fe-€0-7Z0Z
‘diyssosuaa Ays}ays AIBIGJe BABY JOU 0} paau sajenbs 31\qnd ing
*(: yjasAw Azes9 ssa] punos||,, os nOAay2 ued] MON “YIa} Big AzeI9 wi Suljusiss Joy Suiysnd
LW, | SPAP! BU} JO Aud SI SI] pUe eaqa! ADIJOd {OS Su} Je MOOWO} ssatTUOD JO SJBqLUALU OOT
J8A0 0} Bupjeads Ajjen}re WwW, - JaaM4 ,22INOs Usdo aq pjnoys WY WORE seQIML,, INCA BAg] |
(103) 90:25°2T pZ-E0-Z20z
#85
, eypaads-aayy Aj|PSIPes }1 ayewW pue Jay Ang noA ued IO, payn
(109) T2:2S:2T p2-€0-ZZ07Z
#125
xX ydaads 33.1 Yoddns Ayedoid 0} 1 aBueys pue y Ang aqAely
(LOD) PE:ZS°2T #e-E0-2207
TL
xX JETUIM| Woy sawos Ayipidnys yon as
(Lad) 6:S+:2T 7Z-E0-ZZ20Z
iL
eysaads-aauy Al/eo!/ped 21 SyEW Pue JaWIML Ang NoA Wed 19
(LOD) ZO:Sb-2T p2-E0-Z202
mh
gJE2|ueqInd os awosaq suoAaAa sey AY/, “ayof Suan
B SEM “AepO} 7 Jnoge Jue} alam | pue yedley -Azeso si uolsuadsns 103 sag UO|Aqeg BY
(Ld9) BEEv-2T PZ-E0-Z20Z
iL
“ANVSNI Sulod si equawy
(L039) OF:0¥-2T 7Z-£0-Z20Z
Xx gjeseald ‘I ajejap uey) pue JaqIMy Ang nod ueD
(LGD) OZ:6E*ZT v2-E0-Zc02
iL
BS
2 SSBUJJEP SY} 0} 150] VE OM JO SaAl| JNO YIM puajap AuLjIN! 0 paau am ajdiauid
251 Siu" JEYUM JaQewW OU SasseuyeU AUIYIN BY} OL ‘UO]A NOA LAIM %OOT WE |,, PAA]
(LSD) SG:ZT:Z0 SO-£0-Z202
“payoxe Sunied we | Suueams ayy joy Alias
(183) BE:ZT-20 SO-E0-zZz0z
N3dISZNOD ATHSIHPage 86 es .:: a ==
a o's. 13g AODWON
JaLIM] eye ueqing uosy
BE) 25 seed
a 22142 wg AQQWON
JayUM CULE i) Yeqing u083
} wost||3 Ae7
2s I eeo27G 483
{
uosi|}y Ae]
ueging uoz3
=a
ES » =; I 0 2011 1033
Has yoel 932!
1S EE 202
48S yoe! ae!
15 I 0722
42S JojAeL alg | 2° 4e13=2
Aep je ajqixa}y [am se ABpol nos YM yeads 0} Jaded 5! 84 MouY | pue dele”
ytiMm yo 103 Isnp Aepo} yeads 07 aynuiw e sAeYy NOA UaYM MOLY BWW IS] “JO|Ae| Je4g SI SIU] |
(LOD) OZ:ET:ST £2-£0-220Z
4198S
uosy SyUeUL
(LD) §S:TO:ST £Z-E0-7202
GsAep Maj IxXau SUOP S1Yt yes ueDaMacdel “AjyIINb pueMoy siyy aAOW
UBD BM Os Way} JO Saly} MIEYD 0} NOA JO} S| dejsX9N “p4EOq UO PUE PaA[OAU! duraq noA
jo yadsod jnoge payjoxa suoAJaAa-UO]Z “NOAM SUOWeSsJeAUOD Aw uo payag slay “uo
M payauvon ae no, - (AQ8 Jo peay) EYWeW pue (UeWIJeYD) Jag (08D) Fee BuoAlBAS I}
(La9) ZT:TO:ST £2-£0-2Z07
125 2! pel! poe! pe!
‘AJOW SSNIS|P UBD /\ ‘dN JSS PJEH “SBJEYs SSe/D [ENP OU PUe ‘Auedwos
JO %€ PUe ‘BOA aU peyY AjUO | Ing ‘spleMypeq pue pidnys Ajayajdwos sem 1Yysnoyy | yoy
*qsL aJOLU Se NOA AUIPpe Mes PUP BSJBAE 4S] Jadns ysnl si pleog au SI UOSead U/W 343 4UIL|
(LOD) ES:TS'TZ 9Z-€0-27207
ere Ee
SINUIW e JO} UE ING JauUIp OF [NO peay 01 1Nog
(Lad) OS:8E: Te 9Z-E0-7z0z
4198S
23/E] 0] JuaWOW e BABY NOA og
(Ld) 65:VE:TZ 9Z-E0-ZZ07
HS
, BU JO} SEM }] SE PAY SE ‘SAea| 01 YOM 0} papaal | paploap | awh
yz Inoge s,1eu) ‘OU ples pueog ino pue ‘pseog ino Uo NOA Jad Od Jsepsey AW Ped | ‘Ut eu0a
ISIANDE 34} Poy am UAYM y2eg “SAEM a]qesnseswiW! UI djay yap pjnod puke ‘aoueyodtu! $4)
483 “yon os aze9 NOA asnesaq “UEAp |]E SEM | JaYe 1 INOGE NOA YAIM [23 03 PSIUEM |,, POAC]
{L09) ZPOZ TZ 9Z-E0-220Z
a
“BW JO} Sem Ul SE PJEY SE ‘aARs| OF 410M OF pspssu | pap|jap
| BWI SUL INOge Sey! “OU ples pyeog sno pue ‘pjeoq ino uo noA ag oO} Jsapsey AW pals | ‘UL
|WOD ISIAQIe aU] pey am Uday xorg “Shem aigesnseawuu! Ul djay Jap pjnod pue ‘aquepyodwi
11193 ‘yan os aue2 noA asnezaq “Iea/> |/2 SEM | Jaze P ynoge NOA ULIM ¥/22.02 pa]UeM |
(109) EZ: €0: LZ 9Z-E0-Zz02
Jaujdoq seiyiey|
‘AOBNOWSP OF UONNGLIUOD JES Bag PINoM
"yoaads aauj Jo Wojeyd anu 2 Ysijqeyse puy “NOA Joy 4 UN ayy en Ang noA 3,uOp AY
(LOD) LE-vStyT OF-EO-Z20Z
SeIed
ésAep Jo ajdnos }xeu Sy Ul Ess
Aeg au} Ul }8SW OL age ale NOA UaYyM MOLY SN Ja] NOA UeD jUGOS FUNeSW O} PBNUJ 4007
(LQ3) 9Z:2Z:TT OF-E0-ZZ0Z
ues
gABUOW JO SJUNoWe agny arey ay se0q
(La3) Zev2:TZ 62-£0-2Z02
AOQHWON JavImy EYL
(1 aaey noA
Jey | SE 3]qUOU 00} JOU plAoa adoy osje) adoung ul Ww] - aw BAeY MOA USM Jey B SABY OF
uaay - Seted pue 1asg 0} pay[e} 3A,NOA MoU --AOSWOU Jey] JO JIEYS EYWe|! W,| ‘Uoly AayH
(LOD) OO-EE:TT 6Z-E0-ZZ0Z
a ED SVee IM
a : 2s sve
"JBUaIS UO Say pu ee - $] JAQUUNU SY ‘WONSAJIp JeUI Ul LOya
juiof ajqissod e ynoge WIY YIM WEL OL JUEM NOA J] “PJM BY} JO} Ja}8q }1 BUew Woy) pue y
Sulseypind ul payseaqul Ajjequajod uaaq ayyan 2 Joy sey (6rrbsqspSZqS=uUse/peny-UeLWyveq
-wes/a|yold/Woa'saquosmmm//:sd314) PAL 4-UELUYUEg Les Joqe0qe|/O2 AL Ing “pulLU ANOA
UO 5,JEYM 5] SIU} JI BINS JOU LW,| 'Yaaads al) PUB JAM] INOge Je}IMy UO |jod INCA Mes | - AaH
(LOD) TZ:ZT:80 6Z-E0-CZ0Z
seued
Jeo Suusaursua joyidoyny bse) e SulysiuL 3sny,, pax
al
(LqD) 65:20:72 £2-E0-7207
Ajaqenud jaa
ued am aoe|d & uo Sujoyy “asor ues u WdoE9 Je pue] OF 4Y8I13 AW peaoty Aljnjssa2ons 10
(L09) €¢:ZT:80 TE-E0-2c02
i SLs
BUI} [Bad Ul paysod y0g NoA
daay jJ/MNOA Jeu J8ULIp BABY LED BM Os asOy UES Ul BuIpUe} pure Jal|429 Su/pue] UO BUDIOM)
(109) 6€:72:40 TE-E0-207
7 -oreL =
SWIULSW oY} Ul Jal|Jes PUe, OI DAN Wo IYsIy AW dn sAoW! ued | 41 aes
0] ZunjJOM we | gelayMawos WdgE6 Je JeawW UeD aM Sdeyad ‘udoE:g ye PUELYEO Ul PUel |
(109) 8z:S0°40 TE-E0-2z0e
or
JOM SINOY OT SSO} ul Bw] Aue ByBW WED |
(105) S€:00:40 TE-£0-2z02
Aepol|
(109) €2:0%:90 TE-€0-Zc07
GAPpII4 JO Aepsinyy ueaw nod op ,MoOWO}, Ag
(LOD) T#:BE:90 TE-E0-7202
ADQWON JayIM| EYVE|
iam
daays - 0) 42} UI 75 Uno ayo INCA UL OYM moUy SN 39) S| - UOPy Bully B42 JO} YON AsyUeYL
(109) ES:ZZ°€0 TE-E0-Z207
HEIs e SACUL
(103) 82:02:10 TE-£0-2z07
“SINOY OT 3SOuy Ul euUyAUe Jaa WED | Os “sjqixaly
Jue s#unaaw esa) A) 4UsjUpIW punoJe Wedsp pue wdz puNoJe MO1IOWWO} aso UES Ul PUE| |
(a3) 96:60:00 Te-E0-2207
JojAel Jag
fd sASyuOp pue SioyeJ] Sie asay} pue Vode ayy Jeau quaule
Ue 10) Supjoo| auam Aayy yUIYy | “Auased Suneaw e pey aa, e2e]d Jsepsam Sy} JOY SUM SIYL
(LGD) 80:TO:TZ TE-£0-ZZ07
dojAel aig
BWWIUEAW 34} UI dn yoqeo Wed | pue SeleY PUe S19L]} Jed NOA JoADUSYM els URED aM OS suluaAa
[Je Fa4y 3Ng Jales Suipue] $1 auejd Aw asnesaq Aiea yg e aq 0} Sulos We | ‘paod spunos
(103) TO:0€-6T TE-£0-2Z02
—
“Jaljiee JO) Auz | [IM 3g “OE:Z Ag aay} 383 01 age aq Ajuo WYAIA] “SW JEY) 0} BsO|D Ajqeqoid
(LO3) 61:82:61 TE-E0-27202
JO|AE] Jag GUg|Z NOA Joy ¥JOM wWdy SA0g) (LOD) L7-Zz-6T TE-EO-C707
1ojAe | 3219 al sissalppeeul| (L3) 90:22:61 Te-E0-Zz0z
49S asimayt] (La) Ly:6T-6T TE-E£0-Z70z
yas SUJUOW Maj E JO} JUBIsIsse OU BuIAeY AJ) 0} pepioap | pue Aqeg e pey uyar (LOD) Tei6T-6T TE-€0-Z2202
[PYSWOEIA) IILAA 21X93] BIA OM] NOA OF]U! 0} BLU By!) NOA Pino”, (L059) S#:ST-6T TE-£0-2202
WINOA UUM BUPOM 0} PJEMIO4 JULYOO|
puy “dunjeads 07 piemios Suyoo7 “Aqjods aq Aew uondases AW SJayMm Led Ajuo ayy Ss] JeLy
PUE OM AW UUM ayy B YL} 01 SulUue| “ajqeilene ale NOA UaYyM 1xXa_ ‘“Aep |e Bady We |,, PaxN
(LOD) ZO:SS'7T E0-P0-ZZ0Z
]NDA YLIM FulyJOM 0] PJEMIO)
8u1joo) puly ‘durjeads oj puemsoy Suryoo “Ayjods aq AewW Uoljdased AW a1ayM Led A[uo aly
51 JEY] PUE SyIM AW YUM BHLY & BE] 0} SUUVE]Y “alqeyleAe ave NOA UaYM 3x2! “AEP |]P Bay We |
(LdD) TSTS:¥T £0-PO-Ze0z
) Has
*MOJIOWO}
AWITAUE 9/2} 0} B3.y JN ‘UIASNY OF Ul]Jag Wo JO Bye] 0} jNOge Jsn/ WwW] ~poos spunos
(LO) 90:TS:bT €0-70-2Z02
) ses
j7@213 spunos
(Ld) 8Z:SE'vT £0-v0-¢707
*LONeSJaAUOl JIgnd ay) pue JeyIML sAoiduu! Oj ajqissod
se Ajanqzajja se awl} InoA asn 02 SAeM SUIPUY PUE Ajaso[) BuNjJOM 07 PJEMIOJ YOO) Pue
AuUNLodda auj Jnoge payioxa Jadns w,| “Apease Jeg pue YEW Wo. paeay noA Padxe |
(109) 6vE2:PT EO-PO-7z0z
uo|y “euniny ay} u! asueYyd
ABwi SIU] Jaquiew pieog aarsaye ue Suraq wo aw JusAaid pjnom sjuSUnWLweS Bun
quand Au 30 I SUNUIYA Jaye “Ing ‘pseog JayIML dy) JO Sw Suapisuos JOY NoA yueYL
(LD) Te: TS:ST O-vO-Ce0e
| $188
AUIIGe UA BABY 3OU OP |
(109) 9T:Z¥ST vO-PO-Zz07
ajay
jO| Mou jlef s6y}1M| JO INO sn ysnq NOA ued aS
(LOD) #e:6E:ST vO-7O-ZZ07
Zaeg
|
, BUOP 5,JEY} SE UOOS Se J]29 |] “paler uM auoyd ay} Uo YsN/,, paxN
(109) S#TT:ST p0-vO-Zz0Z
a 2s
“AUOp S,JEY] SE UOOS Se |JED || ‘peser yim auoyd ay} Uo 4snyp
(109) 62:90:ST 7O-70-Zz07
JUSWOW eB BABY NOA UAYM al [/E9 Bseald “|Nydjay AlaA aq ||IM JeUL
(109) SPEO'ST PO-PO-ZZ0z
‘= ies | 4yas )aogwon Has
J3}IML EUV ) e4sitg Per
Mes )AoQwON Has
JaTUML EYLEA \Jeyazig payer
jJeuwa Jo We
(La) 90:00°2ZT 70-70-2202
J8}UM EYLEW | __— ie Polen
=. a | ROS WON EE OSWON en eer
BIDUM MOU BWW 4a] $[d “ewe Aq 4) éqUas Wf ay!| NOA pjnam Moy Sje7 “Alessadau salsojode on
(LD) LS°Z4S° TT vO-v0-2207
TWILNSCISNOD ATHDIHPage 94 ase! sel
3125 >> 2! 22!
J2TUML CULE IN D E4219 peer
a] 3S oe yasg
Ss 01 32
2S
*payenaidde Anessa
aq Pinom AeYL “Bulop Jou 10 SuWOp W,] quINp Fulyyawios 51 Jay 4! |ESOAJadns aq aseald
(LOD) 9T:6Z:£T SO-PO-2z0
49S
, Bqissod Ajjeuy sem z! pawes] | vay jeuoNoWwe
Agana jog “aw Suo} & Jog 3) paluem 3A,) “siy) Sulop ai,nod saiddey 3q 7,upjnos | jSAem|y,, Pac]
(L103) OF:82:ZT SO-vO-2Z02
EH
“ajqissod Ajjeul) sem pi pauiea | Usym euo|jOWS
Ajaa JO “SW Bug] e JOL 11 payveM aA,] "SIU Sulop 3J,noA Jaiddey aq 1,Upjnos | jsAem|y
(LOD) ES:OT-ZT SO-PO-2z0z
= ss
J UOMesIBAUCS qeaid ‘SHUeuL
(L053) 7Z:80:ZT S0-v0-ZZ02Z
™ JUBWOW Buy Jo JeSy BUl
ul y2eq Bye} 07 UCM olde! BM WYs Aes ||e SM“ YU] BUT INOY PZ e YIM Sunes pa Jay
Baw] |Sd Zee¢ OP 0} paau | Op Jey ~~ Acid JaIMY INOA YM Ayjelsadss jssmasip 0} yonW
OS aw UM UMOp Ys Jadod @ Op 0} 40) Apeal NOA auy (ays) BW! passiw NoA ane} [e134 ade
(109) 60:T2Z:S0 90-70-2z0z
ES : =: ES 5 2):0y vnsor
*WaL} 0}
NoA Banposu! pjnays | "WEY [}01} e OU Pue UOsJad jee, B ale Aauy 1ey} Aja pynos yy asn oF
asoys a[doad yi “ul Sy “Ja}qIM 0} PAULI 0} BI!U Sq P|NOM TELA AIWUSp! SBYWSA FEY Wweisoid
aaey jalveg pue piaeq spuslyy AW “Jey, Jo Joumo Aquofew ae NOA Jeu} BAO] Suyany |
(LOD) ET:SE:TO 90-70-2702
slaJduaiyy 2)
“MOU 1,UPIP | INg ‘som ayy U Ajjenye sem Yf
(105) ZO°EZ:TO 90-70-2202
) Staaduaiuy es]
staiduasuy BL]
“aing “SOM ayy Ul used Apeauye pey WU “YeBA YO jUps oy) Ay oO} Wayr 303 Apealje noA puy
(109) 60:62:00 90-r0-2z0z
Jeyl Jaye swijAueO gawy yo wdy
(109) 6O:SE:ZT SO-pO-ZZ0Z
“g2Ua|OIA B}EIOApE Ajqoydxe
yey} asou] pue syunoz3e Weds Jo! Jdaoxa ‘sueg JUaUeWWEd puImUN OF yeaid ag pinoy
(LOD) 2Z:vE5ZT SO-PO-ZZ07
CSW} JEUM “Yea,
(103) €0:VE:ZT SO-7O-720z
op jep ing noAysn4y |
(LOD) TI:ZELT SO-7O-Z70Z
2IYBIUO} Jaye] 12} 0} Say NOA aay FYDEP YIM UOesWeAUOD JeeId e pey 1snf
(L095) Z7:0ELT SO-0-7z07
TWLLNSGISNOD ATHSIHPage 96 1s a 73
“qLuNp sse] ae
suoisedsns AW Jeu} Os Wea} duaaulsua JayIM| By} Woly a1epdn ue a3 0} }ead Bq pynom 4
(LOD) 000% TT Z0-vO-2z07
ains| (109) SZ:6€:TT 40-v0-2Z02
TMGHOUIO} AT/IGE|[EAE AUP BABY NOA Op—Jxau yeads am UBYM s1OW JeBYy OF eAg| PINOM| (LOI) vE-ES‘OT LO-vO-Cc0e
‘sauozawiy| (109) €S°LS:0T 0-v0-cz07
JEqo|# ssoioe a.uepUaTe azIWIKeW O} SUIAL) “SewWI} JayJO Jsadsns Ved | asa —
UIWW Gp BJO} NOA JO} Jom yaam 1Xau JYDed ETT NYL/pam Jo Aue pinoy “sAemAue jenyIA 10}
Suiziwiydo aq jj aM Os UOSsuad Ul aq |/IM adUaIpNe JO %ST-DT noge Ajuo pue Aejap e Jo 8uo|
00} SUISTED Si [API] AW ZAIENUIA Yaam Jxou saAo|dwe 104 eyb e Op oJ a[ge aq NoA Pino
Wod Jato) esejed
(109) 6T:8E:0T 40-70-Z702
é [ewe snoA s3e4mM ‘Nag
(109) Zp EEOT £0-P0-Zz0z
BUO]S BUO YUM SPliq OM} IND BAe} pjnod Jey? SiWy Inoge IWsnou] e eney |
(LD) Te-EE:0T L0-70-7Z0e
"SIU} URY} SAUO LORIE Jamo] Wana - LOReIO/dxa Jew! SILy puNoJe seap! Jo IsOY VY
(LOD) Tv262:0L £0-7O0-ZZ0z
BYEH
(109) 90:/S'ET 90-7O-zz02
pel yoel
(j002 o1d/u3 Bujjouwold) d=angAloys=jal ude ju=J9442JO¥SNWUO]Z/Wosyoogesey WwW //:sdyy
‘au84j3 Jano sedsep yo dwems ay} ul Junozle ,paljiian, & Sasa) 2>]| 54007
(105) TE:S#ET 90-PO-Z202
“suO|ysagans AW JO SsaUqUINp aly ayeqijes
DW day [IM SIU, “ASEGapOd Ja}YML BU} JO S/IEJSp /EIIUYI97 BY] PUE}SIApUN O3 By!) PjNoM |
(109) ZESE:6T £O-70-ZZ202
“sapls YJOq UO UOMEWWJOJU! JSagU! 0} NOA 0} W/E] Wes}
8uq pue jonpolg AW sAey + "noA YUM ALI} YINW se puads 0} poos sn{ — aseyd siyj ul puy
(La3) 6%SEGT £0-O-Z702
“AYM PUY "JOU “SA UO SSasZ0Jd ByELU |], SAUD YDIYM NA |[A4 |],| PU - SEAP! SU ||e Jeay oO] Juem |
(103) 90:SE:6T £0-pO-2z0z
“Buizewe) (109) St-vE:6L £0-v0-2Z0Z
WINWIXeW dg 0} JaIM, JUeM snl | psey coy Surysnd Ww, 4) WW] Ing ‘Seapl JO UO} e aney |
jawosamy| (LOD) pT:E€:6T £0-pO-7Z07
‘puewuoy Aued WO BY} SUIAOW Ut! |NJdjal AJOA SI S14} YUILY | - APEUA QU!
[OWN] aly sildsaq “UONsa1IpP aANIsod e Ul sh BAOW 03 BUIY] poo e yuIY) | pu - payadxa
SISIYL SaA Puy "SOM EUM MOUY AW Jay - MOLOWO IyI9ed dogs Jaye ajqixar Ajje}O3 WwW]
(109) 6P:ZE6T LO-PO-Z70Z
jSUOMESIBAUDI JNO BAO} | ‘Puaysam
SIY} SWIAUE Jo IYSIU MOLOWO} 4/2} UPD | "dn 2UAS 0} poos aq pjnom ‘yea, ‘pajzedxe sy
(Ld) BE:OE-ET L0-v0-Ez0e
dg wes
2yJOM
PIN JayIML+ueysx90/q MOY UO {sod e OS} JAM jNoge ¥!2) 0} BAg| pijnom—uo]y Mig
(109) £2:0€:80 pI-?0-2Z20Z
SIAEQ 8A215
‘insdjay aq pynom
sraauidua UeYs\20/g }1 MOLY aL 3B] ‘SUIM g UE} 4] JO} JOO1 0} UB|d YDIYM aINSION jsuIZeUTy
(LD) 6€:90:80 pT-vO-Zz0e
) Bury ajAeg
SSB|9 SY} Ul SPI} JAY} BUy S}!] JOU Ble NOA ples | ByI|"" UANOP SIYI WIN} SJapfoysseys MOY MOLY
MOU 1,UOp| ,2AoW eIsdued,, e Aes Aepoy Jo spy ayy Se S| S14} SIE} O} Bde} J8yI8F0} uMOp
JIS P|NoYs am YUIUA NOAI,UOg MON jMOMA JATUM Ang 0} Busao Jo Jayp1y SulAng NOA {NOTA
(109) 20:05:90 vT-70-220@
4S
ObOL
DAPOLONIF THIS OIO=) SUL =Se SOU LSOT9SS9bTISTLS L/s74e1s/4SNWUG|e/Wos isa //-sany
(LOD) ZS: :90 pT-70-c202
) 418s
“quaWWDs yey
Jo ysodau Jo quawilwos Jad aZog [79 aqAewW Aed 0} aAey p,NOA os ‘s}ualUWOD Se UoMpesuen
BY} Ul pappaqwa ae ,,s}aaM1,, 84) ASYM JS) JO UOIsIBA paseg-uleYsyI0/q E Sig Weld AI
(109) 9:90 ¥T-PO-Zz0z
uojy ‘syuey, “suosenb
Aue aaey noA4g! Wead AW YzM MOA auUOD oO} AddeY “BulWJOW a4} Ul 3IGnd aq [jn Yorym
*\YS1U0} J8}9] 12440 UE NGA Puss |[JM | “SICAL JAM, SUPE} YIM PIEMUOY SACL OJ paplrep
aney | —AqAe3 Snowas Jo JaqjeW e Ajsnolago SI Siu} — UolIeJaq||ap Jo SAep |e1aAas ayy
(109) £S:Z¥6T €T-7O-Zz0z
SEAT [BEUDIIN
Jaa OF JUEM PUE dn |/Ns5 34,NOA ased Ul Ys UO spue|
ay UAYM NOA jews 03 addijiyd 1/83 1],| Ped 0] Papesy wW,| |JUEISISSe Jee15 e NOA pull 0} paan
(109) ZE:TO'LO ET-70-Zz0z
“B]-HBUEYS Ee TOOT Wooy 3YsIU0} Aq slWO2 ued ay “10
(LOD) £5:9€:00 ET-7O-720Z
Ang poo ‘ews Jadns sa} ja70y INOA ul Sut
OZ a4!) Op Ajysauoy pynos no, (SuginJoa2 UM dyay 0} WIY pjo} |) Bunyny ayy Ul SuLog OW! Jas
0} sJUeM:puly spunod Yadeds € 10 7 YSe] Pld e|SAL JO UON|Ig E SUMO Ja}}IM_ UO seSp! sluos sey
(109) 7S:9T:00 ET-p0-2Z20Z
SaAly [BEY
é4s3q jo auiy Jejnanied Auy
{Ld3) 0S:6h°€2 @T-v0-cZ07
) Has
aqael
(LaD) AS'TeEz ZT-vO-ZZ0z
) SAAD BEAN)
EMOJOWO} JOANOSUEA Ut JUOYeT addijiyd sas 07 atuy Aue aaey
(L093) TT:ZTEZ ZI-pO-ZZ02
) 4185
“WIY O} pay]ed | UBUA MalA SpIeP OS|2 SEM JEU] “SUOP SI 2eY} BIO SpayteW
aiignd ay} 0} uinjas pue ainjoanyse ‘ayeAld JayIM) 842} 0} ‘UolUIdo AW Ul “Jazaq SI 3]
(LOD) SE:SPST OT-v0-2Z02
) s8S
pood spunos
(La3) 2Z:7ST OT-vO-Zz0z
TWILNSCISANOD ATHSIH
To view more than 100 pages of OCRed text, sign up for PlainSite Pro or Pro Se. Solve This Problem
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
EFiled: Sep 29 2022 05:11AM EDT
Transaction ID 68185211
Case No. 2022-0613-KSJM
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATz
David 8. Mader, Esq.
August 30, 2022
Page 2
message from Twitter’s Ned Segal) and zero text messages from May 7 through May |1 — a
particularly critical period during which defendants allege Mr. Musk was reconsidering his
acquisition of Twitter. Mr. Musk has likewise produced zero texts from a weeklong period
around June 4, the date on which he determined to adopt the position that Twitter had breached
the Merger Agreement. /d.
Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall’s text message productions have other unexplained
omissions. Most notably, defendants have not produced a single text message between Mr.
Musk and Mr. Birchall from the period between May 2 and May 12, even though it is clear that
these custodians texted each other regularly about relevant subjects. And the respective text
message productions of both Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall include messages that are missing from
the other’s production. Moreover, in a text exchange from June 17, Robert Steel of Perella
Weinberg Partners engages in a dialogue with Mr. Musk for which all of Mr. Musk’s replies are
missing.
We ask that you account for these apparent deficiencies by 8:00 this evening,
August 30.
Second, during the meet-and-confer process, you identified a review population of
50,435 documents for Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall’s custodial records. This population has
necessarily increased in light of defendants’ multiple agreements to add email accounts and
search terms to their review. Yet defendants have produced only 1,660 documents, yielding a
responsiveness rate of about 3%.
This improbable result causes us to question the responsiveness criteria that
defendants have applied in their review process. By way of example, there were 4,086
documents returned just by the targeted term (“Mdau* OR MAU * OR Dau* OR UAM OR
mMAU”) for Mr. Musk — but apparently /ess than half of those documents were identified for
production. We do net understand how this could be so.
We ask that you account for defendants’ implausibly low rate of production by
8:00 this evening, August 30.
Third, defendants are subject to a court order requiring them to supplement their
deficient responses to Twitter’s Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 12, and 17, including by providing full
disclosure of “‘all persons with knowledge of or involvement in” the topics listed in those
Interrogatories. Dkt. 221 at 5. On August 26, defendants purported to supplement their
responses to bring them into compliance with the Court’s Order. Those supplemented responses
identified only persons and entities Twitter already knew had relevant knowledge, and thus
disclosed nothing.
Defendants’ production of text messages yesterday confirms that your revised
interrogatory responses omitted many other individuals with whom Mr. Musk had substantive
PDF Page 5
WacHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & Katz
David S. Mader, Esq.
August 30, 2022
Page 3
communications about the merger, including: Mr. Steel, Michael Kives of K5 Global; Ari
Emanuel of Endeavor; Adeo Ressi of VC Lab; and Andrea Stroppa.
We believe defendants’ unwillingness to prepare complete interrogatory is
inexcusable and we intend to seek appropriate relief from the Court. In the meanwhile, we ask
that you provide complete revised interrogatory responses by 8:00 this evening, August 30.
Sincerely,
fyb he b how
Bradley R. Wilson
PDF Page 6
Exhibit B
PDF Page 7
From: David Mader
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:34 PM
To: Kirk, David E.
Cec: Silpa Maruri; Kathryn Bonacorsi; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossman; Alex Spiro;
Christopher Kercher; Matthew Fox; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom LLP); Rosenello, Lauren N; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP);
Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP); Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC); Sorrels, Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
PC); Savitt, William D.; Wilson, Bradley R.; Eddy, Sarah K.; McLeod, Ryan A,; Reddy,
Anitha; Yavitz, Noah B.; Goodman, Adam L; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk et al. - Significant Production Deficiencies
Counsel, we are in receipt of the correspondence attached to your e-mail of 10:04 a.m. this morning and expect to
provide a response, as well as supplemental interrogatory responses, tomorrow.
Regards,
David
David Mader
Partner
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
646.241.8334 Cell
212.849.7148 Direct
212,849,7100 FAX
davidmader@quinnemanuel.com
WWW..gUuinnemanuel.com
NOTICE; The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential, If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
From: Kirk, David E.
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:04 AM
To: David Mader
Ce: Silpa Maruri ; Kathryn Bonacorsi ; Emily
Kapur ; Andrew J. Rossman ; Alex Spiro
; Christopher Kercher ; Matthew Fox
; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)
; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter
Anderson & Corroon LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP)
; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Wilson, Bradley R. ; Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A.
; Reddy, Anitha ; Yavitz, Noah B. : Goodman, Adam
PDF Page 8
L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: Twitter v. Musk et al. - Significant Production Deficiencies
[EXTERNAL EMAIL from dekirk@wlrk.com]
Counsel,
Please see the attached correspondence from Brad Wilson.
Regards,
David
Please be advised that this transmittal may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail (helodesk@wirk.com) or by
telephone (call us collect at 212-403-4357) and delete this message and any attachments.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance.
PDF Page 9
Exhibit C
PDF Page 10
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TWITTER, INC.,
Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant,
Vv. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM
ELON R. MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC.,
and X HOLDINGS II, INC.,
Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
Smee” ge names” “names” ames” meee” acme” amet” acme nee et” ee”
DEFENDANTS’ FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS
Pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 26 and 33, Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc.
(“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby provide their
Fourth Supplemental Responses and Objections to the First Set of Interrogatories to
Defendants, dated July 22, 2022 (each an “Interrogatory” and together the
“Interrogatories’’), served by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Twitter, Inc. in
the above-captioned action (the “Action”).
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
l. Defendants hereby incorporate herein the General and Specific
Objections in their August 5, 2022 Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set
of Interrogatories. By making these Supplemental Responses, Respondents do not
PDF Page 11
waive any of those General or Specific Objections or concede that their original
responses do not fully answer the Interrogatories as limited by Respondents’
objections or are otherwise deficient. Respondents reserve the right to further amend
any of their Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all Persons with knowledge concerning, information relevant to,
and/or possession, custody, or control over Documents or Communications relating
to any of the allegations in the Complaint and/or any of the claims or arguments in
the July 8, 2022 Letter, and, as applicable, describe the general subject matter of
each such Person’s relevant knowledge or information or the general subject matter
of the relevant Documents or Communications in their possession, custody, or
control.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Defendants object to this Interrogatory as overbroad and as seeking
information not relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses.
Subject to and without waiving their General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants state that, based upon a reasonable inquiry and to the best of
their knowledge at this time, the following is a list of persons with unique knowledge
concerning the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and the parties’ claims and/or
defenses in this Action:
1. Elon R. Musk (“Musk”). Knowledgeable as to the negotiation,
execution, and termination of the Merger Agreement.
2. Jared Birchall. Knowledgeable as to the negotiation, execution,
and termination of the Merger Agreement.
2
PDF Page 12
10.
11.
12,
13,
Bob Swan. Knowledgeable as to business and financial modeling
for Twitter’s operations should the transaction have closed.
Antonio Gracias. Knowledgeable as to business and financial
modeling for Twitter’s operations, and transaction financing, should
the transaction have closed.
Twitter, Inc. The full extent of Twitter directors, officers,
employees, and contractors with relevant knowledge as to the
negotiation, execution, and termination of the Merger Agreement,
and Twitter’s business and operations, is information known only
by Twitter itself.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Mike Ringler,
Sonia Nijjar. Knowledgeable as to the negotiation, execution, and
termination of the Merger Agreement.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. Alex Spiro.
Knowledgeable as to the negotiation, execution, and termination of
the Merger Agreement.
Morgan Stanley. Anthony Armstrong, Owen O'Keefe, Michael
Grimes, Kate Claassen. Knowledgeable as to financial analysis and
negotiation of the transaction.
Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. Andrew = Earl.
Knowledgeable as to the bank debt financing commitments for the
transaction.
Andreessen Horowitz, AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (a16z).
Scott Kupor. Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
A.M. Management & Consulting. Andrew Medyuck.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Aliya Capital Partners LLC. Ross Kestin. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
BAMCO, Inc. (Baron). Patrick Patalino. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
PDF Page 13
14.
15,
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21,
22.
23,
24.
25.
26.
27.
Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd. Kaiser Ng.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. Nicholas Sammut, Nicholas
Goodman. Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
DFJ Growth IV Partners, LLC. Randall Glein. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC. Chris Maher.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Honeycomb Asset Management LP. Vick Sandhu.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Key Wealth Advisors LLC. Ahmad Razi Karim. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Lawrence J. Ellison Revocable Trust. Paul Marinelli.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Litani Ventures. Peter Rahal. Knowledgeable as an equity co-
investor alongside Musk.
Qatar Investment Authority. Ahmad Al-Khjani. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Sequoia Capital Fund, L.P. Douglas Leone. Knowledgeable as
an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Strauss Capital LLC. Daniel Strauss. Knowledgeable as an equity
co-investor alongside Musk.
Tresser Blvd 402 LLC (Cartenna). Peter Avellone.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
VyCapital. Katja Lake, Daniel Schwarz. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Witkoff Capital. Zachary Witkoff. Knowledgeable as an equity
co-investor alongside Musk.
PDF Page 14
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33,
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39,
40,
HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud
(Kingdom). Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
Bank of America, N.A. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of
the Merger.
BOFA Securities, Inc. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of
the Merger.
Barclays. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
MUFG. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
Societe Generale. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
Mizuho Bank Ltd. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
BNP Paribas. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. Knowledgeable as to the debt
financing of the Merger.
Goldman Sachs. Knowledgeable as to the value of Twitter in
connection with its modeling of the transaction and preparation of a
fairness opinion.
J.P. Morgan. Knowledgeable as to the value of Twitter in
connection with its modeling of the transaction and preparation of a
fairness opinion.
Allen & Company LLC. Knowledgeable as to the value of Twitter
in connection with its modeling of the transaction.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Alan Klein. Knowledgeable
as to the negotiation, execution, and termination of the Merger
Agreement.
PDF Page 15
Al.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC. Marty Korman.
Knowledgeable as to the negotiation, execution, and termination of
the Merger Agreement.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities, who are equity co-investors
alongside Musk and as such, have knowledge of their equity investments:
42,
43.
44.
45,
46.
47.
48,
49,
50.
51.
52.
53.
54,
AJG Growth Fund, LLC
Bandera Partners, LLC
Debala Trust (aka Karim Hakimzadeh)
Eden Global Investments L.P.
GFNCI LLC
Manhattan Venture Partners X LLC
Opportunity Fund X, a Series of Factorial Funds I LLC
Qatar Holding LLC
Santo Lira LLC
Section 32 Fund 4, LP
Tomales Bay Capital CGF ZHR IX, LP
Tru Arrow Technology Partners CIV II, LP
Yuxiang (Robin) Ren
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities as having knowledge
regarding the topics called for in this Interrogatory:
PDF Page 16
Knowledgeable as investors approached by Morgan Stanley on Defendants’
behalf regarding an equity investment:
55. Access Industries
56. Advent
57. Andrew Finn, Tim Urban, Quentin Koffey
58. Apollo
59. Aristotle Capital
60. ARK Investment Management LLC
61. Ashler Capital
62. Balyasny
63. BlackRock
64. Blackstone
65. Block.one (Michael Lubin)
66. BOND (Mary Meeker)
67. Boston Management/Eaton Vance
68. Brian Armstrong
69. Brinley Partners
70. California Regents
71. Capital Group
72. Carlyle
73. CDPQ
74, Centerbridge
75. Claure Group (Marcelo Claure)
PDF Page 17
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83,
84.
85.
80.
87.
88,
89,
90.
91.
92.
93.
94,
95.
96.
97.
98.
ClearBridge
Clearlake
Coatue
Combs Enterprises
Cowbird Capital
CPPIB
Craft Ventures
D1 Capital
DaGrosa Capital Partners
Dash Wasserstein
Diameter
Dorilton Capital
Dragoneer
EL Acquisitions Steve Ellman
Emilio Masci
First Republic (Joe Gebbia)
Founders Fund
Francisco Partners
Frank McCourt
General Atlantic
General Catalyst
GIC
Gigafund
PDF Page 18
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106,
107.
108.
109.
110.
111,
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
GoldenTree
Gregory Cohen (Rambleside)
Greycroft
Grok Ventures
GSAM
Guggenheim
Hellman & Friedman
Hither Creek Ventures (Zander Farkas)
HPS Partners
HRS Management
Iconiq
Insight
IVP
Jack Dorsey
Jill Smoller
John Catsimatidis
K5 Global (Michael Kives)
Ken Griffin
Ken Howery
Larry A Mizel
LAUNCH (Jason Calacanis)
Level Four LLC (Joe Rogan)
Liontree
PDF Page 19
122.
123.
124.
125.
126,
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133,
134.
135.
136.
137,
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
Long View (Crown)
Lutetia Capital
Marc Benioff
Mark Cuban
Mayor Bloomberg (Willett Advisors)
Michael Pollack
Mirae
MSD Partners
MSIM Private
MSIM Public
Naval Ravikant
Nelk (John Shahidi)
Nikesh Arora
Nikko Asset Mgmt. (Americas)
Norges
North Fifth Services (Bill Ford)
Nuveen (FIAA)
Oaktree
OTPP
Owl Rock (Blue Owl)
Palm Tree Crew
Paradigm (Matt Huang)
Pegasus Ventures
10
PDF Page 20
145,
146.
147.
148.
149,
150.
151.
152.
153.
154,
155.
156,
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162,
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
Peltz
Pershing Square
PIMCO
Pomegranate (Clay Whitehead)
Prometheus
Red Apple Holdings, Inc.
Reid Hoffman
Reprogrammed Interchange LLC
Revere Capital
Revere Securities
Ross Gerber
Safra
Samuel Bankman-Fried (FTX)
Scott Nolan
Security Benefit
Senator
Sixth Street
Skip Capital
Skip Enterprises Pty Ltd
Snowdevil Capital / Thistledown (Matt Cowin)
Softbank
Southpoint Capital
S.P. Hinduja Private Bank Ltd
11
PDF Page 21
168. SRS Investment Mgmt.
169. T. Rowe Price
170. TCV
171. Teknecap
172. Thor Halvorssen
173. Thrive
174. Thrivent
175, TPG
176. UC Regents (Jagdeep Bachher)
177. University of Michigan
178. Veritas Capital
179. Viking Global
180. Warburg
181. Web3 Foundation
182. YLEM (Bastian Lehmann)
Knowledgeable as individuals with whom Mr. Musk discussed Twitter/the
Merger generally:
183. Steve Jurvetson
184. Jason Calacanis
185. Joe Lonsdale
186. David Sacks
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities and tndividuals as having
12
PDF Page 22
knowledge regarding the topics called for in this Interrogatory based on
communications produced by Defendants in this litigation:
187. Aaron Levie
188, Aaron Rappaport
189. Aashish Sharma
190. Abram Brown
191. Adeo Ressi
192, Adil Bhatia
193. Alanah Pearce (96997907 - @Charalanahzard)
194. Alex Berenson
195. Alex Stillings
196. Alex Swieca
198. Alexander Chernyak
199. Alexander Sherman
200, Alexandra Musk
201. Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud
202. Alwaleed Tlal
204. Amir Efrati
205. Andraz Razen
13
PDF Page 23
207. Andrea Stroppa (541882699 => @andst7)
209. Andrew Earls
210. Andrew Finn
211. Andrew Perlman
212, Andy Harrison
213. Angus Berwick
214. Anish Shah
215. Annie Palmer
216. Anshuman Mishra
217. Anthony Armstrong
218. Anthony Cicia
219. Anthony Scaramucci
220. Antoine Gara
221. Anton.Mayr
223. Ari Emanuel
224. Arif Ahmed
225. Ashlee Vance (81961201 - @ashleevance)
14
PDF Page 24
226.
227.
228,
229.
230.
231.
232,
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238,
239.
240,
241,
242.
243,
244,
245.
Audra Johnson
Austin Pang
Bastian Lehmann
Beau Davidson
Ben Enowitz
Ben Silverman
Ben Wormsley
Benjamin Goodman
Benjamin Holland
Benny Johnson
Berkeley Fondren
Bill Lee
Blake Hall
Bob Steel
Bobby Allyn
Brad S. Sheftel
Bradford Betz
Bradley Diener
Brandon J. Sanford
Brandon Kaufmann
15
PDF Page 25
246,
247,
248.
249,
250.
251.
252.
253.
254,
255.
256,
257,
258,
259,
260.
261.
262,
263.
264,
265,
Bret Johnsen
Bret Taylor
Brett Rochkind
Brian Acton
Brian Kingston
Brian Schwartz
Brian Snyder
Bryan Baum
a
C Ndu Ozor
Cameron Winklevoss
Carlos Slim
Cary Thompson
Cat Zakrzewski
Cathie Wood (2361631088 => @CathieD Wood)
Charles Sheehan
Ching Liu Huang
Chris Anderson
Chris Stokel-Walker
16
PDF Page 26
266. Chris Zhang
267. pe
269. Colin Stewart
270. Corey T. Kozak
271, CPG Grey (176774540 => @cgpgrey)
272. Craig Farr
273. Craig Robins
275. Dan Sundheim
276. Dana Hull
277. Daniel Brunt
278. Daniel Freeman
279. Daniel Tay
280. Darren Rovell
281. Dave Rubin
282. Dave Smith
283. David Dwek
284. David E. Kaufman
285. David George
17
PDF Page 27
286,
287.
288.
289,
290,
291.
292,
293,
294.
295.
296.
297,
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
David Sacks
David Solomon
Dennis Baughman
Derek Dillon
Dick Costolo
Dickson Law
Diesel Peltz
Dimitar Valchev
Dinesh D-Souza
Doug Leone
Douglas M. Palmer
Douglas MacMillan
Dr. Bradley Jabour
Dr. Ulf Poschardt
Edward Ludlow
Elif Bilgi
Endeavor
Eric A. Gray
Eric Kirkland
Errol Musk
18
PDF Page 28
306.
307,
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319,
320.
321.
322.
323.
324,
325.
Evan Fiedler
Faisal Baloch
Faiz Siddiqui
Fiona Osullivan
Frank Malone
Frank McCourt
Gabrielle Bienasz
Gabrielle S. Burke
Garett Varricchio
Gary Black
Gavin Baker
Gayle King
George Galloway
George Zachary
Glenn Fuhrman
Graham Brandt
Grimes (276540738 => @Grimezsz)
Hannah Murphy
Henry Blodget
19
PDF Page 29
326.
327,
328.
329,
330.
331,
332.
333,
334.
335.
336.
337.
Hindenburg Research
Hiromichi Mizuno (72862939 - @hiromichimizuno)
History In Pics (1582853809 => @HistoryInPics)
Hyun Joo Jin
Ian Miles Cheong
Jan Osborne
Idena Team
Thsan Essaid
Imran Salahuddin
Iqbaljit Kahlon
Ira Ehrenpreis
Ishay Levin
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
344.
345.
Jack Dorsey
James and Kathryn Murdoch
James Demare
James Fontanella-Khan
James Gorman
James Star
Jamie Star
20
PDF Page 30
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
357.
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364,
365.
Jared Groth
Jason Calacanis (3840 - @Jason)
Jason Zins
Jean-Francois Astier
Jeff Collins
Jeff Gramm
Jeff Skoll
Jeff Wood
Jeffery Stein
Jeffrey Sprecher
Jehn Balajadia
a
Jennifer King
Jeremy Erlich
Jeremy Parsels
Jessie Mae Atkinson
Jia Yang
Jillian Svendsen
Joe Lonsdale
Joel Carter
21
PDF Page 31
366.
367.
368.
369.
370,
371,
372.
373.
374,
375,
376.
377,
378,
379,
380.
381.
382.
383.
384,
385,
John Carmack
John Darsie
John Glaister
John Hering
John Lamb
John M. Brandow
John P. Zito
John Rich
John Rose
John Shahidi
John Stoll
a
John Tuttle
John-Christian Bourque
Johnna Crider
Johnna Lesch
Jon Neuhaus
Jonah Nolan
Jonathan Schlecht
Jonathan Silverman
22
PDF Page 32
386
387
388
389
390.
391.
392.
393.
394,
395.
396.
397,
398,
399,
A400.
401.
402.
403.
404.
405.
. Jordan Grossman
. Joseph Jackson
. Joseph Menn
. Josh Raffaelli
a
Julia Bae
Julian Mettmann
Justin Riblet
Justin Roiland
Justin T. Smith
Kara Swisher
Karen Heller
Karen Klores
Karim Hakimzadeh
Karin Fronczke
Kassem Shafi
Keith Cowing
Kxelvin Ik. Chan
Ken Griffin
Ken Howery
23
PDF Page 33
406.
407.
408.
409.
410,
411.
412,
413,
414.
415.
416.
417.
418.
419.
420.
421.
422.
423.
424.
425.
Kevin C. Brunner
Kevin Fronczke
Kevin Mitnick —
Kevin Tu
a
Kimbal Musk
Kojiro Shizuka
Koushaw Ghaffarian
Kristina Salen
Kristy Mullen
Kyle Corcoran
Kyle Mann
Lance Ulanoff
Lauren Feiner
Lauren Hirsch
Laurence Braham
Lawrence J. Ellison
Leeder Hsu
Lewis Shepherd
Liana Baker
24
PDF Page 34
426.
427.
428,
429.
430,
431.
432,
433.
434.
435.
436.
437.
438.
439,
440,
441,
442.
443,
444,
445.
Liv Boeree
Lori Nicolet
Ludwig Kiermaier
Luke Nosek
Lynn Martin
Mansoor Ebrahim Al-Mahmoud
Marc Andreessen
Mare Merrill
Mark Matousek
Mark Pincus
Martha Lane Fox
Martin Viecha
Mason Bissada
Massimo (177101260 - @Rainmaker1973)
Mathias Dépfner
Matilda Simon-Ferrigno
Matt Cowin
Matt Durot
Matt Huang
25
PDF Page 35
446,
447,
448.
449,
450.
451,
452.
453.
454,
455.
456.
457.
458.
459,
460.
461,
462,
463.
464,
465,
Matt Lichtenberg
Matthew Koder
Matthew Savage
Maureen Dowd
Melissa MacPherson
Michael Dell
Michael Izard
Michael Kives
Michael Liedtke
Michael Tucker
Michael Tully
Michelle Lu
Mike Huckabee
Mike Schroepfer
Nagesh Saldi
Naor Amiel
Natalie Moses
Navaid Farooq
Naval Ravikant
Ned Segal
26
PDF Page 36
466.
467.
468.
469.
470.
471,
472.
473.
474,
475,
476.
477.
478.
479,
480.
481.
482.
483.
484,
485.
Neil J. Parikh
Nelson Peltz
Nichie Gamer (1558996520 => @nichegamer)
Nicholas Reimann
Nicholas Sammut
Nico Fine
Nilam Ganenthiran
Noah Echavarria
Olivier Osty
Omead Afshar
Orlando Bravo
Ortenca Aliaj
Ottilie Hoyell —
Owen O'Keeffe
Parag Agrawal
Pat O’Malley
Paul Barrett
Paul Cheung
Paul Graham
Paul Griffiths
27
PDF Page 37
486. Paul Joseph Watson (18643437 => @PrisonPlanet)
487. Paul T. Marinelli
488. Peter Marsh
489. Peter P. Jones
490. Peter Weinberg
491. Philippe Laffont
492. Pinki Chaudhuri
493. Pueo Keffer
494. Quentin Koftey
495. Randy Glein
496. Reed Albergotti
497, Reed B. Rayman
498. Rehan Khursheed
499, Reid Hoffman
500. Richard Gallivan
501. Richard Hardegree
502, Richard Park
503. Richard Spencer
504. Richard von Wildemann
505. Rick Polhemus
28
PDF Page 38
506
507,
508.
509.
510.
511.
512.
513,
514.
515.
516,
517.
518.
519.
520.
521.
522.
523.
524.
525.
Rishi D. Mangal
Robert Herring
Robert Ruberton
Robert Zubrin
Robin Ren
Roelof Botha
Ron Baron
Ronald Gong
Ross Gerber
Ross Menachem Kestin
Rupert Murdoch
Ryan Israel
Sam Fort
Sam Harris
Sam Shead
Sam Teller
Samiuddin Sami
Sarang Gadkari
29
PDF Page 39
526.
527,
528.
529.
530.
531,
532.
533.
534.
535.
536,
537.
538.
539.
540.
541.
542.
543.
544,
545.
Satoshi Nakajima
Satya Nadella
Scott Adams
Scott Belsky (15698507 => @scottbelsky)
Scott Coulter
Scott Deveau
Scott Harries
Scott Nolan
Scott Painter
Sean C. Coburn
Sean Combs
Sean Edgett
Sean Lynch
Sekulic, Masa
Serkan Savasoglu
Shannon Bond
Shaun Maguire
Shawn W. Liu
Shervin Pishevar
Shivon Zilis (446719282 => @shivon)
30
PDF Page 40
546. Shoaib Qureshi
547. Sindhu Sundar
548. Solomon Bier
549.
550. Sonu Kalra
551. Stacey Ferreira
- Hock
554. Stephen Oskoui
552.
553.
555. Stephen Pesche
556. Stephen Wolfram
557. Steve Davis
558. Steve Jurvetson
559. Steve Weiner
560. Steven Brown
561. Steven Crowder
562. Steven Messina
563. Steven Rattner
564. Stockton Bullitt
565. SwiftOnSecurity (2436389418 -> @SwiftOnSecurity)
31
PDF Page 41
566,
567.
568.
569.
570.
571.
572.
573.
574.
575.
576.
577,
578.
579.
580.
581.
582.
583,
584.
585.
Sylvia Kaminska
Talulah Riley
Taly Kogon
Tamim Jabr
Tarik Brooks
Tatum Hunter
Taylor Wright
Teddy Gleser
Terrence Kontos
Thierry Breton
Thomas J. Sheehan
Thor Halvorssen
Tim Hughes
Tim Urban
Timothy Draper
Todd Morgenfeld
Tom Fitton
Tom Krisher
Tom Loef
Tom Maloney
32
PDF Page 42
586.
587.
588.
589.
590.
591.
592.
593.
594.
595,
596.
597.
598.
599.
600.
601.
602.
603.
604,
605.
Tom S. Hals
Tom Swerling
Tom van Loben Sels
Tracey Chenoweth
Trung Phan
Universal Sci (2993230373 => @universal_sci)
Vijaya Gadde
Vikas Shah
Vinod Jetley
Viv Hantusch
Wendi Murdoc
Will Knight
Will MacAskill
William Ackma
Willie Yglesias
Winnie Kong
Xavier Niel
Yousef Mohamed
Zheng Wang
@billym2k Shibetoshi Nakamoto
33
PDF Page 43
606.
607.
608.
609.
610.
611.
612.
613.
614,
615.
616,
617.
618.
619.
620.
621.
622.
623.
624,
625.
@erdayastronaut Everyday Astronaut
@Teslarati
@DoctorJack16
@waitbutwhy Tim Urban
@evafoxU Eva Fox
@murtakpak
@LexFridman Lex Fridman
@Cernovich Mike Cernovich
(@WSBCHairman
@MrStevenSteele Steven Steele
@stevenmarkryan
@Liz_Wheeler Liz Wheeler
(@Boztank Boz
@ostynhyss Ostyn Hyss
(@ppathole Pranay Pathole
@stockmktNewz
@jspeedymorris22 Joe Morris
@johnnaCriderl Johnna Crider
(@wholemarsblog
@uksaguy
34
PDF Page 44
626.
627,
628.
629.
630.
631.
632.
633.
634.
635.
636.
637.
638.
639.
640.
641.
642.
643.
644,
645.
@blkmdl3
@teslaownersSV
@politicalshort Nick Short
@somospostpc Alex Barredo
@BTC_Archive
@ICannot_Enough James Stephenson
@redletterdave Dave Smith
@chrisjbakke Chris Bakke
@garyblack00 Gary Black
@johnkrausphotos John Kraus
@engineers_ feed
@dogeofficialceo
@watcherguru
@spideycyp_155
@RenataKonkoly Renata Konkoly
@andst7 Andrea Stroppa
@sawyermerritt Sawyer Merritt
@cybrtrck
@truth_tesla
@cb_doge
35
666. @teslarati
667. @occupymars42069
668. @mrstevensteele Steven Steele
669. @tarabull808
670. @jrdavidmitchell David Mitchell Jr
671. @veespike
672. @d2dev David Dales
673. @thecryptodaddi
674. @JaneidyEve Evelyn Janeidy Arevalo
675, @hamblinzeke
676. @drknowitalll6
677. @ajtourville
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify all Persons with knowledge concerning, information relevant to,
and/or possession, custody, or control over Documents or Communications relating
to Your efforts to arrange, obtain, syndicate, and/or consummate the Debt Financing
or the Equity Financing, including without limitation (i) any law firm, financial
advisor, or other institution engaged to advise or assist You in connection with the
Debt Financing or the Equity Financing; (ii) any other Person that worked on Your
behalf and/or represented Your interests in connection with the Debt Financing or
the Equity Financing; (iii) any actual or potential provider of the Debt Financing;
(iv) any law firm, financial advisor, or other institution engaged to advise or assist
any actual or potential provider of the Debt Financing; (v) any actual or potential co-
investor in the Equity Financing; and (vi) any law firm, financial advisor, or other
institution engaged to advise or assist any actual or potential co-investor in the
Equity Financing, and, as applicable, describe the general subject matter of each
37
PDF Page 47
such Person’s relevant knowledge or information or the general subject matter of the
relevant Documents or Communications in their possession, custody, or control.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Defendants object to this Interrogatory as overbroad and as seeking
information not relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses.
Subject to and without waiving their General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants state that, based upon a reasonable inguiry and to the best of
their knowledge at this time, the following is a list of persons with knowledge
regarding efforts to arrange, obtain, syndicate, and/or consummate the Debt
Financing or the Equity Financing in connection with the Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and the parties’ claims and/or defenses in this Action:
1. Elon R. Musk. Knowledgeable as to the debt and equity financing
of the Merger.
2. Jared Birchall. Knowledgeable as to the debt and equity financing
of the Merger.
3, Antonio Gracias. Knowledgeable as to business and financial
modeling for Twitter’s operations, and transaction financing, should
the transaction have closed.
4. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Mike Ringler.
Knowledgeable as to the debt and equity financing of the merger.
5. Morgan Stanley. Anthony Armstrong, Owen O'Keefe, Michael
Grimes, Kate Claassen. Knowledgeable as to financial analysis and
negotiation of the transaction.
6. Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. Andrew Earl.
Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
38
PDF Page 48
10,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16,
17.
18.
19,
20.
Bank of America, N.A. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of
the Merger.
BOFA Securities, Inc. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of
the Merger.
Barclays. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
MUFG. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the Merger.
BNP Paribas. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. Knowledgeable as to the debt
financing of the Merger.
Mizuho Bank, Ltd. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
Societe Generale. Knowledgeable as to the debt financing of the
Merger.
Andreessen Horowitz, AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (al16z).
Scott Kupor. Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
A.M. Management & Consulting. Andrew Medjuck.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Aliya Capital Partners LLC. Ross Kestin. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
BAMCO, Inc. (Baron). Patrick Patalino. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd. Kaiser Neg.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. Nicholas Sammut, Nicholas
Goodman. Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
39
PDF Page 49
21.
22,
23.
24.
25.
26,
27,
28.
29,
30,
31.
32.
33.
DFJ Growth IV Partners, LLC. Randall Glein. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC. Chris Maher.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Honeycomb Asset Management LP. Vick Sandhu.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Key Wealth Advisors LLC. Ahmad Razi Karim. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Lawrence J. Ellison Revocable Trust. Paul Marinelli.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Litani Ventures. Peter Rahal. Knowledgeable as an equity co-
investor alongside Musk.
Qatar Investment Authority. Ahmad Al-Khjani. Knowledgeable
as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Sequoia Capital Fund, L.P. Douglas Leone. Knowledgeable as
an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Strauss Capital LLC. Daniel Strauss. Knowledgeable as an equity
co-investor alongside Musk.
Tresser Blvd 402 LLC (Cartenna). Peter Avellone.
Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside Musk.
VyCapital. Katja Lake, Daniel Schwarz. Knowledgeable as an
equity co-investor alongside Musk.
Witkoff Capital. Zachary Witkoff. Knowledgeable as an equity
co-investor alongside Musk.
HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud
(Kingdom). Knowledgeable as an equity co-investor alongside
Musk.
40
PDF Page 50
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities as equity co-investors
alongside Musk, who, as such, have knowledge of their equity investments:
34.
35,
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44,
45.
46.
AJG Growth Fund, LLC
Bandera Partners, LLC
Debala Trust (aka Karim Hakimzadeh)
Eden Global Investments L.P.
GFNCI LLC
Manhattan Venture Partners X LLC
Opportunity Fund X, a Series of Factorial Funds I LLC
Qatar Holding LLC
Santo Lira LLC
Section 32 Fund 4, LP
Tomales Bay Capital CGF ZHR IX, LP
Tru Arrow Technology Partners CIV II, LP
Yuxiang (Robin) Ren
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the additional entities as having knowledge
regarding the topics called for in this Interrogatory:
Knowledgeable as mvestors approached by Morgan Stanley on Defendants’
behalf regarding an equity investment:
47.
48.
Access Industries
Advent
41
PDF Page 51
A9,
50.
51.
52.
53,
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68,
69.
70.
71,
Andrew Finn, Tim Urban, Quentin Koffey
Apollo
Aristotle Capital
ARK Investment Management LLC
Ashler Capital
Balyasny
BlackRock
Blackstone
Block.one (Michael Lubin)
BOND (Mary Meeker)
Boston Management/Eaton Vance
Brian Armstrong
Brinley Partners
California Regents
Capital Group
Carlyle
CDPQ
Centerbridge
Claure Group (Marcelo Claure)
ClearBridge
Clearlake
Coatue
Combs Enterprises
42
PDF Page 52
72.
73.
74,
75,
70.
77,
78.
79.
BQ.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
Cowbird Capital
CPPIB
Craft Ventures
D1 Capital
DaGrosa Capital Partners
Dash Wasserstein
Diameter
Dorilton Capital
Dragoneer
EL Acquisitions Steve Ellman
Emilio Masci
First Republic (Joe Gebbia)
Founders Fund
Francisco Partners
Frank McCourt
General Atlantic
General Catalyst
GIC
Gigafund
GoldenTree
Gregory Cohen (Rambleside)
Greycroft
Grok Ventures
43
PDF Page 53
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100,
101.
102,
103.
104.
105.
106.
107,
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
GSAM
Guggenheim
Hellman & Friedman
Hither Creek Ventures (Zander Farkas)
IIPS Partners
HRS Management
Iconiq
Insight
IVP
Jack Dorsey
Jill Smoller
John Catsimatidis
K5 Global (Michael Kives)
Ken Griffin
Ken Howery
Larry A Mizel
LAUNCH (Jason Calacanis)
Level Four LLC (Joe Rogan)
Liontree
Long View (Crown)
Lutetia Capital
Marc Benioff
Mark Cuban
44
141,
142.
143.
144,
145,
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154,
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
Prometheus
Red Apple Holdings, Inc.
Reid Hoffman
Reprogrammed Interchange LLC
Revere Capital
Revere Securities
Ross Gerber
Safra
Samuel Bankman-Fried (FTX)
Scott Nolan
Security Benefit
Senator
Sixth Street
Skip Capital
Skip Enterprises Pty Ltd
Snowdevil Capital / Thistledown (Matt Cowin)
Softbank
Southpoint Capital
S.P. Hinduja Private Bank Ltd
SRS Investment Memt.
T. Rowe Price
TCV
Teknecap
46
PDF Page 56
164. Thor Halvorssen
165. Thrive
166. Thrivent
167. TPG
168. UC Regents (Jagdeep Bachher)
169. University of Michigan
170. Veritas Capital
171. Viking Global
172. Warburg
173. Web3 Foundation
174. YLEM (Bastian Lehmann)
Knowledgeable as, or about, actual or potential co-investors in the Equity
Financing:
175, Anthony Scaramucci
176. Ari Emanuel
177. Ben Silverman
178. Brian Kingston
179. Carlos Slim
180. David Sacks
181. Dickson Law
182. Endeavor
183. Glenn Fuhrman
184. Jason Calacanis
47
PDF Page 57
185. Joe Lonsdale
186. John Rose
187. Steve Jurvetson
188. Ken Griffin
189. Kimbal Musk
190. Lawrence J. Ellison
191. Navaid Faroog
192. Rick Polhemus
193. Satya Nadella
194, Sean Combs
195. Sean Lynch
196. Tamim Jabr
197. Thierry Breton
198. Will MacAskill
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify all Persons with knowledge concerning any review or assessment
conducted by You or on Your behalf (including without limitation any review or
assessment conducted by or at the direction of Defendants’ Advisors), whether
before or after the date of the Merger Agreement, relating to (1) the prevalence of
false or spam accounts or bots on the Twitter platform; or (2) Twitter’s API or
“firehose” data, including without limitation all experts, consultants, advisors, or
other service providers that You and/or Defendants’ Advisors contacted, consulted,
or retained in connection with any such review or assessment.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Defendants object to this Interrogatory as seeking information not relevant to
the parties’ claims and defenses. Defendants further object to this Interrogatory
48
PDF Page 58
because it seeks information protected from disclosure as attorney work product or
under the attorney-client privilege. Defendants further object to this Interrogatory
because it seeks information that may be the subject of expert testimony. Defendants
will make expert disclosures at the appropriate time, as required by the applicable
tules and any further stipulations of the parties or Orders of the Court.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants identify the following persons and entities with knowledge
regarding analysis performed on Defendants’ behalf regarding the aforementioned
topics: ToSomeone Inc. dba CounterAction (Trevor Davis and Andrew Therriault),
Halo Privacy, Inc. (Mark Kearns, Seth Rodin, Kevin Casey, Dennis Duckworth),
and Cyabra Strategy Inc. (Dan Brahmy, Yossef Daar, Ido Shraga). Defendants will
make further expert disclosures regarding any underlying analysis at the appropriate
time, as required by the applicable rules and stipulations of the parties or Orders of
the Court.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants state that Elon Musk and Jared Birchall communicated with
and reviewed work produced by the entities and some or all of the tndividuals
previously identified in response to this Interrogatory, and that Skadden, Arps, Slate,
49
PDF Page 59
Meagher & Flom LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP engaged,
communicated with, and reviewed the work of the individuals and entities previously
identified in response to this Interrogatory.
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections and specific
objections, Defendants state Mike Ringler from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP and Alex Spiro, Andrew Rossman, Christopher Kercher, and Silpa Maruri
from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP engaged, communicated with,
and/or reviewed the work of the individuals and entities previously identified in
response to this Interrogatory.
OF COUNSEL:
Alex Spiro
Andrew J, Rossman
Christopher D. Kercher
Silpa Maruri
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
5] Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
(212) 849-7000
DATED: August 31, 2022
917334-WILSROLA - MSW
AS TO OBJECTIONS ONLY:
/s/ Edward B. Micheletti
Edward B. Micheletti (ID No. 3794)
Lauren N. Rosenello (ID No. 5581)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 636
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0636
(302) 651-3000
Attorneys for Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
Elon R. Musk, X Holdings [, Inc.,
and X Holdings If, Inc.
50
PDF Page 60
Exhibit D
PDF Page 61
From: Jaclyn Palmerson
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 12:37 AM
To: BRWilson@wlrk.com
Cc: Kathryn Bonacorsi; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossman; Alex Spiro; Christopher Kercher;
Silpa Maruri; David Mader, Micheletti, Edward B; Rosenello, Lauren N; Matthew Fox;
DEKirk@wirk.com; kshannon@potteranderson.com; ckelly@potteranderson.com;
jslights@wsgr.com; bsorrels@wsgr.com; wdsavitt@WLRK.com; SKEddy@wirk.com;
RAMcLeod@wirk.com; AReddy@wirk.com; NBYavitz@wirk.com; ALGoodman@wirk.com;
APSadinsky@wirk.com
Subject: Twitter v. Musk
Attachments: 2022.09.01 - Letter from Mader.pdf
Dear Counsel:
Please see the attached correspondence.
Best,
Jackie
Jaclyn Palmerson
Associate
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY LO010
212-849-7104 Direct
212-849-7000 Main Office Number
212-849-7100 FAX
jaclynpalmerson@quinnemanuel.com
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
PDF Page 62
GUINM GIMME trial lawyers | new york
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 1aare-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
WRITER’S DIRECT DIAL No.
(212) 849-7148
WRITER’S EMAIL ADDRESS
davidmader@quinnemanuel.com
September 1, 2022
VA E-MAIL
BRWILSON@WLRK.COM
Bradley R. Wilson, Esq.
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Re: Twitter, Inc. v. Elon R. Musk, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM (Del. Ch.)
Dear Counsel:
I write in response to your August 29, 2022 and August 30, 2022 letters regarding purported
deficiencies in Defendants’ document productions and interrogatory responses.
L Plaintiff's August 29, 2022 Letter
A. Defendants’ Response to Interrogatery No. 3
Plaintiffs August 29, 2022 letter states that “Defendants’ response to Interrogatory No. 3
continues to fail to identify all natural persons with the specified knowledge, including in particular
individual attorneys of the identified law firms.” Defendants disagree that their response to
Interrogatory No. 3 is in any way deficient. However, to resolve this issue, Defendants will serve
a supplemental response to Interrogatory No, 3 listing the partners from the law firms previously
disclosed who have knowledge regarding the reviews or assessments discussed in Interrogatory
No. 3.
B. Defendants’ Production of Data Scientist Analyses
Defendants intend to fully comply with the Court’s August 25, 2022 Order. That Order
clearly defined the Analyses that the Court found to have been put at issue and therefore not subject
to the protection of Rule 26(b)(4)(B). Specifically, the Court defined the relevant “Analyses” as
follows:
In May 2022, Defendants demanded information pursuant to Section 6.4
concerning Plaintiff's methods of calculating monetizable daily active usage or
QUINN emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, lip
ATLANTA | AUSTIN | BOSTON j BRUSSELS | CHICAGO | DOHA | HAMBURG | HONG KONG | HOUSTON | LONDON | LOS ANGELES | MANNHEIM |
MIAMI | MUNICH | NEUILLY-LA DEFENSE | NEW YORK | PARTS { PERTH | RIYADH | SALT LAKE CITY | SAN FRANCISCO [SEATTLE | SHANGHAI |
SILICON VALLEY | STUTTGART | SYDNEY | TOKYO | WASHINGTON, DC | ZURICH
PDF Page 63
users (“mMDAU”). In response, Plaintiff provided its “firehose” data—t.e., a live
feed of data concerning public accounts on Plaintiff's platform. Defendants then
provided Plaintiffs firehose data to the Data Scientists, who conducted a
“preliminary analysis” of that data. Based expressly in part on that preliminary
analysis, Defendants terminated the Merger Agreement on July 8, 2022. Plaintiff
filed suit, and Defendants responded with counterclaims that reference analyses
performed by the Data Scientists (with the preliminary analysis, the “Analyses”) at
least eight times.
August 25, 2022 Order on Plaintiffs Second Discovery Motion at 2 (footnotes omitted).
Consistent with the Order, Defendants or their advisors (who have been subpoenaed) will produce
the Analyses, together with documents and communications and drafts concerning the Analyses
that do not contain any work product. If Defendants withhold any such documents,
communications, or drafts on the basis that they contain or reflect work product, Defendants will
provide a log.
IL. Plaintiff's August 30, 2022 Letter
A, Defendants’ Text Message Production
Defendants disagree with any suggestion that their collection, review, or production of text
messages has been mm any way deficient. At Plaintiffs request, Defendants conducted a linear
review of all text messages with any contact sent or received between May 3, 2022 and May 16,
2022, a counterparty-specific linear review, and a review of text messages that hit on agreed-upon
search terms. At Plaintiff's request, Defendants also reviewed all texts within an agreed-upon
buffer period. After conducting this extensive review, Defendants produced over 1200 text
messages from Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall. Defendants’ document production—and, specifically,
Defendants’ production of text messages—was substantially complete as of August 29. Plaintiffs
accusations that there are “yust four text messages” on a certain day or “zero text messages” during
a certain time period, in addition to being inaccurate, provide no support for Plaintiff's suggestion
that there are responsive texts that Defendants have failed to produce. !
Nevertheless, Defendants will investigate Plaintiff's complaints and, in the event any
responsive texts are found to have been inadvertently withheld, they will be produced promptly.
Defendants will also produce any text messages between Mr. Musk and Mr. Birchall that were
previously produced from the custodial files of one and not the other, although we confirm that
Plaintiff has at least one copy of every such text.
B. Defendants’ Rate of Production
As to your second point, Defendants have reviewed over 49,000 custodial documents after
threading and deduping. During the course of our early meet and confers, we repeatedly advised
you that Plaintiff's search terms were not weil tailored to result in the likely identification of non-
duplicative responsive documents. The fact that our good faith observations were borne out by
' Defendants did, in fact, produce text messages from May 11, 2022.
Page 2 of 3
PDF Page 64
the review should not be the basis for negative inferences. Nor is it surprising, given what we told
you.
To take your example of the search string “Mdau* OR MAU* OR Dau* OR UAM OR
mMAU,” Defendants’ review of documents hit on by that term revealed a significant number of
irrelevant, nonresponsive hits, including unsolicited e-mails asking Mr. Musk for money, e-mails
containing the word “daughter,” and image files that the keyword search tool reads as random
strings of characters, which are likely to hit on short search terms with a wildcard at the end, like
MAU* or Dau*. Other irrelevant, nonresponsive hits include employee rosters or other documents
that contain employee names that hit on one or more of the common names Plaintiff requested as
search terms, such as Martha*, Bret*, Taylor*, Jack*, and Marty*.
Further, we fail to understand why a responsiveness rate of “less than half’ could be
incomprehensible to you, given that your own review of documents hitting on the term “mDAU”
(without a wildcard at the end) resulted in the exclusion of 76% of those documents from
production. Indeed, such a substantial exclusion is far more surprising from Twitter, which
uses the term “mDAU” extensively within its organization, than it is from Defendants.
Notwithstanding the above, you misstate our production figures by nearly 25%, since
Defendants had in fact produced 2,065 documents as of August 29, 2022 (the date preceding that
of your letter). Your calculations are therefore incorrect.
Cc. Defendants’ Interrogatory Responses
While Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ supplemental responses “identified only
persons and entities Twitter already knew had relevant knowledge, and thus disclosed nothing,”
Plaintiff is now asking Defendants to supplement their interrogatory responses based on text
messages and other documents already within Plaintiff's possession. Such supplements will,
again, disclose nothing new. Further, while you suggest Defendants “omitted... Michael Kives
of K5 Global,” Mr. Kives and his affiliation with K5 Global are clearly disclosed in Defendants’
interrogatory responses. See Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. |.
In any event, together with this letter, Defendants will serve amended interrogatory
responses that Defendants trust will resolve Plaintiffs concems.
Defendants reserve all rights. We are available to discuss upon request.
Very truly yours,
/s/ David Mader
David Mader
Page 3 of 3
PDF Page 65
Exhibit E
PDF Page 66
From: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:49 PM
To: Wilson, Bradley R.
Cc: Silpa Maruri; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossman; Alex Spiro; Christopher Kercher; David
Mader; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP); Rosenello,
Lauren N; Matthew Fox; Kirk, David E; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP); Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP); Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC); Sorrels, Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
PC); Savitt, William D.; Eddy, Sarah K; McLeod, Ryan A; Reddy, Anitha; Yavitz, Noah B.;
Goodman, Adam L; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
Attachments: 2022.08.30 Mader Letter.pdf
Counsel:
On behalf of Defendants, please see the attached correspondence.
Regards,
Kate
Kathryn Bonacorsi
Associate
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-849-7312 Direct
212-849-7000 Main Office Number
212-849-7100 FAX
kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com
www. quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential, If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this decument in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
PDF Page 67
CLULTERED GOVAAEVOIEL triatiawvers | new york
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York rooro-i6ar | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
WRiITER’S DIRECT DIAL No.
(212) 849-7148
WRITER’S EMAIL ADDRESS
davidmader@quinnemanuel.com
August 30, 2022
Via E-MAIL
BRWILSON@WLRK.COM
Bradley R. Wilson, Esq.
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
Re: Twitter, Inc. v. Elon R. Musk, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSIM (Del. Ch.)
Dear Counsel:
Yesterday at 4:05 p.m. Twitter represented that it had substantially completed its document
production. Twitter’s productions, however, reveal clear deficiencies that must be remedied
immediately. We are continuing our review of Twitter’s productions, including the more than
80,000 pages that Twitter has produced in the last two days afone, and we reserve our rights to
raise additional deficiencies. We nevertheless give notice of the following deficiencies that must
be rectified immediately.
First, it appears that Twitter is either withholding obviously relevant and responsive
documents or has not in fact made a “substantially complete” production. For example, a
comparison between Twitter’s search term results and the materials it has produced reveal
numerous obvious gaps in Twitter’s production, including the following:
1. Twitter has produced only 4,144 documents hitting on the term “mDAU,” even though,
according to Twitter’s hit count, 17,527 documents hit on that term. It is highly
implausible that 76% of the documents hitting on the term “mDAU” fall outside the scope
of what Twitter has agreed to produce, which includes “(1) Board-level documents
concerning mDAU; (2) management-level documents concerning mDAU; (3) documents
concerning Twitter’s belief that mDAU is a key metric for Twitter, (4) documents
concerning Twitter’s disclosure of its mDAU metric; (5) documents concerning Twitter's
spam-estimation process for the fourth quarter of 2021; (6) documents concerning the
relationship between mDAU and Twitter’s revenue or EBITDA; (7) Twitter’s recast of its
mDAU on April 28, 2022; (8) Twitter's criteria for determining whether an account is
quinn emmanuel Urquhart & sullivan, fp
ATLANTA | AUSTIN | BOSTON | BRUSSELS | CHICAGO | DOHA | HAMBURG | HONG KONG | HOUSTON | LONDON | LOS ANGELES | MANNHEIM |
MIAMI f MUNICH | NEWILLY-LA DEFENSE { NEW YORK ] PARIS} PERTH | RIYADH | SALT LAKE CITY | SAN FRANCISCO [| SEATTLE | SHANGHAI |
SILICON VALLEY | STUTTGART | SYDNEY | TOKYO | WASHINGTON, DC | ZURICH
PDF Page 68
included in mDAU; (9) documents relating to the impact of mDAU on Twitter’s
performance metrics; and (10) communications with advertisers regarding the importance
of mDAU and its impact on performance metrics.” Please describe what nonprivileged
documents Twitter has that use the term mDAU and which are being withheld as non-
responsive.
2. Twitter has produced only 817 documents hitting on the term “UAM,” even though,
according to Twitter’s hit count, 5,679 documents hit on that term. This tiny production is
staggering, particularly given that the Court has ordered Twitter to produce all documents
in Twitter’s review database “reflecting discussion of any other key metric identified by
Defendants.” Indeed, even under Twitter’s narrower articulation of responsiveness, which
the Court has rejected, it is implausible that over 85% of documents containing the phrase
“UAM” do not “relate to Twitter’s belief that mDAU, and its related growth, is a key
metric Twitter uses to measure success against its objectives and to show the size of its
audience and engagement” or that those documents do not involve a comparison between
the relative importance of mDAU and UAM. Please confirm when you intend to remedy
this deficiency, which is in violation of the Court’s August 25 Order.
3. Twitter has produced only 130 documents hitting on the term “stickiness,” even though,
according to Twitter’s hit count, 945 documents hit on that term. Once again, it would be
remarkable if more than 85% of the documents hitting on the term “stickiness”—-which is
a measure Twitter uses to measure the engagement levels of its mDAU—would not “relate
to Twitter’s belief that mDAU, and its related growth, is a key metric Twitter uses to
measure success against its objectives and to show the size of its audience and
engagement.” Please explain the basis on which you have withheld more than eight
hundred documents relating to this relevant term.
4. Twitter has preduced only 107 documents hitting on the term “TYTT”—which is an
acronym for “too young te tell,” a phrase used to describe users counted in mDAU that are
too new to be served any ads—even though, according to Twitter’s hit count, 289
documents hit on that term. It is facially implausible that more than 50% of the documents
hitting on the term “TYTT” would not “reflect[] Twitter’s knowledge or awareness that its
mDAU count includes accounts that were not served or rendered any ads on one or more
days when said accounts were included in the mDAU count.”
Further demonstrating the deficiency in Twitter’s production, Twitter has to date produced
fewer than 100 documents total from its 23 Cognizant custodians. It is simply not believable that
more than twenty individual document custodians would collectively produce fewer than 100
documents, suggesting either that Twitter has not substantially completed its production of
documents from the custodian files of these individuals, or that Twitter has not adequately located
all sources of responsive materials for these custodians, or that Twitter has withheld relevant
documents. So that we may more comprehensively assess the deficiency in Twitter’s production
with respect to these custodians, please provide hit counts for each and identify the total number
of documents collected from each. Please also confirm when Twitter was first aware of the hit
counts for these twenty-one custodians, and please describe the steps yon have taken to identify
relevant sources of responsive materials for each, including the identification of non-email sources
PDF Page 69
of relevant materials (e.g., Slack, email, text). Finally, we note that if there are in fact only 100
responsive documents from the Cognizant custodians, it is disturbing that in opposing Defendants’
motion to compel on custodians Twitter touted its addition of these custodians without informing
the Court that they only possessed a de minimis number of responsive documents.
Second, as we have already indicated, the volume of materials Twitter produced in the
hours and days immediately preceding the substantial completion deadline demonstrates a
manifest failure by Twitter to comply with its obligations under the Scheduling Order. As of the
substantial completion deadline, Twitter had produced approximately 41,000 documents. Of
those, more than 18,000 documents—representing more than 40% of the total production—were
produced within one hour of the substantial completion deadline. More than 25,000 documents—
representing approximately 60% of Twitter’s total production—were produced on or after
Saturday, August 27, two days before the substantial completion deadline. Moreover, Twitter
appears to have intentionally held back many of the most relevant documents in its production
until the end of the substantial completion period. For example, over 60% of the documents
produced by Twitter that hit on the search term “mDAU,” 80% of the documents that hit on the
search term “UAM,” 91% of the documents that hit on the search term “Stickiness,” and 96% of
the documents that hit on the search term “TYTT” were produced less that one hour before the
substantial completion deadline. These delayed productions suggests that Twitter is attempting to
deprive Defendants of a reasonable opportunity to review Twitter’s documents in advance of
depositions. We reserve all rights.
Third, with respect to the documents of Mr. Egon Durban in particular, Twitter’s
production contains only 10 custodial documents—none of them e-mails—and has produced fewer
than 100 e-mails to or from Mr. Durban, all from the custodial files of other custodians. The
production of only four e-mails sent by a document custodian is cause for concern, and it suggests
that Mr. Durban was using other forms of communications to discuss the matters at issue in this
litigation. Accordingly, we reiterate our earlier request that Twitter agree to produce text and other
non-email messages for Mr. Durban. To the extent Twitter continues to refuse to produce Mr.
Durban’s texts and other non-email messages, please confirm that Mr. Durban’s texts and other
messages are in fact within Twitter’s possession, custody, and control. Given that Twitter has
previously agreed to collect documents from Mr, Durban’s non-Twitter e-mail account, we assume
that they are.
Finally, Twitter’s productions raise significant concems regarding the manner in which
Twitter has collected responsive materials. For example, Twitter has applied inappropriate
responsiveness redactions in contexts where responsiveness is apparent. Twitter has produced a
Slack Channel titled “tmp-uam-discussions,” (TWTR_ 000079793) which was explicitly set up to
“consolidate[e] the various questions about UAM as a goaling metric for initiatives.” Obviously,
the entire substantive content of this channel is highly relevant to Defendants’ counterclaims, yet
more than half of the communications in this channel have been redacted as purportedly non-
responsive. Although Defendants agreed to allow Twitter to redact portions of large Slack
conversations that did not hit on any search terms (and were not in close proximity to any search
terms), Defendants have not agreed to allow Twitter to intentionally withhold responsive
information, The same is true of the “tundra-deal-team’” Slack Channel (TWTR_000079519),
which likewise has dozens of pages of communications redacted as non-responsive despite the
PDF Page 70
obvious relevance of the entire Slack Channel. Please confirm that you will produce these
Channels without redaction.
In addition to Twitter’s inappropriate responsiveness redactions, Twitter has produced, to
date, only a handful of text messages in the form of screen shots, suggesting that Twitter has not
conducted a forensically comprehensive collection and review of its custodians text
messages. Please confirm that Twitter has collected all text messages from, at the very least,
Twitter’s six agreed text custodians, and that Twitter has reviewed all of those texts according to
its proposed August 23, 2022 protocol. If Twitter has not done so, please immediately explain
why it has not. Please confirm whether Twitter has completed its production of text messages. If
not, please explain why it has not, identify the custodians whose text messages have not been
produced, and state when the production of text messages will be complete. Defendants of course
reserve all rights, including the right to postpone depositions and/or seek relief from the Court.
Given the existing discovery schedule, Defendants request answers to the points raised
above by the close of business tomorrow.
Very truly yours,
David Mader
PDF Page 71
Exhibit F
PDF Page 72
From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 11:07 PM
To: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Cc: Silpa Maruri; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossman; Alex Spiro; Christopher Kercher; David
Mader; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP); Rosenello,
Lauren N; Matthew Fox; Kirk, David E.; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP); Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP); Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC); Sorrels, Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
PC); Savitt, William D.; Eddy, Sarah K,; McLeod, Ryan A.; Reddy, Anitha; Yavitz, Noah B,;
Goodman, Adam L,; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
[EXTERNAL EMAIL from brwilson@wirk.com]
Counsel,
We write in partial response to your August 30 letter.
In that letter, defendants raise concerns about certain redactions for responsiveness in Slack channels
titled “tmp-uam-discussions” and “tundra-deal-team.”
e® As to the tmp-uam-discussions Slack channel, because Twitter conducted its review of this
document before the Court’s Order on Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion, not all messages
discussing the UAM metric were identified as responsive by the reviewers. We advised you of this
issue in an email sent on August 25, and offered to re-review any Slack channels we had gathered
that contained the term “UAM” (among other terms) and modify the responsiveness redactions to
take account of the Court’s Order. However, we explained in that email that “[o]ur willingness to
do this is subject to the condition that it be understood that changing our responsiveness criteria
for Slack messages in the midst of our review will result in Twitter producing a smaller number of
Slack messages prior to the substantial completion deadline,” and accordingly asked defendants to
“let us know by tomorrow [i.e. August 26] whether defendants would like us to re-review Slack
messages in this manner.” Defendants did not get back to us on this inquiry, and thus Twitter
produced this Slack channel without undertaking the re-review it had offered. Nevertheless, we
have now re-reviewed the tmp-uam-discussions Slack channel in light of your letter, and we are
producing this evening a replacement version that takes account of the Court's Order.
e We likewise undertook to re-review the tundra-deal-team Slack channel after receiving your
letter. Having done so, we agree that given the subject matter of the Slack channel, the
responsiveness redactions were applied in error. We are therefore producing this evening a
replacement version that will contain only privilege-based redactions.
We will endeavor to respond to the other issues raised in your August 30 letter tomorrow, as we
previously advised.
Regards,
Brad
PDF Page 73
From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:24 AM
To: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Cc: Silpa Maruri ; Emily Kapur ; Rossman, Andrew
J. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Alex Spiro
; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Mader, David S. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)
; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Matthew Fox
; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP)
; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha :
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
Counsel,
We are preparing a response to your August 30 letter. We expect to send it tomorrow.
Regards,
Brad
From: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:49 PM
To: Wilson, Bradley R.
Ce: Silpa Maruri ; Emily Kapur ; Rossman, Andrew
J, (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Alex Spiro
; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Mader, David S. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)
; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Matthew Fox
; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP)
; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) : Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha ;
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
*F* EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
Counsel:
On behalf of Defendants, please see the attached correspondence.
PDF Page 74
Regards,
Kate
Kathryn Bonacorsi
Associate
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-849-7312 Direct
212-849-7000 Main Office Number
212-849-7100 FAX
kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com
www.guinnemanuel.com
NOTICE; The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message,
Please be advised that this transmittal may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail (helpdesk@wirk.com) or by
telephone (call us collect at 212-403-4357) and delete this message and any attachments.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance.
PDF Page 75
Exhibit G
PDF Page 76
From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 9:01 PM
To: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Ca Silpa Maruri; Emily Kapur; Andrew J. Rossrnan; Alex Spiro; Christopher Kercher; David
Mader; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP); Rosenello,
Lauren N; Matthew Fox; Kirk, David E.; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP); Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP); Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC); Sorrels, Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
PC); Savitt, William D, Eddy, Sarah K.; McLeod, Ryan A,; Reddy, Anitha; Yavitz, Noah B.;
Goodman, Adam L,; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
Attachments: BRW letter to David S. Mader (9.2.2022).pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL from brwilson@wirk.com]
Counsel,
Please see the attached letter.
Regards,
Brad
From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 11:07 PM
To: ‘Kathryn Bonacorsi'
Ce: 'Silpa Maruri' ; ‘Emily Kapur’ ; Rossman,
Andrew J. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; 'Alex Spiro'
; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Mader, David S, (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)
; 'Rosenello, Lauren N' ; 'Matthew Fox’
; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP)
; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D, (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha ;
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L, ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v, Musk
Counsel,
We write in partial response to your August 30 letter.
In that letter, defendants raise concerns about certain redactions for responsiveness in Slack channels
titled “tmp-uam-discussions” and “tundra-deal-team.”
PDF Page 77
e As to the tmp-uam-discussions Slack channel, because Twitter conducted its review of this
document before the Court’s Order on Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion, not all messages
discussing the UAM metric were identified as responsive by the reviewers. We advised you of this
issue in an email sent on August 25, and offered to re-review any Slack channels we had gathered
that contained the term “UAM” (among other terms) and modify the responsiveness redactions to
take account of the Court’s Order. However, we explained in that email that “[o]ur willingness to
do this is subject to the condition that it be understood that changing our responsiveness criteria
for Slack messages in the midst of our review will result in Twitter producing a smaller number of
Slack messages prior to the substantial completion deadline,” and accordingly asked defendants to
“let us know by tomorrow [i.e. August 26] whether defendants would like us to re-review Slack
messages in this manner.” Defendants did not get back to us on this inquiry, and thus Twitter
produced this Slack channel without undertaking the re-review it had offered. Nevertheless, we
have now re-reviewed the tmp-uam-discussions Slack channel] in light of your letter, and we are
producing this evening a replacement version that takes account of the Court’s Order.
e We likewise undertook to re-review the tundra-deal-team Slack channel after receiving your
letter. Having done so, we agree that given the subject matter of the Slack channel, the
responsiveness redactions were applied in error. We are therefore producing this evening a
replacement version that will contain only privilege-based redactions.
We will endeavor to respond to the other issues raised in your August 30 letter tomorrow, as we
previously advised.
Regards,
Brad
From: Wilson, Bradley R.
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:24 AM
To: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Cc: Silpa Maruri ; Emily Kapur ; Rossman, Andrew
J. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Alex Spiro
; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Mader, David S. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)
; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Matthew Fox
; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP} ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP)
; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha ;
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
Counsel,
We are preparing a response to your August 30 letter. We expect to send it tomorrow.
Regards,
Brad
PDF Page 78
From: Kathryn Bonacorsi
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:49 PM
To: Wilson, Bradley R.
Ce: Silpa Maruri ; Emily Kapur ; Rossman, Andrew
J. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) ; Alex Spiro
; Kercher, Christopher D. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Mader, David S. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
; Micheletti, Edward B. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)
; Rosenello, Lauren N ; Matthew Fox
; Kirk, David E. ; Shannon, Kevin R. (Potter Anderson & Corroon
LLP) ; Kelly, Christopher N. (Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP)
; Slights, Joseph R. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Sorrels,
Bradley D. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC) ; Savitt, William D. ;
Eddy, Sarah K. ; McLeod, Ryan A. ; Reddy, Anitha ;
Yavitz, Noah B. ; Goodman, Adam L. ; Sadinsky, Alexandra P.
Subject: RE: Twitter v. Musk
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***
Counsel:
On behalf of Defendants, please see the attached correspondence.
Regards,
Kate
Kathryn Bonacorsi
Associate
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
212-849-7312 Direct
212-849-7000 Main Office Number
212-849-7100 FAX
kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited, If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
Please be advised that this transmittal may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail (helpdesk@wlrk.com) or by
telephone (call us collect at 212-403-4357) and delete this message and any attachments.
PDF Page 79
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance.
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & Katz
David S. Mader, Esq.
September 2, 2022
Page 2
Your claim that Twitter failed to comply with the rolling production requirement
in the Scheduling Order is also meritless. Twitter devoted significant resources to its collection
and review effort and worked in good faith to meet the substantial completion deadline, making
more than a dozen productions along the way. The fact that Twitter made a large production on
the day of the substantial completion deadline is neither surprising nor improper. Rather, it is a
necessary byproduct of highly expedited litigation and entirely common in the Court of Chancery.
We turn now to the specific deficiencies that your letter identified:
First, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents containing the term
“mDAU,” your statement in the August 30 letter that only 4,144 documents containing this term
were deemed responsive is inaccurate, Twitter has produced more than 4,600 documents that
contain the term “mDAU.” Your calculation also fails to account for documents Twitter is
withholding on privilege grounds, which will be reflected on Twitter’s forthcoming privilege log.
The reality is that Twitter has deemed responsive more than 40% of the
documents that contain this term. This responsiveness rate aligns with reasonable expectations:
Given the Court’s Order on Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion, not all documents that
reference the term “mDAU” are required to be produced.
To test Twitter’s responsiveness determinations on documents containing the term
“mDAU,” we reviewed a random sampling of documents contaimng that term that had been
coded non-responsive. Most of the documents in the sample had been properly designated, but
the sample did include a small number of documents that, although immaterial, are technically
responsive. We are investigating this issue further and will provide an update over the weekend.
Second, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents containing the term
“UAM,” your letter was premature. Twitter expects to produce by tomorrow a significant
number of additional “UAM” documents, in accordance with the Court’s Order on Defendants’
Second Discovery Motion.
Third, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents containing the term
“stickiness,” we expect that additional documents containing this term will be produced by
tomorrow as part of Twitter’s production of documents in response to the Court’s Order on
Defendants’ Second Discovery Motion.
Fourth, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents containing the term
“TYTT,” your understanding of this acronym is mistaken: It does not refer to accounts that “are
too new to be served any ads.” Aug. 30 Letter at 2, As you know, defendants served a specific
document request targeting TYTT accounts. In its response to this request, Twitter agreed to
produce non-privileged documents that concer the “treatment of TYTT accounts in connection
with the mDAU Audit for Q4 2021, or the actual or potential discussion of TYTT accounts with
Defendants in connection with the Merger Agreement.” See Response to Request No. 1,
Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendants’ Revised Second Requests for Production of
PDF Page 82
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & Katz
David S$. Mader, Esq.
September 2, 2022
Page 3
Documents Directed to Twitter, Inc. (Aug. 19, 2022). Twitter has endeavored to produce such
documents, and defendants have made no colorable showing that the production is deficient.
Fifth, with regard to the “Cognizant custodians”——whose emails were searched
for the period November 1, 2021 to January 14, 2022, in accordance with our agreement on the
email search protocol—our calculations indicate that Twitter has produced approximately 260
documents from their files, out of a total of approximately 4,600 such documents in the review
population. Insofar as these individuals’ work on the mDAU Audit was only a small portion of
the work they did for Twitter, these figures are not entirely surprising. Nevertheless, Twitter is
investigating this issue further and will revert in prompt due course.
In response to your inquities regarding non-email document sources for these
custodians, as you know, Twitter did not agree to collect or review Slack messages or text
messages for the Cognizant custodians, This issue is currently pending before the Court as it
pertains to Slack messages.
Sixth, with regard to Twitter’s production of documents from Mr. Durban’s Silver
Lake email account, your letter was premature. Twitter has now substantially completed its
production of documents from that email account.
We do not agree to add Mr, Durban as a Messaging Platform Custodian and
review and produce his text messages. As you know, we reached an impasse on that issue more
than a week ago.
Finally, we do not understand the basis for the assertion in your letter that Twitter
has produced only a “handful” of texts. Twitter has produced hundreds of text messages from its
Messaging Platform Custodians, ali in accordance with Twitter’s August 23 Message Protocol.
Twitter expects to make a final production of text messages from these custodians tomorrow.!
Sincerely,
fyb he [how
Bradley R. Wilson
} We responded separately yesterday to the concerns you raised in the August 30 letter
about certain Slack channels in Twitter’s production.
PDF Page 83
Exhibit H
PDF Page 84
WeaA
(LSD) THSETZ Pe-TO-2z0z
“Yq BNO XY JaTUM} Sy} SAOW PNoOYs | 3S2I U] “NOY T Ul slay} UO Sueow & wel}
azi|ea | ¢sepuayes Apwuud anoA |I9s Kees YseqIAg S1Ng ‘MOU IYSU XN U! sue SUIYT MOLY |
(153) TT+L0:TZ pZ-TO-2z0z
pd}! AJLUIPIOOI WAY] AACY OF SUILU OG U! B/qe|IEAe NoA aly alqeua-s/ ued
NOA usyy PUe LU! NOA Jay [LIM YIM JUNIE INGA JO} WAZ [12 AUIGesIp Agi xy ues AeyL, pexn
(153) 60:85:02 7Z-T0-ZZ0Z
23! SJEUIPIOOD WAY] BABY OF SUIL OG Ul a[qe[IeAe NoA vty VW ajqeua
“34 UPD NOA UB] PUR UI NOA 33] [JIM Y2IYM JunoIe sNOA 305 YAz |e SUNGesIp Agi xij ue AayL
(189) EE:25:02 PZ-LO-ZZ07
(
Has SBUIIIS X8|V
yead yO
(189) LEBEOZ VZ-TO-Zz0z
aw & Uodn eouo ‘mau au] AjaA 0} auoYd plo JNOA pasn am auNsse |
(LSD) 6S:¥T-02 ¥2-L0-¢z07z
| EE 2241195 21
Mou Aqayes 3g ISML JO Peay slay? YM Sureuuo}
(15D) 71-02 7Z-TO-Z2z0z
(
HAS “( SdUl||DS X81
a B
"apo
dnyseq ayl asn 2,upip | se ‘aud mau SILA UO JOM atm | BYEW 07 B/Ge SEM | MOY ans JON
(159) 8E°ET:OzZ v2-LO-Zz0z
Appaiip suijese4 oy AddeY
(183) 82:50:02 7Z-LO-2z0z
“71 YENI SUDLOM aue Aay | “SWesy sau Aq siy7 3%!| saZUBYI BYEW O} pley
Aran UI apew aa,Aauy os asayz JdA0 Aypeutaqul ajyord Ysiy patapisuod s| JuNOIIe INOA UpIL
(159) SS:€0:02 72-L0-Zz0z
lua|goid 2 (jas yi Way) YIM BWIYS2ey Os|e UeD |
(LSD) Le LZ6T PZ-10-2202
pood spunos
(183) 9E‘TZ:6T vZ-TO-2Z0Z
sauly|aS X3[V
a 2
=: ES 224s ew
| ee - CC eS
(
| a HE «2015 x21
(
ES»: <2 25201
{
a .-: EE «2495.21
a 5204S XIV
MOU azepdn ve JO} Susy “UOOS SIS OF WAZ INOA
yasas euuod Ajjnyadoy ase Au pue (YEY)AQUaD! AW WuyUOd 0} LUeY3 YIM PSull1adk3 - SA
(15D) £0:BT:6L vZ-TO-2Z0Z
“aeay 0} [e018 “WO
(1S) €#:TZ:€zZ TZ-LO-Zz0z
| 2s
dde uolewyuod ay YIM pa|qeus Jope}omy aney | 1Ng
(153) SO:DZ°EZ TZ-L0-Zz0z
=a:
Jaya Aw yaey 0} Bury auoawos $s} }|
(153) ZS°6T-EZ Te-TO-2z0Z
JaTUM | {Nod 0} ssaa3e peY [9S NOA ainsua 0} 93949 0} PaIWEM ING JdWARe JOWWeIS E SI S14
Suluuinssy “sjlewWa Jase/ puomssed uszop e pue lela UOReADeSp BUD Bas | ING Sunsod JON
(159) TE*6T-€t TZ-TO-ZZ07
| CO
(
A EE
eduiujAue dursod Junosse 457M} AW 5|
(1S) BS:ZT-€% Lz-ToO-Ecoz
Jag yo durAejs wy
(1S3) TLT€2 Te-TO-2z0z
(
: <: EE <2 15 “210
(
:\-s <2 25 av
pe Terres)
TWILNSO\|ZNO3 ATHSIH
AyjuaoaJ P3ii}},UaAey |
(159) O€:ZT:€Z TZ-LO-270z
sidwiaye sjasad piomssed swios duipnpu|
‘weds Ul pjay S|IPUe Jo Jaquunu e Mes | 240 JUNODIe JADIM LINDA ssaoJe 0 alge NOA ase - UO}Z
(15D) ES:60:E2 TZ-L0-Zz0z
Back to 
