Elon Musk’s Friend David Sacks Lost a Bid to Quash a Twitter Subpoena Because of His Tweets
According to the ruling of a court, a friend of Elon Musk’s who was subpoenaed in the case over the purchase of Twitter has been unsuccessful in his attempt to have the subpoena quashed because of his conduct on Twitter and in his podcast.
According to the court records submitted by Chancellor Kathleen McCormick, David Sacks, the chief executive officer of Craft Ventures and a member of the so-called “PayPal mafia,” was forced to withdraw his appeal when Twitter subpoenaed him for contact with Musk.
On August 5, Sacks revealed on his podcast titled “All-In” that the social media platform had sent a subpoena to him as a result of his remarks on the Twitter purchase.
“I have absolutely nothing to do with this situation, yet they have served me with the most comprehensive subpoena ever.
Also read: Elon Musk may seek to overturn nine of the most egregious suspensions and bans on Twitter.
It’s something like thirty pages’ worth of requests. “And now I need to employ a lawyer in order to put an end to this matter,” the former executive at PayPal said.
Musk said that he was deceived about the number of bogus accounts on the network, which led to litigation and countersuits being filed by both sides after his decision to back out of the contract to purchase Twitter for $44 billion. During the month of May, Musk made an appearance on Sacks’ podcast in the midst of his takeover effort.
It was believed that one of Sacks’ tweets that led to his subpoena was a checklist of issues for Musk to fix if and when he acquired control of Twitter. This tweet prompted Sacks to be subpoenaed.
According to the filing, Sacks, who is well-known in the venture capital industry, had signed a non-disclosure agreement to look into the possibility of making an investment when Musk bought Twitter.
The attorneys for Sacks said that the Delaware demands from Twitter were improper because they were “unduly onerous” due to the fact that they were duplicative of the subpoenas issued in California and the return deadlines were set too early. Sacks also grumbled about being forced to retain legal representation.
Sacks first replied to the subpoena by tweeting an image of a middle finger from the cover of Mad magazine and releasing a follow-up video from “The Wolf of Wall Street” of a character peeing on a subpoena. Both of these were in response to the subpoena.
This action resulted in a complaint being filed by Twitter, which McCormick used as justification for why the subpoena could not be overturned.
She said that Sack’s complaint about the need to hire attorneys was superfluous as well, and that it appeared to have only happened because Sack promised the listeners of his podcast that he would do so.
In a different set of circumstances, I may consider it difficult to issue wholly duplicative subpoenas that are served for such tactical goals.
In situations like this one, when the subpoena receiver gives the lawyers who issued the subpoena the middle finger and tweets a video of someone peeing on subpoenas, I find that it bothers me less.
“The movers, in what seems to have been an attempt to honour Sacks’ promise to the listeners of his podcast, imposed the precise burden that they are now complaining about,”
McCormick’s decision could have consequences for Musk, who is a frequent tweeter and has often used the site to be mean to Twitter.
Professor Eric Talley of Columbia Law said to Insider that it was possible that she would take nasty comments into account while making her decision.
According to the ruling of a court, a friend of Elon Musk’s who was subpoenaed in the case over the purchase of Twitter has been unsuccessful in his attempt to have the subpoena quashed because of his conduct on Twitter and in his podcast.
According to court records submitted by Chancellor Kathleen McCormick, David Sacks, the CEO of Craft Ventures and a member of the so-called “PayPal mafia,” had to drop his appeal when Twitter ordered him to talk to Musk.
On August 5, Sacks said on his podcast “All-In” that the social media site had sent him a subpoena because of his comments about the Twitter purchase, in which he said it was too broad.
