The craziest part of Musk v. Altman happened while the jury was out of the room

Jared Birchall, Musk's money manager, answered a question he wasn't supposed to. It's unclear what the consequences will be.

A significant legal development unfolded in the ongoing Musk v. Altman case when Jared Birchall, Elon Musk's financial advisor, provided testimony that may have created complications for Musk's legal team. While the full implications remain unclear, the courtroom proceedings revealed potential procedural issues that could impact the case's trajectory.

Birchall, who serves as Musk's finance manager and trusted advisor, testified following Musk's appearance on the stand. The majority of his testimony consisted of routine document submissions and procedural matters typical of complex litigation. However, the proceedings took an unexpected turn during the final portion of his examination.

During direct examination, Musk's legal team passed a note to their attorney, who then questioned Birchall about xAI's bid for OpenAI's assets. Birchall's response revealed potentially sensitive information about the bidding process and Sam Altman's role in negotiations.

"Sam Altman was on both sides of the table," Birchall testified. He explained that their legal counsel had requested the California Attorney General ensure proper fiduciary oversight of the OpenAI nonprofit's asset valuation. Birchall described a negotiation scenario where "Sam Altman and himself on both sides of the table, the for-profit and the non-profit, attempting to discount the value of the non-profit assets."

This testimony referenced a February 2025 incident when a Musk-led consortium submitted a $97.4 billion bid for the nonprofit entity controlling OpenAI. The bid was submitted by Marc Toberoff, one of Musk's attorneys in the current litigation, during OpenAI's corporate restructuring process to facilitate a potential public offering. According to Birchall's testimony, the bid was motivated by concerns that Altman might undervalue the nonprofit during the restructuring.

The defense counsel immediately objected to Birchall's testimony, and it was struck from the record due to lack of proper foundation. The examination then proceeded methodically to establish the necessary legal foundation, culminating in Birchall reaffirming his statement about Altman's dual role.

During cross-examination, Bradley Wilson from Wachtell Lipton, representing OpenAI, pursued the issue further. Wilson questioned how much of Birchall's knowledge came from non-attorney sources, to which Birchall acknowledged difficulty in separating those communications. Following additional exchanges, Wilson moved to strike all of Birchall's testimony regarding the xAI bid on grounds that required discussion outside the jury's presence.

The jury was dismissed early while legal counsel addressed the matter, leading to an unusual development. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers began directly questioning Birchall, creating visible tension for the witness. The proceedings suggested potential discovery issues, as it appeared Musk's legal team may not have provided complete information about the xAI bid during depositions.

Birchall testified that he had no recollection of discussing the xAI bid with Musk, Sharon Zilis, or other principals in Musk's organization. Judge Gonzalez Rogers at one point instructed plaintiff's counsel to cease coaching the witness during this impromptu examination.

The witness acknowledged conversations with other consortium members about the bid but claimed no involvement in timing discussions with Musk regarding the bid letter submission. While Birchall mentioned communications with Toberoff, he stated he was unaware of Toberoff's representation of other bidders and didn't know if xAI was aware of these potential conflicts.

Birchall maintained he had no knowledge of other investors possessing firsthand information about OpenAI or internal documents. Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed skepticism about these claims, stating, "I'm still struggling with how you can have conversations with these individuals to raise $97.5 billion but have no recollections even in a general sense."

The proceedings highlighted the complexity of the legal battle between Musk and Altman, with potential implications for discovery procedures and the admissibility of evidence related to the substantial bid for OpenAI's nonprofit assets.