“The Whole Gestalt”
LeElle Slifer of Winston & Strawn LLP, representing xAI, acknowledged that without discovery the company cannot flesh out more granular details. But she pressed the court to evaluate the allegations collectively rather than in isolation.
“I would encourage Your Honor to not separate each of these facts, but rather look at the facts together,” Slifer said.
She argued that multiple employees left within a compressed timeframe and were allegedly involved in taking source code and confidential materials. Viewed as a pattern, she said, the claims plausibly suggest that OpenAI induced trade secret theft.
“If this was just one or two workers it would be one thing,” Slifer said. “But this is several different employees during a very short period of time all unquestionably stealing source code and trade secrets.”
Signal App and Source Code at Issue
To bolster the narrative, Slifer pointed to communications through the encrypted messaging app Signal between OpenAI recruiters and departing xAI employees. She also cited allegations that at least one worker downloaded source code onto a personal device, while others retained confidential materials during interviews with OpenAI.
Slifer argued that the use of Signal — which does not retain stored communications — supported an inference of secrecy.
Judge Lin, however, questioned whether such facts are enough to infer that OpenAI directed employees to take intellectual property. She also appeared unconvinced that the mere use of Signal amounted to a “huge red flag.”
The judge further noted that the alleged methods of taking xAI’s intellectual property differed from employee to employee and “seem to have nothing to do with one another,” casting doubt on whether the pleadings support an inference of coordinated direction by OpenAI.
Slifer countered that a common thread ties the workers together: the same recruiter allegedly communicated with several of them.
