Parallel Litigation and Strategic Concerns
Judge Lin observed that xAI may have viable claims against individual former employees and that discovery in separate cases — including litigation in California federal court and in the United Kingdom — could uncover coordination with OpenAI.
But she expressed hesitation about allowing discovery in this case solely to bolster parallel proceedings, calling such an approach “particularly odd.”
OpenAI’s counsel, Carolyn Luedtke of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, urged the court to adopt its tentative ruling and dismiss the lawsuit.
She characterized xAI’s allegations as “pretty weak” and emphasized that the complaint does not allege OpenAI knew that any interviewees were stealing trade secrets.
Luedtke also suggested the lawsuit functions as a warning shot to deter current employees from departing.
“It seems to be trying to use this case as a bullying tactic, which the state of California does not allow and prohibits by statute,” Luedtke argued. “Employees are allowed to leave their jobs. They’re allowed to go to the employer that they think offers a better employment situation.”
She added that courts should not carve out an exception allowing companies to pursue workers “who are simply trying to escape from a very bad situation where they don’t want to work.”
