{ "version": "1.0", "dataset": { "id": "openai-musk-courtlistener", "title": "OpenAI: Musk v. Altman — CourtListener", "subtitle": "Email exhibits from Musk v. Altman (N.D. Cal. 4:24-cv-04722-YGR), parsed from public court filings on CourtListener.", "source": { "name": "CourtListener (Free Law Project)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "description": "Email exhibits attached to motions, oppositions, replies, and motions in limine filed in Musk v. Altman, N.D. Cal. 4:24-cv-04722-YGR. Sourced from CourtListener's RECAP Archive of public PACER documents." }, "license": "Public court records; no copyright claimed by Visual Inbox over the content.", "compiled_at": "2026-05-01T16:23:19Z", "stats": { "email_count": 57, "participant_count": 37, "date_range": [ "2015-05-26", "2025-10-09" ] } }, "participants": [ "Aimee Harries", "Alex Thompson", "Andrej Karpathy", "Anika Holland", "Chris Clark", "Courtney Schrier", "Eduardo E. Santacana", "Eduardo Santacana", "Elon Musk", "Greg Brockman", "Harris Mateen", "Ilya Sutskever", "Janine Korovesis", "Jared Birchall", "Jaymie Parkkinen", "Jennifer Schubert", "John Schulman", "Leeder Hsu", "Linda Han", "Lindsay Roitman", "Marc Toberoff", "Mateen, Harris 9", "Nicole Antonuccio", "Paula Lo", "Robert Kry", "Ronald Gong", "Sam Altman", "Sam Teller", "Sara Tofighbakhsh", "Scott Harries", "Shivon Zilis", "Simona A Agnolucci", "Simona Agnolucci", "Teresa Holland", "Wojciech Zaremba", "ibirchall", "tshcrd" ], "emails": [ { "id": "cl-0001", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Altman" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: question", "date_iso": "2015-05-26T06:09:20", "date_raw": "Tue, 26 May 2015 06:09:20 -0000", "body": "Probably worth a conversation\n\n\n\n On May 25 , 2015, at 9: 10 PM, Sam Altman wrote:\n\n\n Been thinking a lot about whether it's possible to stop humanity from developing Al.\n\n I think the answer is almost definitely not.\n\n If it's going to happen anyway, it seems like it would be good for someone other than Google to do it\n first.\n\n Any thoughts on whether it would be good for YC to start a Manhattan Project for Al? My sense is\n we could get many of the top ~50 to work on it, and we cou ld structure it so that the tech belongs to\n the world via some sort of nonprofit but the people working on it get startup-like compensation if it\n works. Obviously we'd comply with/aggressively support all regulation.\n\n Sam\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0008283", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 5, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.5.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.5.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "erm@spacex.com", "to_emails": [], "importance": "Normal" } }, { "id": "cl-0002", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Altman" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: AI lab", "date_iso": "2015-06-24T11:05:44", "date_raw": "Wednesday, June 24, 2015 11:05:44 PM", "body": "Agree on all\n\n\n\nOn Jun 24, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Sam Altman < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n\n 1)   The mission would be to create the first\n general AI and use it for individual empowerment—ie, the distributed\n version of the future that seems the safest. More generally, safety should\n be a first-class requirement.\n\n 2)   I think we’d ideally start with a group of\n 7-10 people, and plan to expand from there. We have a nice extra\n building in Mountain View they can have.\n\n 3)   I think for a governance structure, we\n should start with 5 people and I’d propose you, Bill Gates, Pierre Omidyar,\n Dustin Moskovitz, and me. The technology would be owned by the\n foundation and used “for the good of the world”, and in cases where it’s\n not obvious how that should be applied the 5 of us would decide. The\n researchers would have significant financial upside but it would be\n uncorrelated to what they build, which should eliminate some of the\n conflict (we’ll pay them a competitive salary and give them YC equity for\n the upside). We’d have an ongoing conversation about what work should\n be open-sourced and what shouldn’t. At some point we’d get someone to\n run the team, but he/she probably shouldn’t be on the governance board.\n\n 4)   Will you be involved somehow in\n addition to just governance? I think that would be really helpful for getting\n work pointed in the right direction getting the best people to be part of it.\n Ideally you’d come by and talk to them about progress once a month or\n whatever. We generically call people involved in some limited way in YC\n “part-time partners” (we do that with Peter Thiel for example, though at\n this point he’s very involved) but we could call it whatever you want. Even\n if you can’t really spend time on it but can be publicly supportive, that\n would still probably be really helpful for recruiting.\n\n 5)   I think the right plan with the regulation\n letter is to wait for this to get going and then I can just release it with a\n message like “now that we are doing this, I’ve been thinking a lot about\n what sort of constraints the world needs for safefy.” I’m happy to leave\n you off as a signatory. I also suspect that after it’s out more people will be\n willing to get behind it.\n\n\n\nSam", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 3, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.3.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.3.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0003", "from": "Sam Altman", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: followup", "date_iso": "2015-10-19T08:47:19", "date_raw": "Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:47:19 -0700", "body": "Happy to talk about it any time--very focused on getting this right!\n\n Thanks--you were actually the main inspiration for that. We've had such a struggle getting our capital-intensive\n businesses funded (unless the founders were already rich from a previous startup) that we figured we should just\n do it ourselves.\n\n On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Elon Musk wrote:\n Let's discuss governance. This is critical. I don't want to fund something that goes in what turns out to be the\n wrong direction.\n\n Btw, great move on the continuity fund!\n\n On Oct 18, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Sam Altman wrote:\n\n\n Good seeing you a couple of weeks ago.\n\n\n\n As discussed I think starting with a $1 00MM commitment (and leaving the time unspecified) is the way to\n go.\n\n\n\n Everyone we discussed but Gates is committed to donating. Hope to have him locked down next week. I am\n going to sit down with Zuck, but I still think it's probably too problematic given Facebook AI Research.\n\n\n\n Two big new recruits that we expect to sign offer letters this week: John Schulman and Wojciech Zaremba.\n\n\n\n Specific asks for you:\n\n\n\n 1) Can you donate $30MM over the next 5 years?\n\n\n\n 2) Can we call you an \"advisor\" but leave unspecified what you'll do in detail and figure it out as we go?\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0005439\n 3) Will you be on the Safety Board with me? I'd like it to eventually be 5 of us, adding the next 3 over the\n year or so. This will be the \"second key\" for releasing anything that could be dangerous.\n\n\n\n Sam\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0005440", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 8, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.8.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.8.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "sam@ycombinator.com", "to_emails": [ "erm@spacex.com" ], "importance": "Normal" } }, { "id": "cl-0004", "from": "Greg Brockman", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [ "Sam Altman" ], "subject": "follow up from call", "date_iso": "2015-11-22T06:11:13", "date_raw": "Sunday, November 22, 2015 6:11:13 PM", "body": "Attachments: YCR offer letter (template).pdf\n\n\n\n\nHey Elon,\n\nNice chatting earlier.\n\nAs I mentioned on the phone, here's the latest early draft of the blog\npost: https://quip.com/6YnqA26RJgKr. (Sam, Ilya, and I are thinking\nabout new names; would love any input from you.)\n\nObviously, there's a lot of other detail to change too, but I'm\ncurious what you think of that kind of messaging. I don't want to pull\nany punches, and would feel comfortable broadcasting a stronger\nmessage if it feels right. I think it's mostly important that our\nmessaging appeals to the research community (or at least the subset we\nwant to hire). I hope for us to enter the field as a neutral group,\nlooking to collaborate widely and shift the dialog towards being about\nhumanity winning rather than any particular group or company. (I think\nthat's the best way to bootstrap ourselves into being a leading\nresearch institution.)\n\nI've attached the offer letter template we've been using, with a\nsalary of $175k. Here's the email template I've been sending people:\n\n\"\"\"\nAttached is your official YCR offer letter! Please sign and date the\nyour convenience. There will be two more documents coming:\n\n- A separate letter offering you 0.25% of each YC batch you are\npresent for (as compensation for being an Advisor to YC).\n- The At-Will Employment, Confidential Information, Invention\nAssignment and Arbitration Agreement\n\n(As this is the first batch of official offers we've done, please\nforgive any bumpiness along the way, and please let me know if\nanything looks weird!)\n\nWe plan to offer the following benefits:\n\n- Health, dental, and vision insurance\n- Unlimited vacation days with a recommendation of four weeks per year\n- Paid parental leave\n- Paid conference attendance when you are presenting YC AI work or\nasked to attend by YC AI\n\nWe're also happy to provide visa support. When you're ready to talk\nabout visa-related questions, I'm happy to put you in touch with\nKirsty from YC.\n\nPlease let me know if you have any questions — I'm available to chat\n\n\nany time! Looking forward to working together :).\n\"\"\"\n\n- gdb", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 4, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.4.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.4.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0005", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Altman" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Draft opening paragraphs", "date_iso": "2015-12-08T09:29:15", "date_raw": "Tuesday, December 8, 2015 9:29:15 AM", "body": "It is super important to get the opening summary section right. This will be what everyone reads and what the press\nmostly quotes. The whole point of this release is to attract top talent. Not sure Greg totally gets that.\n\n----\n\nOpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company with the goal of advancing digital intelligence in the\nway that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unencumbered by an obligation to generate financial returns.\n\nThe underlying philosophy of our company is to disseminate AI technology as broadly as possible as an extension of\nall individual human wills, ensuring, in the spirit of liberty, that the power of digital intelligence is not overly\nconcentrated and evolves toward the future desired by the sum of humanity.\n\nThe outcome of this venture is uncertain and the pay is low compared to what others will offer, but we believe the\ngoal and the structure are right. We hope this is what matters most to the best in the field.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 5, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.5.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.5.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0006", "from": "Sam Altman", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: Draft opening paragraphs", "date_iso": "2015-12-08T10:34:59", "date_raw": "Tuesday, December 8, 2015 10:34:59 AM", "body": "how is this?\n\n__\n\nOpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company with the goal of advancing digital intelligence in the\nway that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unencumbered by an obligation to generate financial returns.\n\nBecause we don't have any financial obligations, we can focus on the maximal positive human\nimpact and disseminating AI technology as broadly as possible. We believe AI should be\nan extension of individual human wills and, in the spirit of liberty, not be concentrated in the\nhands of the few.\n\nThe outcome of this venture is uncertain and the pay is low compared to what others will offer, but we believe the\ngoal and the structure are right. We hope this is what matters most to the best in the field.\n\nOn Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Elon Musk < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n It is super important to get the opening summary section right. This will be what everyone\n reads and what the press mostly quotes. The whole point of this release is to attract top\n talent. Not sure Greg totally gets that.\n\n ----\n\n OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company with the goal of advancing\n digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole,\n unencumbered by an obligation to generate financial returns.\n\n The underlying philosophy of our company is to disseminate AI technology as broadly as\n possible as an extension of all individual human wills, ensuring, in the spirit of liberty, that\n the power of digital intelligence is not overly concentrated and evolves toward the future\n desired by the sum of humanity.\n\n The outcome of this venture is uncertain and the pay is low compared to what others will\n offer, but we believe the goal and the structure are right. We hope this is what matters most\n to the best in the field.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 5, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.5.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.5.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0007", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Altman" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: just got word...", "date_iso": "2015-12-11T01:27:14", "date_raw": "Friday, December 11, 2015 1:27:14 PM", "body": "Great\n\nOn Dec 11, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Sam Altman < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n\n everyone feels great, saying stuff like \"bring on the deepmind offers, they\n unfortunately dont have 'do the right thing' on their side\"\n\n news out at 130 pm pst\n\n On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Elon Musk < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n awesome", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 6, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.6.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.6.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0008", "from": "Sam Altman", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [], "subject": "just got word...", "date_iso": "2015-12-11T11:30:00", "date_raw": "Friday, December 11, 2015 11:30 AM", "body": "that deepmind is going to give everyone in openAI massive counteroffers\n tomorrow to try to kill it.\n\n\n\n do you have any objection to me proactively increasing everyone's comp by\n 100-200k per year? i think they're all motivated by the mission here but it\n would be a good signal to everyone we are going to take care of them over\n time.\n\n\n\n sounds like deepmind is planning to go to war over this, they've been literally\n cornering people at NIPS.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 6, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.6.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.6.pdf", "chain_index": 2, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0009", "from": "Sam Altman", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: just got word...", "date_iso": "2015-12-11T12:15:00", "date_raw": "Friday, December 11, 2015 12:15 PM", "body": "yes committed committed. just gave his word.\n\n On Friday, December 11, 2015, Elon Musk < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n Has Ilya come back with a solid yes?\n\n\n\n If anyone seems at all uncertain, I’m happy to call them personally too. Have told\n Emma this is my absolute top priority 24/7.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 6, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.6.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.6.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0010", "from": "Ilya Sutskever", "to": [ "Sam Teller", "Elon Musk", "Greg Brockman" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Regular infrequent meetings with Elon", "date_iso": "2016-02-18T11:28:00", "date_raw": "Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:28 AM", "body": "Hi Sam,\n\n Greg and I think that it will be useful for OpenAI's long term success if the two ofus had a 30 minute meeting\n with Elon every two weeks. Elon has built incredible organizations before, and the more of his lessons and\n experience could be applied to OpenAI, the more effective we will be.\n\n Please let me know if it is possible.\n Ilya\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0006119", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 33, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.33.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.33.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "ilyasu@openai.com", "to_emails": [ "steller@spacex.com", "erm@spacex.com", "gdb@openai.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0011", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Ilya Sutskever", "Sam Teller", "Greg Brockman" ], "cc": [], "subject": "RE: Regular infrequent meetings with Elon", "date_iso": "2016-02-18T19:46:49", "date_raw": "Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:46:49 -0000", "body": "I think I should probably do this every week. My dinner with Dem is was extremely alarming. I feel like they are playing\n the Super Bowl and we are playing the Puppy Bowl. Unless we want to have our ass handed to us, we need to step up\n our game dramatically.\n\n Let's have a conf call later today with the key people of OpenAI later today, if possible, otherwise tomorrow.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 33, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.33.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.33.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "/o=space exploration technologies/ou=first administrative group/cn=recipients/cn=elon", "to_emails": [ "ilyasu@openai.com", "steller@spacex.com", "gdb@openai.com" ], "importance": "Normal" } }, { "id": "cl-0012", "from": "Greg Brockman", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [ "Sam Altman" ], "subject": "Re: compensation framework", "date_iso": "2016-02-22T12:21:34", "date_raw": "Monday, February 22, 2016 12:21:34 AM", "body": "Read you loud and clear. Sounds like a plan. Will plan to continue\nworking with sama on specifics, but let me know if you'd like to be\nkept in the loop.\n\n- gdb\n\n\nOn Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Elon Musk < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n> We need to do what it takes to get the top talent. Let's go higher. If, at some point, we need to revisit what existing\npeople are getting paid, that's fine.\n>\n> Either we get the best people in the world or we will get whipped by Deepmind.\n>\n> Whatever it takes to bring on ace talent is fine by me.\n>\n> Deepmind is causing me extreme mental stress. If they win, it will be really bad news with their one mind to rule\nthe world philosophy. They are obviously making major progress and well they should, given the talent level over\nthere.\n>\n>\n>\n>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Greg Brockman < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n>>\n>> Hi all,\n>>\n>> We're currently doing our first round of full-time offers\n>> post-founding. It's obviously super important to get these right, as\n>> the implications are very long-term. I don't yet feel comfortable\n>> making decisions here on my own, and would love any guidance.\n>>\n>> Here's what we're currently doing:\n>>\n>> Founding team: $275k salary + 25bps of YC stock\n>> - Also have option of switching permanently to $125k annual bonus or\n>> equivalent in YC or SpaceX stock. I don't know if anyone's taken us up\n>> on this.\n>>\n>> New offers: $175k annual salary + $125k annual bonus || equivalent in\n>> YC or SpaceX stock. Bonus is subject to performance review, where you\n>> may get 0% or significantly greater than 100%.\n>>\n>> Special cases: gdb + Ilya + Trevor\n>>\n>> The plan is to keep a mostly flat salary, and use the bonus multiple\n>> as a way to reward strong performers.\n>>\n>> Some notes:\n>>\n>> - We use a 20% annualized discount for the 8 years until the stock\n\n\n>> becomes liquid, the $125k bonus equates to 12bps in YC. So the\n>> terminal value is more like $750k. This number sounds a lot more\n>> impressive, though obviously it's hard to value exactly.\n>> - The founding team was initially offered $175k each. The day after\n>> the lab launched, we proactively increased everyone's salary by $100k,\n>> telling them that we are financially committed to them as the lab\n>> becomes successful, and asking for a personal promise to ignore all\n>> counteroffers and trust we'll take care of them.\n>> - We're currently interviewing Ian Goodfellow from Brain, who is one\n>> of the top 2 scientists in the field we don't have (the other being\n>> Alex Graves, who is a DeepMind loyalist). He's the best person on\n>> Brain, so Google will fight for him. We're grandfathering him into the\n>> founding team offer.\n>>\n>> Some salary datapoints:\n>>\n>> - John was offered $250k all-in annualized at DeepMind, thought he\n>> could negotiate to $300k easily.\n>> - Wojciech was verbally offered ~$1.25M/year at FAIR (no concrete letter though)\n>> - Andrew Tulloch is getting $800k/year at FB. (A lot is stock which is vesting.)\n>> - Ian Goodfellow is currently getting $165k cash + $600k stock/year at Google.\n>> - Apple is a bit desperate and offering people $550k cash (plus stock,\n>> presumably). I don't think anyone good is saying yes.\n>>\n>> Two concrete candidates that are on my mind:\n>>\n>> - Andrew is very close to saying yes. However, he's concerned about\n>> taking such a large paycut.\n>> - Ian has stated he's not primarily concerned with money, but the Bay\n>> Area is expensive / wants to make sure he can buy a house. I don't\n>> know what will happen if/when Google starts throwing around the\n>> numbers they threw at Ilya.\n>>\n>> My immediate questions:\n>>\n>> 1. I expect Andrew will try to negotiate up. Should we stick to his\n>> offer, and tell him to only join if he's excited enough to take that\n>> kind of paycut (and that others have left more behind)?\n>> 2. Ian will be interviewing + (I'm sure) getting an offer on\n>> Wednesday. Should we consider his offer final, or be willing to slide\n>> depending on what Google offers?\n>> 3. Depending on the answers to 1 + 2, I'm wondering if this flat\n>> strategy makes sense. If we keep it, I feel we'll have to really sell\n>> people on the bonus multiplier. Maybe one option would be using a\n>> signing bonus as a lever to get people to sign?\n>> 4. Very secondary, but our intern comp is also below market: $9k/mo.\n>> (FB offers $9k + free housing, Google offers like $11k/mo all-in.)\n>> Comp is much less important to interns than to FT people, since the\n>> experience is primary. But I think we may have lost a candidate who\n>> was on the edge to this. Given the dollar/hour is so much lower than\n>> for FT, should we consider increasing the amount?\n>>\n>> I'm happy to chat about this at any time.\n>>\n>> - gdb\n>>", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 170, "attachment": 8, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.170.8.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.170.8.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "May 22, 2025", "filing_description": "Second Amended Complaint against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, Reid Hoffman, Microsoft Corp., OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LL", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0013", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Altman", "Ronald Gong" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: cash", "date_iso": "2016-02-25T06:36:00", "date_raw": "Thursday, February 25, 2016 6:36 PM", "body": "Ron, we need to wire $5M per quarter to OpenAI, starting April 1. This is a non-profit.\n\n On Feb 25, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Sam Altman wrote:\n\n\n ok thanks, do you have an assistant or finance person or something i can coordinate with?\n\n On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Elon Musk wrote:\n Agreed\n\n Yes\n\n > On Feb 25, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Sam Altman wrote:\n >\n > I think we're going to need more than I was originally budgeting given a) the salaries in the field and b) the\n speed at which you want to grow.\n >\n > Can you do $20MM a year for the each of the next 3 years? I can do $10MM/year, and we'll have brought\n $5MM a year from other donors.\n >\n >Sam\n\n\n\n\n CONF-IDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mcJil is intei1ded for tr1e use of tr1e individucJI to wllom it is cJddressed cJnd may co11tai11 i11lormation tr1cJI is privileged,\n co11lide11tial, rn1d exempt lro111 disclosure under clpplb1ble law. II tile 1·ecJdei· ol tile e-mcJil messa9e is not tr1e intei1ded 1·ecipie11t, or an employee or a9eI1t 1·espo11sible\n fo1 tr1e deliveiy of the messcJ9e to tile i11tended recipient, you are llereby 11otified tll;it rnw disclosure. disseminatio11, distribution or copyi11g of tr1is commu11ication is\n strictly prohibited. If you ilcJve received tr1is e-mcJil in e1rnr, please i1111nedicJtely delete it rn1d all copies ot it from your system, destroy cJny llrnd copies of it. cJnd 11otity\n 1110 i111111ediately by telepllo1ie cJt tile m1111ber give11 above.\n\n rllis i11formcJtio11 caIrnot be used by any taxp;iyer for tile purpose of cJvoidi11g tax penalties tll;it mcJy be imposed on tl1e trixpayer. This informcJti011 is bei119 used to\n support tile promotioi1 or mrnketing ol tile pl,mning strnle,Jies discussed llerei11. BMO Hrn1\"is Brn1k NA and its affiliates do 1101 provide le9al advice to clients. You\n sllould 1·eview your p;ir\\icular circumsta11ces witr1 your independent le9al and Im advisors.\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0004930", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 16, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.16.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.16.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0014", "from": "Ronald Gong", "to": [ "Elon Musk", "Sam Altman" ], "cc": [ "Paula Lo", "Teresa Holland" ], "subject": "Re: cash", "date_iso": "2016-02-25T22:05:58", "date_raw": "Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:05:58 -0500", "body": "Ok. Will take care of this.\n\n Sam- I will reach out to you re the contribution logistics.\n\n\n\n\n Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 16, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.16.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.16.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "ronald.gong@ctcmycfo.com", "to_emails": [ "erm@spacex.com", "sam@ycombinator.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "paula.lo@ctcmycfo.com", "teresa.holland@ctcmycfo.com" ], "importance": "Normal" } }, { "id": "cl-0015", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Greg Brockman" ], "cc": [ "Sam Teller" ], "subject": "Re: wired article", "date_iso": "2016-03-21T06:53:47", "date_raw": "Monday, March 21, 2016 6:53:47 AM", "body": "Sounds good\n\n> On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:53 AM, Greg Brockman < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n>\n> Hi Elon,\n>\n> I was interviewed for a Wired article on OpenAI, and the fact checker\n> sent me some questions. Wanted to sync with you on two in particular\n> to make sure they sound reasonable / aligned with what what you'd say:\n>\n>> Would it be accurate to say that OpenAI is giving away ALL of its\n>> research?\n>\n> At any given time, we will take the action that is likely to most\n> strongly benefit the world. In the short term, we believe the best\n> approach is giving away our research. But longer-term, this might not\n> be the best approach: for example, it might be better not to\n> immediately share a potentially dangerous technology. In all cases, we\n> will be giving away all the benefits of all of our research, and want\n> those to accrue to the world rather than any one institution.\n>\n>> Does OpenAI believe that getting the most sophisticated AI possible in as\n>> many hands as possible is humanity's best chance at preventing a too-smart\n>> AI in private hands that could find a way to unleash itself on the world for\n>> malicious ends?\n>\n> We believe that using AI to extend individual human wills is the most\n> promising path to ensuring AI remains beneficial. This is appealing\n> because if there are many agents with about the same capabilities they\n> could keep any one bad actor in check. But I wouldn't claim we have\n> all the answers: instead, we're building an organization that can both\n> seek those answers, and take the best possible action regardless of\n> what the answer turns out to be.\n>\n> Thanks!\n>\n> - gdb\n>", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 9, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.9.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.9.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0016", "from": "Alex Thompson", "to": [ "Andrej Karpathy" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: Maureen Dowd", "date_iso": "2016-04-27T07:25:00", "date_raw": "Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 7:25 AM", "body": "Hi Sam,\n\n I hope you are having a great day and I apologize for interrupting it with\n another question. Maureen wanted to see if Mr. Musk had any reaction to\n some of Mr. Zuckerberg's public comments since their interview. In\n particular, his labelling of Mr. Musk as \"hysterical\" for his A.I. fears and\n lectured those who \"fearmonger\" about the dangers of A.I.. I have\n included more details below of Mr. Zuckerberg's comments.\n\n\n      Asked in Germany recently about Musk’s forebodings, Zuckerberg\n called them “hysterical’’ and praised A.I. breakthroughs, including one\n system he claims can make cancer diagnoses for skin lesions on a mobile\n phone with the accuracy of “the best dermatologist.’’\n\n “Unless we really mess something up,’’ he said, the machines will always\n be subservient, not “superhuman.”\n\n \"I think we can build A.I. so it works for us and helps us...Some\n peoplefearmonger about how A.I. is a huge danger, but that seems far-\n fetched to me and much less likely than disasters due to widespread\n disease, violence, etc.’’ Or as he put his philosophy at an April Facebook\n developers conference: “Choose hope over fear.’’\n\n\n\n\n --\n Alex Thompson\n The New York Times\n c: Redacted for PII", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 10, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.10.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.10.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "from_email": "redacted for pii @nytimes.com", "to_emails": [ "redacted for pii" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0017", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Teller" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: Maureen Dowd", "date_iso": "2016-04-27T12:24:37", "date_raw": "Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:24:37 PM", "body": "History unequivocally illustrates that a powerful technology is a double-edged sword. It would\nbe foolish to assume that AI, arguably the most powerful of all technologies, only has a single\nedge.\n\nThe recent example of Microsoft's AI chatbot shows how quickly it can turn incredibly\nnegative. The wise course of action is to approach the advent of AI with caution and ensure\nthat its power is widely distributed and not controlled by any one company or person.\n\nThat is why we created OpenAI.\n\nOn Apr 27, 2016, at 11:03 AM, Sam Teller < Redacted for PII > wrote:", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 10, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.10.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.10.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0018", "from": "Sam Altman", "to": [ "Andrej Karpathy", "Andrej Karpathy" ], "cc": [], "subject": "MSFT hosting deal", "date_iso": "2016-09-16T02:37:00", "date_raw": "Friday, September 16, 2016 2:37 PM", "body": "Here are the MSFT terms. $60MM of compute for $10MM, and input\n from us on what they deploy in the cloud. LMK if you have any\n feedback.\n\n Sam\n\n\n\n\n Microsoft and OpenAI: Accelerate the development of deep learning\n on Azure and CNTK\n\n\n This non-binding term sheet (“Term Sheet”) between Microsoft\n Corporation (“Microsoft”) and OpenAI (“OpenAI”) sets forth the\n terms for a potential business relationship between the parties.\n This Term Sheet is intended to form a basis of discussion and\n does not state all matters upon which agreement must be\n reached before executing a legally binding commercial\n agreement (“Commercial Agreement”). The existence and terms\n of this Term Sheet, and all discussions related thereto or to a\n Commercial Agreement, are Confidential Information as defined\n and governed bytheNon-DisclosureAgreementbe\n tweenthepartiesdated17March,2016(“NDA”).\n Exceptforthebindingnature of the foregoing confidentiality\n obligations, this Term Sheet is non-binding.\n\n OpenAI is focused on deep learning in such a way as\n to benefit humanity. Microsoft and OpenAI desire to\n partner to enable the acceleration of deep learning\n Deal Purpose on Microsoft Azure. Towards this goal, Microsoft will\n provide OpenAI with Azure compute capabilities at a\n favorable price that would enable OpenAI to\n continue their mission effectively.\n Microsoft\n\n · · Accelerate deep learning\n environment on Azure\n\n · · Attract a net new audience of next\n generation developers\n\n · · Joint PR and evangelism of deep\n learning on Azure\n Deal Business\n Goal OpenAI\n\n · · Deeply discounted GPU compute\n offering over the deal term (3 years) for\n use in their non-\n\n profit research: $60m of Compute for\n $10m\n\n · · Joint PR and evangelism of OpenAI\n on Azure\n Parties\n Microsoft OpenAI\n (Legal entities)\n Proposed Deal\n September 19, 2016\n Execution Date\n Proposed Deal\n Commencement Same as deal execution date\n Date\n Legal Authoring Microsoft holds the pen.\n Deal Term 3 years\n\n\n · Compute: Microsoft will provide OpenAI GPU core\n hours of compute at the agreed upon price for\n OpenAI’s workloads to run in Azure.\n\n o Geographic Location: Geographic location\n decisions will be at Microsoft discretion depending\n on capacity and availability. Microsoft will also be\n responsible for sharing the deployment strategy and\n Engineering timelines with OpenAI.\n Terms\n o SLA: For all Virtual Machines that have two or\n more instances deployed in the same availability set,\n Microsoft guarantee OpenAI will have virtual\n machine connectivity to at least one instance at least\n 99.95% of the time. Microsoft will be held\n accountable to the SLA’s provided on\n https://azure.microsoft.com/en-\n us/support/legal/sla/virtual- machines/v1 2/\n\n\n\n\n · · Evaluation, Evangelization, and Usage of\n CNTK v2, Azure Batch and HD-Insight: OpenAI\n will evaluate CNTK v2, Azure Batch, and HD-\n Insight for their research, provide feedback on\n how Microsoft can improve these products.\n OpenAI will work with Microsoft to evangelize\n these products to their research and developer\n ecosystems, and evangelize Microsoft Azure as\n their preferred public cloud provider. At their\n sole discretion, and as it makes sense for their\n research, OpenAI will adopt these products\n\n · · Ramp: Microsoft and OpenAI will work\n together for creating a ramp plan that balances\n capacity per clusters. The initial timeline for\n ramp is a minimum of 30 days that will be\n augmented by Microsoft’s capacity expansion\n plans in the coming months.\n\n · · Capacity: OpenAI will be given an\n allocation of capacity in the preview cluster\n (located in US South Central) for short term\n requirements and Microsoft will provide quota\n access to the subsequent K80 GPU clusters that\n go live in the 4th quarter of 2016 with the\n intention of more capacity in Q1 2017 (calendar\n year).\n · Financial Terms: Microsoft will offer $60m worth of List\n Compute (including GPU) at a deep discount which results\n in a price of $10m to be paid by OpenAI over the course of\n Financial\n the deal. In the event OpenAI consumes less than $10m\n Terms\n worth of Azure compute, OpenAI will be responsible for\n\n\n paying the balance between the used amount and $10m at\n the end of the deal term to Microsoft.\n Microsoft and OpenAI commit to jointly evangelizing deep\n learning capabilities on Azure as agreed upon by both\n parties.\n\n\n\n o Ignite: Announce the partnership at Microsoft’s Ignite\n event with executives (Sam\n Marketing\n & PR Altman from OpenAI and Satya Nadella from Microsoft)\n Terms from both parties\n\n inaugurating the collaboration\n o PR: Microsoft and OpenAI will work together to issue a\n joint press release about the\n\n partnership including any materials such as blog posts and\n videos.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 11, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.11.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.11.pdf", "chain_index": 2, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [ "redacted for pii", "redacted for pii" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0019", "from": "Andrej Karpathy", "to": [ "Andrej Karpathy" ], "cc": [ "Andrej Karpathy" ], "subject": "Re: MSFT hosting deal", "date_iso": "2016-09-16T18:45:45", "date_raw": "September 16, 2016 at 6:45:45 PM PDT", "body": "ok will see how much $ I can get in that direction.\n\n On Friday, September 16, 2016, Elon Musk < Redacted for PII >\n wrote:\n We should just do this low key. No certainty either way. No\n contract.\n\n On Sep 16, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Sam Altman\n < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n\n I had the same reaction after reading that section and\n they've already agreed to drop.\n\n We had originally just wanted space cycles donated\n but the team wanted more certainty that capacity will\n be available. But I'll work with MSFT to make sure\n there are no strings attached.\n\n\n On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Elon Musk\n < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n\n\n This actually made me feel nauseous. It sucks and is\n exactly what I would expect from them.\n\n\n\n Evaluation, Evangelization, and Usage of CNTK v2, Azure Batch and\n HD-Insight: OpenAI will evaluate CNTK v2, Azure Batch, and HD-Insight\n for their research, provide feedback on how Microsoft can improve\n these products. OpenAI will work with Microsoft to evangelize these\n products to their research and developer ecosystems, and evangelize\n Microsoft Azure as their preferred public cloud provider. At their sole\n discretion, and as it makes sense for their research, OpenAI will adopt\n these products\n\n\n\n\n Let’s just say that we are willing to have Microsoft\n donate spare computing time to OpenAI and have that\n be known, but we want do any contract or agree to\n “evangelize”. They can turn us off at any time and we\n can leave at any time.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 11, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.11.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.11.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "from_email": "redacted for pii", "to_emails": [ "redacted for pii" ], "cc_emails": [ "redacted for pii" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0020", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Teller" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: MSFT hosting deal", "date_iso": "2016-09-21T12:09:59", "date_raw": "Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:09:59 AM", "body": "Fine by me if they don't use this in active messaging. Would be worth way more than $50M\nnot to seem like Microsoft's marketing bitch.\n\nOn Sep 20, 2016, at 8:05 PM, Sam Teller < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n\n Microsoft is now willing to do the agreement for a full $50m with “good faith\n effort at OpenAI's sole discretion” and full mutual termination rights at any time.\n No evangelizing. No strings attached. No looking like lame Microsoft marketing\n pawns. Ok to move ahead?\n\n\n\n\n Begin forwarded message:", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 11, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.11.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.11.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0021", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Ilya Sutskever", "Greg Brockman" ], "cc": [ "Sam Altman" ], "subject": "The 10,000", "date_iso": "2017-06-28T14:10:58", "date_raw": "Wed, 28 Jun2017 14:10:58-0700", "body": "Just spoke to Satya and talked about OpenAI needing one the order of 10,000 servers with the latest Nvidia\n GPUs to beat the best human players at competitive eSports games.\n\n This would obviously be a major opportunity for Microsoft to promote Azure relative to other cloud systems.\n\n He said he'd talk internally and get back to me soon. Please send me the ideal spec for the individual servers and\n how they are connected. What ideally do we want Microsoft to do? Sounds like there is a good chance they will\n do it.\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0006691", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 36, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.36.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.36.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "erm@spacex.com", "to_emails": [ "ilyasu@openai.com", "gdb@openai.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "shga@ycombinator.com" ], "importance": "Normal" } }, { "id": "cl-0022", "from": "Chris Clark", "to": [ "Jared Birchall" ], "cc": [ "Lindsay Roitman" ], "subject": "YCR UBI", "date_iso": "2017-07-13T19:43:00", "date_raw": "Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM", "body": "Hi Jared,\n\n Lindsay mentioned that Elon is interested in donating to YCR's UBI Project. I've attached the determination\n letter and wire instructions for YC ORG, which is the 501(c)(3) that issues the UBI grants.\n\n If you have the ability to include a memo in the transfer it would be helpful to put something like \"For the\n benefit of the UBI Project.\" We'll make sure it gets credited to that project regardless, but it's helpful to have\n that associated with the transfer for our records.\n\n Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else.\n\n Chris\n\n\n\n\nConfidential EXMF-0000102\n\n\n\n\nConfidential EXMF-0000103", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 75, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.75_1.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.75_1.pdf", "chain_index": 2, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "chris@ycr.org", "to_emails": [ "jbirchall@muskfoundation.org" ], "cc_emails": [ "lindsay@ycr.org" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0023", "from": "Jared Birchall", "to": [ "Leeder Hsu", "Aimee Harries" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Fwd: YCR Basic Income Grant", "date_iso": "2017-07-18T08:36:00", "date_raw": "Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:36 PM", "body": "Hi Leeder,\n\n Can you please process the grant below?\n\n $250k to YC.org. As noted, please include a note that this is for the benefit of the UBI study. No mega\n urgency here. A check is fine.\n\n Thanks!\n\n Jared\n ---------- Forwarded message ----------", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 75, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.75_1.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.75_1.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "jbirchall@muskfoundation.org", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0024", "from": "Leeder Hsu", "to": [ "Jared Birchall" ], "cc": [ "Aimee Harries", "Scott Harries" ], "subject": "RE: VCR Basic Income Grant Attachments: disclaim.txt", "date_iso": "2017-07-19T19:01:57", "date_raw": "7/19/2017 7:01:57 PM", "body": "Hi Jared,\n\n I just confirmed with Fidelity that the grant has been approved and is set to go out by check tomorrow.\n\n Let us know if we can help with anything else.\n\n Thanks,\n Leeder", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 75, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.75_1.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.75_1.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "leeder.hsu@ubs.com", "to_emails": [ "jbirchall@muskfoundation.org" ], "cc_emails": [ "aimee.harries@ubs.com", "scott.harries@ubs.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0025", "from": "Ilya Sutskever", "to": [ "Elon Musk", "Greg Brockman", "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [], "subject": "biweekly update", "date_iso": "2017-07-20T01:56:41", "date_raw": "Thursday, July 20, 2017 1:56:41 PM", "body": "The robot hand can now solve a Rubik's cube in simulation:\n https://drive.google.com/a/openai.com/file/d/0B60rCy4P2FOIenlLdzN2LXdiOTQ/view?\n usp=sharing (needs OpenAI login)\n Physical robot will do same in September\n 1v1 bot is no longer exploitable\n It can no longer be beaten using “unconventional” strategies\n On track to beat all humans in 1 month\n\n Athletic competitive robots:\n https://drive.google.com/a/openai.com/file/d/0B60rCy4P2FOIZE4wNVdlbkx6U2M/view?\n usp=sharing (needs OpenAI login)\n\n Released an adversarial example that fools a camera from all angles simultaneously:\n https://blog.openai.com/robust-adversarial-inputs/\n\n DeepMind's directly used one of our algorithms to produce their parkour results:\n DeepMind's results: https://deepmind.com/blog/producing-flexible-behaviours-\n simulated-environments/\n DeepMind's technical papers explicitly state they directly used our algorithms\n Our blogpost about our algorithm: https://blog.openai.com/openai-baselines-ppo/\n (DeepMind used an older version).\n\n Coming up:\n Designing the for-profit structure\n Negotiate merger terms with Cerebras\n More due diligence with Cerebras", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 12, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.12.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.12.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0026", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Ilya Sutskever" ], "cc": [ "Greg Brockman", "John Schulman", "Wojciech Zaremba", "Jared Birchall" ], "subject": "Re: Beijing Wants A.I. to Be Made in China by 2030 - NYTimes.com", "date_iso": "2017-07-21T20:53:24", "date_raw": "7/21/2017 8:53:24 PM", "body": "Consider it done!\n\n Jared, please facilitate. Let's try to slot these four cars into next month's production.\n\n On Jul 22, 2017, at 6:48 AM, Ilya Sutskever wrote:\n\n Wow, thank you! This is a very kind gesture that we greatly appreciate. Yes, Wojciech definitely\n deserves it as much as we do, as does+ John Schulman.\n\n\n On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:25 PM Elon Musk wrote:\n By the way, in appreciation for what you've done to get OpenAI to where it is today, I would\n like to give you each a Founder Series Model 3. These are the earliest cars produced and are not\n available to the public.\n\n If there are a few others at OpenAI who you think also really deserve one (maybe Wojciech?), I\n am happy to do the same for them.\n\n Hope you like it!\n\n Elon\n\n > On Jul 22, 2017, at 4:32 AM, Greg Brockman wrote:\n >\n > 100% agreed. We think the path must be:\n >\n > 1. AI research non-profit (through end of 2017)\n > 2. AI research+ hardware for-profit (starting 2018)\n > 3. Government project (when:??)\n >\n > Government project is helpful for financial resources, but crucial for\n > security - don't know how to defend against Putin or North Korea\n >otherwise.When ready, we must proactively form the project around us,\n > rather than being slurped in against our will.\n >\n >-gdb\n >\n >\n >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Elon Musk wrote:\n >> They will do whatever it takes to obtain what we develop. Maybe another reason to change\n course.\n >>\n\n\n Page 1 of 2\n\nCONFIDENTIAL OPENAI_MUSK00020777\n >> https://mobile.nvtimes.com/2017/07 /20/business/china-aitificial-\n intelligence.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nvtcore-iphone-share&referer=\n\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 2\n\nCONFIDENTIAL OPENAI_MUSK00020778", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 328, "attachment": 55, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.55.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.55.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Oct 17, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re OpenAI Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund ", "bates": [ "OPENAI_MUSK00020777", "OPENAI_MUSK00020778" ], "from_email": "erm@spacex.com", "to_emails": [ "ilyasu@openai.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "gdb@openai.com", "joschu@openai.com", "woj@openai.com", "jbirchall@muskfoundation.org" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0027", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Shivon Zilis" ], "cc": [ "Sam Teller" ], "subject": "Re: OpenAI notes", "date_iso": "2017-08-28T12:08:52", "date_raw": "Monday, August 28, 2017 12:08:52 AM", "body": "This is very annoying. Please encourage them to go start a company. I've had enough.\n\nOn Aug 28, 2017, at 12:01 AM, Shivon Zilis < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n\n Elon,\n\n As I'd mentioned, Greg had asked to talk through a few things this weekend. Ilya ended up joining, and they\n pretty much just shared all of what they are still trying to think through. This is the distillation of that random\n walk of a conversation... came down to 7 unanswered questions with their commentary below. Please note\n that I'm not advocating for any of this, just structuring and sharing the information I heard.\n\n 1. Short-term control structure?\n -Is the requirement for absolute control? They wonder if there is a scenario where there could be some sort of\n creative overrule provision if literally everyone else disagreed on direction (not just the three of them, but\n perhaps a broader board)?\n\n 2. Duration of control and transition?\n -*The* non-negotiable seems to be an ironclad agreement to not have any one person have absolute control\n of AGI if it's created. Satisfying this means a situation where, regardless of what happens to the three of\n them, it's guaranteed that power over the company is distributed after the 2-3 year initial period.\n\n 3. Time spent?\n -How much time does Elon want to spend on this, and how much time can he actually afford to spend on\n this? In what timeframe? Is this an hour a week, ten hours a week, something in between?\n\n 4. What to do with time spent?\n -They don't really know how he prefers to spend time at his other companies and how he'd want to spend his\n time on this. Greg and Ilya are confident they could build out SW / ML side of things pretty well. They are\n not confident on the hardware front. They seemed hopeful Elon could spend some time on that since that's\n where they are weak, but did want his help in all domains he was interested in.\n\n 5. Ratio of time spent to amount of control?\n -They are cool with less time / less control, more time / more control, but not less time / more control. Their\n fear is that there won't be enough time to discuss relevant contextual information to make correct decisions if\n too little time is spent.\n\n 6. Equity split?\n -Greg still instinctually anchored on equal split. I personally disagree with him on that instinct and he asked\n for and was receptive to hearing other things he could use to recalibrate his mental model.\n -Greg noted that Ilya in some ways has contributed millions by leaving his earning potential on the table at\n Google.\n -One concern they had was the proposed employee pool was too small.\n\n 7. Capitalization strategy?\n -Their instinct is to raise much more than $100M out of the gate. They are of the opinion that the datacenter\n they need alone would cost that so they feel more comfortable raising more.\n\n Takeaways:\n Unsure if any of this is amenable but just from listening to all of the data points they threw out, the following\n would satisfy their current sticky points:\n -Spending 5-10 hours a week with near full control, or spend less time and have less control.\n -Having a creative short-term override just for extreme scenarios that was not just Greg / Sam / Ilya.\n\n\n -An ironclad 2-3yr minority control agreement, regardless of the fates of Greg / Sam / Ilya.\n -$200M-$1B initial raise.\n -Greg and Ilya's stakes end up higher than 1/10 of Elon's but not significantly (this remains the most\n ambiguous).\n -Increasing employee pool.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 13, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.13.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.13.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0028", "from": "Linda Han", "to": [ "ibirchall" ], "cc": [], "subject": "FW: Model 3 priority", "date_iso": "2017-08-29T14:15:00", "date_raw": "Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:15 PM", "body": "Hi Jared - see below. Sam sent a similar email asking that the remaining 2. get prioritized.\n\n\n\n\n Wanted to keep you in the loop. We have identified all four cars, three of which will be delivered today\n (currently on route). The fourth will be delivered later this week.\n\n\n\n\n Once Paul is done with the deliveries, he will finalize the contracts and get final payment: over to you. You can\n expect this within the next 48 hours.\n\n\n\n\n Thanks\n\n Linda\n\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 2\nCONFIDENTIAL OPENAI_MUSK00008849", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 328, "attachment": 56, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.56.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.56.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Oct 17, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re OpenAI Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund ", "from_email": "linda(d!tesla.com", "to_emails": [ "ibirchall@muskfoundation.org" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0029", "from": "Jared Birchall", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [], "subject": "OpenAI Cap Table Attachments: OpenAI Cap Table.xlsx", "date_iso": "2017-09-11T23:25:40", "date_raw": "9/11/2017 11:25:40 PM", "body": "I've attached a more user friendly version of the cap table that Ilya and Greg are proposing.\n\n\n\n\nConfidential EXMF-0003257\n\n\n\nShareholder Initial Shares %\nElon Investment 100,000,000 51.20%\nSam Investment 6,500,000 3.33%\nSam grant 15,000,000 7.68%\nIlya Investment 6,500,000 3.33%\nIlya grant 15,000,000 7.68%\nGreg Investment 6,500,000 3.33%\nGreg grant 15,000,000 7.68%\nJohn grant 3,906,250 2.00%\nWoj grant 3,906,250 2.00%\nEmployees 14,589,843 7.47%\nPool 8,410,156 4.31%\nTotal 195,312,499 100.00%\n\n\nInitial thoughts for Employees %\nrafal 1,171,875 0.6%\njakub 1,171,875 0.6%\nszymon 1,171,875 0.6%\nmarcin 1,171,875 0.6%\njonas 585,937 0.3%\nvicki 585,937 0.3%\ncsh 585,937 0.3%\nbob 585,937 0.3%\npw 585,937 0.3%\ncberner 585,937 0.3%\nscott 585,937 0.3%\njie 585,937 0.3%\ntim 585,937 0.3%\njosh 585,937 0.3%\nalec 585,937 0.3%\nprafulla 585,937 0.3%\ndurk 585,937 0.3%\nigor 195,312 0.1%\nharri 195,312 0.1%\njack 195,312 0.1%\npaul 195,312 0.1%\ndario 195,312 0.1%\ngeoffrey 195,312 0.1%\nbradly 97,656 0.05%\nrichardchen 97,656 0.05%\nyura 97,656 0.05%\nrein 97,656 0.05%\n\n\nbrooke 97,656 0.05%\noleg 97,656 0.05%\nvicki pfau 97,656 0.05%\nkarthik 97,656 0.05%\nmaciek 97,656 0.05%\nalex nichol 97,656 0.05%\nchris 97,656 0.05%\ngail 19,531 0.01%\nkate 19,531 0.01%\n 14,589,844 7.47%", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 396, "attachment": 9, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.396.9.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.396.9.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Jan 30, 2026", "filing_description": "OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 393 MOTION to Exclude Opinions 3 through 6 of Dr. C. Paul Wazzan ) filed byElon Musk.", "to_emails": [ "erm@spacex.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0030", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Ilya Sutskever" ], "cc": [ "Greg Brockman" ], "subject": "Re: Current State", "date_iso": "2017-09-13T07:40:05", "date_raw": "Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:40:05 -0000", "body": "Sounds good. The three common stock seats (you, Greg and Sam) should be elected by common shareholders.\n They will de facto be yours, but not in the unlikely event that you lose the faith of a huge percentage of common\n stockholders over time or step away from the company by choice.\n\n I think that the Preferred A investment round (supermajority me) should have the right to appoint four (not three)\n seats. I would not expect to appoint them immediately, but, like I said I would unequivocally have initial control\n of the company, but this will change quickly. The rough target would be to get to a 12 person board (probably\n more like 16 if this board really ends up deciding the fate of the world) where each board member has a deep\n understanding of technology, at least a basic understanding of AI and strong & sensible morals.\n\n Apart from the Series A four and the Common three, there would likely be a board member with each new lead\n investor/ally. However the specific individual new board members can only be added if all but one existing board\n members agrees. Same for removing board members.\n\n There will also be independent board members we want to add who aren't associated with an investor. Same\n rules apply: requires all but one of existing directors to add or remove.\n\n I'm super tired and don't want to overcomplicate things, but this seems approx right. At the sixteen person board\n level, we would have 7/16 votes and I'd have a 25% influence, which is my min comfort level. That sounds about\n right to me. If everyone else we asked to join our board is truly against us, we should probably lose.\n\n As mentioned, my experience with boards (assuming they consist of good, smart people) is that they are rational\n and reasonable. There is basically never a real hardcore battle where an individual board vote is pivotal, so this is\n almost certainly (sure hope so) going to be a moot point.\n\n As a closing note, I've been really impressed with the quality of discussion with you guys on the equity and\n board stuff. I have a really good feeling about this.\n\n Lmk if above seems reasonable.\n\n Elon\n\n > On Sep 12, 2017, at 11 :44 PM, Ilya Sutskever wrote:\n >\n > Hi Elon,\n >\n > To summarize our understanding of the current state:\n >\n > On equity:\n >\n > Greg: 1OM grant/I OM investment\n > Sam: 1OM grant/I OM investment\n > Ilya: 12M grant/2.5M investment+ 5.5M loan from Greg securitized by Ilya's YC vested stock, from his work\n at OpenAI\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0009240\n >\n >\n > On control:\n >\n > 3 board seats for Elon, 1 board seat each for Ilya/Greg/Sam. Plan to expand board over time through\n unanimous consent of current board, up to 12 people. Details TBD on tiebreak and whether the directors are\n statically allocated.\n >\n >\n > On credit:\n >\n > Elon is extremely happy to help Greg and Ilya get credit for their work -- and is very open to any ideas Greg\n and Ilya may have.\n >\n >\n > Looking forward to the conclusions of your conversation with Sam tomorrow.\n >\n > Ilya\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0009241", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 396, "attachment": 10, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.396.10.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.396.10.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Jan 30, 2026", "filing_description": "OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 393 MOTION to Exclude Opinions 3 through 6 of Dr. C. Paul Wazzan ) filed byElon Musk.", "from_email": "erm@spacex.com", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [], "importance": "Normal" } }, { "id": "cl-0031", "from": "Jared Birchall", "to": [ "Chris Clark" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: FW: Model 3 priority", "date_iso": "2017-09-15T19:55:57", "date_raw": "9/15/2017 7:55:57 PM", "body": "Great, thank you.\n\n I've confirmed that all 4 vehicles have been delivered and am working on dates for you.\n\n On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Chris Clark wrote:\n Yes. Attached.\n\n On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:23 PM Jared Birchall wrote:\n Do we have bylaws?\n\n On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Chris Clark wrote:\n Attached. Also including the IRS determination letter. And yes, we are a 501 ( c)(3) public charity.\n\n On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12: 17 PM Jared Birchall wrote:\n I'll get that.\n\n Btw, can you send me the fom1ation/incorporation documents of OpenAI?\n\n Thanks,\n\n Jared\n\n On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Chris Clark wrote:\n This is perfect. The only other thing we'll need to know is the delivery date. I can go back and figure out\n the date for Greg and Ilya, but let me know when you deliver to John and Woj.\n\n Chris\n\n On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12: l 0 PM Jared Birchall wrote:\n Hey Chris,\n\n Here are the final docs for each of the Tesla's. Let me know if you need anything else for this.\n\n Thanks,\n\n Jared\n\n\n\n On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at l :07 PM, Chris Clark wrote:\n Hi Jared,\n\n I ran this by our team, and here is how it will likely work:\n\n 1) The vehicles will be considered bonus compensation to the employees, and we will need to know the\n fair market value of vehicles so we can report them.\n\n\n Page 1 of 2\nCONFIDENTIAL OPENAI_MUSK00008848\n\n\n 2) They will show up in OpenAI's public tax filings for 2017 (which will likely be filed in the spring of\n 2018) in the section where we disclose key employee compensation.\n\n 3) The employees will likely owe income tax on the fair market values of the vehicles since they will be\n considered bonus compensation. Elon could offer to cover the cost of those taxes, though he might also\n need to pay gift tax if he does.\n\n Chris\n\n On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:38 AM Jared Birchall wrote:\n Hi Chris,\n\n We need to circle back on how to properly account for these vehicles. Elon's intent was to provide them\n as 'bonuses' for the team's great work. I want to be sure it is processed properly. Let me know what\n info you need from me.\n\n Thanks,\n\n Jared\n ---------- Forwarded message ----------", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 328, "attachment": 56, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.56.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.56.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Oct 17, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re OpenAI Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund ", "bates": [ "OPENAI_MUSK00008848", "OPENAI_MUSK00008849" ], "to_emails": [ "chris@openai.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0032", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Ilya Sutskever" ], "cc": [ "Sam Altman", "Greg Brockman", "Sam Teller", "Shivon Zilis" ], "subject": "Re: Honest Thoughts", "date_iso": "2017-09-20T14:17:02", "date_raw": "Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:17:02 -0700", "body": "Guys, I've had enough. This is the final straw.\n\n Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAI as a nonprofit. I will no longer fund OpenAI until\n you have made a firm commitment to stay or I'm just being a fool who is essentially providing free funding for\n you to create a startup.\n\n Discussions are over.\n\n On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Ilya Sutskever wrote:\n\n\n Elon, Sam,\n\n This process has been the highest stakes conversation that Greg and I have ever participated in, and if the\n project succeeds, it'll tum out to have been the highest stakes conversation the world has seen. It's also been a\n deeply personal conversation for all of us.\n\n Yesterday while we were considering making our final commitment given the non-solicit agreement, we\n realized we'd made a mistake. We have several important concerns that we haven't raised with either of you.\n We didn't raise them because we were afraid to: we were afraid of harming the relationship, having you think\n less of us, or losing you as partners.\n\n There is some chance that our concerns will prove to be unresolvable. We really hope it's not the case, but we\n know we will fail for sure if we don't all discuss them now. And we have hope that we can work through them\n and all continue working together.\n\n Elon:\n\n We really want to work with you. We believe that if we join forces, our chance of success in the mission is the\n greatest. Our upside is the highest. There is no doubt about that. Our desire to work with you is so great that we\n are happy to give up on the equity, personal control, make ourselves easily firable - whatever it takes to work\n with you.\n\n But we realized that we were careless in our thinking about the implications of control for the world. Because it\n seemed so hubristic, we have not been seriously considering the implications of success.\n\n • The current structure provides you with a path where you end up with unilateral absolute control over the\n AGL You stated that you don't want to control the final AGI, but during this negotiation, you've shown to\n us that absolute control is extremely important to you.\n o As an example, you said that you needed to be CEO of the new company so that everyone will\n know that you are the one who is in charge, even though you also stated that you hate being CEO\n and would much rather not be CEO.\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0005100\n • Thus, we are concerned that as the company makes genuine progress towards AGI, you will choose to\n retain your absolute control of the company despite current intent to the contrary. We disagree with your\n statement that our ability to leave is our greatest power, because once the company is actually on track to\n AGI, the company will be much more important than any individual.\n • The goal of OpenAI is to make the future good and to avoid an A GI dictatorship. You are concerned that\n Demis could create an AGI dictatorship. So do we. So it is a bad idea to create a structure where you\n could become a dictator if you chose to, especially given that we can create some other structure that\n avoids this possibility.\n\n We have a few smaller concerns, but we think it's useful to mention it here:\n\n • In the event we decide to buy Cerebras, my strong sense is that it'll be done through Tesla. But why do it\n this way if we could also do it from within OpenAI? Specifically, the concern is that Tesla has a duty to\n shareholders to maximize shareholder return, which is not aligned with OpenAI's mission. So the overall\n result may not end up being optimal for OpenAI.\n • We believe that OpenAI the non-profit was successful because both you and Sam were in it. Sam acted\n as a genuine counterbalance to you, which has been extremely fruitful. Greg and I, at least so far, are\n much worse at being a counterbalance to you. We feel this is evidenced even by this negotiation, where\n we were ready to sweep the long-term AGI control questions under the rug while Sam stood his ground.\n\n Sam:\n\n When Greg and I are stuck, you've always had an answer that turned out to be deep and correct. You've been\n thinking about the ways forward on this problem extremely deeply and thoroughly. Greg and I understand\n technical execution, but we don't know how structure decisions will play out over the next month, year, or five\n years.\n\n But we haven't been able to fully trust your judgements throughout this process, because we don't understand\n your cost function.\n\n • We don't understand why the CEO title is so important to you. Your stated reasons have changed, and it's\n hard to really understand what's driving it.\n • Is AGI truly your primary motivation? How does it connect to your political goals? How has your\n thought process changed over time?\n\n Greg and Ilya:\n\n We had a fair share of our own failings during this negotiation, and we'll list some of them here (Elon and Sam,\n I'm sure you'll have plenty to add ... ):\n\n • During this negotiation, we realized that we have allowed the idea of financial return 2-3 years down the\n line to drive our decisions. This is why we didn't push on the control - we thought that our equity is\n good enough, so why worry? But this attitude is wrong, just like the attitude of AI experts who don't\n think that AI safety is an issue because they don't really believe that they'll build AGL\n • We did not speak our full truth during the negotiation. We have our excuses, but it was damaging to the\n process, and we may lose both Sam and Elon as a result.\n\n There's enough baggage here that we think it's very important for us to meet and talk it out. Our collaboration\n will not succeed if we don't. Can all four of us meet today? If all of us say the truth, and resolve the issues, the\n company that we'll create will be much more likely to withstand the very strong forces it'll experience.\n\n - Greg & Ilya\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0005101", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 44, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.44.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.44.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "erm@spacex.com", "to_emails": [ "ilyasu@openai.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "shga@ycombinator.com", "gdb@openai.com", "steller@spacex.com", "shivon@spacex.com" ], "importance": "Normal" } }, { "id": "cl-0033", "from": "Sam Altman", "to": [ "Elon Musk", "Ilya Sutskever" ], "cc": [ "Greg Brockman", "Sam Teller", "Shivon Zilis" ], "subject": "Re: Honest Thoughts", "date_iso": "2017-09-21T09:17:57", "date_raw": "Thursday, September 21, 2017 9:17:57 AM", "body": "i remain enthusiastic about the non-profit structure!\n\nOn Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:08 PM Elon Musk < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n To be clear, this is not an ultimatum to accept what was discussed before. That is no longer\n on the table.\n\n On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Ilya Sutskever < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n\n Elon, Sam,\n\n This process has been the highest stakes conversation that Greg and I have ever\n participated in, and if the project succeeds, it'll turn out to have been the highest\n stakes conversation the world has seen. It's also been a deeply personal\n conversation for all of us.\n\n Yesterday while we were considering making our final commitment given the\n non-solicit agreement, we realized we'd made a mistake. We have several\n important concerns that we haven't raised with either of you. We didn't raise\n them because we were afraid to: we were afraid of harming the relationship,\n having you think less of us, or losing you as partners.\n\n There is some chance that our concerns will prove to be unresolvable. We really\n hope it's not the case, but we know we will fail for sure if we don't all discuss\n them now. And we have hope that we can work through them and all continue\n working together.\n\n Elon:\n\n We really want to work with you. We believe that if we join forces, our chance\n of success in the mission is the greatest. Our upside is the highest. There is no\n doubt about that. Our desire to work with you is so great that we are happy to\n give up on the equity, personal control, make ourselves easily firable —\n whatever it takes to work with you.\n\n But we realized that we were careless in our thinking about the implications of\n control for the world. Because it seemed so hubristic, we have not been\n seriously considering the implications of success.\n\n The current structure provides you with a path where you end up with\n unilateral absolute control over the AGI. You stated that you don't want\n to control the final AGI, but during this negotiation, you've shown to us\n that absolute control is extremely important to you.\n As an example, you said that you needed to be CEO of the new\n company so that everyone will know that you are the one who is in\n\n\n charge, even though you also stated that you hate being CEO and\n would much rather not be CEO.\n Thus, we are concerned that as the company makes genuine progress\n towards AGI, you will choose to retain your absolute control of the\n company despite current intent to the contrary. We disagree with your\n statement that our ability to leave is our greatest power, because once the\n company is actually on track to AGI, the company will be much more\n important than any individual.\n The goal of OpenAI is to make the future good and to avoid an AGI\n dictatorship. You are concerned that Demis could create an AGI\n dictatorship. So do we. So it is a bad idea to create a structure where you\n could become a dictator if you chose to, especially given that we can\n create some other structure that avoids this possibility.\n\n We have a few smaller concerns, but we think it's useful to mention it here:\n\n In the event we decide to buy Cerebras, my strong sense is that it'll be\n done through Tesla. But why do it this way if we could also do it from\n within OpenAI? Specifically, the concern is that Tesla has a duty to\n shareholders to maximize shareholder return, which is not aligned with\n OpenAI's mission. So the overall result may not end up being optimal for\n OpenAI.\n We believe that OpenAI the non-profit was successful because both you\n and Sam were in it. Sam acted as a genuine counterbalance to you, which\n has been extremely fruitful. Greg and I, at least so far, are much worse at\n being a counterbalance to you. We feel this is evidenced even by this\n negotiation, where we were ready to sweep the long-term AGI control\n questions under the rug while Sam stood his ground.\n\n Sam:\n\n When Greg and I are stuck, you've always had an answer that turned out to be\n deep and correct. You've been thinking about the ways forward on this problem\n extremely deeply and thoroughly. Greg and I understand technical execution,\n but we don't know how structure decisions will play out over the next month,\n year, or five years.\n\n But we haven't been able to fully trust your judgements throughout this process,\n because we don't understand your cost function.\n\n We don't understand why the CEO title is so important to you. Your\n stated reasons have changed, and it's hard to really understand what's\n driving it.\n Is AGI truly your primary motivation? How does it connect to your\n political goals? How has your thought process changed over time?\n\n Greg and Ilya:\n\n We had a fair share of our own failings during this negotiation, and we'll list\n some of them here (Elon and Sam, I'm sure you'll have plenty to add...):\n\n\n During this negotiation, we realized that we have allowed the idea of\n financial return 2-3 years down the line to drive our decisions. This is\n why we didn't push on the control — we thought that our equity is good\n enough, so why worry? But this attitude is wrong, just like the attitude of\n AI experts who don't think that AI safety is an issue because they don't\n really believe that they'll build AGI.\n We did not speak our full truth during the negotiation. We have our\n excuses, but it was damaging to the process, and we may lose both Sam\n and Elon as a result.\n\n There's enough baggage here that we think it's very important for us to meet and\n talk it out. Our collaboration will not succeed if we don't. Can all four of us\n meet today? If all of us say the truth, and resolve the issues, the company that\n we'll create will be much more likely to withstand the very strong forces it'll\n experience.\n\n - Greg & Ilya", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 170, "attachment": 14, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.170.14.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.170.14.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "May 22, 2025", "filing_description": "Second Amended Complaint against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, Reid Hoffman, Microsoft Corp., OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LL", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0034", "from": "Sam Altman", "to": [ "Elon Musk", "Ilya Sutskever" ], "cc": [ "Greg Brockman", "Sam Teller", "Shivon Zilis" ], "subject": "Re: Honest Thoughts", "date_iso": "2017-09-21T16:17:40", "date_raw": "Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:17:40 +0000", "body": "i remain enthusiastic about the non-profit structure!\n\n On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:08 PM Elon Musk wrote:\n To be clear, this is not an ultimatum to accept what was discussed before. That is no longer on the table.\n\n On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Ilya Sutskever wrote:\n\n\n Elon, Sam,\n\n This process has been the highest stakes conversation that Greg and I have ever participated in, and if the\n project succeeds, it'll tum out to have been the highest stakes conversation the world has seen. It's also been a\n deeply personal conversation for all of us.\n\n Yesterday while we were considering making our final commitment given the non-solicit agreement, we\n realized we'd made a mistake. We have several important concerns that we haven't raised with either of you.\n We didn't raise them because we were afraid to: we were afraid of harming the relationship, having you think\n less of us, or losing you as partners.\n\n There is some chance that our concerns will prove to be unresolvable. We really hope it's not the case, but we\n know we will fail for sure if we don't all discuss them now. And we have hope that we can work through\n them and all continue working together.\n\n Elon:\n\n We really want to work with you. We believe that ifwe join forces, our chance of success in the mission is\n the greatest. Our upside is the highest. There is no doubt about that. Our desire to work with you is so great\n that we are happy to give up on the equity, personal control, make ourselves easily firable - whatever it\n takes to work with you.\n\n But we realized that we were careless in our thinking about the implications of control for the world. Because\n it seemed so hubristic, we have not been seriously considering the implications of success.\n\n • The current structure provides you with a path where you end up with unilateral absolute control over\n the AGL You stated that you don't want to control the final AGI, but during this negotiation, you've\n shown to us that absolute control is extremely important to you.\n o As an example, you said that you needed to be CEO of the new company so that everyone will\n know that you are the one who is in charge, even though you also stated that you hate being\n CEO and would much rather not be CEO.\n • Thus, we are concerned that as the company makes genuine progress towards AGI, you will choose to\n retain your absolute control of the company despite current intent to the contrary. We disagree with\n your statement that our ability to leave is our greatest power, because once the company is actually on\n track to AGI, the company will be much more important than any individual.\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0005049\n • The goal ofOpenAI is to make the future good and to avoid anAGI dictatorship. You are concerned\n that Demis could create an AGI dictatorship. So do we. So it is a bad idea to create a structure where\n you could become a dictator if you chose to, especially given that we can create some other structure\n that avoids this possibility.\n\n We have a few smaller concerns, but we think it's useful to mention it here:\n\n • In the event we decide to buy Cerebras, my strong sense is that it'll be done through Tesla. But why do\n it this way if we could also do it from within OpenAI? Specifically, the concern is that Tesla has a duty\n to shareholders to maximize shareholder return, which is not aligned with OpenAI's mission. So the\n overall result may not end up being optimal for OpenAI.\n • We believe that OpenAI the non-profit was successful because both you and Sam were in it. Sam acted\n as a genuine counterbalance to you, which has been extremely fruitful. Greg and I, at least so far, are\n much worse at being a counterbalance to you. We feel this is evidenced even by this negotiation, where\n we were ready to sweep the long-term AGI control questions under the rug while Sam stood his\n ground.\n\n Sam:\n\n When Greg and I are stuck, you've always had an answer that turned out to be deep and correct. You've been\n thinking about the ways forward on this problem extremely deeply and thoroughly. Greg and I understand\n technical execution, but we don't know how structure decisions will play out over the next month, year, or\n five years.\n\n But we haven't been able to fully trust your judgements throughout this process, because we don't understand\n your cost function.\n\n • We don't understand why the CEO title is so important to you. Your stated reasons have changed, and\n it's hard to really understand what's driving it.\n • Is AGI truly your primary motivation? How does it connect to your political goals? How has your\n thought process changed over time?\n\n Greg and Ilya:\n\n We had a fair share of our own failings during this negotiation, and we'll list some of them here (Elon and\n Sam, I'm sure you'll have plenty to add ... ):\n\n • During this negotiation, we realized that we have allowed the idea of financial return 2-3 years down\n the line to drive our decisions. This is why we didn't push on the control - we thought that our equity\n is good enough, so why worry? But this attitude is wrong, just like the attitude of AI experts who don't\n think that AI safety is an issue because they don't really believe that they'll build AGL\n • We did not speak our full truth during the negotiation. We have our excuses, but it was damaging to the\n process, and we may lose both Sam and Elon as a result.\n\n There's enough baggage here that we think it's very important for us to meet and talk it out. Our collaboration\n will not succeed if we don't. Can all four of us meet today? If all of us say the truth, and resolve the issues,\n the company that we'll create will be much more likely to withstand the very strong forces it'll experience.\n\n - Greg & Ilya\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0005050", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 43, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.43.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.43.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "from_email": "shga@ycombinator.com", "to_emails": [ "erm@spacex.com", "ilyasu@openai.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "gdb@openai.com", "steller@spacex.com", "shivon@spacex.com" ], "importance": "Normal" } }, { "id": "cl-0035", "from": "Shivon Zilis", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [ "Sam Teller" ], "subject": "Re: Non-profit", "date_iso": "2017-09-22T05:54:23", "date_raw": "Friday, September 22, 2017 5:54:23 PM", "body": "From Altman:\n\n Structure: Great with keeping non-profit and continuing to support it.\n Trust: Admitted that he lost a lot of trust with Greg and Ilya through this process. Felt their\n messaging was inconsistent and felt childish at times.\n Hiatus: Sam told Greg and Ilya he needs to step away for 10 days to think. Needs to figure out\n how much he can trust them and how much he wants to work with them. Said he will come\n back after that and figure out how much time he wants to spend.\n Fundraising: Greg and Ilya have the belief that 100's of millions can be achieved with\n donations if there is a definitive effort. Sam thinks there is a definite path to 1O's of millions\n but TBD on more. He did mention that Holden was irked by the move to for-profit and\n potentially offered more substantial amount of money if OpenAI stayed a non-profit, but\n hasn't firmly committed. Sam threw out a $1 00M figure for this if it were to happen.\n Communications: Sam was bothered by how much Greg and Ilya keep the whole team in the\n loop with happenings as the process unfolded. Felt like it distracted the team. On the other\n hand, apparently in the last day almost everyone has been told that the for-profit structure is\n not happening and he is happy about this at least since he just wants the team to be heads\n down again.\n\n Shivon\n\n On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Elon Musk wrote:\n\n\n Ok\n\n\n On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Shivon Zilis \n wrote:\n\n\n\n Hi Elon,\n\n\n\n Quick FYI that Greg and Ilya said they would like to continue with\n the non-profit structure. They know they would need to provide a\n guarantee that they won't go off doing something else to make it\n work.\n\n\n\n Haven't spoken to Altman yet but he asked to talk this afternoon so\n will report anything I hear back.\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0010384\n\n\n\n\n If anything I can do to help let me know.\n\n\n\n\nConfidential 2024MUSK-0010385", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 45, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.45.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.45.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0036", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Altman" ], "cc": [ "Greg Brockman", "Ilya Sutskever", "Sam Teller", "Shivon Zilis" ], "subject": "Re: ICO", "date_iso": "2018-01-21T05:56:10", "date_raw": "Sunday, January 21, 2018 5:56:10 PM", "body": "Absolutely\n\n> On Jan 21, 2018, at 5:08 PM, Sam Altman < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n>\n> Elon—\n>\n> Heads up, spoke to some of the safety team and there were a lot of concerns about the ICO and possible\nunintended effects in the future.\n>\n> Planning to talk to the whole team tomorrow and invite input. Going to emphasize the need to keep this\nconfidential, but I think it's really important we get buy-in and give people the chance to weigh in early.\n>\n> Sam", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 16, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.16.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.16.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0037", "from": "Andrej Karpathy", "to": [ "Andrej Karpathy" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Fwd: Top AI institutions today", "date_iso": "2018-01-31T02:07:15", "date_raw": "Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:07:15 PM", "body": "fyi\n\n What do you think makes sense? Happy to talk by phone if that’s better.\n\n Begin forwarded message:", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 17, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.17.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.17.pdf", "chain_index": 2, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "from_email": "redacted for pii", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0038", "from": "Andrej Karpathy", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [ "Shivon Zilis" ], "subject": "Top AI institutions today", "date_iso": "2018-01-31T13:20:42", "date_raw": "January 31, 2018 at 1:20:42 PM PST", "body": "The ICLR conference (which is the top deep learning - specific conference (NIPS is larger, but more\n diffuse)) released their decisions for accepted/rejected papers, and someone made some nice plots\n that show where the current deep learning/ Al research happens at. It's an imperfect measure\n because not every company might prioritize paper publications, but it's indicative.\n\n Here's a plot that shows the total number of papers (broken down by oral/poster/workshop/rejected)\n from any institution:\n\n\n\n\n Page 3 of 5\nCONFIDENTIAL OPENAI_MUSK00000839\n()\n0\nz\n\"Tl\n0\nm\nz\n--;\n•r\n\n\n 0\n ode\n 0\n ~0\n 0 ~ is gJ 8 ~ t!5\n e:Lucktedu wr\n in.turn.de !ll l!Irn 111\n inria.fr rnrn I'a I~\n a {-i ;~a\n ::1_\n\n 'SC @ ---0\n uogue!ph .ca WI gfil.tr~\n mai!.huji.ac.il oo i\n Q\n ~ ~\n Edirnburgh University oo rm \"'\n ucla.edu m\n oosJr m\n socher.org mrn\n rtken.jp m\n kaisLac.kr m❖❖\n urnracs.umd.edu rn\n C:SJJtexasedu rnrn\n i!tit m\n Tsinghua m TLD\n NVirnA nm\n mLt.u-tokyo.ac.jp oo\n uciedu mm\n UPMC mr\n uva.nl mm\n cs.huji ..ac>il fillflf!fillflf\n Gome!! mm IIm@\n ttc.edu mrn\n Montreal University • t@\n ooas.upenn.edu mt\n University of Michigan -❖❖ J\n OpenAI • t@\n OJ~umbia wrnc :\n Baidu rm IIIIU!l\n salesforce.corn rmn\n Intel mmr\n Princeton oomm\n Nr' ii mm' ;;IIf<•\n USC fillflf!OO~ 'f't'tkW\n University of rninois rnrnm• rm\n Csmbridge rnrnmr\n Georgia T er:h nm Mt\n Washington Univ. nm 3@\n0 fvllT - - --\n\"U\nm ETH --h,,, ........ Y;;;;;,;,;\nz\n)> Toronto Univ. - - t!llll!!IIII!\nI-\nS:\n !BM fillflf!OOffl• WI\n Oxford University\n Microsoft fillflf!OOffl .. ··: ...·❖,❖,., ., , ,: :;:.'.'.'.'·'•;, c ;-x,:o □\nC\nC/)\n;::,;;\n0\n Facebook\n ,,,... ····;r;:;:ioo,,,.................. , .❖·•······,·,·;,;;,;;,;;,oow\n0\n0\n0\n0 CtdU\n00\n.I>,. Stanford ..... ·-·.. ,·,,_;;-;;;;;;;;;-;;,,,,,,{'tr····,:m\n0\n Berkeley\n CJooo!e corn Page 4 of 5\n\n\n Long story short, Google is dominating with 83 paper submissions. The academic institutions (Berkeley\n /Stanford/ CMU / MIT) are next, in 20-30 ranges each.\n\n Just thought it was an interesting snapshot of where all the action is today. The full data is here:\n http://webia.lip6.fr/~paiot/dataviz.html\n\n\n\n -Andrej\n\n\n\n\n Page 5 of 5\nCONFIDENTIAL OPENAI_MUSK00000841", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 328, "attachment": 63, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.63.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.63.pdf", "chain_index": 4, "filing_date": "Oct 17, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re OpenAI Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund ", "from_email": "akarpathy@tesla.com", "to_emails": [ "erm@tesla.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "shivon@tesla.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0039", "from": "Andrej Karpathy", "to": [ "Andrej Karpathy" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: Top AI institutions today", "date_iso": "2018-01-31T23:54:30", "date_raw": "January 31, 2018 at 11:54:30 PM PST", "body": "Working at the cutting edge of AI is unfortunately expensive. For example,\n DeepMind's operating expenses in 2016 were at around $250M USD (does not\n include compute). With their growing team today it might be ~0.5B/yr. But\n then Alphabet in 2016 reported ~20B net income so it's still fairly cheap even if\n DeepMind had no revenue of its own. In addition to DeepMind, Google also has\n Google Brain, Research, and Cloud. And TensorFlow, TPUs, and they own about a\n third of all research (in fact, they hold their own AI conferences).\n\n I also strongly suspect that compute horsepower will be necessary (and possibly\n even sufficient) to reach AGI. If historical trends are any indication, progress in AI\n is primarily driven by systems - compute, data, infrastructure. The core algorithms\n we use today have remained largely unchanged from the ~90s. Not only that, but\n any algorithmic advances published in a paper somewhere can\n be almost immediately re-implemented and incorporated.\n Conversely, algorithmic advances alone are inert without the scale to also make\n them scary.\n\n It seems to me that OpenAI today is burning cash and that the funding\n model cannot reach the scale to seriously compete with Google (an 800B\n company). If you can't seriously compete but continue to do research in\n open, you might in fact be making things worse and helping them out \"for free\",\n because any advances are fairly easy for them to copy and immediately\n incorporate, at scale.\n\n A for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream over time and\n\n\n would, with the current team, likely bring in a lot of investment. However,\n building out a product from scratch would steal focus from AI research, it would\n take a long time and it's unclear if a company could \"catch up\" to Google scale,\n and the investors might exert too much pressure in the wrong directions.\n\n The most promising option I can think of, as I mentioned earlier, would be for\n OpenAI to attach to Tesla as its cash cow. I believe attachments to other large\n suspects (e.g. Apple? Amazon?) would fail due to an incompatible company DNA.\n Using a rocket analogy, Tesla already built the \"first stage\" of the rocket with the\n whole supply chain of Model 3 and its onboard computer and a persistent\n internet connection. The \"second stage\" would be a full self driving solution based\n on large-scale neural network training, which OpenAI expertise could significantly\n help accelerate. With a functioning full self-driving solution in ~2-3 years we could\n sell a lot of cars/trucks. If we do this really well, the transportation industry is\n large enough that we could increase Tesla's market cap to high O(~100K), and use\n that revenue to fund the AI work at the appropriate scale.\n\n I cannot see anything else that has the potential to reach sustainable Google-scale\n capital within a decade.\n\n -Andrej", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 17, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.17.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.17.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "from_email": "redacted for pii", "to_emails": [ "redacted for pii" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0040", "from": "Andrej Karpathy", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: Top AI institutions today", "date_iso": "2018-01-31T23:54:30", "date_raw": "January 31, 2018 at 11:54:30 PM PST", "body": "Working at the cutting edge of Al is unfortunately expensive. For example, DeepMind's operating expenses in 2016 were at around\n $250M USD (does not include compute). With their growing team today it might be ~a.SB/yr. But then Alphabet in 2016 reported\n ~20B net income so it's still fairly cheap even if DeepMind had no revenue of its own. In addition to DeepMind, Google also has\n Google Brain, Research, and Cloud. And TensorFlow, TPUs, and they own about a third of all research (in fact, they hold their own Al\n conferences).\n\n I also strongly suspect that compute horsepower will be necessary (and possibly even sufficient) to reach AGI. If historical trends are\n any indication, progress in Al is primarily driven by systems - compute, data, infrastructure. The core algorithms we use today have\n remained largely unchanged from the ~gos. Not only that, but any algorithmic advances published in a paper somewhere can\n be almost immediately re-implemented and incorporated. Conversely, algorithmic advances alone are inert without the scale to\n also make them scary.\n\n It seems to me that OpenAI today is burning cash and that the funding model cannot reach the scale to seriously compete with\n Google (an 800B company). If you can't seriously compete but continue to do research in open, you might in fact be making things\n worse and helping them out \"for free\", because any advances are fairly easy for them to copy and immediately incorporate, at scale.\n\n A for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream over time and would, with the current team, likely bring in a lot\n of investment. However, building out a product from scratch would steal focus from Al research, it would take a long time and it's\n unclear if a company could \"catch up\" to Google scale, and the investors might exert too much pressure in the wrong directions.\n\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 5\nCONFIDENTIAL OPENAI_MUSK00000837\n\n\n The most promising option I can think of, as I mentioned earlier, would be for OpenAI to attach to Tesla as its cash cow. I believe\n attachments to other large suspects (e.g. Apple? Amazon?) would fail due to an incompatible company DNA. Using a rocket analogy,\n Tesla already built the \"first stage\" of the rocket with the whole supply chain of Model 3 and its on board computer and a persistent\n internet connection. The \"second stage\" would be a full self driving solution based on large-scale neural network training, which\n OpenAI expertise could significantly help accelerate. With a functioning full self-driving solution in ~2-3 years we could sell a lot of\n cars/trucks. If we do this really well, the transportation industry is large enough that we could increase Tesla's market cap to\n high o(~1QQK), and use that revenue to fund the Al work at the appropriate scale.\n\n I cannot see anything else that has the potential to reach sustainable Google-scale capital within a decade.\n\n -Andrej", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 328, "attachment": 63, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.63.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.63.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Oct 17, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re OpenAI Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund ", "from_email": "akarpathy(m,tesla.com", "to_emails": [ "em1(cvspacex.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0041", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Ilya Sutskever", "Greg Brockman" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Fwd: Top AI institutions today", "date_iso": "2018-02-01T03:52:15", "date_raw": "Thursday, February 1, 2018 3:52:15 AM", "body": "Attachments: pastedImage.png\n\n\nAndrej is exactly right. We may wish it otherwise, but, in my and Andrej’s opinion, Tesla is\nthe only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google. Even then, the probability of\nbeing a counterweight to Google is small. It just isn’t zero.\n\nBegin forwarded message:", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 17, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.17.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.17.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0042", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Ilya Sutskever", "Greg Brockman" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Fwd: Top AI institutions today Attachments: pastedlmage.png", "date_iso": "2018-02-01T11:52:14", "date_raw": "2/1/2018 11:52:14 AM", "body": "Andrej is exactly right. We may wish it otherwise, but, in my and Andrej's opinion, Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to\n Google. Even then, the probability of being a counterweight to Google is small. It just isn't zero.\n\n Begin forwarded message:", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 328, "attachment": 63, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.63.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.63.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Oct 17, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re OpenAI Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund ", "bates": [ "OPENAI_MUSK00000837", "OPENAI_MUSK00000838", "OPENAI_MUSK00000839", "OPENAI_MUSK00000841" ], "from_email": "erm@spacex.com", "to_emails": [ "ilyasu@openai.com", "gdb@openai.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0043", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Altman" ], "cc": [ "Shivon Zilis" ], "subject": "Re: The OpenAI Charter", "date_iso": "2018-04-02T02:45:48", "date_raw": "Monday, April 2, 2018 2:45:48 PM", "body": "Sounds fine\n\nOn Apr 2, 2018, at 1:54 PM, Sam Altman < PII - Sam Altman > wrote:\n\n\n We are planning to release this next week--any thoughts?\n\n\n\n\n The OpenAI Charter\n\n\n\n OpenAI's mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) — by\n which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most\n economically-valuable creative work — benefits all of humanity. We will attempt\n to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission\n fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome. To that end, we commit\n to the following principles:\n\n\n\n Broadly Distributed Benefits\n\n We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to\n ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or\n AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power.\n Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. We anticipate needing to\n marshal substantial resources to fulfill our mission, but will always\n assiduously act to minimize conflicts of interest among our employees\n and stakeholders that could compromise broad benefit.\n\n\n\n Long-Term Safety\n\n We are committed to doing the research required to make AGI safe, and\n to driving the broad adoption of such research across the AI community.\n We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a\n competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore,\n if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI\n before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this\n\n\n project. We will work out specifics in case by case agreements, but a\n typical triggering condition might be \"a better-than-even chance of\n success in the next 2 years\".\n\n\n\n Technical Leadership\n\n To be effective at addressing AGI's impact on society, OpenAI must be\n on the cutting edge of AI capabilities — policy and safety advocacy alone\n would be insufficient.\n We believe that AI will have broad societal impact before AGI, and we’ll\n strive to lead in those areas that are directly aligned with our mission and\n expertise.\n\n\n\n Cooperative Orientation\n\n We will actively cooperate with other research and policy institutions; we\n seek to create a global community working together to address AGI’s\n global challenges.\n We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate\n the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research,\n but we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional\n publishing in the future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety,\n policy, and standards research.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 18, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.18.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.18.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0044", "from": "Shivon Zilis", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [ "Sam Teller" ], "subject": "AI updates", "date_iso": "2018-04-23T01:49:35", "date_raw": "Monday, April 23, 2018 1:49:35 AM", "body": "Updated info per a conversation with Altman. You’re tentatively set to speak with him on\nTuesday.\n\nFinancing:\n-He confirmed again that they are definitely not doing an ICO but rather equity that has a fixed\nmaximum return.\n-Would be a rather unique subsidiary structure for the raise which he wants to walk you\nthrough.\n-Wants to move within 4-6 week on first round (probably largely Reid money, potentially\nsome corporates).\n\nTech:\n-Says Dota 5v5 looking better than anticipated.\n-The sharp rise in Dota bot performance is apparently causing people internally to worry that\nthe timeline to AGI is sooner than they’d thought before.\n-Thinks they are on track to beat Montezuma’s Revenge shortly.\n\nTime allocation:\n-I’ve reallocated most of the hours I used to spend with OpenAI to Neuralink and Tesla. This\nnaturally happened with you stepping off the board and related factors — but if you’d prefer I\npull more hours back to OpenAI oversight please let me know.\n-Sam and Greg asked if I’d be on their informal advisory board (just Gabe Newell so far),\nwhich seems fine and better than the formal board given potential conflicts? If that doesn’t\nfeel right let me know what you’d prefer.\n\n\nOn Mar 25, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Shivon Zilis < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n\n\n OpenAI\n\n Fundraising:\n -No longer doing the ICO / “instrument to purchase compute in advance” type structure. Altman is\n thinking through an instrument where the 4-5 large corporates who are interested can invest with a\n return capped at 50x if OpenAI does get to some semblance of money-making AGI. They\n apparently seem willing just for access reasons. He wants to discuss with you in more detail.\n\n Formal Board Resignation:\n -You're still technically on the board so need to send a quick one liner to Sam Altman saying\n something like “With this email I hereby resign as a director of OpenAI, effective Feb 20th 2018”.\n\n Future Board:\n -Altman said he is cool with me joining then having to step off if I become conflicted, but is\n concerned that others would consider it a burned bridge if I had to step off. I think best bet is not to\n join for now and be an ambiguous advisor but let me know if you feel differently. They have Adam\n D’Angelo as the potential fifth to take your place, which seems great?\n\n\n TeslaAI\n\n Andrej has three candidates in pipeline, may have 1-2 come in to meet you on Tuesday. He will\n send you a briefing note about them. Also, he’s working on starter language for a potential release\n that will be ready to discuss Tuesday. It will follow the “full-stack AI lab” angle we talked about but,\n if that doesn’t feel right, please course correct... is tricky messaging.\n\n Cerebras\n\n Chip should be available in August for them to test, and they plan to let others have remote access\n in September. The Cerebras guy also mentioned that a lot of their recent customer interest has\n been from companies upset about the Nvidia change in terms of service (the one that forces\n companies away from consumer grade GPUs to enterprise Pascals / Voltas). Scott Gray and Ilya\n continue to spend a bunch of time with them\n\n\n\nCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the\naddressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from\ndisclosure.", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 32, "attachment": 19, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.19.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.32.19.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 14, 2024", "filing_description": "AMENDED COMPLAINT VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LLC, Op", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0045", "from": "Chris Clark", "to": [ "Shivon Zilis" ], "cc": [ "Sam Altman" ], "subject": "Board Resignation", "date_iso": "2018-04-27T14:51:17", "date_raw": "April 27, 2018 at 2:51 :17 PM PDT", "body": "Hi Shivon,\n\n We need to add Adam to the the board, but to do that we need a signed\n resignation letter or even a simple one line email to Sam with:\n\n \"I hereby resign as a director of OpenAI, Inc., effective February 21, 2018.\"\n\n If you don't think that's doable then I'll add language to the board resolution\n acknowledging that Elon made a public statement that he's leaving the OpenAI\n board as of Feb 21, 2018 and electing his replacement based on that statement.\n\n Let me know if I can help with anything.\n\n Thanks,\n Chris\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 1\n\nCONFIDENTIAL OPENAI_MUSK00000865", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 328, "attachment": 58, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.58.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.58.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Oct 17, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re OpenAI Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund ", "from_email": "chris(a1openai.com", "to_emails": [ "shivon@openai.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "shga@ycombinator.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0046", "from": "Elon Musk", "to": [ "Sam Altman" ], "cc": [ "Shivon Zilis" ], "subject": "Re: OpenAI Board", "date_iso": "2018-04-28T05:54:44", "date_raw": "4/28/2018 5:54:44 AM", "body": "I hereby resign as a director ofOpenAI, Inc., effective February 21, 2018.\n\n On Apr 27, 2018, at 8:25 PM, Shivon Zilis wrote:\n\n Would you prefer to formally resign from the OpenAI board or have Sam and Chris do their\n workaround option outlined below?\n\n If the former, you can just copy/paste this line to Altman:\n\n l hereby resign as a director ofOpenAJ, Inc., effective February 21, 2018.\n\n FYI, noticed that Adam has already shared his joining the board:\n https://twitter.com/adamdangelo/status/988859015315701760\n\n\n Begin forwarded message:", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 328, "attachment": 58, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.58.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.58.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Oct 17, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re OpenAI Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund ", "bates": [ "OPENAI_MUSK00000865" ], "from_email": "erm@spacex.com", "to_emails": [ "sama@openai.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "shivon@openai.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0047", "from": "Sam Altman", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [ "Sam Teller", "Shivon Zilis" ], "subject": "OpenAI", "date_iso": "2019-03-06T03:13:31", "date_raw": "Wednesday, March 6, 2019 3:13:31 PM", "body": "Elon—\n\nHere is a draft post we are planning for Monday. Anything to add/edit?\n\nTL;DR:\n*We've created the capped-profit company and raised the first round, led by Reid and\nVinod.\n*We did this is a way where all investors are clear that they should never expect a\nprofit (see purple box below).\n*We made Greg chairman and me CEO of the new entity.\n*We have tested this structure with potential next-round investors and they seem to\nlike it.\n\nSpeaking of the last point, we are now discussing a multi-billion dollar investment\nwhich I would like to get your advice on when you have time. Happy to come see you\nsome time you are in the bay area.\n\nSam\n\n\n\n\nWe've created OpenAI LP, a new \"capped-profit\" company that\nallows us to rapidly increase our investments in compute and talent\nwhile including checks and balances to actualize our mission.\n\nOur mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity,\nprimarily by attempting to build safe AGI and share the benefits with the world.\n\nDue to the exponential growth of compute investments in the field, we’ve needed to scale\nmuch faster than we’d planned when starting OpenAI. We expect to need to raise many\nbillions of dollars in upcoming years for large-scale cloud compute, attracting and retaining\ntalented people, and building AI supercomputers.\n\nWe haven’t been able to raise that much money as a nonprofit, and though we considered\nbecoming a for-profit, we were afraid that doing so would mean giving up our mission.\nInstead, we created a new company, OpenAI LP, as a hybrid for-profit and nonprofit —\nwhich we are calling a \"capped-profit\" company.\n\n\n\nThe fundamental idea of OpenAI LP is that investors and employees can get a fixed return if\nwe succeed at our mission, which allows us to raise investment capital and attract\nemployees with startup-like equity. But any returns beyond that amount — and if we are\nsuccessful, we expect to generate orders of magnitude more value than we’d owe to people\nwho invest in or work at OpenAI LP — are owned by the original OpenAI Nonprofit entity.\nGoing forward (in this post and elsewhere), “OpenAI” refers to OpenAI LP (which now\nemploys most of our staff), and the original entity is referred to as “OpenAI Nonprofit”.\n\n\n\n\nOpenAI team and their families at our November 2018 offsite.\n\nThe mission comes first\n\nWe’ve designed OpenAI LP to put our overall mission — ensuring the creation and adoption\nof safe and beneficial AGI — over generating returns for investors.\n\nTo minimize conflicts of interest with the mission, OpenAI LP’s primary fiduciary obligation is\nto advance the aims of the OpenAI Charter, and the company is controlled by OpenAI\nNonprofit’s board. All investors and employees sign agreements that OpenAI LP’s obligation\nto the Charter always comes first, even at the expense of some or all of their financial stake.\nBig purple box\n\n\n\n\nOur employee and investor paperwork starts like this. The general partner refers to OpenAI\nNonprofit (whose official name is “OpenAI Inc”); limited partners refers to investors and\nemployees.\n\nOnly a minority of board members can hold financial stakes in the partnership. Furthermore,\nonly board members without such stakes are allowed to vote on decisions where the\n\n\ninterests of limited partners and the nonprofit’s mission may conflict — including any\ndecisions about making payouts to investors and employees.\nCorporate structure\n\n\n\n\nAnother provision from our paperwork specifies that the nonprofit retains control. (The\npaperwork uses OpenAI LP’s official name “OpenAI, L.P.”.)\n\nAs mentioned above, economic returns for investors and employees are capped (with the\ncap negotiated in advance on a per-limited partner basis). Any excess returns are owned by\nthe nonprofit. Our goal is to ensure that most of the value we create if successful is returned\nto the world, so we think this is an important first step. Returns for our first round of investors\nare capped to 100x their investment, and we expect this multiple to be lower for future\nrounds.\n\nWhat OpenAI does\n\nOur day-to-day work remains the same. Today, we believe we can build the most value by\nfocusing exclusively on developing new AI technologies, not commercial products. Our\nstructure gives us flexibility for how to make money in the long term, but we hope to figure\nthat out only once we’ve created safe AGI (though we’re open to non-distracting revenue\nsources such as licensing in the interim).\n\nOpenAI LP currently employs around 100 people organized into three main areas:\ncapabilities (advancing what AI systems can do), safety (ensuring those systems are aligned\nwith human values), and policy (ensuring appropriate governance for such systems). OpenAI\nNonprofit governs OpenAI LP, runs educational programs such as Scholars and Fellows,\nand hosts policy initiatives. OpenAI LP is continuing (at increased pace and scale) the\ndevelopment roadmap started at OpenAI Nonprofit, which has yielded breakthroughs in\nreinforcement learning, robotics, and language.\n\n\n\n\nSafety\n\n\n\nWe are concerned about AGI’s potential to cause rapid change, whether through machines\npursuing goals misspecified by their operator, malicious humans subverting deployed\nsystems, or an out-of-control economy that grows without resulting in improvements to\nhuman lives. As described in our Charter, we are willing to merge with a value-aligned\norganization (even if it means reduced or zero payouts to investors) to avoid a competitive\nrace which would make it hard to prioritize safety.\n\nWho’s involved\n\n\n OpenAI Nonprofit’s board consists of OpenAI LP employees Greg Brockman\n (Chairman & CTO), Ilya Sutskever (Chief Scientist), and Sam Altman (CEO), and non-\n employees Adam D’Angelo, Holden Karnofsky, Reid Hoffman, Sue Yoon, and Tasha\n McCauley.\n\n Elon Musk left the board of OpenAI Nonprofit in February 2018 and is not involved with\n OpenAI LP.\n\n\n Our investors include Reid Hoffman and Khosla Ventures.\n\n\n\nWe are traveling a hard and uncertain path, but we have designed our structure to help us\npositively affect the world should we succeed in creating AGI. If you’d like to help us make\nthis mission a reality, we’re hiring :)!", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 170, "attachment": 20, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.170.20.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.170.20.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "May 22, 2025", "filing_description": "Second Amended Complaint against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, Reid Hoffman, Microsoft Corp., OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LL", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0048", "from": "Sam Altman", "to": [ "Elon Musk" ], "cc": [], "subject": "Re: Bloomberg: AI Research Group Co-Founded by Elon Musk Starts For-Profit Arm", "date_iso": "2019-03-11T03:11:02", "date_raw": "Monday, March 11, 2019 3:11:02 PM", "body": "on it\n\nOn Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 15:04, Elon Musk < Redacted for PII > wrote:\n Please be explicit that I have no financial interest in the for-profit arm of OpenAI\n\n AI Research Group Co-Founded by Elon Musk Starts For-Profit Arm\n Bloomberg\n\n OpenAI, the San Francisco-based artificial intelligence research group co-founded by Elon\n Musk and several other prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, is starting a for-profit arm\n that will allow it to raise more money. Read the full story\n\n\n\n Shared from Apple News", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 170, "attachment": 21, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.170.21.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.170.21.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "May 22, 2025", "filing_description": "Second Amended Complaint against Aestas Management Company, LLC, Aestas, LLC, Samuel Altman, Gregory Brockman, Reid Hoffman, Microsoft Corp., OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Global, LL", "to_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0049", "from": "Jared Birchall", "to": [ "Leeder Hsu" ], "cc": [], "subject": "OpenAI Donations from the DAF", "date_iso": "2020-07-26T23:07:56", "date_raw": "7/26/2020 11:07:56 PM", "body": "Hi Leeder,\n\n September should be our last grant to Open AI. October going forward please discontinue the grants.\n\n Thank you!\n\n Jared\n\n\n\n\nConfidential EXMF-0003867", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 351, "attachment": 26, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.26.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.351.26.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Nov 7, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Elon Musk.", "to_emails": [ "leeder.hsu@ubs.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0050", "from": "Janine Korovesis", "to": [ "Courtney Schrier" ], "cc": [ "Chris Clark" ], "subject": "Re: Musk-Fidelity Grant", "date_iso": "2021-06-24T20:21:39", "date_raw": "6/24/2021 8:21:39 PM", "body": "- Lauren to Bee\n + Chris\n\n Hi Courtney,\n\n The Musk via Fidelity DAFs are legacy grants that have been in place for OpenAI, Inc. for some time. They are\n unrestricted, unconditional grants.\n\n\n\n\n On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:59 PM, Courtney Schrier wrote:\n\n Hi Janine and Lauren,\n\n\n\n\n Could you guys give me a little background on the musk-fidelity grant and the related agreement if there is one?\n I know it ended in September 2020 per our previous discussions and the grant detail but I am looking for more\n detail so I can clarify the nature of the grant and confirm if it was conditional or unconditional (I believe\n unconditional).\n\n\n\n\n I apologize if you gave us more detail in the PY. I cannot track it down. Thanks for your help!\n\n\n\n\n Best,\n\n Courtney\n\n\n\n\n Courtney Schrier\n Audit Senior\n 415-490-3025 (Direct) 317-302.5 (Internal)\n 650-39·1-7698 (Mobile) 4·15-397-2·161 (Fax)\n cschrier@bdo.com\n\n BDO\n One Bush Street, Suite 1800\n San Francisco, CA 94104\n UNITED STATES\n 415-397-7900\n www.bdo.com\n\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 2\nConfidential OPENAI_MUSK00014852\n\n\n\n BOO USA, llP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member of BOO International limited, a UK company limited\n by guarantee, and forms part of the international BOO network of independent member firms.\n\n BOO is the brand name for the BOO network and for each of the BOO Member Firms.\n\n IMPORTANT NOTICES\n\n\n The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from BOO USA, llP.\n This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby\n notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information\n contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the\n attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to BOO USA, llP or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail\n and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you\n have received this e-mail in error, please notify BOO USA, llP by e-mail immediately.\n\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 2\nConfidential OPENAI_MUSK00014853", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 328, "attachment": 44, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.44.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.328.44.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Oct 17, 2025", "filing_description": "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re OpenAI Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by OAI Corporation, LLC, OpenAI Holdings, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, OpenAI Startup Fund ", "bates": [ "OPENAI_MUSK00014852", "OPENAI_MUSK00014853" ], "from_email": "janine@openai.com", "to_emails": [ "cschrier@bdo.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "chris@openai.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0051", "from": "Simona Agnolucci", "to": [ "Jaymie Parkkinen" ], "cc": [ "Marc Toberoff" ], "subject": "Re: Musk v. Altman, No. 4:24-cv-04722 (N.D. Cal.)", "date_iso": "2025-04-16T06:49:00", "date_raw": "Wednesday, April 16, 2025 6:49 AM", "body": "Jaymie--I am talking to the client and will get back to you this week.\n\n\n_\n\nOn April 15, 2025 at 2:02:48 PM PDT, Jaymie Parkkinen \nwrote:\n\n *** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***\n\n\n\nMs. Agnolucci:\n\n\n\nPlease let us know whether you represent Ilya Sutskever and will accept service on his behalf\nby the close of business today, or we will proceed with personal service of the subpoena.\nThank you.\n 10\n\n\n\nJaymie Parkkinen\n\nToberoff & Associates, P.C.\n\n23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363\n\nMalibu, California 90265\n\nTel: 310.246.3333\n\nFax: 310.246.3101\n\n__________\n\n\n\n\nThis message and any attached documents may contain information from Toberoff & Associates, P.C. that is\nconfidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or\notherwise use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately by reply email and then delete this message.\n\n\n\n\nOn Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:18 AM Jaymie Parkkinen\n wrote:\n\n Ms. Agnolucci:\n\n\n\n\n We represent Plaintiffs Elon Musk, Shivon Zilis, and xAI in the above-referenced\n matter. We have been informed you represent Ilya Sutskever and are writing to\n inquire whether you will accept service of the attached subpoena on his behalf.\n\n\n\n We kindly ask for your prompt response. Thank you.\n\n\n\n Jaymie Parkkinen\n\n Toberoff & Associates, P.C.\n\n 23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363\n\n\n 11\n Malibu, California 90265\n\n Tel: 310.246.3333\n\n Fax: 310.246.3101\n\n __________\n\n\n\n\n This message and any attached documents may contain information from Toberoff &\n Associates, P.C. that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you\n may not read, copy, distribute, or otherwise use this information. If you have received this\n transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this\n message.\n\n\n\n Simona Agnolucci\n Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP\n 333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104\n Direct: +1 415 858 7447 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599\n sagnolucci@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio\n Pronouns: she, her, hers\n\n\n\n\n Important Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive\n the confidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher\n LLP presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to\n non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy,\n forward or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this\n message in error, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership\n organized in the United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal\n liability of partners.\n\n\n\n Important Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the\n confidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP\n presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to non-\n clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward\n or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in\n error, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in\n the United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of\n partners.\n\n\n\nImportant Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the\nconfidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP\npresumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to non-\n\n 12\n\nclients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward\nor store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in\nerror, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in\nthe United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of\npartners.\n\n\nImportant Notice: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the\nconfidential information it may contain. Email messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP\npresumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; email messages to non-\nclients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or\nstore this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error,\nplease forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in the\nUnited States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of partners.\n\n\n\n\n 13", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 342, "attachment": 2, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "chain_index": 5, "filing_date": "Oct 29, 2025", "filing_description": "MOTION For Relief From NonDispositive Pretrial Order Of Magistrate Judge re 324 Discovery Order, filed by Ilya Sutskever. Responses due by 11/12/2025. Replies due by 11/19/2025.", "from_email": "sagnolucci@willkie.com", "to_emails": [ "jparkkinen@toberoffandassociates.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "mtoberoff@toberoffandassociates.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0052", "from": "Simona Agnolucci", "to": [ "Jaymie Parkkinen" ], "cc": [ "Marc Toberoff", "Eduardo Santacana", "Anika Holland", "Mateen, Harris 9" ], "subject": "", "date_iso": "2025-04-25T10:27:00", "date_raw": "Friday, April 25, 2025 10:27 AM", "body": "; Antonuccio, Nicole \nSubject: RE: Musk v. Altman, No. 4:24-cv-04722 (N.D. Cal.)\n\n\n\nJaymie—We will accept service of this subpoena.\n\n\n\nI am adding my colleagues who should be copied on correspondence for this matter going\nforward. Thank you.\n\n\n\n\nSimona Agnolucci\nWillkie Farr & Gallagher LLP\n333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104\nDirect: +1 415 858 7447 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599\nsagnolucci@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio\nPronouns: she, her, hers", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 342, "attachment": 2, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "chain_index": 4, "filing_date": "Oct 29, 2025", "filing_description": "MOTION For Relief From NonDispositive Pretrial Order Of Magistrate Judge re 324 Discovery Order, filed by Ilya Sutskever. Responses due by 11/12/2025. Replies due by 11/19/2025.", "from_email": "sagnolucci@willkie.com", "to_emails": [ "jparkkinen@toberoffandassociates.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "mtoberoff@toberoffandassociates.com", "esantacana@willkie.com", "aholland@willkie.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0053", "from": "Jaymie Parkkinen", "to": [ "Anika Holland" ], "cc": [ "Simona Agnolucci", "Marc Toberoff" ], "subject": "", "date_iso": "2025-04-28T06:11:00", "date_raw": "Monday, April 28, 2025 6:11 PM", "body": "; Santacana, Eduardo E. ;\nMateen, Harris ; Antonuccio, Nicole \nSubject: Re: Musk v. Altman, No. 4:24-cv-04722 (N.D. Cal.)\n\n\n\n *** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***\n\n\n\nHi Anika:\n\n\n\n\nMr. Sutskever's responses indicate you would like to meet and confer regarding the requests, which\nwe are happy to do. We can make ourselves available anytime this week, please let us know a day\nand time that works for you.\n\n\n\nThank you.\n\n\n\nJaymie Parkkinen\n\nToberoff & Associates, P.C.\n\n23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363\n 8\nMalibu, California 90265\n\nTel: 310.246.3333\n\nFax: 310.246.3101\n\n__________\n\n\n\n\nThis message and any attached documents may contain information from Toberoff & Associates, P.C. that is confidential\nand/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or otherwise use this\ninformation. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then\ndelete this message.\n\n\n\n\nOn Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 5:21 PM Holland, Anika wrote:\n\n Jaymie,\n\n\n\n Attached please find Mr. Sutskever’s Responses & Objections to Plaintiffs’ Rule 45 subpoena served\n on Mr. Sutskever in the above-captioned action.\n\n\n\n Best,\n\n Anika\n\n\n\n\n Anika Holland\n Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP\n 333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104\n Direct: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599\n aholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio\n Pronouns: she, her, hers", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 342, "attachment": 2, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "chain_index": 3, "filing_date": "Oct 29, 2025", "filing_description": "MOTION For Relief From NonDispositive Pretrial Order Of Magistrate Judge re 324 Discovery Order, filed by Ilya Sutskever. Responses due by 11/12/2025. Replies due by 11/19/2025.", "from_email": "jparkkinen@toberoffandassociates.com", "to_emails": [ "aholland@willkie.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "sagnolucci@willkie.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0054", "from": "Jaymie Parkkinen", "to": [ "Anika Holland" ], "cc": [ "Simona Agnolucci", "Marc Toberoff" ], "subject": "", "date_iso": "2025-05-07T01:17:00", "date_raw": "Wednesday, May 7, 2025 1:17 PM", "body": "; Santacana, Eduardo E. ;\nMateen, Harris ; Antonuccio, Nicole \nSubject: Re: Musk v. Altman, No. 4:24-cv-04722 (N.D. Cal.)\n\n\n\n *** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***\n\n\n\nHi Anika:\n\n\n\n\nSomething has come up. Can we reschedule for Thursday or Friday this week? Thanks.\n\n\n\nJaymie Parkkinen\n\nToberoff & Associates, P.C.\n\n23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363\n\nMalibu, California 90265\n\nTel: 310.246.3333\n\nFax: 310.246.3101\n\n__________\n\n\n\n\nThis message and any attached documents may contain information from Toberoff & Associates, P.C. that is confidential\nand/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or otherwise use this information.\nIf you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this\nmessage.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\n\n\nOn Thu, May 1, 2025 at 7:18 PM Jaymie Parkkinen wrote:\n\nHi Anika:\n\n\n\n\nMay 7 at 4:30 pm PT works. Thanks.\n\n\n\nJaymie Parkkinen\n\nToberoff & Associates, P.C.\n\n23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363\n\nMalibu, California 90265\n\nTel: 310.246.3333\n\nFax: 310.246.3101\n\n__________\n\n\n\n\nThis message and any attached documents may contain information from Toberoff & Associates, P.C. that is confidential\nand/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or otherwise use this\ninformation. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then\ndelete this message.\n\n\n\n\nOn Thu, May 1, 2025 at 5:57 PM Holland, Anika wrote:\n\n Hi Jaymie,\n\n\n\n\n Are you available to meet and confer on Wednesday, May 7 at 4:30pm? Let me know and I will\n circulate an invite.\n\n\n\n 7\n\nThanks,\n\nAnika\n\n\n\n\nAnika Holland\nWillkie Farr & Gallagher LLP\n333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104\nDirect: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599\naholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio\nPronouns: she, her, hers", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 342, "attachment": 2, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "chain_index": 2, "filing_date": "Oct 29, 2025", "filing_description": "MOTION For Relief From NonDispositive Pretrial Order Of Magistrate Judge re 324 Discovery Order, filed by Ilya Sutskever. Responses due by 11/12/2025. Replies due by 11/19/2025.", "from_email": "jparkkinen@toberoffandassociates.com", "to_emails": [ "aholland@willkie.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "sagnolucci@willkie.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0055", "from": "Jaymie Parkkinen", "to": [ "Anika Holland" ], "cc": [ "Simona Agnolucci", "Marc Toberoff" ], "subject": "", "date_iso": "2025-05-07T03:40:00", "date_raw": "Wednesday, May 7, 2025 3:40 PM", "body": "; Santacana, Eduardo E. ;\nMateen, Harris ; Antonuccio, Nicole \nSubject: Re: Musk v. Altman, No. 4:24-cv-04722 (N.D. Cal.)\n\n\n\n 4\n\n *** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***\n\n\n\nThanks, Anika. May 13 at 10am PT is great.\n\n\n\n\nJaymie Parkkinen\n\nToberoff & Associates, P.C.\n\n23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363\n\nMalibu, California 90265\n\nTel: 310.246.3333\n\nFax: 310.246.3101\n\n__________\n\n\n\n\nThis message and any attached documents may contain information from Toberoff & Associates, P.C. that is confidential\nand/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or otherwise use this information.\nIf you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this\nmessage.\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, May 7, 2025 at 2:07 PM Holland, Anika wrote:\n\n Hi Jaymie,\n\n No worries. Would Tuesday 5/13 at 10:00am work for you? I am out of the office tomorrow through\n Monday. Let us know.\n\n Best,\n Anika\n\n\n\n\n Anika Holland\n Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP\n 5\n333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104\nDirect: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599\naholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio\nPronouns: she, her, hers", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 342, "attachment": 2, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "chain_index": 1, "filing_date": "Oct 29, 2025", "filing_description": "MOTION For Relief From NonDispositive Pretrial Order Of Magistrate Judge re 324 Discovery Order, filed by Ilya Sutskever. Responses due by 11/12/2025. Replies due by 11/19/2025.", "from_email": "jparkkinen@toberoffandassociates.com", "to_emails": [ "aholland@willkie.com" ], "cc_emails": [ "sagnolucci@willkie.com" ] } }, { "id": "cl-0056", "from": "Jaymie Parkkinen", "to": [ "Anika Holland" ], "cc": [ "Simona Agnolucci", "Marc Toberoff", "Eduardo E. Santacana", "Harris Mateen", "Nicole Antonuccio" ], "subject": "Re: Musk v. Altman, No. 4:24-cv-04722 (N.D. Cal.)", "date_iso": "2025-05-21T10:35:00", "date_raw": "Wednesday, May 21, 2025 10:35 AM", "body": "*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***\n\nHi Anika:\n\nThanks for your email. In short, I believe the limits you set out are agreeable, with particular notes in blue:\n\n\n 1. Founding of OpenAI. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents and\n communications concerning the founding of OpenAI in 2015 as it relates to your claims, e.g., the\n non-profit structure. This should work, though we ask for the search to include\n documents/communications from 2016 as well. OpenAI was formally founded in December 2015,\n so many of the relevant discussions spilled over into 2016. We also ask that the \"e.g.\" include the\n non-profit structure, as well as documents/communications concerning safety and open\n sourcing of technology.\n 2. Decision to Open Source Technology. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for\n documents and communications concerning whether or not to make OpenAI’s products and\n technology open source. Depending on what we find relating to this topic, we may need to apply\n further limiting principles to ensure this request does not become overly burdensome. If you have\n further guidance for targeting this search, we would appreciate it.\n 3. Conflicts of Interest. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents and\n communications concerning conflicts of interest of Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and other\n members of the nonprofit board. This category would include documents relating to a board\n member using their insider position for personal gain despite the nonprofit’s mission, or a board\n member’s failure to disclose their interest in another company that OpenAI was considering\n dealing with. If you could provide a list of the board members and any particular conflicted deals\n you are especially interested in, that would be helpful for our search. Additional Board members:\n Reid Hoffman, Tasha McCauley, Helen Toner, Will Hurd, Chris Clark, Holden Karnofsky, Sue Yoon,\n Bret Taylor, Adam D'Angelo, Larry Summers, Sue Desmon-Hellmann, Nicole Seligman, Fidji Simo,\n Paul Nakasone, Zico Kolter. Companies: Stripe, Reddit, Helion Energy, Humane, Limitless,\n Cerebras, Infelection AI, Rain AI, and a company (name unknown) involving Jony Ive.\n 4. Safety. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents and\n communications relating to releasing technologies without adhering to appropriate safety\n protocols and reviews, including releasing technologies before they were vetted by safety teams.\n 5. Sam Altman’s dishonesty. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents\n and communications related to Sam Altman’s dishonesty about safety at OpenAI or about\n\n 1\n\n OpenAI’s nonprofit mission. This category would exclude dishonesty related to other topics like\n personnel issues or interpersonal conflicts.\n\n\n\nPlease let us know if there are additional categories you would like us to search for.\n\n\n\nWe also discussed whether you would be amenable to us making redactions for relevance, particularly if\nthe documents relate to sensitive topics for our client, including Sam Altman’s firing, the Board events of\nNovember/December 2023, or Mr. Sutskever’s reasons for leaving OpenAI. You indicated you were\nagreeable to such good faith relevance redactions. We also agreed to an inspection provision for any\nedge cases, whereby we would permit you to inspect an unredacted version of the document without\ngiving you a copy, and you could review and determine whether you wanted it to be produced without\nredactions.\n\n\n\nWe next discussed the process for confidentiality designations in light of the fact that Mr. Sutskever may\nbe in possession of OpenAI’s proprietary information. You indicated it was your preference for us to\ndesignate material as AEO when we believe there may be a claim by OpenAI of confidentiality, rather\nthan having OpenAI determine designations before production. That is fine with us.\n\n\n\nFinally, we discussed whether you anticipated needing to depose Mr. Sutskever. You stated that you\nweren’t sure yet at this time but would give us a heads up if you determined a deposition was necessary.\nWill keep you apprised.\n\n\n\n____\n\n\n\nThank you.\n\n\n\nJaymie Parkkinen\nToberoff & Associates, P.C.\n23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363\nMalibu, California 90265\nTel: 310.246.3333\nFax: 310.246.3101\n__________\n\nThis message and any attached documents may contain information from Toberoff & Associates, P.C. that is confidential\nand/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or otherwise use this information. If\n 2\nyou have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this\nmessage.\n\n\n\nOn Mon, May 19, 2025 at 7:40 PM Holland, Anika wrote:\n\n Hi Jaymie,\n\n\n\n Thanks for taking the time to discuss Mr. Musk’s discovery requests on May 13th. As you explained at\n the beginning of our call today, the requests to Mr. Sutskever primarily focus on two topics: safety and\n non-profit promises. With appropriate limiting principles and privacy redactions in place to ensure\n relevance, we can agree to produce on a rolling basis documents and communications in Mr.\n Sutskever’s personal possession that are sufficient to address those topics.\n\n\n\n Below are the specific categories of documents we discussed. We expect this discussion to be an\n iterative process, so please do follow up with additional details and revisions, and we will endeavor to\n reach an agreement where we can.\n\n 1. Founding of OpenAI. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents and\n communications concerning the founding of OpenAI in 2015 as it relates to your claims, e.g., the\n non-profit structure.\n 2. Decision to Open Source Technology. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for\n documents and communications concerning whether or not to make OpenAI’s products and\n technology open source. Depending on what we find relating to this topic, we may need to apply\n further limiting principles to ensure this request does not become overly burdensome. If you\n have further guidance for targeting this search, we would appreciate it.\n 3. Conflicts of Interest. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents and\n communications concerning conflicts of interest of Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and other\n members of the nonprofit board. This category would include documents relating to a board\n member using their insider position for personal gain despite the nonprofit’s mission, or a board\n member’s failure to disclose their interest in another company that OpenAI was considering\n dealing with. If you could provide a list of the board members and any particular conflicted deals\n you are especially interested in, that would be helpful for our search.\n 4. Safety. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents and\n communications relating to releasing technologies without adhering to appropriate safety\n protocols and reviews, including releasing technologies before they were vetted by safety teams.\n 5. Sam Altman’s dishonesty. We can agree to conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents\n and communications related to Sam Altman’s dishonesty about safety at OpenAI or about\n OpenAI’s nonprofit mission. This category would exclude dishonesty related to other topics like\n personnel issues or interpersonal conflicts.\n\n\n\n Please let us know if there are additional categories you would like us to search for.\n\n 3\n\n\n\nWe also discussed whether you would be amenable to us making redactions for relevance, particularly\nif the documents relate to sensitive topics for our client, including Sam Altman’s firing, the Board events\nof November/December 2023, or Mr. Sutskever’s reasons for leaving OpenAI. You indicated you were\nagreeable to such good faith relevance redactions. We also agreed to an inspection provision for any\nedge cases, whereby we would permit you to inspect an unredacted version of the document without\ngiving you a copy, and you could review and determine whether you wanted it to be produced without\nredactions.\n\n\n\nWe next discussed the process for confidentiality designations in light of the fact that Mr. Sutskever may\nbe in possession of OpenAI’s proprietary information. You indicated it was your preference for us to\ndesignate material as AEO when we believe there may be a claim by OpenAI of confidentiality, rather\nthan having OpenAI determine designations before production. That is fine with us.\n\n\n\nFinally, we discussed whether you anticipated needing to depose Mr. Sutskever. You stated that you\nweren’t sure yet at this time but would give us a heads up if you determined a deposition was necessary.\n\n\n\nThanks,\n\nAnika\n\n\n\n\nAnika Holland\nWillkie Farr & Gallagher LLP\n333 Bush St | San Francisco, CA 94104\nDirect: +1 415 858 7411 | Fax: +1 415 858 7599\naholland@willkie.com | vCard | www.willkie.com bio\nPronouns: she, her, hers", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 342, "attachment": 2, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.342.2.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Oct 29, 2025", "filing_description": "MOTION For Relief From NonDispositive Pretrial Order Of Magistrate Judge re 324 Discovery Order, filed by Ilya Sutskever. Responses due by 11/12/2025. Replies due by 11/19/2025.", "from_email": "jparkkinen@toberoffandassociates.com", "to_emails": [], "cc_emails": [] } }, { "id": "cl-0057", "from": "Jennifer Schubert", "to": [ "tshcrd" ], "cc": [ "Simona A Agnolucci", "Anika Holland", "Robert Kry", "Sara Tofighbakhsh" ], "subject": "ECF filing - 24-CV-4722", "date_iso": "2025-10-09T03:19:00", "date_raw": "Thursday, October 9, 2025 3:19 AM", "body": "Attachments: Activity in Case 4:24-cv-04722-YGR Musk v. Altman et al Administrative Motion to\n Consider Whether Another Partys Material Should Be Sealed\n\n\nChambers for Judge Hixson,\n\nWe write regarding our attached filing, which we attempted to file before midnight but experienced technical\ndi iculties. We filed as soon as technology allowed and are continuing to file also as technology permits. We have\ncopied relevant counsel here for notice.\n\nThank you.\n\n\nJennifer Schubert\n\n430 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nT: (212) 607-5957\nM: (917) 594-8755\njschubert@mololamken.com\nwww.mololamken.com\n\n\n\n\n 1", "provenance": { "docket_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/musk-v-altman/", "docket_entry": 311, "attachment": 1, "pdf_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.311.1.pdf", "pdf_filename": "gov.uscourts.cand.433688.311.1.pdf", "chain_index": 0, "filing_date": "Oct 9, 2025", "filing_description": "RESPONSE re 302 Opposition/Response to Motion by Elon Musk, X.AI Corp..", "to_emails": [ "tshcrd@cand.uscourts.gov" ], "cc_emails": [] } } ] }