Musk v. Altman Trial: Judge Questions Birchall's Unconvincing Testimony on OpenAI Bid

A dramatic and unexpected turn unfolded in the high-stakes legal battle between Elon Musk and Sam Altman, co-founders of OpenAI, during a recent court session. The most striking moment occurred while the jury was out of the room, involving Jared Birchall, Musk’s long-time money manager and 'fixer.' Birchall's testimony, intended to support Musk's claims, instead raised significant questions and drew direct scrutiny from the presiding judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, regarding a massive bid for OpenAI's non-profit assets. Birchall took the stand after Musk, and initially, his testimony seemed routine. However, a pivotal moment arrived when he was asked about an xAI-led bid for OpenAI’s non-profit assets. Birchall stated, “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table,” implying a conflict of interest during OpenAI's restructuring. He detailed a $97.4 billion bid made in February 2025 by a Musk-led coalition, submitted to ensure proper valuation of the non-profit's assets as the for-profit arm prepared to go public. This bid, he claimed, was an attempt to create a market value that the California Attorney General would have to consider. However, the defense counsel quickly objected, and Birchall’s initial statement was struck for lack of foundation. Despite attempts to re-establish the basis for his claims, Birchall reiterated his assertion about Altman. During cross-examination by Bradley Wilson, representing OpenAI, Birchall struggled to differentiate between information learned from lawyers and other sources, indicating a potential weakness in the foundation of his testimony. Wilson then moved to strike all of Birchall’s testimony regarding the xAI bid, leading to the jury's early dismissal. With the jury absent, Judge Gonzalez Rogers directly intervened, questioning Birchall herself. Her probing questions visibly made Birchall nervous as he struggled to recall specifics. He claimed not to remember discussing the xAI bid with Musk, Sharon Zilis, or other key principals within Musk's organization. This exchange suggested that Musk's lawyers might not have provided adequate discovery on this topic, prompting what appeared to be an impromptu deposition by the judge. At one point, the judge even admonished the plaintiff’s counsel for attempting to coach the witness. Birchall further stumbled when asked about the $97.4 billion figure, stating he didn't remember who chose it and that it came from the legal team, not Musk directly. He also couldn't recall if any analysis for this figure was created by anyone other than Marc Toberoff, one of Musk's lawyers. Despite his claims that the bid was strictly a business deal and not part of litigation, Judge Gonzalez Rogers remained unconvinced, stating, “I’m still struggling with how you can have conversations with these individuals to raise $97.5 billion but have no recollections even in a general sense.” She concluded her questioning with a pointed remark: “You must have been very convincing. You’re not very convincing today.” This dramatic courtroom exchange highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls of high-profile tech litigation. Birchall's unconvincing testimony and the judge's direct intervention could have significant implications for the credibility of Musk's legal arguments, particularly regarding the alleged undervaluation of OpenAI's non-profit assets and the motivations behind the xAI bid. The consequences of this unusual turn of events remain to be seen as the trial progresses.