Elon Musk’s lawyers have successfully challenged the judge in his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, which led to a recusal.Â
The judge, Ethan Schulman of California, stepped down following the invocation of state law by Musk’s attorneys.
California Code of Civil Procedure 170.6 allows a party in a lawsuit to remove a judge without proving bias, provided the challenge is filed appropriately and within a certain timeframe.
The law’s application in this case did not necessitate Musk’s team to demonstrate any actual prejudice by Judge Schulman.
Each party in a lawsuit is entitled to one such peremptory challenge.
This development is particularly pivotal given that the lawsuit involves significant legal claims and pits Musk against Altman, a fellow titan in the technology sector.
In March, Musk lodged a lawsuit accusing Altman, with whom he co-founded OpenAI, of deviating from the organization’s original altruistic mission.
According to Musk, OpenAI initially intended to operate as a non-profit that openly shares its advancements.
He claims Altman redirected the company towards profitability, securing substantial investments from entities like Microsoft, thus valuing OpenAI at approximately $80 billion.
Need Career Advice? Get employment skills advice at all levels of your career
The dispute highlights deeper disagreements about OpenAI’s direction and management, especially after Musk departed from the company in 2018 following internal conflicts and strategic divergences.
Musk has since established his own AI venture, xAI.
The recusal of Judge Schulman, who was one of only two judges assigned to handle complex civil litigation cases in San Francisco, adds another layer of complexity to the case.
Previously, Schulman had categorized the lawsuit as complex civil litigation, which typically requires management by a single judge rather than a jury.
This case will now be reassigned to another judge, and previously set court dates have been cleared.
This move opens a new chapter in the legal battle, reflecting the intricate interplay of personal dynamics and legal strategy in high-stakes tech litigation.
