Musk has accused Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman of a breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment.
He objects to OpenAI’s decision to open a for-profit arm in 2019, three years before it debuted the software ChatGPT which ignited the commercial AI market.
OpenAI says Musk is suing to give his own AI startup, xAI, a leg-up.
During his testimony last week, Musk tried at one point to play the part of his own legal counsel, accusing OpenAI’s lawyer William Savitt of asking him leading questions.
Gonzalez Rogers quickly shut him down.
“That’s not how it works,” she interjected.
Unlike a lawyer conducting direct examination of their own client, Savitt was allowed to lead, she instructed Musk.
“Let’s remind everyone in the courtroom that you are not a lawyer,” she told Musk.
“I am not a lawyer,” Musk acknowledged. “Well, technically I did take Law 101 in school,” he added, drawing laughter from the packed courtroom gallery.
But he reaffirmed her point: “Yes – I am not a lawyer.”
In Gonzalez Rogers, Musk may have met his match.
“It does make an interesting juxtaposition. He’s the wealthiest man in the world. He’s used to being on top. She’s definitely on top now. She’s in charge,” said veteran courtroom artist Vicki Behringer, who has covered several cases overseen by Judge Gonzalez Rogers, including this one.
Commentators have described Gonzalez Rogers as a tough but fair judge who is in total command of her courtroom.
“She wants everybody to be treated exactly the same under the law,” said Rhodes, who has also represented Musk and OpenAI in the past.
While the nine-person jury is expected to decide the case by the end of this month, their decision is not binding. They serve in an advisory role. Ultimately, Gonzalez Rogers will be the final arbiter.
“That changes the whole landscape,” said Jay Edelson, a plaintiffs lawyer who has wrongful death lawsuits pending against OpenAI. “It really means that this is completely her show.”
The cases that have crossed Gonzalez Rogers’ bench are among the most closely-watched and complicated cases brought by and against big tech companies.
“There are certain judges who, if they’re on the case, you kind of stand up a little bit straighter,” said Edelson. “You want to make sure everything’s right, that your tie’s on straight, and that you don’t mis-cite a case.”
In addition to the Musk v Altman case, she is overseeing a multi-district litigation, in which social media addiction lawsuits brought by school districts and states against Meta, Snap, TikTok and Google have been consolidated.
She also handled an antitrust case brought by Epic Games against Apple, a highly technical matter in which the Fortnite-maker accused Apple of forcing developers to use the tech giant’s payment system in the App Store.
Last year, in a stunning court filing, Gonzalez Rogers wrote that an Apple executive “outright lied” under oath and referred the matter to the US Attorney for the Northern District of California.
An appeals court upheld her finding of contempt, but found that she went too far when she barred Apple from collecting any commission from sellers who use third-party payment systems.
This week, the Supreme Court declined Apple’s request to stay the appeals court ruling. The case will go back to Gonzalez Rogers to determine a fair commission rate.
