Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80224/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80224-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ryan Mac
Movant
Elon Musk
Defendant
Vernon Unsworth
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON UNSWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELON MUSK,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-mc-80224-JSC 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH 

SUBPOENAS

Re: Dkt. No. 1

This dispute arises out of subpoenas that Plaintiff Vernon Unsworth (the “Unsworth 

Subpoena”) and Defendant Elon Musk (the “Musk Subpoena”) issued to non-party journalist Ryan 

Mac in a pending defamation action in the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California. See Unsworth v. Musk, No. 2:18-cv-08048-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal.). The underlying

lawsuit alleges that Mr. Musk made “false and defamatory accusations” about Mr. Unsworth in 

public statements on Twitter as well as emails Mr. Musk sent to Mr. Mac that were subsequently 

published by Mr. Mac’s employer, BuzzFeed News (“BuzzFeed”). (Dkt. No. 2-1, Ex. W at 99 ¶¶ 

88-96.)1 Before the Court is Mr. Mac’s motion to quash the subpoenas. (Dkt. No. 1.) Having 

considered the parties’ briefing and having had the benefit of oral argument on October 17, 2019, 

the Court GRANTS Mr. Mac’s motion to quash the Musk Subpoena as unduly burdensome 

because the testimony it seeks is not relevant. The Court DENIES Mr. Mac’s motion to quash the 

Unsworth Subpoena. 

BACKGROUND

The underlying lawsuit stems from several comments Mr. Musk made about Mr. Unsworth 

related to the well-publicized July 2018 rescue of twelve boys and their soccer coach from the

Tham Luang Nang Non cave system in Thailand. (Dkt. No. 2-1, Ex. W at 87, ¶¶ 1-4.) The 

following facts are not in dispute. Mr. Musk made the allegedly defamatory comments after Mr. 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 12
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Unsworth gave an interview to CNN on July 13, 2018, during which he characterized Mr. Musk’s 

attempt to aid in the rescue efforts by providing a mini-submarine as a “‘PR stunt’” and stated that 

Mr. Musk “‘can stick his submarine where it hurts.’” (See id. at 95-96, ¶¶ 70-72.) In response to 

Mr. Unsworth’s interview, Mr. Musk posted several public statements on Twitter (“tweets”) on 

July 15, 2018, including one in which he referred to Mr. Unsworth as “pedo guy.” (Id. at 97, ¶ 76; 

see also Dkt. No. 20-6 at 2.) Mr. Musk deleted the July 15 tweets three days later, and in a July 18 

tweet apologized to Mr. Unsworth. (Dkt. No. 2-1, Ex. W at 98, ¶ 80; see also Dkt. No. 20-8 at 2.) 

On or about August 28 or 29, 2018, Mr. Musk responded on Twitter to a tweet regarding the 

“pedo” comment by stating, in part, “You don’t think it’s strange he hasn’t sued me?” (Dkt. No. 

2-1, Ex. W at 99, ¶ 83; see also Dkt. No. 20-15 at 2.) Mr. Unsworth’s counsel responded to Mr. 

Musk’s tweet shortly thereafter, tweeting that Mr. Musk “should check his mail before tweeting” 

and attaching a copy of an August 6, 2018 demand letter from Mr. Unsworth’s counsel to Mr. 

Musk in which counsel notes that he is “in the process of preparing a civil complaint for libel 

against [Mr. Musk].” (Dkt. No. 2-1, Ex. W at 99, ¶ 87; see also 20-16 at 2.) 

Mr. Mac is a journalist for BuzzFeed based in its San Francisco office. (Dkt. No. 3 at ¶ 1.) 

On August 29, 2018, BuzzFeed published an article written by Mr. Mac entitled “The Cave 

Rescuer Elon Musk Called A ‘Pedo’ Has Lawyered Up And Is Preparing A Libel Claim”

(“August Article”). (Id. at ¶ 3; see also Dkt. No. 3, Ex. B at 27.) Prior to publishing the August 

Article, Mr. Mac emailed Mr. Musk the morning of August 29, 2018, seeking to “talk about the 

letter.” (Dkt. No. 20-17 at 5-6.) Mr. Musk responded to Mr. Mac’s email within the hour, 

questioning whether he had “even bothered to research basic facts.” (Id. at 5.) Mr. Mac emailed 

Mr. Musk the day after BuzzFeed published the August Article “to make sure [Mr. Mac] did [his] 

due diligence to research basic facts and follow up.” (Id. at 4.) Mr. Musk responded shortly 

thereafter with an email stating, in part: 

Off the record

I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s 

actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you fucking 

asshole.” 

(Id. at 3.) Mr. Musk then sent Mr. Mac another email on August 30, 2018 with the heading “On 

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 12
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

background.” (Dkt. No. 20-18 at 2.) The email primarily disputes Mr. Unsworth’s 

characterization of Mr. Musk’s role in the rescue efforts. (See id.) 

On September 4, 2018, Mr. Mac responded by email to Mr. Musk’s August 30 “Off the 

record” email. (Dkt. No. 20-17 at 3.) Mr. Mac’s email states, in pertinent part, that he “didn’t 

agree for the conversation to be off the record.” (Id.) Mr. Mac’s email also asked Mr. Musk if he 

had found anything to corroborate his “accusations” about Mr. Unsworth. (Id.) Roughly two 

hours later, Mr. Musk responded by email, stating:

Off the record

We haven’t had a conversation at all. I sent you an off the record 

email, which very clearly and unambiguously said “off the record.” 

If you want to publish off the record comments and destroy your 

journalistic credibility, that’s up to you. 

As for answering more questions, I would be happy to do so, but not 

with someone who just told me that they will not honor accepted rules 

of journalism.

(Id. at 2-3.) Mr. Mac responded by email that day, stating that he would “rather chat on the 

record[,]” but that he was “happy to go off record with you moving forward so you can answer 

specific questions regarding the allegations you’ve made.” (Id. at 2.) Mr. Musk responded by 

email within the hour, stating:

Off the record

I suggest you ask Unsworth to describe his whole [ ] 30 year history 

of visiting Thailand. What was he doing in Pattaya Beach for the 

better part of a decade when there are no caves of note in the area?

(Id.) That evening, BuzzFeed published an article written by Mr. Mac and two other BuzzFeed 

journalists entitled “In a New Email, Elon Musk Accused a Cave Rescuer of Being a ‘Child 

Rapist’ and Said He ‘Hopes’ There’s a Lawsuit” (“September Article”). (Dkt. No. 3 at ¶ 4; see 

also Dkt. No. 3, Ex. C at 34.) The September Article includes, in its entirety, Mr. Musk’s August 

30, 2018 “Off the record” email in which he refers to Mr. Unsworth as a “child rapist[ ].” (See

Dkt. No. 3, Ex. C at 37, 46-47.) The Article also includes Mr. Musk’s August 30, 2018 “On 

background” email in its entirety. (See id. at 47-48.) As for Mr. Musk’s use of “Off the record,” 

the September Article states:

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 3 of 12
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Though Musk prefaced one email with “off the record,” BuzzFeed 

News did not agree to that condition of the correspondence. (Per 

common journalistic practice, a conversation is off the record only if 

both parties agree to the terms.)

(Id. at 35-36.) Mr. Mac emailed Mr. Musk again on September 4, 2018, after BuzzFeed published 

the Article. (See Dkt. No. 20-17 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 3, Ex. C at 34.) The email states, in 

pertinent part: 

I’m sure you’ve seen the story at this point. Still happy to talk to you 

on whatever terms you want as long as we set them beforehand. Let 

me know if you want to do phone call.

(Dkt. No. 20-17 at 2.) Mr. Musk responded by email shortly thereafter, stating: “Get lost, you 

creep.” (Id.) 

II. Procedural History

Mr. Unsworth filed the underlying lawsuit on September 17, 2018. (Dkt. No. 2-1, Ex. W.) 

Mr. Musk issued a document subpoena to BuzzFeed in June 2019, seeking production of, among 

other things, copies of BuzzFeed’s August and September Articles, and “internal policies, 

memoranda, or any other documents concerning ‘off the record’ or ‘on background’ conversations 

or communications with third parties.” (Dkt. No. 2, Ex. O at 145.) BuzzFeed objected to the 

subpoena, (Dkt. No. 2-1, Ex. P at 2), but agreed to produce certain documents, including the 

August and September Articles, (id. at 5). BuzzFeed also provided a link to the online copy of its 

News Standards and Ethics Guide. (Id. at 6-7.) In July 2019, Mr. Unsworth issued a document 

subpoena to BuzzFeed, seeking production of, among other things, the August and September 

Articles and BuzzFeed’s website traffic related to same. (See Dkt. No. 2, Ex. L at 110-11.) 

BuzzFeed objected to the subpoena, (Dkt. No. 2, Ex. M at 113), but agreed to produce 

nonprivileged documents responsive to some requests for production, (see id. at 116-120). 

Mr. Musk issued a second document subpoena to BuzzFeed in August 2019, (Dkt. No. 2-1, 

Ex. Q at 15), seeking production of, among other things, copies of the News Standards and Ethics 

Guides in effect during publication of both the August and September 2018 Articles and 

documents related to any revisions of the News Standards and Ethics Guides, and 

“communications concerning the decision to publish the contents of the August 30, 2018 emails” 

from Mr. Musk to Mr. Mac, (id. at 23-24). BuzzFeed objected to the subpoena, (Dkt. No. 2-1, Ex. 

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 4 of 12
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

R at 27), and produced only copies of the version of the News Standards and Ethics Guide that 

were in effect at the relevant time and the documents it had also provided to Mr. Unsworth, (id. at 

30-37). 

On August 26, 2019, Mr. Musk issued a deposition subpoena to Mr. Mac noticing the

deposition for September 11, 2019. (Dkt. No. 2-1, Ex. S at 64.) Mr. Unsworth then issued a 

deposition subpoena to Mr. Mac on September 6, 2019, also noticing the deposition for September 

11, 2019. (See Dkt. No. 2-1, Ex. T at 69.) Counsel for BuzzFeed and Mr. Mac corresponded with 

Mr. Musk’s counsel via email regarding the Musk Subpoena, and on September 4, 2019 Mr. Mac 

indicated that he would not appear and instead intended to file a motion to quash. (Dkt. No. 2-1, 

Ex. U at 75.) On September 9, 2019, Mr. Musk proposed “go[ing] forward with a Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition instead” to avoid Mr. Mac’s motion to quash and proposed 11 topics that such a 

deposition would cover. (Id. at 73.) Counsel for BuzzFeed and Mr. Mac refused the offer, stating 

that the proposed “request calls for privileged matters related to BuzzFeed’s newsgathering 

materials and is, indeed, far broader than the request to Mr. Mac.” (Id.) 

Mr. Mac filed the instant motion to quash on September 13, 2019. (Dkt. No. 1.) Mr. 

Unsworth and Mr. Musk have filed responses, (Dkt. Nos. 17 & 19), and Mr. Mac has filed a reply, 

(Dkt. No. 28). The Court heard oral argument on October 17, 2019. 

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Mr. Mac requests that the Court take judicial notice of several exhibits submitted in 

conjunction with the declaration of his counsel, Katherine M. Bolger, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Evidence 201. (See Dkt. Nos. 2 & 4.) Rule 201(b) provides that a judicially noticed adjudicative 

fact must be one “that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within 

the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from 

sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 201(b). Here, Mr. Mac 

seeks judicial notice of the following news articles and public website posts: (1) Twitter exchange 

posted on Elon Musk’s Twitter account between July 3 and July 4, 2018; (2) “July 4, 2018 

Business Insider article written by Tara Francis Chan entitled ‘Elon Musk offers to help rescue the 

Thai soccer team stuck in a cave’”; (3) July 6, 2018 BBC.com article written by Dearbail Jordan 

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 5 of 12
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

entitled ‘Elon Musk offers to help Thai cave rescue’”; (4) July 6, 2018 BuzzFeed article written by 

Nicole Nguyen entitled ‘Elon Musk Is Sending Engineers To Help With The Thai Soccer Team 

Stuck In A Cave’”; (5) July 6, 2018 CNN article written by James Masters entitled ‘Elon Musk 

sends engineers to help Thai cave rescue mission’”; (6) “July 8, 2018 CNN article written by 

Jackie Wattles entitled ‘Elon Musk shares video of “kid-size” submarine for Thai cave rescue’”; 

(7) “July 8, 2018 Business Insider article written by Matthew Michaels entitled ‘Elon Musk posted 

videos of the “kid-size submarine” he’s sending to help save the boys trapped in a cave in 

Thailand’”; (8) “September 6, 2018[ ] Atlantic article written by Marina Koren entitled ‘Elon 

Musk and the Meaning of “Off the Record”’”; and (9) “August 24, 2019 tweet from [Mr. 

Unsworth’s] counsel’s public Twitter page stating that he had taken Musk’s deposition and that 

‘[t]he emperor has no clothes.’” (Dkt. No. 4 at 3-4 (seeking judicial notice of Dkt. No. 2 – 2-1, 

Exs. A-G, J, V).) Neither Mr. Unsworth nor Mr. Musk object to Mr. Mac’s request for judicial 

notice or otherwise contest the authenticity of the above-cited exhibits. 

Mr. Mac asserts that the documents above evidence facts (i.e., “the existence of news 

reporting” on both Mr. Musk’s tweets and “BuzzFeed’s decision to publish [Mr. Musk’s] emails,” 

and “the existence of a public tweet”) that are not subject to reasonable dispute because the parties 

cannot reasonably question the existence of the articles and tweets. (See Dkt. No. 4 at 3-4.) The 

Court agrees that judicial notice is proper because the existence of the publicly-available articles 

and tweets cannot reasonably be questioned. See Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at 

Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Courts may take judicial notice of publications 

introduced to indicate what was in the public realm at the time, not whether the contents of those 

articles were in fact true”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the Court takes 

judicial notice of the proffered exhibits. For the same reason, the Court also takes judicial notice 

of the publicly-available tweets and news articles submitted in conjunction with the declaration of 

Robert M. Schwartz in support of Mr. Musk’s opposition to the instant motion. (See Dkt. Nos. 20-

6 – 20-8; 20-15 – 20-16; 20-19; see also Dkt. No. 21 (Mr. Musk’s request for judicial notice).) 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) allows a party to obtain discovery concerning any 

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 6 of 12
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Parties may seek discovery within the scope of Rule 26(b) by deposing a witness pursuant to Rule 

30 or serving requests for production of documents pursuant to Rule 34. Rule 45 governs 

discovery of nonparties by subpoena. The scope of discovery under Rule 45 is the same as under 

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee’s note (1970); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). A nonparty subject to a subpoena may file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(3)(A). A court must quash or modify a subpoena that: 

(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; 

(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits 

specified in Rule 45(c); 

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no 

exception or waiver applies; or 

(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. 

Id. Generally, the party moving to quash under Rule 45(d)(3) bears the burden of persuasion, but 

“[t]he party issuing the subpoena must demonstrate that the information sought is relevant and 

material to the allegations and claims at issue in the proceedings.” Optimize Tech. Solutions, LLC 

v. Staples, Inc., No. 14-MC-80095, 2014 WL 1477651, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2014) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Am. Broad. Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 

CV-12-80300-RMW, 2013 WL 1508894, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (“The burden of 

showing that a subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive is upon the party to whom it is directed.”)

DISCUSSION

Mr. Mac moves to quash both deposition subpoenas, asserting that they violate Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A) by: (1) requiring ‘disclosure of privileged or other protected 

matter’” under California’s reporters’ shield law, Cal. Const. art. I, § 2(b) and Cal. Evid. Code § 

1070 (together, the “California Shield Law”); and (2) imposing an undue burden on Mr. Mac 

because the testimony sought “is irrelevant to the legal issues in this case.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 8.) 

The Court addresses each subpoena in turn. 

I. Unsworth Subpoena

Mr. Mac asserts that the Unsworth Subpoena must be quashed because it is “unduly 

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 7 of 12
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

burdensome and would require disclosure of irrelevant, privileged information.” (Dkt. No. 28 at 

17.) At oral argument Mr. Unsworth clarified that his questioning of Mr. Mac will be limited to 

(1) establishing that there were no communications between Mr. Mac and Mr. Musk other than the 

emails at issue and, (2) “the fact of publication” (i.e., that BuzzFeed published the emails at issue). 

As a percipient witness to some of the communications at issue in the underlying action, 

Mr. Mac’s testimony is relevant to Mr. Unsworth’s claim. While these facts appear to be 

undisputed by Mr. Musk, Mr. Mac is beyond the subpoena power of the Central District of 

California and thus Mr. Unsworth cannot compel him to testify at trial; Mr. Unsworth is entitled to 

preserve Mr. Mac’s testimony in the event Mr. Musk takes a different position at trial. Further, 

Mr. Unsworth’s limited deposition topics do not fall under the scope of any privilege or the 

California Shield Law, which provides that “newspersons ‘shall not be adjudged in contempt . . . 

for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving 

or processing of information for communication to the public.’”2 N.Y. Times Co. v. Super. Ct., 51 

Cal. 3d 453, 458 (1990) (quoting Cal. Const. art. I, § 2(b) and noting that “[t]he provision’s 

statutory counterpart, Evidence Code section 1070, contains a virtually identical provision”). The

very limited testimony Mr. Unsworth seeks will not disclose unpublished information related to 

Mr. Mac’s newsgathering.

II. Musk Subpoena

As clarified in Mr. Musk’s opposition to the instant motion, the Musk Subpoena “seeks 

information concerning the generally applicable guidelines and policies of Mr. Mac and BuzzFeed 

News with regard to honoring requests to treat information provided on an ‘off the record’ basis, 

standards for sourcing articles, and policies for assessing potentially defamatory content.” (Dkt. 

No. 19 at 5.) Mr. Mac’s reply in support of the instant motion asserts that the Court “need not 

even reach the privilege issue and could quash pursuant to Rule 45 alone because ‘any burden 

 

2 Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that “in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding 

a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.” Thus, because the underlying 

action is a state law tort claim for defamation, consideration of the California Shield Law’s 

applicability to the instant motion to quash is proper. See Star Editorial, Inc. v. United States Dist. 

Ct., 7 F.3d 856, 859 (1993) (applying California law to “determin[e] the existence or extent of the 

privilege” in defamation action) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 501). 

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 8 of 12
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

whatsoever [is] by definition undue’ when the information sought is ‘not relevant.’” (Dkt. No. 28 

at 6 (citing Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006)).) The Court agrees

that the information sought is not relevant to Mr. Musk’s defense in the underlying action. 

A. Undue Burden

“[A] court determining the propriety of subpoena balances the relevance of the discovery 

sought, the requesting party’s need, and the potential hardship to the party subject to the 

subpoena.” Gonzales, 234 F.R.D. at 680. Where the information sought is not relevant to a claim 

or defense “then any burden whatsoever imposed would be by definition ‘undue.’” Compaq 

Comput. Corp. v. Packard Bell Elecs., Inc., 163 F.R.D. 329, 335 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

Mr. Musk contends that the topics on which he seeks to depose Mr. Mac are relevant to

whether it was reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Musk that Mr. Mac would publish his emails not 

withstanding his “off-the-record” notations. The Court disagrees. 

Reasonable foreseeability is predicated on the state of mind of the originator of the 

defamatory matter (Mr. Musk) and not the secondary publisher (Mr. Mac or BuzzFeed). See 

Schneider v. United Airlines, 208 Cal. App. 3d 71, 77 (1989) (“[A] party has a cause of action for 

libel each time the defamatory matter is published, even if the originator of the defamatory matter 

did not republish the defamatory matter, as long as republication should have been reasonably 

foreseeable by the originator.”) (emphasis added); see also Mitchell, 37 Cal. 3d at 281 (explaining 

that “[t]he rationale for making the originator of a defamatory statement liable for its foreseeable 

republication is the strong causal link between the actions of the originator and the damage caused 

by the republication”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the record in the 

underlying action shows that Mr. Musk’s recognizes that his state of mind is dispositive to the 

issue of reasonable foreseeability. 

Mr. Musk’s pending motion for summary judgment asserts that “[i]t was not reasonably 

foreseeable that BuzzFeed would unilaterally publish communications that were labeled off-therecord instead of independently verifying the information before publishing it[ ]” because 

“BuzzFeed’s own published policies require such verification” and BuzzFeed’s own newsroom 

policies in place at the time required no ‘agreement’ to go off the record.” (Dkt. No. 28-2 at 28

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 9 of 12
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

n.9 (citing BuzzFeed’s News Standards and Ethics Guide in effect from January 5, 2018 to 

November 1, 2018 (see Dkt. No. 2, Ex. H at 52) and the revised News Standards and Ethics Guide 

in effect since November 2, 2018 (see Dkt. No. 2, Ex. I at 63) (“Interviews are always on the

record until a reporter agrees to go off the record or on background.”)).) Mr. Musk’s motion for 

summary judgment notes that BuzzFeed added the “agreement” provision two months after Mr. 

Musk “sent the off-the-record emails.” (Id.) Further, Mr. Musk’s declaration in support of his 

motion for summary judgment attests that he has “had numerous off-the-record interactions with 

reporters[,] and those “reporters treated information as off-the-record and did not publish it 

whenever [Mr. Musk] identified it as such, regardless of whether or not [Mr. Musk and the 

reporters] reached an explicit agreement before [Mr. Musk] shared the information.” (Dkt. No. 

28-3 at 11, ¶ 56.) Mr. Musk attests that he thus “understood that by designating [his] emails to 

Mr. Mac as off-the-record and on background their contents would not be shared.” (Id.)

Questioning Mr. Mac as to “generally applicable guidelines and policies of Mr. Mac and 

BuzzFeed News with regard to honoring requests to treat information provided on an ‘off the 

record’ basis, standards for sourcing articles, and policies for assessing potentially defamatory 

content,” (see Dkt. No. 19 at 5), would serve no purpose in further supporting Mr. Musk’s 

“reasonable foreseeability” defense because it is Mr. Musk’s state of mind that is at issue—not 

Mr. Mac’s understanding of BuzzFeed’s general policies. The result might be different if there 

was a dispute between Mr. Mac and Mr. Musk, or even Buzzfeed and Mr. Musk, as to what had 

been communicated to Mr. Musk regarding off-the-record communications. But Mr. Musk agrees 

that the only communications he had with Mr. Mac are the emails at issue; thus, Mr. Mac’s 

personal and uncommunicated understanding at the time he published the emails is not relevant to

Mr. Musk’s defense to Mr. Unsworth’s claim. 

Mr. Musk also asserts that “the relevant [deposition] topics are not limited to reasonable 

foreseeability, but also include safeguards that BuzzFeed News employs to ensure that they do not 

publish defamatory articles.” (Id. at 23.) However, Mr. Musk fails to explain how Mr. Mac’s 

testimony regarding any such “safeguards” is relevant to his defense. It is not. All that could be 

relevant is Mr. Musk’s understanding of any such safeguards and he does not require Mr. Mac’s 

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 10 of 12
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

testimony for that evidence. Mr. Musk further argues that he “is entitled to ask about the change 

in the BuzzFeed News Standards and about Mr. Mac’s compliance as a general matter with those 

guidelines,” as well as “BuzzFeed’s and Mr. Mac’s journalistic practices,” because such testimony 

will provide facts on which to base expert testimony regarding “treatment of off-the-record 

requests.” Again, the question is Mr. Musk’s reasonable belief based on the information known to 

him. An expert may be able to opine that Mr. Musk’s belief was in accord with general practice in 

the industry, or with how Mr. Musk’s off-the-record conversations had been treated in the past, 

but Mr. Musk has not identified how getting into Mr. Mac’s unpublished thoughts or actions could 

be a relevant basis for expert testimony. 

It bears emphasizing that Mr. Unsworth is not seeking similar information from Mr. Mac 

or Buzzfeed, nor are Mr. Mac or BuzzFeed voluntarily providing such information to Mr.

Unsworth. In other words, Mr. Unsworth is not attempting to prove that it was reasonably 

foreseeable to Mr. Musk that the emails would be published because of Mr. Mac’s and 

BuzzFeed’s nonpublic practices and guidelines as to off-the-record statements. While the Court 

believes such discovery would still ultimately be irrelevant and inadmissible, it would be unfair to 

prevent Mr. Musk from discovering that evidence if Mr. Unsworth was attempting to use it. But 

as his very limited discovery request of Mr. Mac shows, he is not.

Mr. Mac has demonstrated that the Musk Subpoena is unduly burdensome because the 

testimony it seeks is not relevant. Mr. Musk, as “[t]he party issuing the subpoena,” fails to rebut 

Mr. Mac’s showing by “demonstrat[ing] that the information sought is relevant and material to the 

allegations and claims at issue in the proceedings.” See Optimize Tech., 2014 WL 1477651, at *2 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court grants Mr. Mac’s motion 

to quash the Musk Subpoena. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Mr. Mac’s motion to quash the Musk 

Subpoena and DENIES the motion to quash the Unsworth Subpoena. The deposition of Mr. Mac 

is limited to the topics specified by Mr. Unsworth at oral argument, on direct examination and on 

Mr. Musk’s cross-examination. In particular, the Court finds good cause to issue a protective 

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 11 of 12
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

order limiting the scope of the deposition—and Mr. Musk’s cross-examination—to the two topics 

discussed at oral argument: (1) establishing that there were no communications between Mr. Mac 

and Mr. Musk other than the emails at issue; and (2) that BuzzFeed published those 

communications. While in some cases the Court might give the cross-examiner more latitude, Mr. 

Musk’s request to question Mr. Mac or a Buzzfeed 30(b)(6) representative about irrelevant and 

harassing topics such as “[t]he scope and existence of BuzzFeed’s coverage of Elon Musk, Tesla, 

or SpaceX,” “BuzzFeed’s policies for determining payment or bonuses based on article 

popularity,” and BuzzFeed’s guidelines on social media usage by reporters,” (see Dkt. No. 2-1, 

Ex. U at 73), requires the setting of strict limitations here, especially since the record suggests Mr. 

Musk feels animus toward non-party Mr. Mac. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D) (providing that a 

court may, “for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . forbidding inquiry into 

certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters”). 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 1. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-mc-80224-JSC Document 32 Filed 10/28/19 Page 12 of 12