Musk Defamation Case Lawyers Prompt Judge’s Warning on Behavior

The disdain between lawyers for Elon Musk and a man claiming Musk defamed him on X, formerly known as Twitter, were on full display during a hearing Monday, prompting a Texas judge to caution the lawyers to dial back their personal attacks against each other.

Maria Cantú Hexsel (D), a district court judge in Travis County, ended a three-hour hearing by telling the lawyers that uncivil behavior “is not going to happen in my court,” when the hearing resumes May 1. She didn’t announce whether she’ll impose sanctions for misconduct on either side.

Lawyers for Musk and lawyers for a man who the billionaire wrongly suggested in a tweet may have been a government informant did spend much of the hearing bickering. They were in court over a June 2023 tweet by Musk that indicated the man, Ben Brody, may have infiltrated a fight in Portland between right-wing extremist groups. In reality, a man photographed at the fight wasn’t Brody.

John Bash of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, representing Musk, accused Brody’s attorney of “impugning my honesty,” by questioning the veracity of some of his legal claims. He also called it “deeply inappropriate” for Brody’s lawyer, Mark Bankston, to refer to another Musk lawyer as a “celebrity attorney.”

Earlier Bash interrupted his presentation to ask Bankston to stop making audible comments, which prompted Hexsel to signal to them by placing an index finger to her lips.

Sanctions Requests

Hexsel made no rulings and provided few clues on how she’s leaning on Musk’s motion to dismiss plus dueling motions for lawyer sanctions.

Earlier this month, Bankston moved for sanctions against Musk lawyer Alex Spiro, the so-called “celebrity attorney.” In court Monday, he played a video containing the first five minutes of Musk’s March deposition. In it, Spiro aggressively instructed Musk to not answer certain questions and often mocked Bankston.

But Spiro’s behavior at the deposition, Bankston said, is only a partial basis for the sanctions request. The New York-based Spiro isn’t licensed to practice law in Texas, nor has he been admitted by a judge to appear in the case on Musk’s behalf. As such, Spiro impermissibly participated in the deposition, Bankston said.

Additionally, Bankston argued, the motion to dismiss is null because it was prepared by Spiro and includes his signature.

“You would award that practice if you allow unlicensed practice of law,” Bankston told Hexsel.

Spiro, another partner for Quinn Emanuel, has defended Musk in previous defamation cases. He didn’t appear at Monday’s hearing. Musk also wasn’t present.

Responding to Bankston’s sanctions request, Bash acknowledged Musk’s lawyers should’ve moved quicker to request Spiro’s admission in the case. However, striking the motion to dismiss on the basis that he signed it would amount to an “extreme sanction,” he said.

On Musk’s deposition, Bash said it was heated “but that heat was brought by Mr. Bankston going outside the court’s order.” Specifically, Bankston sought to ask questions that Bash said landed outside the limited topics the judge had authorized.

A cross motion for sanctions seeks fees to compensate Bash for time spent preparing a response to Bankston’s sanctions motion.

The sanctions discussion will pick back up when the hearing resumes May 1. Musk’s lawyers will also urge the judge to strike opposing expert reports.

The case is Brody v. Musk, Tex. Dist. Ct., No. D-1-GN-23-006883, 4/22/24