Hothi v. Musk Document 13

California Court of Appeals
Case No. A162400
Filed June 10, 2021

Appellant's appendix filed.: Appellant's Appendix Volume 3 of 8 Pages 259 - 325

BackBack to Hothi v. Musk

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 No. AIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
RANDEEP HOTHI,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ELON MUSK
On Appeal from the Superior Court for the County of Alameda
Hon. Julia Spain, Judge,
Case No. RGAPPELLANT’S APPENDIX
VOLUME III OF VIII, PAGES AA259 TO AA
ALEX SPIRO
(pro hac vice admission
pending)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY Telephone: (212) 849-Facsimile: (212) 849-alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com
MICHAEL T. LIFRAK
(S.B. No. 210846)
JEANINE ZALDUENDO
(S.B. No. 243374)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (213) 443-Facsimile: (212) 443-michaellifrak@quinnemanuel.com
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Elon Musk
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Defendant-Appellant.
Page 2 Randeep Hothi v. Elon Musk
First Appellate District Court of Appeal, Case No. A(Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG20069852)
APPELLANT’S APPENDIX
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
Description
Date

Verified Complaint for Damages
and Demand for Jury Trial Filed
by Randeep Hothi
Defendant Elon Musk’s Answer
and Affirmative Defenses to the
Verified Complaint of Plaintiff
Randeep Hothi
Defendant Elon Musk’s Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.16; Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support
Thereof
Declaration of Christine Leslie in
Support of Defendant Elon
Musk’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.Declaration of Elon Musk in
Support of Defendant Elon
Musk’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.Declaration of Tyler James in
Support of Defendant Elon
Musk’s Motion to Strike the



AA
Page No.
08/04/
Vol.
No.
I
09/28/
I
AA
10/30/
I
AA
10/30/
I
AA
10/30/
I
AA
10/30/
I
AA
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Ex. No.
Page 3


AA
10/30/
I
AA
10/30/
II
AA
10/30/
III
AA
10/30/
IV
AA
10/30/
V
AA
10/30/
VI
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.

Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.Declaration of Jeanine Zalduendo
in Support of Defendant Elon
Musk’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.Defendant Elon Musk’s Request
for Judicial Notice in Support of
His Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.16, and
Exhibits A-F thereto
Exhibit G (part 1) to Defendant
Elon Musk’s Request for Judicial
Notice in Support of His Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.Exhibit G (part 2) to Defendant
Elon Musk’s Request for Judicial
Notice in Support of His Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.Exhibits H-I to Defendant Elon
Musk’s Request for Judicial
Notice in Support of His Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.Exhibits J-L to Defendant Elon
Musk’s Request for Judicial
Notice in Support of His Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
Page 4



AA
10/30/
VII
AA
11/03/
VII
AA
01/12/
VII
AA
01/12/
VII
AA
01/12/
VIII
AA
01/20/
VIII
AA
01/20/
VIII
AA
01/20/
VIII
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.

to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.[Proposed] Order Granting
Defendant Elon Musk’s Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section
425.Notice of Errata Regarding the
Signature Page to the Declaration
of Elon Musk’s Motion to Strike
the Complaint Pursuant to Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. Section 425.Plaintiff Randeep Hothi’s
Memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiff Elon Musk’s Special
Motion to Strike
Declaration of Randeep Hothi in
Support of His Opposition to
Defendant’s Special Motion to
Strike
Plaintiff Randeep Hothi’s
Objections to Defendant’s
Evidence Submitted in Support of
Defendant’s Special Motion to
Strike
Reply in Support of Defendant
Elon Musk’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code
Civ. Proc. Section 425.Elon Musk’s Evidentiary
Objections to the Declaration of
Randeep Hothi
Defendant Elon Musk’s
Responses to Plaintiff Randeep
Hothi’s Evidentiary Objections
Page 5
Plaintiff Randeep Hothi’s
Response to Elon Musk’s
Evidentiary Objections to the
Declaration of Randeep Hothi
Order - Motion to Strike
Complaint Denied
Notice of Appeal
Appellant’s Notice Designating
Record on Appeal
Register of Actions and
Certificate
01/22/
VIII
AA
01/27/
VIII
AA
03/24/04/01/
VIII
VIII
AAAA
05/11/
VIII
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.

AA263
Page 6 Randeep Hothi v. Elon Musk
First Appellate District Court of Appeal, Case No. A(Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG20069852)
APPELLANT’S APPENDIX
ALPHABETICAL INDEX
Description
Date

Appellant’s Notice Designating
Record on Appeal
Declaration of Christine Leslie in
Support of Defendant Elon
Musk’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.Declaration of Elon Musk in
Support of Defendant Elon
Musk’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.Declaration of Jeanine Zalduendo
in Support of Defendant Elon
Musk’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.Declaration of Randeep Hothi in
Support of His Opposition to
Defendant’s Special Motion to
Strike
Declaration of Tyler James in
Support of Defendant Elon
Musk’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.


AA
Page No.
04/01/
Vol.
No.
VIII
10/30/
I
AA
10/30/
I
AA
10/30/
I
AA
01/12/
VII
AA
10/30/
I
AA
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Ex. No.
Page 7



Defendant Elon Musk’s Answer
and Affirmative Defenses to the
Verified Complaint of Plaintiff
Randeep Hothi
Defendant Elon Musk’s Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.16; Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support
Thereof
Defendant Elon Musk’s Request
for Judicial Notice in Support of
His Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code.
Civ. Proc. Section 425.16, and
Exhibits A-F thereto
Defendant Elon Musk’s
Responses to Plaintiff Randeep
Hothi’s Evidentiary Objections
Elon Musk’s Evidentiary
Objections to the Declaration of
Randeep Hothi
Exhibit G (part 1) to Defendant
Elon Musk’s Request for Judicial
Notice in Support of His Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.Exhibit G (part 2) to Defendant
Elon Musk’s Request for Judicial
Notice in Support of His Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.Exhibits H-I to Defendant Elon
Musk’s Request for Judicial
AA
09/28/
I
AA
10/30/
I
AA
10/30/
II
AA
01/20/
VIII
AA
01/20/
VIII
AA
10/30/
III
AA
10/30/
IV
AA
10/30/
V
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
02
Page 8


AA
10/30/
VI
AA
03/24/11/03/
VIII
VII
AAAA
01/27/
VIII
AA
01/12/
VII
AA
01/12/
VIII
AA
01/22/
VIII
AA
10/30/
VII
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.

Notice in Support of His Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.Exhibits J-L to Defendant Elon
Musk’s Request for Judicial
Notice in Support of His Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. Section
425.Notice of Appeal
Notice of Errata Regarding the
Signature Page to the Declaration
of Elon Musk’s Motion to Strike
the Complaint Pursuant to Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. Section 425.Order - Motion to Strike
Complaint Denied
Plaintiff Randeep Hothi’s
Memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiff Elon Musk’s Special
Motion to Strike
Plaintiff Randeep Hothi’s
Objections to Defendant’s
Evidence Submitted in Support of
Defendant’s Special Motion to
Strike
Plaintiff Randeep Hothi’s
Response to Elon Musk’s
Evidentiary Objections to the
Declaration of Randeep Hothi
[Proposed] Order Granting
Defendant Elon Musk’s Motion
to Strike the Complaint Pursuant
to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section
425.16
Page 9
Register of Actions and
Certificate
Reply in Support of Defendant
Elon Musk’s Motion to Strike the
Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Code
Civ. Proc. Section 425.Verified Complaint for Damages
and Demand for Jury Trial Filed
by Randeep Hothi
05/11/
VIII
AA
01/20/
VIII
AA
08/04/
I
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.

AA267
Page 10 Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Exhibit Number
EXHIBIT G
AA268
Page 11
D. GILL SPERLEIN, SBN THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN
345 Grove Street
San Francisco, CA Telephone: ( 415) 404-Facsimile: (415) 404-gill@sperleinlaw.com
Attorneys for Respondent

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

) Case No. RG
)
Tesla, Inc.,

Petitioner,
V.
Randeep Hothi,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
RESPONDENT RANDEEP HOTHl'S
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES
INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S FEES
PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 128.5; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT
Date: September 5, Time: 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom: Judicial Officer: The Hon. Jeffrey S. Brand
Reservation No.: R-
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 5, 2019, at 9 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard in Department 511 of this Court, located at Hayward Hall of Justice,
Amador Street, Hayward, CA 94544, Respondent Randeep Hothi shall and hereby does move for an
-order requesting reasonable expenses including attorney's fees (Fee Motion) against Petitioner Tesla,
Inc. pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §128.5.

-iRESPONDENT RANDEEP HOTH I'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR FEES UNDER CCP §128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
10
Page 12 l
This morion is brought pmsuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5 on the ground that the

Petition for Workplace Violence Restraining Order was frivolous and presented in bad faith and for

tht:: improper purpose of harassing Ramteep Hothi.

This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the supporting Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, the attached declarations of LawTence Fossi, Randeep Hothi, Aaron Greenspan, and D.
Gil1 Sperlein, and the complete files and recor;ds of this action.

Respectfully submitted,

=
D. Gill S pt:tj_gi
..
~6:"VOrrrcrfa
D . Gru. SPERLE)t,;
Attorneys for Respondent Randeep Hothi


?"
_.)


-iiRESPONDENT R.o.NDEEP l-lor111·s NOTICE OF M(Yl'ION FOR FEES UNDER CCP
AA
*128.
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Date: August 13, 2019
Page 13
D. GILL SPERLEIN, SBN THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN
345 Grove Street
San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) 404-Facsimile: (415) 404-gil l@ sperleinlaw.com
Attorneys for Respondent

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

) Case No. RG
Tesla, Inc.,

Petitioner,
V.
Randeep Hothi,
Respondent.
uL

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONDENT RANDEEP HOTHl'S
MOTTON FOR REASONABLE
EXPENSES INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S
FEES PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 128.5;
)
)
)
)
)
)
Date: September 5, Time: 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom: Judicial Officer: The Hon. Jeffrey S. Brand
Reservation N o.: R-
-iRESPONDENT RANDEEP HOTHl'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES UNDER C CP § 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.

)
Page 14 Table of Contents

I.
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................
I
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................................................
A.
Hothi's History as a Citizen Journalist............................................................•..•................................
B.
April 16, 2019 Event Triggers Tesla's TRO Application ...................................................................
C.
Tesla Files its TRO Application with No Notice to Hothi ..................................................................
D. The Inevitable Media Reaction Causing Hothi Immediate Reputational Damage ......................... E. Tesla Refuses to Provide Recordings of Hothi's Allegedly Violent Behavior ..................................

F.

Over Tesla's Objections, the Court Orders Limited Discovery ........................................................
G. Tesla Renews Its Efforts to Block Discovery & Exclude the Press ................................................... H. The Court Clarifies its Discovery Order and Promises Prior In Camera Review ...........................
I.

Tesla Drops Its Lawsuit after Taking a Parting Shot at Hothi........•.................................................
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. A.
Given Hothi's Legitimate Purpose, Tesla's Petition Was, on its Face, Frivolous ............................
B.
Tesla Filed the Petition in Bad Faith.................................................................................................. i.
Tesla Failed to Provide Hothi with Notice of the TRO Hearing .................................................
ii.
Tesla Failed to Support its Claims .................................................................................................
iii.
Tesla and Its CEO Elon Musk Have a History of Silencing Critics............................................
iv.
Tesla's CEO Continues to Defame Hothi......................................................................................
IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................




-iiRESPONDENTRANDEEP HOTHl'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES UNDER CCP § 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
3
Page 15 Table of Authorities
1 '
' I,
i
2,
CASES

580 Folsom Assocs. v. Prometheus Dev. Co; (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1.. ............................................. 1 l

Brewster v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 701. ...................................
Estate ofHearst (1977) 67 Cal. App.3d 777 ........................................................................................
Frank Annino & Sons Constr. v. McArthur Rests. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 353 ................................... l
Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005)
129 Cal. App. 4th 1228 ........................................................................................................................ Kaiser Found. Hospitals v. Wilson (2011), 201 Cal. App. 4th 550 ................................... ....................
Nemecek & Cole v. Hom (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 41.. .........................................................................
PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexier (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084 ..........................................................................
Syers Properties 111, Inc v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691.. ........................................................
STATUTES

u

Code of Civil Procedure§ 527.8 ................................................................................................... 6, 9, Code of Civil Procedure §128.5 .............................................................................................................. l

-iiiRESPONDENT RANDEEP HOTHI 'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXPtNSES AND A fTORNEY'S FEES UNDER CCP § 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
8
Page 16 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Respondent Randeep Hothi seeks to recover from Petitioner Tesla, Inc. his reasonable

expenses, including attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. A trial court may order a

party, the party' s attorney, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred
by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely
-' HJ
intended to cause unnecessary delay. Because Hothi's data collection activities served a legitimate
purpose, the Petition was objectively frivolous. Moreover, the record clearly demonstrates that Tesla
brought this action in bad faith. Tesla never intended to properly prosecute the Petition. Rather,
C
~.
(1)

Tesla's objective of discrediting a vocal critic was satisfied once the Petition was filed and widely

distributed. Since Tesla advanced a frivolous claim in bad faith, the Court should grant this motion

(1) •
~
- .

u,..

(f)
~
al.
and order Tesla to pay Hothi's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees.
IL FACTO AL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Hothi's History as a Citizen Journalist

Hothi is a member of the so-called $TSLAQ, a wide-ranging group of people who are

skeptical about the Tesla business enterprise and who regularly share information on the social media

platform Twitter. (Declaration of Randeep Hothi in support of Fee Motion (Hothi Deel.) at 12) Hothi

came to prominence during 2018 for his accurate observations about Tesla Model 3 production rates,
which contradicted emphatic promises made by Tesla's celebrity CEO, Elon Musk. (Id. at ,is) The
value of Hothi's data on Tesla production was recognized even by the Tesla owners and fans who
post regularly at the Tesla Motors Club site. (Id. at ~7, Exhibit C)

~
Generally, Exhibits have been lettered sequentially in the order in which they appear in the attached
supporting declarations - not the order in which they appear in the Memorandum. One exception is Exhibit P
to the Sperlein Declaration, which was added after the other declarations were finalized and is therefore not in
sequence.
- 1MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AN L> AUTI JORITIES JN SUPPORT OF R AN DEEP HOTH!. S MOTION FOR FEES CCP § 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
~'
Page 17 B. April 16, 2019 Event Triggers Tesla's TRO Application
On April 16, 2019, Hothi, who was driving o n Interstate 880 near Fremont, noticed a Tesla

Model 3 with manufacturer plates enter the highway. (Id. at 1[7) The Model 3 had camera mounted to

the exteri.or and another camera moun.ted inside. (Id.) Aware Tesla had announced an " Investor

Autonomy Event" for April 22, 2019 at which it would tout its " autonomous driving" capabilities,
Hothi surmised the Model 3 was engaged in public testing or taping for that event. (Id.) As the test
vehicle was also apparently headed toward San Francisco, Hothi observed the car for a half hour or
so, recording video and taking photos. (Id.)

Shortly thereafter, Hothi (using his @skabooshka handle) posted his information on Twitter.

Tellingly, even one of the most historically pro-Tesla on-line publications, electrek.co, regarded

Hothi' s postings as important Tesla news. Within hours of the Hothi postings, electrek.co published

an article acknowledging that Hothi ' s Twitter posts appeared related to testing being conducted in
preparation for the Investor Autonomy Event. In other words, on the very day that Hothi made his
Twitter posts about what he observed, an on-line publication historically sympathetic to Tesla

explained and confirmed exactly why a journalist would be interested in making precisely the

observations that Hothi had made.

C. Tesla Files its TRO Application with No Notice to Hothi
On April 19, 2019, Tesla obtained a temporary restraining order against Hothi. Tesla' s
Petition demonstrated on its face that Tesla knew Hothi's Twitter handle, his email address, his
physical address, his license plate number, his father 's name, and his brother's name. (D eclaration of

Christine Leslie in Support of Petition for Workplace Harassment Restraining Order (Leslie Deel.) at
§§ 1 & 2) Nonetheless, Tesla made no effort to notify Hothi of the hearing date. (Hothi Deel. at 1[12)

In its Petition, filed under§ CCP 527.8, Tesla claimed the Model 3 occupants "suffered actual

and threatened violence" while Hothi was film ing them. (Leslie Deel. at §3) Specifically, Tesla
-2MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RANDEE!' HOTI 11·s MOTION FOR FEES CCP
AA
*
128.
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
9
Page 18 claimed that while following the Model 3, Hothi "swerve[ed] dangerously close to the vehicle"

causing the car's occupants to fear a collision. (Id.)

Tesla also claimed that, several months earlier, on February 21, in the parking lot of Tesla's

Fremont facility, Hothi had "hit Tesla's security employee" with his car and then " fled the scene" in a

"reckless manner" as he exited the parking lot. (Petition, Fonn WV-110 at §5) In the absence of an
appearance by Ilothi, the Cow·t entered a TRO on the same day Tesla made the filing, ordering Hothi
to stay at least 10 yards away from any Tesla vehicle with manufacturer plates within five miles of


T esla's Palo Alto headquarters and setting the matter down for a temporary injunction hearing on
May 7, 20 19.
D. The Inevitable Media Reaction Causing Hothi Immediate Rcputational Damage
Tesla's TRO set off a media firestorm. On-line publications closely aligned with Tesla
published articles that assumed the truth of Tesla's allegations of actual and threatened violence, or
assumed ajucige had we'rgh~ the evidence, or both. (Hothi Deel. at i!l3, Exhibits E, F, and G) major

news outlets, including Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times, also published news stories about the
TRO, repeating Tesla's allegations. (Id. at i114)

Predictably, given Tesla's incendiary allegations, Hothi received a torrent of abuse on Twitter

and other social media, accusing him of being a terrorist, a criminal, and a homicidal maniac. (Id. at

,i 15, Exhibit I ) Some Tesla fanatics were not content merely to savage Hothi in the soclal media.

They also urged the University of Michigan, where Hothi is pursuing graduate studies, to expel him.

(Id. at ill 6, see also, May 17, 2019, Hothi Declaration in Support of Response to Petition, Ex. B)
E. Tesla Refuses to Provide Recordings of Hothi's Allegedly Violent Behavior

On May 1, 2019, Hothi, requested a continuance of the temporary injunction hearing.

(Sperlein Declaration in Support of Fee Motion (Sperlein Deel.) at ~2) In the continuance motion,

Hothi explained his role as a citizen journalist, detailed the importance of the Investor Autonomy Day

-3-
*
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANO A UTHORIT IES IN SUPPORT OF RANDEEP HOTl-11'S M OTION FOR FEESCC P 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
9
Page 19 in light of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's claim in early April that Tesla would have one million "robo

taxis" on the road within a year, and listed instances in which Tesla had retaliated against its critics.
Hothi also asked the Court to allow limited discovery in advance of the temporary injunction hearing.

(Attachment 3(B)(4) to Ch- 115 Request to Continue Hearing, filed May 1, 2019)

The Court granted the continuance to May 21, 2019, stating that Hothi's " request for
discovery may be agreed upon by the parties or addressed at the hearing." The next day, May 2, Hothi
served a document request with 11 items. (Sperlein Deel. at i]2) Hothi sought all recordings Tesla had
made of both the February 21 and April 16 incidents. (Id.) He also sought police incident reports,

documents showing the alleged injury to the Tesla security officer, documents showing the Model
occupants were Tesla employees, and Tesla's file on him. (Id.) On May 10, Tesla counsel emailed

Hothi's counsel, declining to produce any documents, citing the general rule that in workplace

violence injunction cases, with their abbreviated time schedules, discovery is typically not allowed.

(Id. at i]3)

u

Rather than produce the recordings in its control which were required to establish its claims,
Tesla concocted a myriad of excuses for withholding the evidence. Tesla's lead counsel, relying on

his own declaration, claimed Hothi "and his followers" had "engaged in '
and lawyers on the Tesla side of this matter," and insinuated there was a "coordinated attempt by Mr.

Hothi and his followers to further intimidate and harass the victims of Mr. Hothi 's conduct." (Tesla's

May 12, 2019 Reply Memorandum at p. 9) The entirety of the evidence in support of these claims is
this paragraph from the May 21, 2019 Declaration of Zachary J. Al inder:
I am informed and believe, based on my review of numerous tweets from Mr. Hothi
and his followers/supporters, that following the entry of the TRO here, a number of
Mr. Hothi's supporters and/or followers made concerted efforts to use Twitter to "dox"
the declarants in support of the Tesla Petition.

Hothi elaborated on those instances in his June 17, 2019 Response.
-4-
MEMORANDUM or POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RANDEEP HOTH I'S MOTION FOR FEES CCP §128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
9
Page 20 The Alinder testimony is specious at best. Tesla itself identified the declarants and its legal
counsel in its Petition. There was no "
Hothi ( or, for that matter, his "supporters" or " followers") has ever attempted to contact or otherwise

harass a single Tesla declarant. To the contrary, in the Twitter post in which Hothi described his

observation of the Tesla test car on April 16, 2019, Hothi redacted the faces of the car's occupants
specifically to protect their identiry . (Hothi Deel. at ~10, E:hibit D) Also, after learning through the
press that a TRO had been issued against him, Hothi discontinued making any Twitter posts. (Id. at
~14) As to others within the TSLAQ Twitter community, they merely pointed out the telling

discrepancies between the Fremont Police Department incident reports of the February 21,
incident and the sworn testimony of the declarants in Tesla's Petition.

F. Over Tesla's Objections, the Court Orders Limited Discovery
At the scheduled hearing time on May 21, 2019, Tesla's counsel was accompanied by none of
the witnesses who had sworn out declarations in support of the TRO Petition. (Sperlein Deel. at ,rs,

Exhibit J) Tesla brought no fact witnesses whatsoever to a hearing where the Petitioner was required

to meet a clear and convincing standard. (Id.) Even the pro per parties appearing before the court that

day understood the importance of bringing witnesses to support their cases. (Id. at ,J6) Hothi's counsel

appeared with Hothi, a witness, and documentary evidence. (Id. at 15)

Because the Court' s docket was congested, the Court reset the hearing for July 26, 2019. The
Court invited letter briefs from counsel addressing Hothi's discovery requests. (Id. at 7, Exhibit J,
pp. 5-7) Hothi submitted a letter brief noting that Tesla had numerous video recordings of both the

February 21 and April 16 incidents, which would likely be dispositive about whether the alleged

violent conduct occurred. (Id. at 18) Further, Hothi noted that police incident reports he had obtained

appeared to contradict the sworn declarations attached to Tesla's Petition.

-5M EMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF R ANDEEP HOTH I ' S MOTION FOR FEES CCP § 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
9
Page 21 Tesla responded on June 3, opposing the discovery based on the rule that discovery is

generally not allowed in proceedings under CCP § 527.8. Tesla also objected to the discovery

requests, claiming undue burden, privacy, confidential business information, and attorney work

product. Further, Tesla sought to exclude the public and press from the temporary injunction hearing.

Tesla used its June 3 letter brief to take a gratuitous swipe at Hothi's counsel, insinuating he
was trying to run up legal fees (June 3, 2019 letter brief at p. 1, ifl) and falsely claimed that Hothi's

counsel had failed to offer legal support for the discovery requests. (Id. at p. 5, i!4). Tesla also
introduced into evidence a plainly inadmissible settlement communication. (Id. at p. 4, ill ; see also
Hothi' s May 5, 2019 letter brief at p. 2, ifl & Ex. A)

On July 1, 2019, the Court issued its ruling, finding that " limited discovery is appropriate on

the facts of this case." (July 1, 2019 Order on Requests for Discovery at p. 4: 12) The Court ordered

each party to produce all "photographic, audio, or video recordings of the alleged incidents on
February 21 and April I 6, 2019." (Id. at p. 5: 14-16) The Court noted, "[a]ny such recordings would

be directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case." (Id. at p. 4:14-16) The Court denied

Hoth i's requests for other types of documents, explaining that while they might be relevant, they were

not "real time" documentation. Further, they might give rise to privilege issues and consequently

would not be consonant with "the quick and truncated procedure envisioned by the statutory scheme."

(Id. at p. 5: 1-11) The Court ordered each side to produce its recordings on or before Tuesday, July 16,
2019, which was 10 days in advance of the scheduled temporary injunction hearing. (Id. at p.
5: 14-18)

G. Tesla Renews Its Efforts to Block Discovery & Exclude the Press

On July 10, nine days after the Court's July 1 Order, new counsel substituted in for Tesla and

immediately filed a Motion for Clarification or Partial Reconsideration of July 1 Discovery Order and

for Protective Order (the "Motion for Clarification"). Tesla argued for the first time that the 40-
-6MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTIIORITIES IN SUPPORT OF R ANDEEP HOTH I'S MOTION FOR FEES CCP
AA
*128.
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
8
Page 22 minute audio track from the interior mounted camera contained discussions that were personal,

private, sensitive, and business-confidential and sought to exclude it altogether from the discovery

order. Tesla's proposed protective order went even further. It included an order that "[t]he recordings

shall not be viewed by any third party or made public in any manner, including in the courtroom at

the hearing in this matter, unless and as specifically authorized by further court order." ln other
words, Tesla renewed its effort to preclude any public or press scrutiny of any of its photographic,

video, or audio evidence.
Hothi filed his Opposition to the Motion for Clarification, urging that the audio recording was

of obvious relevance given that it would illuminate whether the occupants believed Hothi' s activities

served a "legitimate purpose" and whether they were such as to place a "reasonable person in fear for
Ct:
--~
Q)

his or her safety." (July 12, 20 19 Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration at p. 3:9-27. See
-c
~
(l) •

Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4 th
OJ:

l~
1228, 1255-1256 (the intent requirement for a true threat is that the respondent intentionally or
(j')

knowingly communicates the threat))
In his Opposition, Hothi offered this:
Tesla expresses concern that the audio recording may include "confidential business
information" about Tesla's technology or private details about the lives of the car's
occupants, yet offers no evidence to substantiate those concerns. Hothi is willing to
have Tesla furnish Hothi with a list of the portions of the audio recording that it wants
protected. If the parties cannot agree on protection of those portions, then the Court
can take the matter up in advance of or at the start of the July 26 hearing. (Id. at p.
4: 1-8)
Tesla never responded to Hothi 's offer.
H. The Court Clarifies its Discovery Order and Promises Prior In Camera Review

On July 18, the Court issued its Order on Motion to Clarify Order of 7/ 1/ 19 on Requests for

Discovery. In the July 18 Order, the Court confirmed the holdings of its July 1 Order, made clear that

the July l Order comprehended the Model 3 ' s integrated cameras and the cell phones of its
- 7MEMORANDUM OF POINTS /\ND A UTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RANDEEP H OTHI"S MOTION FOR FEES CCP §128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
9
Page 23 occupants, and promised it would, in advance of the hearing, review Tesla's video recordings in

camera for relevance. (6-18-19 Order at pp. 2-3.) As for the audio track of the Model 3's occupants,

the Court also promised to review it prior to the hearing in camera for relevance. (Id. at p. 3: I 6-20)

Further, "[i]f Tesla asserts that the audio recording during the relevant time period contains

confidential information, then Tesla must make a more narrowly focused motion supported by
evidence." (Id. at p. 3:21-23) The July 18 Order indicated the Court would consider any motion to

seal as to recordings filed or submitted into evidence but made note of the case law creating a strong
I
presumption in favor of public access to court records in civil trials. (Id. at p. 4:2-22)
I. Tesla Drops Its Lawsuit after Taking a Parting Shot at Hothi

Pursuant to an earlier agreement between the parties, Tesla had until close of business on July

19 to produce its recordings. (Sperlein Deel. at 111) Hothi already had produced his recordings on

July 16. (Id.) Late in the day on July 19, Tesla's counsel submitted a letter to the Court indicating it
would withdraw its Petition. The letter stated, "Tesla had hoped not to have to choose in this instance

between protecting its employees' safety and exposing them to an invasion of their privacy." Tesla
claimed it was withdrawing its Petition to protect the privacy of those individuals. (7-19-19 letter to
the Court.)
Before submitting its letter to the Court and furnishing a copy to Hothi's counsel, Tesla made
certain to put its own spin on the dismissal by leaking information to yet another on-line Tesla
propaganda outlet, Tech Crunch, which published its article before Hothi's counsel even received the
July 19 letter. (Sperlein Deel. at i112, l!:xhibit K)
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
CCP § 128.S(a) provides, in pertinent part:

A trial court may order a party, the party's attorney, or both, to pay the

reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by another party as a
result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended
to cause unnecessary delay.

-8MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RAN DEEP HOTH I'S MOTION FOR FEES CCP § 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
8
Page 24 CCP § 128.S(b)(l) defines "actions or tactics" to include, without limitation, "the making or
opposir~ of motio~_s" ot "th;~ filing and service of a complaint." Because the statute uses the
disjunctive "or," Hothi needs to demonstrate only that Tesla engaged in one of the three forms of

misconduct. Tesla's filing of the Petition was both in bad faith and frivolous.

A. Given Hothi's Legitimate Purpose, Tesla's Petition Was, on its Face, Frivolous

'"Frivolous,' means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing

an opposing party." (CCP § 128.5(b)(2)) The prosecution of a frivolous action may in itself be

evidence from which a finding of subjective bad faith may be made. (Llamas v. Diaz (1990)
Cal.App.3d 1043, 1047, fn. 9)
~
o__•,;
Cl) t~
-lf
O:ti.
.
D

Months before it filed its Petition, Tesla was already well aware of Hothi's work in
documenting the Model 3 production volumes. (See, Leslie Deel. at§l; May 21, 2019 Alinder Deel.

in support of Reply at ,is & Ex. A.) As a threshold matter, therefore, Hothi' s observation and

photography of the Tesla Model 3 on April 16, 2019 was for a "legitimate purpose" and was

objectively outside the ambit of CCP § 527.8.

Even the reporting of electrek.co, which has been historically highly sympathetic to Tesla, and
an outlet for many Tesla leaks, viewed Hothi's April 16 as a legitimate news gathering effort. (Hothi
Deel. at ,i10, Exhibit D)

Given the legitimate purpose of Hothi's activities, Tesla had options other than filing a

frivolous lawsuit. As to Hothi's presence on their Fremont facility, they could and did, issue a notice

of trespass. The proper and sensible course would have been for Tesla to show its recordings to the

California Highway Patrol and seek to have Hothi issued a moving violation for reckless driving. The
allegation of actual and threatened workplace violence was, from the very start, frivolous.
-9M EMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A UTHORIT IES IN SUPPORT OF RAN DEE? HOTl l!'S MOTION FOR rEES CCP §128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
_c[
-(]) .
(]) .
12
Page 25
B. Tesla Filed the Petition in Bad Faith.
i. Tesla Failed to Provide Hothi with Notice of the TRO Hearing

As set forth in section II(C) above, the face of Tesla's Petition demonstrated that it knew

Hothi's Twitter handle, his email address, his physical address, his license plate number, his father's

name, and h is brother's name. (Leslie Deel. at§§ l and 2) Nonetheless, Tesla made no effort to notify
Hothi of the hearing date. (Hothi Deel. at ~12) As set forth in its Petition, Tesla's explanation for not
notifying Hothi of the hearing was that " Respondent's course of conduct and behavior in stalking,
harassing, and assaulting Petitioner's employees are such great or irreparable harm is likely to occur

if immediate orders without notice are issued." (Petition at § 12) This statement does not explain why

counsel could not notify Hothi of the hearing. There is no excuse for not notifying Hothi of the

hearing so that h e could be present and represented by counsel. T hough sometimes legitimate reasons

exist for not notifying the target of a TRO, no such reasons existed here. Failure to notify the target of

a TRO is evidence of bad faith. (Brewster v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1991)

Cal.App.3d 701, 714)
ii. Tesla Failed to Support its Claims

Tesla never intended to properly prosecute the Petition it filed against Hothi. At every step,

Tesla avoided having its allegations challenged or tested. First; Tesla failed to notify Hothi of the

TRO hearing. In fact, it is not clear that Tesla would have even served the Order on Hothi had he not

volunlarily appeared to defend himself. Hothi is not aware of any attempt to serve him. (Hothi Deel.
at ,i 12) T his also suggests that the purpose of the Petition was to silence Hothi.
Tesla's position regarding discovery and its eventual decision to volun tarily w ithdraw the

Petition make it clear that Tesla never intended to provide the audio and visual material that would be

necessary to prove the facts alleged in the Petition.

· 10 M EMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTIIORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RAN DEEP HOTHJ°S MOTION FOR FEES CCP § 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
9
Page 26
j,
Moreover, on the day of the scheduled hearing on the permanent restraining order, Tesla's
attorney not only had no intention of providing the necessary evidence, he also failed to bring a single
3 , fact 'Witness. (Sperlein Deel. at 115 and 6, Exhibit J) It is inconceivable that Tesla could meet the clear
and convincing standard without evidence or witnesses. "A complete lack of evidence to substantiate
key allegations of [a claim] is sufficient ground for imposition of sanctions for the filing of a
frivolous pleading." (580 Folsom Assocs. v. Prometheus Dev. Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 22;

Frank Annino & Sons Constr. v. McArthur Rests. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 353, 359)
Moreover, Tesla's pretext for dismissal does not stand scrutiny. While California's expedited

process for obtaining a workplace violence TRO does allow for rapid issuance of the TRO based on

untested factual allegations, and indeed without any notice to the respondent, it does not by any

means promise that those attesting to the factual allegations will not be subject to cross-examination
·[.
.(])
'
-;::: i;-·

0-fr

.
al
"d~

.
(1) •
(/)
·-
at a public hearing. (Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal. App.3d 777,784, "[i]fpublic court business is
conducted in private, it becomes impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, inefficiency,

prejudice, and favoritism. For this reason, traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence distrusts secrecy

in judicial proceedings and favors a policy of maximum public access to proceedings and records of

j udicial tribunals.")

To the contrary, CCP § 527.8U) explicitly requires the trial cou1t to "receive any testimony

that is relevant." It invites the court "to make an independent inquiry" - that is, to probe the testimony
offered by either respondent or petitioner. The applicable standard - "clear and convincing evidence
that the respondent engaged in unlawful violence or made a credible threat of violence" - is itself
ample notice to any party that its witnesses will be subj ect to cross-examination by the opposing party

and searching inquiry by the court. See Kaiser Found. Hospitals v. Wilson (2011), 201 Cal. App. 41h

550, 557 (The "plain language" of the statutory language, "any testimony that is relevant," indicates

"the Legislature intended to permit a trial court to consider all relevant evidence, including hearsay
-ll M EMORANDUM OF POINTS /\ND A UTHORlTIES IN SUPPORT OF RANOEEP HOTH I'S M OTION FOR F EES CCP § 128 .
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
~
Page 27
section 527.8.").

Here, Tesla had in its possession numerous video, audio, and photographic recordings which

were almost certain to be dispositive on the questions of whether Hothi: (a) on February 21
in~ationally struck a Tesla security officer and then rapidly sped off, and (b) on April 16, operated
6 ,..
·1tts car in
a manner so reckless as to evince an intent to endanger the Model 3 occupants. Hothi
emphatically denied both allegations. Police incident reports arising from the February 21 incident

supported Hothi's contention.

Tesla had evidence that unequivocally could have tagged Hothi as committing actual or

threatened violence. Yet it chose not to include such evidence with its TRO Petition and at every

point thereafter fought to prevent Hothi, this Court, the public, and the press from seeing such

evidence. If Tesla was not prepared to have its evidence tested, it should not have filed the Petition.
Filing the petition with no intent to properly prosecute the action is per se bad faith.

Tesla's pretext for dropping the case was the protection of the privacy of its employees. Tesla

is certainly not known for concern abm1t its employees' privacy. (See, e.g., When Elon Musk Tried to

Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower, Bloomberg, March 13, 2019. Even if Tesla were sincere, the privacy

of employees is not a valid excuse. Again, Tesla's attorneys understand how litigation works and if

they were unwilling to present their evidence, then they had no business filing the Petition.
:;n :
But beyond that, Tesla's excuse is not credible. The Tesla employees in the car on April 16,
2019 were there for one purpose - to demonstrate and record the Model 3's autopilot features. Those
employees knew they were being recorded with both an audio and a video track. Common sense tells

us they did not talk about anything deeply personal while they were on camera. It is simply a

ludicrous argument. This is especially true considering that the Court instructed the Parties that the

evidence would be reviewed in camera for relevance.
- 12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT or- RANDF.EI' HOTI-IJ'S MOTION FOR FEES CCP § 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.

evidence, when deciding whether to issue an injunction to prevent workplace violence pursuant to
Page 28 Finally, the Court was prepared to conduct an in camera review of all evidence before

allowing it to be proffered for admission, and Hothi had offered to allow Tesla to designate portions

of the audio track that were purely personal. In light of those safeguards, Tesla's privacy concerns

ring especially hollow.

iii. Tesla and Its CEO Elon Musk Have a History of Silencing Critics
In Hoth i's first filing, he provided an abundance of material evidencing Tesla's reputation for

silencing and intimidating detractors, critics, and whistle blowers. (May 1, 2019 Request to Continue
Hearing, Attachment 3(b)(4) pp. 4:7 -6: 14 and exhibits attached thereto)

Here, Respondent offers one additi~.,,:,(1fexamwe. Lawrence Fossi is a portfolio manager at a

family office in New York City. (Declaration of Lawrence J. Fossi in Support of Fee Motion (Fossi

Deel.) at iJ3) Beginning in late 2015, Fossi began writing about Tesla under the pseudonym "Montana

Skeptic" at a financial web site called Seeking Alpha. (Id.) His articles were generally critical of

Tesla, questioning its safety claims and evaluating its SEC filings. (Id.) Among other things, he wrote

that Tesla was "structurally bankrupt" - that is, unable to generate a sustainable profit despite
massive subsidies, and therefore dependent on continued debt and equity infusions. (Id.) At some

point in 2018, Fossi was "
Twitter. (Id. at 14) Shortly thereafter, Tesla's Chief Executive Officer, Elon Musk, contacted Fossi's

employer and said that if Fossi continued to write articles about Tesla, he intended to sue Fossi and

that Fossi's employer would inevitably be involved in the lawsuit as well. Rather than put his
employment and employer at risk, Fossi stopped writing after a final sign off. (Id. at i]i]4-6, Exhibits
L, M, and N)

Along with the many other incidents reported in the press and earlier brought to the Court's

attention, this demonstrates how Tesla and Musk go to extraordinary and, frankly, unethical means to

- 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF R AN DEEP HOTH I'S M OTION FOR FEES CCP § 128.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
8
Page 29
silence their critics. The filing of the Petition in bad faith and with no intention of prosecuting the
claim is consistent with this pattern of abuse.
iv. Tesla's CEO Continues to Defame Hothi

As noted, Tesla's filing of the TRO quite predictably brought down obloquy on Hothi, who

emphatically denies Tesla's allegations. (Hothi Deel. at 1[9) Even now, after Tesla has voluntarily

dismissed the Petition against Hothi, Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk, continues to defame Hothi. In an

August 7 e-mail exchange, Musk stated on-the-record with the independent journalist and operator of
the non-profit public records website plainsite.org that Hothi "almost killed Tesla employees."

(Declaration of Aaron Greenspan in Support of Fee Motion at ,13, Exhibit 0) Even if all the

allegations in the Petition were trne (and they are not), the Petition never came close to suggesting

that Hothi "almost killed" any Tesla employee. Musk' s statement demonstrates his irrational level of

animosity towards Hothi. The animosity stemmed from Hothi having the audacity to criticize Tesla

and Musk, and it was that animosity that drove Tesla's decision to try silence this formidable critic by


inappropriately using legal process, while attempting to side-step the free speech protections of the
Constitutions of the United States and the State of California.
C. The Requested Fees Are Reasonable
In California, the prevailing party with an entitlement to recover reasonable attorneys' fees does
so based on the lodestar method. That is:
the fee setting inquiry in California begins with the "lodestar," i.e., the
number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly
rate. California courts have consistently held that a computation of time
spent in a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a
detennination of an appropriate attorneys' fee award.

(PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexier (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (citing Margolin v. Regional Planning

Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1005)) The "reasonable hourly rate" for attorney services is "that

prevailing in the community for similar work." (PLCM Group, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at 1195) In an
- 14 -
MEMORANDUM
or POINTS AND A UTIIORIT l!:.:S IN SUPPORT OF RAN DEEP Horn1·s MOTION FOR FEES CCP *128.S
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
9
Page 30 effort to achieve some measure of predictability in the amount of fees that may be recovered by a
prevailing party, the First and Second District Courts of Appeal have approved the use of the Laffey

Matrix. promulgated by tbe U.S. Department of Justice, to establish hourly rates. (See e.g., Syers

Properties III, inc v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691; Nemecek & Cole v. Hom (201'.2)

Cal.App.4th 4 t) TI1e Laffey Matrix sets the hourly rate for attorneys with 20-plus years of expe1ience
at $899 even without the standard upward adjustment of 9% for attorneys in the San Francisco Bay


c •·.

Area. The $899 rate is well above the reasonable $550 per hour rate requested. (Sperlein Deel. at
if114-17) IIothi seeks $57,680 in fees and $4,049 in costs for a total of$61,729. (Id.) The amount <>f
time spent on the matter was reasonable in light of Tesla' s resistance to providing evidence.
.IV.CONCL USION
Because Tesla's actions and tactics in filing and pursuing t11is lawsuit were both in bad faith
and frivolous, Hothi respectfully requests that this Corni order Tesla to reimbllrse Hothi $61,729 in

=;
attorneys' fees and costs already incurred, plus any further attorneys' fees Hothi may incur if Tesla
l
opposes this fee application.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: August 13,
,.,..,
LJ


- 1_, -
MEMORAKDUM Of PO INTS AND AUTHORITIES IN S1.,rro RT OF RA:--:OEEP 1-1.0Tlll' S M OTION FOR f [[S C CP ~ 118.
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
8
Page 31 AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
DECLARATION OF RANDEEP HOTHI
Page 32
D. GILL SPERLEIN, SBN THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN
345 Grove Street
San Francisco, CA Telephone: ( 415) 404-Facsimile: (415) 404-gill@sperleinlaw.com
Attorneys for Respondent

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Tesla, Inc. ,

c

Petitioner,
V.
Randeep Hothi,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RGDECLARATION OF RANDEEP HOTHI
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S
MOTION FOR REASONABLE
EXPENSES INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S
FEES PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 128.5;


I, Randeep Hothi, Declare:
1.
I am over eighteen years of age and have personal knowledge of the facts below. If
called upon, I could and would testify to the following.
2.
I am a member of the so-called $TSLAQ, a wide-ranging group of people who are
skeptical about the Tesla business enterprise and who regularly share infonnation on the social media
platform, Twitter.
3.
The $TSLAQ phenomenon has been featured in a documentary by Grant Williams (The

Electric Noise, at www.realvision.com) and described in various newspaper articles, including the Los

Angeles Times.

- 1DECL/\R/\TION OF R ANDEEP HOTHI IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR FEES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
9
Page 33
4.
I posted my findings under a pseudonym; my Twitter " handle" was @skabooshka.

Because Tesla, and specifically Elon Musk, has a history of trying to silence critics, I was

uncomfortable using my real name.

5.
I came to prominence during 2018 for my accurate observations about Tes la Model
production rates. I regularly reported those observations on Twitter, and my observations contradicted
Elon Musk's claim during a quarterly conference call in August of 2017 when he said:
What people should absolutely have zero concern about, and I mean 0, is that
Tesla will achieve a 10,000 unit production week by the end of next year .... I
think people should really not have any concerns that we won ' t reach that
outcome from a production rate.
6.
I consider that my research was vindicated. Tesla's actual production rate was much

D-
closer to my data-driven estimates than the "zero concern" Musk rate. My production insights earned
me more than l 0,000 followers on Twitter and became part of the media discussion about Tesla's

production problems. I have attached two June 22, 2018 articles which mention me and my research;

one article from the Verge titled "Tesla built a giant tent to expand production of the Model 3" attached

as Exhibit

; and one from Engadget titled "Tesla built Model 3 assembly 'tents' meet production
goals" attached as Exhibit B.
7.
The value of my data on Tesla production was recognized even by the Tesla owners and

fans who post regularly at the Tesla Motors Club site, as evidenced by this thread:

https ://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/skabooshkas-model-3-production-numbers. l 23 565/ I have

attached a printout of the first twenty entries as an example and attached those pages hereto as

Exhibit C.

8.
On April 16, 2019, I was driving on Interstate 880 near Fremont, when I noticed a Tesla
Model 3 with manufacturer plates enter the highway. The Model 3 had two roof-mounted cameras and
another camera mounted inside. Aware Tesla had announced an "Investor Autonomy Event" for April
-2DECLARATION OF RANDEEP H OTHI IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR FEES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
12
Page 34 22, at which it would tout its "autonomous driving" capabilities, I surmised the Model 3 was engaged

in public testing or videotaping for that event. I was headed to San Francisco for a meeting. The Model

3 test vehicle was also headed in the direction of San Francisco. I tracked the car's route for a half

hour or so, recording video and taking photos.

9.
To the best of my recollection, I did not swerve towards the Model 3. If l did so (and I

place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety. I did not gesture toward or otherwise attempt to
engage with the Model 3's occupants in any way. I simply recorded what I observed.
10.

Shortly after making the recordings, and using the @skabooshka handle, l posted what

I observed on Twitter . One of the most historically pro-Tesla on-line publications, electrek.co,

evidently regarded my postings as important Tesla news. Within hours of my postings, electrek.co

published an article acknowledging that my Twitter posts appeared related to testing being conducted
in preparation for the Investor Autonomy Event. I have attached a true and correct copy of the article

u

as Exhibit D. The article included a photograph I had taken of the test car to which I added red arrows

pointing to the cameras. (I also redacted the faces of the car's occupants before posting the photo on

Twitter.) The lede in the electrek.co article read as follows:

Tesla has been spotted evidently filming a self-driving demo in a Model 3 ahead of its
planned ' Investor Autonomy Event' next week during which the automaker is expected
to release more details about 'Tesla Network', its autonomous ride-hailing network.

11.
The electrek.co a11icle reminded readers of past Tesla promises about autonomous
driving that had come to naught, and stated that readers should take Tesla's claims with a "grain of

salt":
Very little of all the capabilities Tesla demonstrated back in 2016 made it to customer vehicles
yet. Tesla did the demo route several times before it got it right for the video and while it was
an interesting look at future potential capabilities of Tesla's Autopilot, it wasn't really
representative of any type of feature making it to consumers any time soon.
-3DECLARATION OF RANDEEP HOTHI IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT' S MOTION !'OR FEES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
8
Page 35 12.
I was not provided any notice of the April 19, 2019 hearing on the temporary restraining

order. I was never served with a copy of the Petition or the Court's Temporary Restraining Order, and

I am not aware of any attempts to serve me. I learned about the TRO online and I voluntarily appeared

in this Court to defend myself and my reputation.

13.
Tesla's TRO was widely reported in the media. On-line publications closely aligned
with Tesla published atticles that assumed the truth of Tesla's allegations of actual and threatened
violence, or assumed a judge had weighed the evidence, or both.

Electrek wrote,
"[I]t is not reasonable to attempt to cause car collisions because you have an apocalyptic vison
ofyourself winning a crusade against a businessman you don't like. " Attached as Exhibit E.



Clean Technica wrote,
"Hothi ... has been issued a temporary restra;ning order after allegedly trying to cause an
accident dur;ng a Model 3 test drive that demonstrated the Navigate on Autopilot feature. "
Attached as Exhibit F.
Engadget wrote,
"[Hoth;J reportedly injured a security guard at Tesla's Fremont factory with his car in
February after he was asked to leave the parking lot, and on April 16th stalked a Tesla-owned
Model 3 for 35 minutes on the freeway to the point where he forced the car into a automatic
emergency maneuver to avo;d a collision. " Attached as Exhibit G.
And Teslarati wrote,

"The noted TSLAQ member reportedly drove so recklessly that his vehicle ended up triggering
the Model 3 's crash emergency avoidance maneuver." Attached as Exhibit H.

14.

The mainstream media, including Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times, also
published news stories about the TRO, repeating Tesla's allegations.
15.
I received a torrent of abuse on Twitter and other social media, accusing me of being a
terrorist, a criminal, and a homicidal maniac. I attached a compilation of examples at Exhibit I. While
I would have liked to defend myself on social media, I elected not to make any further posts on my

-4l)ECLARATION OF RANDEEP Honu IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR FEES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
12
Page 36 'l'wiacr feed,, l·ik 1·1~ liwsu:1 wns pending. ·1 he h~:,;t p.,s: 1 mad~\\ a:. un .\pril 22. 20 I9, h read: '"T:1~

p~ndc:nc~ oi'J"csln's law~uil aga1,~L inc make~ il prudcm for me: lo ,ay hul.: lln Twitter .:l prc,;enl. Hut
I do wi~h
t()
CXl)t'C'>~
my pro:ounci thani-::-. fo:- the outpouring
or :-;uppNl h.:r;; :inJ u, !ht: Gort.:1 p,Igc. I ,un (kcply n"1m·cd by your kind ,., orJ., ,md l,!Cncrosli\ ."
lb.

~
IO
17. 20 19 Ocdar.uion in Suppon of M) Rc~pon~c ~o ihc Pciition.
I dcdJ.rc under pcnulLy of perjury umk:- 1hc law,; of the State of Caliiomla tl:Jt tht foregoing
i-. true and com~cl.
St,ILC
./ ' / ,I
,
_/LC:~~.L

I

Rnndt!cp J-lothi


;,,,,./
/.sfe;✓/

,.,.,
,__

-5-

DEC!..AHAT!O.'.'i OF RA:-IDEH? HO'nt! IN SLPPOKl OJ• RESPO:'>Dt',;'-l'J''S Mono:--,i JUR Fl'.l~S
AA

1 <0 : ~
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
!I
Page 37 RESPONDENT RANDC:EiP HOTH! ' S MOTION FOR FEES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Exhibit A
Page 38
Tesla built a giant tent to expand production of the
Model t

.
••
.

1HEVERGE
(m:,l:;r~ :·"ri•i'.,~n -Wlll .tJ.H!l,.11 ir~riqw.y ~i:d ~ r.,.~s
lbt ,J,dt1 t,.)
iu.-- s:ot~_,-
t-1 ~:t:::t.!-~-=~
:r=-1e •.::~.jt;
\
Sfill Y JflNG
tf TlD SEE SllMETHfNB
ll 1,/ l."
"IT
cr~111pr\t')' i,ti:-nti~1'!,l I::; Te"-:lti da.t~.; •·~:is
'.'{f1i•. h.
PN ·r ar ily f:(. :;tJ<; ~n ..;;:r ~t•.nt-i- b~-£1,){J C-l'i
1h e:! 1:0G1?JS
11l'l \}I ; ~la"s i}-¥'.<.::fi~ l:J-tS tl!1D 1:L~u-:: ~l
(di r-::;'.f..•' ,l'i ·:.-f.i:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/22/17488372/tesla-model-3-production-tent-expand
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
r-::u,
Page 39 1HEVERGE
t'-i
,·:(.ii.Ji(I WU''.:~;
tr·r
'/';•:, '/•J.~}!}
~
1: 1.1Ui..• 1l
K:l~I
J : 1.e Cll:,{t;,Jh.'-cie ~•-~1~1 •1t-r, h'.:t
Lh'llj~.'
,"J
ri.ni·
l,.1-' 14~t"ll
[J(C(L!!!';,'·) Pliflll•r'"-C< 0 : A1/!,;!l,-11jt)' :\,~(j
Arr.illZi!'IIIJ \~-er!(
O'!'
'-P.:,:.i) ;-~
~~i)f; ...
'. : •-l tj
-:.k:::k. i.md
'wit:i-Yn:,; :t'.~ w11p k=i M;,;~ 1~:~1.-:)ilt~ (~ ith·~k
l!i Gr· ~-J:.=,H ! l•.·b:H:C Ct;{ A:.ilCW >n-•.-.:. :-h.lt!C.-fi l•pp,,~GiLy
('(U (J.:..:.irl~I or~ !WCk.--• ·
Ko 1i[·J)' !?1:t,~
t;(-!('.:.;r M
Te\lil i oarr. eu:1: 01"t11ru
l)(!W
;.1'!-~1~j.l)1 {,:, l\,-Jj;,,):;, !~l-4\~
-;1t:~r,11,1llo~•gmbJy
,n:L~ .ri ':l ·.\'~cl-.-:; y.,· 111ra•lfi1il ,c:.01.m::O!i Lo110 u g1J:,1:;. ,i.c, n1J1Ch l P ie
a, 1s.c M:,..f,1,.1-I 3 dual motor porlt;1rmanc-~ CC!ffl nr; 1:!h :r-:.o lino .
V
.,
1HEVERGE
i)
;~Q;1ft-:;n:·:il cm;:\<;ity t'UiS t,~vn •• :r,,
g t;trc ro."11·n111-c,v \.-!ir-la l.~:. 1r yc-tv. F.im, lb,;sl-'. !-::·.: t;1;,;
t:c.CW!"f 1n Fir.~!:'c,r· r C';=.hfcm1~. ·.~ar O .i!:t! • ':J 41 ft:t. t 1~~l'f;.S~ ni<'l:C.iflQ ~,:00(1-1 S ;,r•a X ·,,,;;Ni.:;:!~:,;
N~/; tt"~\ 111,;
-:-c,r,p,, ny -~: n a r ,:id ~P-"•~
[Q
p~dt,.;CC 5 (.'l[.\f) ~-1•.x1-:I $ ~,~i.Jl:S O l":f:•:~.
1ncwd-r.g t'lCJ mc: r1: C.(t)t 1n~:·..-c, ~u:il• :r:0:r:f \·Cll;o, , Gt ltMJ r:;;-,, Tv pi.,'\ WiiT
II'!:
r.c-c,1 "i ar,;rv
1,1•.mu',r,!Clur nq spt~,:;f
MUSX SAID TYE FREMONT
f11C109'f VIAS "BURSTING AT
fHf SfAi'rfS' lASf Sli rm
\
'.,.,.;\,ti~ ,uil
'\),.if.-lr..!
J..~,
t:/;,1:11r ~':.
ffil'1~•'y
l
t.,- I!} t: Iii.; l:r-ncr,:r,::rJ... cJ fl i)C\/
'.",~!.:i..
hy lf'.li 1~r d r,I ...:-U"C ir,:
'='•P. ~:n~)iv·.:, h.is ,,,HJ ;7 :J,-:li
r-n P.,1(:'h ~/'1J Ill, .. :·,, n"'('!dn.
i('.it,e
=~ntii tJ'ti:..'{(~
Dt'.'' 1'il CICJ!~C!f! .lt !l:~H ".;;~ Tf·:.;;il m•irt-mi t!"·(-•
,;;..~n;:,.r:·; if ,., '.n""!q -~·,;.,1 ~'.f fr('m. p;,_;l! II'.'
.2:5 iu,:,!..,:;l'nl l:\ltffn
I i;,;tCJVC1$
--
·,,,'•,
Ii,.;:,.;~'!~)
r1!.1ot;<'!
10 r,;10-.·o 11:~:l 11Ga, r:9:kt.~ :\ (r.~QU-rr.·ir..:111 "'~l,tr:!A 1r .::
•;:S,~:c'\ .:'.':f \':tt1MP,(if?'8d
T,f /r.
rt~;J
lO !"ili..-•eri'.UaHy ~na)•i: on 1!::e ~...\;!~(Ii
E'J ,'.i:'1¢p!.rrn
it.
!O a'.:'~i.£',.,c:; t.1.!..:;J<;~
no~. b~n a i):IJ:"hP·t
l"l:.l r.:i'l Mf:1 r.~• w-c•!'~('.l.,
~..,... hl( ti~c:.ig~ r,1:xial 3 Oit;C\tC:l1'r',
in~ (':Ill t'- ~=iltl"'ti mi.1 nu c;<.:rf ["ti. ..::r~""'I-P"'.''.V'•r': l')~l)\J;,~~.:J.J."l 1:JII':"""
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/22/17 488372/tesla-model-3-prod uction-tent-expand
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Command lane
Page 40 lHEVERGE
.
'
H,qh t!,"S flh!.'lil!:i; (A 11·1,!..l$t
;,.,niw, ol ll-P, '( T ,"11 /Ii
l•m t n,M5~rnt:,y
2• ne:,..us
lHEVERGE
A! :,:as~ •7 1.: l-.r~ ·i-:-;H 11;:n ~•::-r~.i!':it i;t¢;';1i,;i;;..'..:;.-il ' V-:1)1;- 1 ~
)'C\l
if 10t;f i1"" ,..r-1}:~csa2~·ld
r,:,,;) J ;:k-,.\11, <::-~M :n
,rl
\::-:"',l
1 P~1V91t'I
r~~
htt,-)1'{
:..yn !•>
II".,./.
1: l !}e~ac
t:~1rf .l1:re;my Acr.li~d\:>. 1na1M(JN •Ji 1rc!u~ ·r 1 r:1•:tl/}:1:1 :tl F:,_h,~no& \'h~ hn,,r,, :.'i':Cil
n mbtil w;::.,
.a;!O~:r;.,i.~r~ I ~ •
H;-~:r :-::-roch..;,;tion bill r:ct S•}1n'...J ,1::;. i:-ir n;,
,r:a-/ ~g
it:;fi
moc:._,tt!'(;~ 1 to n t.c: !1;..i::t:r (1,~ii H.-,nf r,i f1JC'.O r~e m~t 1·i'"'l, ,1·:. ;:'I' e: <..,f
\
nc,-.-...
-lDr~;JICl' ' ·i l ..
p!'.ril"'",r,:-;·,: F,·, r·
"••.,:.-~r!:"~,
·
f'l:,,i< n,::s :t
r~,:; c,:y r;.t Fr•.tr·,:n 1 h:t~.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/22/17 488372/tesla-model-3-prod uction-tent-expa nd
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
hru.t 1.. ,om lhe
Page 41 O'
v .. ,.
enl
'C
I
ilsO t~Cl th.'Slfj! 1 ed fi)r :J'l !l
cc :(r)H;J:;J c,w,,c.r·,1:n!Y '<',-·~ ~-,;h)r.t n,A',.n ly ar:o '.<-:-r-pc:1.m:cr•> TJv;; ,-:, ,,.~,..~~:..\':;- :r-;r ~i}~
~H:·p ;1r:q s1:LH~.!~l~ -''!\~~ ;,l:JrrJ~; . .-c,!1 A1!13di!1,;;n,1 1,Y:oiin: ·cog t:•"'!\)te '1Q1. prr(l"'!1 <;00-!-. ,ri
1i,•,;~'i(vt$
IWC PILOT'S,
ENGINEERED FOR
NEW HORIZONS,
i:pr·,11..: \','h:I:.~ t;-:;-:;r1~·. 9 ,a.-,•,·'.'11.~:.,;("~~dt(:"'•l 1c~ :'~ CJ1 !he"' ei.lli [1fl'.•)r:~ ~:> tt•rn ,;wrc ,s
-~~·Y'!CU ·"O Iha: C.." h: a re,:f •''}.,ff \.\1!(•r. ;tCUf~ /l'•Vlt~(l (!"qi)I
ft:!:it,::\.'ff•: ;1t:!6 rn<'>-fC:Tit·L"':.t
PAft c;f l\:c:,v1n9 ih~SO DI{) .'.!l,t(:J PHX!l...\.."tC·Tl c1rnct,:"et; -.~·! ,':IP. H'i!!f:'.(l •!ehocto~ arc., hiiilt -~ tll<;.!
t.rvl wa;h f'ltl(,1 ttle Ct-,:tng t;l'Cvt'litJ 1tntu!Tc1:""! asp~ts
i" tO-J1rn~ 1; c ti:,i~e P.Joos, ,'.::.cl~·~d~
s:1iU 8(,il":fJ o:ibl•! !O !f:Jcn u~o 10~, vt in~ ~ri;,:-10 '15 •::tilt a'!', ,,~-.:-o arcu":rJ tho r,t-;t.s n•u·
t.=m1~'.W"4lO!h, n~ 11 t17J\.\~;st; rt'1,t.:i"I tf1.e tHl'l:.!.i!"'t/y fr,91"' n t:11 .C=:\! r.:;:puci 'fl L,'')1,,.!J.;tc:'l tn(l
cwal-iY cr,r:;re;1 Yc.1u i https ://www, theve rge .com/2018/6/22/17488372/tes la-model-3-prod uction-tent-expa nd
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
~'3C:/\fJ ~ ho noc.:Mi
Page 42 RESPONDENT RANDEF.P HOTT [I'S MOTTON l"OR Ferns
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Exhibit B
Page 43 -
-
EcJngodget-
lnlotl0"'1td~
L.1Coll In Goa,
f
w
-
II
s!'
--
a
-
Q
l.oqln
Tesla built Model 3 assembly 'tents' to
meet production goals
':'~,-.':" .• -...
• -.=-::.-:."':-,
~=
~
--HOUOR

••
.. tt.
"'
' ;JI. •
,. ~ ..~ hii.:. -'i~
llu;,w..-:i sA1alMitl
;jlf ,~mM1\·t• pf,wvrs l icn1~r·s
ru .. l:;m,1ii rv
-:
·
..
'
' l t ' ~sr


BUSINESS
nr~o,..-, 1 /1.'!>r
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Sponsored Links
AA301
Page 44 r(1m1~.i, h~r h l)W Elon Mu~~k casu:tll y n1N 1tl• n C'd th :1 t l'c~la h~d !mill ..1 'ii..,·.
:1~•;f•:1;l 11y b:,· in jus rh ,ee w~eks to hitl p il meet its iony \-?~d !
prt:Lluction g,1tt\s? ii w~1.-; inor\! a l1d~c~l:us lh.1 11you
m;.tc-r$Z(l
rhr f1(•mvnt approval ~J. .-e Te-s!J )i.'< rmrnth..4; ,tlthu1.11.:;l11t could cxtt'nd th..;it
•k•• mil tu,ther if it w.:mu~u. ,\nJ lhl!-,c·s J rt•Jl (hante it imght beconu:
fi-t\fJJlil:'l~!U . MH~k
id.I; ·."•·!

chat [~H.\ rww lim• is ''way br:tf,:-r .. rhan another
il~~~mb:y linP th;H "cost hundrt•ds 0rm1lhons,· Jnd ·.
ure 1f his

cornp;-my "','.u·lu~lly nt.•t.•d(cJ ;1 hmldini;, Sprun5·s stTt!C tU!t:'.S ilffl
c:on'>iderab!y slurdwr than a.ctual L,mb, and the r:1.:in cha11cn~e ls c·nsunn~
th:n th,'. outdoors do~~n·t atfrct prodn(tion.
Wht")thNor n(lt thL~ aoually helps Tt'Sla .1,l•~t lB 5,000 pN WL'~l.: Modd rrodunum targ(•t Lsn·t renain. Mm,kwa!-to111,n~ [h~ tL'ntu1 mic.l •Junc, or
juM .1 couple of WN~k~ hefore the c-ml-of-)un(' tt1rg('t. At the tlmf•. Tr"iila 'Nil:-i
up to J.,5fJ0 (J1"S per w~~k ·- much t.Jettl!r lh•m tnd01~, bul thJl !efl .J 1nt of
·--· ..·····.... -· .......... .......-. -...... ·-·- ···rQQm
ro, impu>vement. It d~p1mJs 011 whlrn th~ rmtJ,,;i,or m.&nuf.:.c[UfHIS

---- ·-·--
-·••.-.
be-gan :md how rnui..:h lt''j conrnbutir.i to the~ ~rid re~11lt. If Jlmh1ng ~lsc-, H
~h1)ws Mu:;k's dt:ten:un:1tion Ill nw,J~ t;1r;;ers and gcr r~sf;\ ha< k j,1h'l
profuab,Jity.
aklJboa::tli k.a
h1qh tes ph¢los 01 lhe ll?n~l h c l !tla '.'lS1 A :ont asser.-bty
111;0 f;crn lne 1as1 24 hot,ts.
Cy11,,.,.,l'lltf
A:.,;i ~i'°<:;'.!J" ,:,-.. 11n.o.1 tc~i'r-Jl,I l~i..r. dD(iin~ ll• '!fo"Si.1. f"it::!OI'( 2' fl
U"l'II f.-,1-,'I r,.,.,..~tl?Wtief:•.lr'd ,[ !3"i
~.r,::1,111 \'Yr., 11 -....:i t
r'!!l~U(Cl?
\W•'f t'O!tiltl il f~"try.y :
AA
a 'Ol'li
~'lll--t Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
JJ >'h![c.1 \:i.'\.~J ~?.dt•w: Ttw
h,..:5-t lrl!f \,·1:frk~$ l'n:1h
rn ie,ln h-1vc t hr. ughl ,,
c:omhin~\t101u.1f l\;.H••;.·: m.• t·.•.~t:L' tS from Mll.sk. fH'~t h:m d "'''' ,\ 1\/'.-Jlf :~. :1ml
l:'remon~·s.ov.-n ;'ll)proval :H: ::<-;, h~1s in:1 J1~ d 1.• J1 that T,:-s1::r b111? t n~w
u1a11ur:h·ttning insidQ ,1 gro up or .Sl!H~rj l g!3n l ll!lll~ (ur rathl::'r, c~n\·11kt.•
..:,w1rn'.?-.. trm1u.h.s) to bnost ou lput uf ir~ hig.h·volurne EV. lfyc,.1u think t har
w 11nds ;;i.udacious. you\l b~ rjglll . r\ r~ ·n.,fh:riro ! '.HiiL'd lllat (!al·h ·1~11t' is
15(.) feet loug.i.nd 53 rr!et hit;h, an d thc1c·•, no knO\·.:n in~t~ncc o f vth.:-r CM
manufacturers doing t h.is bt?fore.
Page 45 -,.lt"-,, .,r• •••
tl•1n
i',1JU-01J•J JJ.•1,;.-J u ,;1..----11,i;.11 u•.)011!,l'y !,11u !•J ,..,,J_~Jl .~:~~1k !."~I
I lilf,!.11 1~11. ,\ ntr.\' b11 Un.1 ·,\,1b ITl(lf)"J.")1 k1.
~'J t"J·~ J y,,1,t
JtN\l1fiJ. ·t,fHlit!i. 1•""11tMmliJ.1:U(.._,.. kn•• t1tlni0;"111• h¥..,"";
•,
..
'"
"'
l :; 1,
't
p,.i,,o,,
,., I
il
-, ,

L..
1 ,w
,r. ,
,
",r
t-
ht
.
1f/l f
11rn1.

I
J
,,M
t/l'i1Jlffl
,11.
I
f
r,,,,
•I.I\
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.

AA303
Page 46 RESPONDENT R,\NDEEP HOTHl 'S MOTION FOR FEES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Exhibit C
Page 47 C!eanMyMac X is 50% Off
Skabooshka's Model 3 Production Numbers
Page1of14
l
As far as I can tell, this guy on Twitter has a Tesla employee source providing daily producllon numbers. He provides lhese dally
numbers for the rsLA shons Given the 1n1ense focus on the producllon ramp. I thought a would be helpful to have a thread fur
!racking these numbers If you believe he is a poor source for these numbers, I can understand tha l, and you can 19nore this lhreod.
bdvor.
M®el 3 Produc:tton
l::.O
11,
- - ~ Mr, 1-9 iil l $

q
······,
l ' I ll AOFtel,1n. 'i1t
6/2,1 Sd'I
6/25
6/27 6/28 6/29 6/7/1 7/7/3 7/4 7/S 7/ 6 7/7 7/H :l6U
7/9 7/7/7/13 7/14 7/15 7/ 7/17 ~7/19
7/20 7/21
https ://tes Ia motorsclub. com/tm c/th reads/ska boos h kas-mode 1-3-p rod uctio n-n um bers.12 3565/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
·'
Page 48 July Model 3 Daily Avetage.
bdyA:;(1'-V •~Cffit:1.tl
J M,t 19,201$
M.-"s~s
U
o
l.bl' ,l!lcn. Apf,lttOf\ WI
Da,ly Average Starting from JULY 5: 550 (lo eliminate the July 4th holiday period)
Jolne Mry 19, 2U1S
Mu.s.ige,gLOC l.
ApplttOl'I, WI
Mu.1ag.e,,i
l,
Lor.ation:.~.WI
Today he posted numbers for July 22nd as being 3-40/S0/100 (3/S/X). Also repofling a serious Incident In the faciory that shut
down production today, possibly r11e. However, I can, r,nd any lndependel\1 conformation I really don1 know what to think about
their information On the one hand, lfd be great to have an accurate Inside source, on the other hand the.re is no way to know Ir that
sourc. is actually real at all, no, Is there is much reason to trust skabooshka themselvo beyond the trust youd place In any 01her
anonymDlls Twilter user (read: not much).
schonetooht
Joined:
MM 10. 201'
M~ssag~
4,
looalion:
Nodw'ld
Well, I've been expee1ing sabotage, and ·incidents which shut down production' are a pretty normal thing.
https ://teslamoto rsclub.com/tm cft hreads/ ska boos h kas-mode 1-3-prod uction-n um bers.1235 65/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Dally Average Starting lrom JULY 1S (lael 7 days); 566
Page 49 .!,1111-t"J
Ap;' 2$. 201 I
MCo;:.lt;t''i
1-4,
l1Y;·.,n~:'I'
ltho1C~, NV. \J~
schonelucht
dOI"
i :•;,l,l
Joln,:.:J_· Matl0.2011!.
}..i('S'5"-if~-
LDCa:l 4/J2Z
N~u!~J
AI
'4'"" 4••11"" I
Esm@ fs Mt!jor
v\' ...~
J-.:nn~d
I
rrrti
t U
OK: 18. :Wt
The one good 1h111g lhese numbers show m• Is thal 5000/week was sustainable From July 11·15. they averaged over 5100/Week.
The problem. Of course, is that It hasnl been sustained. I don't know what happened on the 15th- I assume l~at wa$ the
switchover 10 dual motor ptoduction- but the daily overage droppe appeors 10 have dropped shorply again on the 22nd & 23rd.
All the FUO about demand & togist1cs & supply chain is nonsense P1od~c11on Is what mailers. So far. in July, it's a mixed bag.
.;
~ ~ 900d thir'K) \flf-Se nomb"5 d'lowi
bdy
rn, ts that 5000/WH:k w1, l'IUS1einlbll!'. nom Jc.At 1 1-15, · ~ .l!IYe'r.l!jli!'d CYf-r
5100/W..k
~ ~obt#m, of e:1;,urHj It 1h.:11t il ~:mi.'
°"'"" W!l1~1nP.d I dqrl, I knew ..t\.,t h~"'f'd on 1.-0 1.'lth~ 1 u.,..urnP ~:it wa•
lht KW1td1ffllU ID d\W,I ITI010( r,,OGUc::ictr- but lh• daily ti,Vf>(.,ot dropped by ~bout ioo1diy
n,p '1st kJoked pn;,mi-Sing.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/skabooshkas-model-3-production-numbers.123565/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
to nir,t o U'ltNtl lot Uar:klng men numous. It ,ou L1tl11'\'¥' hit •s, poo, sourct IOr lnt-n nLJrntMHs, 1un ur:iue,a:101Kf
lhat, Jl'ld )'OU CM 1g~ lhlt thrHd
Page 50 Yeah, its been up and down. nearing the target or 700/day on 6 days on July w,th that noce 5 day s1retch on the moddie Maybe some
slo'!"downs for ttuo n•w c,on<,guraOnl\-s • p~forfll~nc~ ono AWP, ~ut not siire Mcnrdin9 to $k1Jbno•~•Q, th~re was rumor of tae1ory
shutdown due to a senous problem on 7/22 when p,oductlOn dropped dramaltcally Clad to see il Iumped up significantly
yesterday
I would think ch Z.. chSl>ahan
OK l. 201d
J..iir,td
M'-'S.sa9cs
1.lllB
Y•llh.,r~ bt-Mup and rlo---n,r\et•rtl',(J the tar~ of 700/day 006 da,a\nJllyW1U, lhlt n,r.,e Sday !.lf,tr.h lntrutm1ddl•
M31bt some slowdowns fM mt new oonfigurnuons- ~~rfo«nanco and AWD. but Ml !It.rt'. ACcordf\g 'lO Sboooshita,
theff' was rumor oJ fecto,y 1hutdorNndu! to a senou6 probltm on 7/22 when orodU<:ljon dtopt,Nt drwnaOc;,ly. OIJd to
SH 1t )limped up s1gn10c3nt"1 ye11.terda)'
l.ot:.011Qff
SMa1013. fl. / w,e>cta,ow,
flof.and
Seems ic wasn't a rumor He was Just guessing about the reason Apparently, ' fire· 1s one of che ~rst ,xplanaclons lhal came to h1S
mind.
ZachSh.:ahan
l\1:lt~IJ\ \Ct-f!•l:'fl
,, L
ti---:1. llllt.
, .1,rnc.
......··"'. . . n.' w,~ ."'
~
~
Yuh, rt'~ been \IP •nd dOwn, J'tt&{lnq 1h~ targ•t o1 'J00/day o,i G d,ays in Juty w1lh lhal nke S day suelcl\ In the mtddJe
Mo~bt t omt ~ow 1hefe wn rumor of 1M:IOl'f shutdown due to a .se,iou.s p,oblem on 7rn wtiein p,oduchon dfopP-td dramo11ealty. Glad to
SH it Jum,Pf'd "P ~rwfltantty ~"tSCffday
I ~Id 1h1nk 1hat Elon wo,nts som• good numbu11 going tmo 01 EA.
l' ·b t
Seems It wasn~ a tumor. He was just guessing about the reason Apparently, ·r,re· 1s one ol the first explanallons that came to hlS
mfnd.
t
f-'apJf ox JI.II l •l, J01S
11':!lbOO)hlHI
0,,
~-
Papafox
.ac·t ,,~V~;r,b•
.-11hXJt
MOdol 3:
1.1o0.. $ 1.10dotX
https ://tesl am otorscl ub.com/tm c/th reads/ska booshkas-mod el-3-p rod uctio n-n umbers.12 3565/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
skabooshk~ on rwitter
Page 51 J1,h~i:-d
J.in l:J,
Mc-"''ntjE"<;
,·un
4, IJ
Daily producrion upda1e
On July 24, 201 B TO$IQ produced appro>1marely
Model3· ModelS: ModelX.
G~rlands
Ut·~•••
Jointd;
A.pt 4.2CJ
Mi.:Sj;.t,;~s
l.~:1!16:l

M:u•;Urtd
G,H .ind:, S.l rj :
Dady produC't,on 1.1pd"a\c
On July "24.2018 roa.:i orocuced approJ.1matcly.
bdy
Mod~l3•64Q
M~ 19, 2G
Me,$:t.t;~
ModtlS 1"MOdOIX
J,4n
toc:i.uon A&Jplirton. 'NI
These are good numbers again. Nice lo see. and espec,ally Nee to see 901119 inlo the 02 ER. Elon n..ds the firepower 11gh1 now
r'' C
bd)'1)~~!_.,,-. ~.r'tl'f'lt!•r
J;J\n.! ,•.
.._z
Tesla has averaged 540 model 3 per day since July Slh, y1eldmg a weekly rate of 3,782 I'd 11kt: to see lhem be able 10 bring that
average up above 580 over the next week, so 1hat 1he weekly average 1s over 4.000 per week since the July 4th Holiday If Elon
could state that and that the average over the last 7 days is over 5,000 per week would be great news. A statement that they are on
1raek 10 be at 6,000iWeek by the end of August would be nice too
May19,2n1!i
Okay. so throuQh the flrsl 24 days of July'
11,203 M3 produced,• rate IMt works out lo 42.Sk produC factoring oU1 the (1rs1 5 days (548 total In that lime), we get·
10,655 produC Esme Es Mejor
I think these numbers are rule so far. but we need them to
cont1nut ,1sing.
t..t....•s~
,.,,....,.,
fv,,lA "::111~
ht tps ://tes la motorsclub. com/tm c/th reads/ ska booshkas-mod el-3" prod uction-n umbe r s.123565/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Johitd
Page 52 Mrs,\•~t•<,:

l%," QayMea
ZachShahan
~tll-,t! Ytmt~
fhet-41 .are good n1,,1mbt-u :,,g.1&n Ntet to ,ec. aod l!Qp«:1alty nice to ~tt gQ,AQ Into tht-Q2 CR Elon nttds the firepow«
lqlf flOW
0t,c J, ;n\-
Jolnt!d
MP.stlc;es
1,
LO<:Ahon
SMH~U. Fl. I Wroctl'tollt,
PerhapS a result or whateve1 the slowdown a few days earlier was related to. You can see output dropped slowly and then rose
slowly
Pro!J1'(t
I lhlnk they slowed down or stopped the line lo:
Todd Burch
V.,."1.1'i,ttY'".l>CU11k"
1,:,tP.
J:)ir.~d·
New J. 200-;
M"!.Ui!).,..G
1 Make tweaks for AWD/P p,oducuon.
2. Adjust for white Interior (possibly)
3 Clear some bottlenecks so !hey can work loward 61 If they push herd J lhonk they may be ~hie to hold S,SOO/wk till• for th• rosl or \he n,onth, which would lpok r~;il good going into lhe
ER (especially rl hogh AWO/P mrx)
6,l(i
ZachShahan
°' u~
.....
'r,..,,11ct,t~fl 1W·,111h"
.,,.
1 M,eke lwok.1 lor A'liO/P ptoduc:::tion.
2 AdJUII fot wh•I• ,ntNiDt fpo.s,1bty).
3 Cte.,r some bonlcoo<:11.G GO they c.>n ,,..iork towa,d bkiwetll.
1r lhey push he,d I lhlnlt lhlll')' may be abtt to hold S,500/writ 1.&te fat \he rut of lhf: mond,. which 'NOutd look tnl good
going ln10 1ho liR (espodolly ,I h,gh AWO/P ,n;,J
Agreed .
... o, it could have been a fire "."'-1;
Given \hat they have opened up lot U.S orders, Tesla should have good 1ransparency ,nlo the expected performance and AWO
•ales mix for 03 and even Q4. That wrll be helpful for the 02 ER. I'm hopelul \hey actually n,iso !heir profit guidance for 03 and Q4,
11 even shghlly.
bdy'·-·'•~t
""'"'"te
Jo1n,d: M111l. l1lts
•n
M~S\.R<;"'J
3.
Lo<:.1t1on.; App.'eton, WI
Pago t of


(You mutt tog In or sign up lo pos1 htro.)
https ://tesla motorscl ub. co m/tm cfthreads/ska boosh kas-model-3-prod uctio n-nu mbers.12 3565/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Loe:,1110;1
Page 53 RESPONDENT RANDEEP HOT!-ll'S M OTION FOR FEES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Exhibit D
Page 54 APRIL
htt ps :// e lectre k. co/2019 /04/ 18/tes Ia-spotted-Se lf-d riving-demo-autono my-network-event/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Tesla spotted filming self-driving demo ahead of
autonomy/Tesla Network event
Page 55 iUd•~ ,l t\tO,']tli;lld 1\1",.!W *f l~,1n t~u rei;la tw:;
ihc 11.1":t•tll iS I:) l'i
th.,n f :mn~ ~~rli-i
to l~ :i ..j,.-:,lf <)rl'/11\,,1 t,k,it1(J(l.5-l lfllflln
;'..i f,flP. ~ f:!,
A r:~""':'lf'fll~j.1i, ;~f (.'fi'Jl;"l:,1 l\'k"tfal j: vJltl1 r1 r'n1Llg -t.l(JU1pn11,•m W-3':. r,imlwrJ t~111:t;1 !i~s .,_-e,:,k (\.·~ sk~fhlosh),:
cr:'rw1ner}
Ac-t.0tdu 1t} JO 9 ,i!)OQthk:l. ;;i tnO\'m Ti;Sl,J rJC.tr;-,if.lor p:,'1 .'.>r I.hf)- f(.i--;::A ~hnit t:::m~rt1(11~itVt11l f w:1 !er. ~ho,
Mode.-! 3 u,rT·e':etn~Pf;-ra>Hna~cly 35n.a!P,'i fr..:im I WOPU to t 4C~~-r 0:1 l i..~!!ar
Walnut Creek
...
... . ..,....
~
lhJUIUfl
..
1 I
Berklil
Danville
A
92 Wh,lln W.iy, S,Fr:inc1:ico, CA ~l~O
52mln

SnnRamon
e
s., n Le nd,o
ly C ity
"'
F1anc1sco
San a ,uno
Sall Franc:lseo Bey
Millbrae
-:h~Jk

Pl
Union c,ry
Bu~lngame
...
.
,...
e
H11yw o1d
SOUlh Slll'
P~Cdlc:>
e
San Mateo
, ..
a....·~ m 21=1(\ reslt111 :a.i.:iso filmil!il a .s ~lf-~r1 . . .111g di"monsto•t!oa w!"!1)':l 1t ~m11-1:J1-.Ct?\l •la. ~tutJil<-•1 2 O
.a O,,ach
$¢d."tl l'rM<.M-~r~ ,mLt~
L:n11I ~h:11 r,oinL Teti•.f4i ~U~•tol !oc1.;c:::co en t,L-;1w,1v o· 1i;-w1q_ b1,,1l ltlc L1'.~r •l'Jt.-,;'11'~ :1~i;i~m11s.!r:rw.-;n
k"'\::o~:t:-il 0"' r,t,- aoc.l
t1:Qt;l,l' ,,,,..Ad ~·i",t-Q
https://electrek.co/2019/04/18/tesla-spotted-self-driving-demo-autonomy-network-event/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
,,,_
Page 56 El~clr~k's Tnke
k r, H1•.:
• 11
.'Jl

t
I . tt;·,J 1 l ! ' ~ ~
https :// e Iect re k.co/2019/04/ 18/te sla-spotted-Se If-d rivi ng-d em o-a uto no my-network-event/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
t , · rl,-:;-
Page 57 RESPONDENT RANDEEP HOTHl'S MOTION FOR F!::ES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Exhibit E
Page 58 , .,
4-1'11-'10-rt-'YS-t
..."
..... ,
I

• w
;.:.I,
lSl.lla'itt'I"°'
.C: '-
• ••
https://electrek.co/2019/04/20/tesla-shorts-threaten-accidents-restraining-order/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Tesla shorts th reaten to cause car collision to
discredit Tesla; restrain ing order granted
Page 59 ~r; ft•,,l:1, ~~ tJOo':'fi,~''}f1~.
f~(l'rJ
r,,1.;m l ,;·1:· 1lJ\!IIO,J ~:•w",.•~~ .,....o C•
l}:J f'.'f."J at
•~0\',li(•1 U-f '!'.fl 1:-nt:\•[ nt \111,)
l'ft•P•'I 1'1t ......,.~'Jl t,,r,\,'1.ol Ol;I WI
1,•<;h~,11 rv_; l,Hi:'t Th~ WO!.: l'°)i tJd.-.'t'.I
At mw r,1.)l(ll m•: ia:~I ,;{ trw
•;ll-.;( ~ U
' ! !):l i(if
n ti
l"=l 11,1s1r;,111urll) ~~!\~~,
-Mir:t trx:,tf~ld
W~'O"f
l1;$i;-J OillD't-)•H ._._.,th i:1'i CrY tt dl>H~ A=':•Jf rn;ur!f:S.* \'l a\i ,\h~ !,O t"i',lp\;,;(f: !) p!1\,tl,') {)f u','.' tftM.•r \';Im dlr: 'l..)I .M~ &Uti ~\ti ;k..,ng the F.mr)tt,y~
1=r;~ 1-.out
p')I!;'() W•.!?~ c.,il~
~,-...1 i,1:,r,1 ,1:1r.1notM t('I <11:lrHJ, ,.; i •1~!1ltr:!"J t,') l."'" d:L""e! 11N {0 :1e!:o:i,;~
(iJ1tl~-: , v1, i<"'.:~ llft'!j,~•r"
It"= ,r,0st rc'{.~'1l iite1C!!n< N;:)~ or, ,':~di '6th \1.:~"l:>~ tt•ree l':'~b <"rr:r.\:,~.,-~:. .:.'Pre ri11ent; ri. ,_1"'nr., on
r;1..;t"l(; ro,r;ds, 1h•! IJH(,"t.-1: ,,, ti"':' O'Cl'.~f 'hlll'e-:;c:-,w ti·~ dt-r-10 C••11~, j'i'.rr,...'d f.UVJ !t:-llo-,'.el! ;l'h,~11 1.)1,r;rl•') ,,,~
:1111,,'(" 1/1(': citw •>' J~tl,1 ('r<'f!l~~q(.: clairn 10 r'l-l'i~! ·. ucm ,\ ,\'l11w A,or,1. wt1;,;1, .:,t orw p,:i.r-t 11iqcst..,1..'d tt"1' T"r•~li~ ,;,de <.·c.•fl1'.;1on ~-c~::n,;~ •:·~~h.~n 1 he
fP.!l';.I (.'ff\'/Vi:;!':•:ccri\!tlft":•J 1,,11),,)Ui;n l"141 :t.t-7 J;htA{;,Qr"'!;h~(.i lt: .. ,.\i.;t.r.a t.rd ~o'leJ :ht K SI!~ dt-:':~l!l!
hn.,,1 •fJ f'! lt-'4 ~1\,_)\..,.<'CQC- 4• lht• f)tll!~H\, )I l;;ch,i'l>"?-0' :.:,·::..:aro~ •Hi.a
,,,o
l.vtc~·
,-.-,~,J~~' !!tirti ,._•oc•>,1r:~1;.,,~j tht: cur-.-c, ~o *dl'wt ~b:q •;;dh 1t ,>~d r.tC:,t)~..? !'Jl)d~~ ,,...,~i.ts t.J, :; to lt?:i,1 :,:;' .!1h1 "i}i:11..(• :1\
fmm ¢fib<-
r-,,,. ~-·•<'!\·~ 1'."to U4. ~-.,1o1; !'."IL;'
Y!)C 1:11,1!,: i!'i".:l•;:J4.'S CC"C':alltJl1tJfl9 frc,n !l':t./t r.¥ J.(><;:)I) c:1np!:Jy~'3. 111(-;lud=f'/) 11-.:,:;,l't;()l(;l>ol f•~ilc 1y
;J:1,~ter .('J:\ct 1!·•~· ll.li-!~ i..'1,\Pk:°';C-<·:. :J;J,0 ·.•t;:t (:(
Al d lhis ,11fc"rnaf,.._,n i.;; .:..iA'ff·'d by le'".i c\ :n tlh• {,b~:J. .:;.rl{S 11cb¢dt hMi tlrtn f~...;-~ f.,.,_ry i;.,I :11~:,1 l'J,m•·...
:r'IC"I ~.n~<:11t1Ut;1' 1:h()f1.Jt!~ t!w µon! ('If U·t• f,',WJ! 61;t fc~l.)\'tl.t» t:10.nt...•d 1•ll'J ter':',:;r;.1r..ryc,,1!rtJ11111)o(d('f b,;,;crJ c.-n., ~O<"~r'.J~ ti•r:-.t 01 ·••olNiC't- 01 !>13u1r.:.1• It 1rqu:tr:s 1h-1t th<" l,1ft,"'I of U1c- :.11:01-1 sia;•
lDi.l )....:~1d:,; r,w;;,7 hc-fn u-~ le-:J.l fa,~u"Mvard les'!t ;•-,a•~·r. uw,s U,t\!I !a1ll•ds. hir!·fmm !1,flowr,qrn
f,~'n ~rr.p:~/f.--.::!l Cf Ctrrtl~l fli.• ! IP.f lc..;l,) vt:.htC f• w1t!1rtM1t•JfoCliitl'f pliitr.-1 1h:m111t1 t-:ay
7th T•,sl,l c-<1q•n,;i~ ft""'f'Jt'51cd th•J "'~e• en~ IC! Ar11, :!100 tllt! (Joy r;t r(":-;t,1:~ ,:.•.JtC,~:,iy lf"l'l,'SIOi
lnW",f,•)('I~.,,. t--;~h~ 'In':~:. Tr,..tl ,f',0m,;1:d t>') ff" "'~ll'I··~ 1n Ii"\' t,::1,•bt··1 J;t(~.1. i1l ~1{'-;1110 fN .-1,1 •••l'r-;t:crnrn:!-=· cwr.:.t dr ·..-• ar<')IJl"ld n.-ar tt.e •~3 r.1c-1C!yon Mor.d:11. ::.,,,'-f'r1r1it -;~l-1ti·J Cl) 1uer'e-~ .·,1UTr.•~l,{l ,.~·l'~t
LpC-i,tl• ?l'slt.i CEO f:h11'1 t.-his'- hos :~\f.-l}rtde: ,,L~ m ~- U-(J>t~r.t,~~•t;<"<'1~,t1;:r -....1\h WI\;,;)•,, ,\::c,"'.::~,t~a,<"h ..,o
fJe,tr~k's' Ta•->'
L()(.'it. Its lf..)$CrMblc (c, (h•!r~.• lo~ 111utt1r;f(• ~~f':t'l-Oll13 ;;iti(}U'! r,•.sl(J {lr)(.1 ;ht~it m1s~w,:,11 ti'!("!( l'li'! t'-'tS~--1m9ht hdd m1..J11ple or,::0111ple~ op•tl-JOf; abotN fe.sl~ afl 0:11hocrc-....,1 M~~>yhe SC\f:itt"Qne Jc-,-e5: u·t1'!:!rs
bli! not !hf t.'Cmpm1v. tr.:,yt::t .S\)ll'\t.'Of'ie- l,J\-C:S H· ~ c-ompo.r,y 31.(.1 ~:<·,YHi1"'tj-Obt~in ,t n~}l>O oon~
d~Stl 1 ~~ Ir.Cl: C"OfS OI (NI (!i":-Oug!"! tt;(tt!.(!_ pamt,~p;obON't hil'/~;'11 U!r/i;!! N"r'.' ) O! th,,. romt,.,'lny 0
<,r d 1f~IO!f. 1rt~'(h-? t.om<"bo 5Jip:l m cur.1ome; !:er1'iceQu3f,ty t•~-<;ti•)
UJt,; ;n £-f'l1J}k'r,~ ~
Sul II i$ I.Cl lf:'~;;O(t.f.ib~! 10 t11t1 m 1pl \() CiU~ •! t'.tU (' OU1s,r1-.,, l'>ti.:.:!\I~ y.:-u !°'..)~ an dPCX:Rtvp1ic •/IS(,Jfl l)f
J''nUf!O~lf WJlfl!I,~ :1 tfuSO~() a~1·n ~! ~l b:;.s:,'1:~~"'.:.1n
;:mi c,wl'I lik-1!
tor Qu;te 'i(;f:le til'T\C' th-)1 trer!J' ilr~ a b t ot j:).(1Q would ll( !!i to
It-5!,l foil lhta resistance :o i:"V6 '/;3$ t!JDt ctrhHt Md ll'IQSl
,, :i ~ ck:,3,
~
~ •.x-tfu! mt!1:r;uy m !!':e wa.!<1 J l~l-t'.:\ 10 Ir:~!' nut ~gr.1W.;tthtt-1 .f t•r...."<.:t uc t".iJJS :.:•+"i;t..l:-i! 9.·,;:;l'll1rw.:
p-owl".fl!'d C':il(1 n\13, 11.!'W s l O a~ ~f i~rt'IMQ1)nCJa r,(Jl111i:::.il po.;C'l!ln!) Md ;o.irn1 h-1-,.~-vr,v Wtl'vf:
a 1C)l •~I lh,s &tffiSJ".'el\'
t,(',¥{'!!-d
https://electrek.co/2019/04/20/tes la-shorts-threaten-accidents-restraining-order/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
t()l\1~·11110
Page 60 I
j

https ://e lectrek.co/2019 /04/20/tes Ia-shorts -th reaten-accide nts- restra i ni ng-orde r/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
fJ
Page 61 RESPONDENT RANDF.F.P HOTHl'S MOTION FOR FEES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Exhibit F
Page 62 , I C ·" 10(11 I)(!.•,
f(j'J1e.~.~.
..,-. I !.d. ,f11 ,n It:.
i.·.Cl~I
l,•;JJ)
EV R,wicw~
Scorch-•
What's Behind The Twisted
Tesla Short Seller Psyche?
c,.-..,,,...
rJVf'lrt111fil f'fllh
htl-tJ?f) J~)llllf
C r'!JI LU)' 1 ttc.,t b, n,11110,,,
rt·c>•1ln1y
O!'~;ir.i:;:,' OO!.l~C:, on f.:, l.',i•JE>:
HyC!,,lf'f:,,\'c.tr,s.
Wt1 iv r,1:11,u·q (hi nl ·•1!,ltl!1m:'i. '" ,ir~~r.d>f) 4t:P ·,n: ,::~ t"lir Ult"! r11:i;',1 4J'lor: ~Wlb~r!i rlr"d h1IP.r:=;
TI-,l'J -..o i!lr~.Oi..'y l,ni.lraC:...:-<: 0 'J~t-di."I ·n1~.ari •: f.i.;1fr~rt~'-! .1 1•~ rn.1,t•; '"1• ·'\I~, ,1·1d ..91)1~-"" ·.!!
H•,~ 012:a,rc 04•t>,t, l)r' er, TSU\ :;t;)rl<; l~d lhC:J :..:1 re;;
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/16/whats-behind -the-twisted-tesla-short-seller-psyche/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
H'ltdo,t
Page 63 ~
'.\,•.;,i
~~ Y.,'!fJ
!i 1 '•
·,·;iJl!"i
l.°:-
_,·y•.1,·\:.~-·• :,:·•• --r.f-,
TM Trmes .lHicl!! documen:s whn.1 mi~hl tms1 t>e caltoo a "'moveml!rH" dl!du::alC!d '.O
locmelly orga.ruzod (lh1J.s. it can't be caJlod a 'ccn.sp1racy"). bl.t ·Is
rner?"llbO~ d10 highl1/ moliYalfJet:ise.
dosiroyjng Tcsl~. ll 1:;n l
l"hid"l «hoy U!.o to gcnoratc crcd1b~0:-souri01!"'g ;m~•Tcsla oew5. ilefn!a
T!ic T~~:apllobes connt!'C:1 on Tw1ller l~rough a plarform cafod STSU.O [lhe O 15 s:ocf(
i:,:cha.l\ge nolahon lot .a company in bi;11n~r\.ptcy} kcordm9 10 tho fimes. -contribu:ors
t1,:.11do .1p rC!kll1t'.'h tlllN,s .tr.cO,\Wl!J lo pors.on.-J .n:o~mII And llbtilly wilh I;a om~ in ctu:ugo
Somo use e.:immoroal da1nb~So8S 10 t•M:k Tesla•lcaded $hips •tom San Fr~ncisco :o Europe
and China Some Im; exr.ert~ al aulomollvtt l"asrng or O.l!"l\.-erb:;le l>Ontl~ Som~ r@rx~sl
CI.JSklmrtr c,::;mp13,n1s .1bo Planel He 31Jd olhers 1:y over Tes:a lacil1ties ,r, small pJaoes. or ta~@ pldMtA'.'. 'tlili:h dmr.es,
looking ,o, ev1d&nc9 lha1 t.~e: c-cmpany·s oofi"-e1y figures don·1 add up Macnioe Prar.l:!t c14,rns
lhi.'lt 'l"csJa hlJS soma 52 pal1l1r,,g Jots all around tile US, f1tlod v-rith unsold voh,ctes This
modern-day b;un:.torml:!J ha5 1l\5PlrRd ii
leg,cm
ol 1rf11tr11ors, 1n11ep1d p1!ol.s who CiJll
ll'!arn!i!lvE!S IN Shorty A,r Fotce, or SAF lor sJitir1. ~nd proudly wear u shou!de, patch
cn,tJ
As IM Tirr,e.~ rePQr1s. STSLAQ may 0<.Nft 110 J'=acte,. bt.al ns ti~ro ,s Lawrance r-'oss1. t! mcroy
mao.i!]e! who poslod a :ste~c:ty Sltl!OrTI ct .anli-Tes\3 cmIc1es on S1!!ek1n9 .,-.ipha l,l'lder the
ha,,.cll& ~1m,1ana s~~p!ic t,nM l:lo,1 Mu~k t:ullo:ted him. Aftl:!t F'o!ii~•·s 1denhly -N""d5 revei:lled T1N1t:or 1ast JtJly_ Mush: pcrsooaPy callod lho invcslmonl compan~ he works for aM (so F0!ISI
c.:li11UT1S) 1h,eale11ed to .sue Fos51 lor delamtn on Mootalla S~epfic 1!1.sappe-'red trnm Saei(ing
l\.l~h.a ~r,Q Tw,tfcr M,,sW. ·..-,o,, lh,;. t,,s1 1ourld." Fos:,i loid lho ilmtis. but tl'lo 1ne>dC1nt
ger,e,aled more putJltcity ror STSLAO Th~ ar,li•Tesla narra\Ne '"'1s ge~Ing a 1o1 'TlCre
coverace lnon ii "'10uld have golle-11 ,f ~~k had kopt hts. big mou:h snut. whk:h is app.1re·itly
t~,on.:1 his capacity." .said F"0s.s.i
A tongue-Lrr-chi"!t:'k loo.if at some. of lhe !otces that could be out to cause trcublF? fr)r resl.l and
E!ct, Mi1sk ('rcu1u~: Amc1JCil11 AF)
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/16/whats-behind-the-twisted-tesla-short-seller-psyche/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
htilluring an SAF loijo ~ase<1 on a World War II ch,sign
lots. or !i'1mf! ol mem, do vx,:st
- Tosic ha:5 said lhill :noy a~o simply slagil'lg aroas lo, l111al aetivcry.)
Page 64 mal wofld, With po10011a.11y dangorci;s rosulls. A-s
rn~ Veomo
roportl:!d. c~"ilom;a res;dent
Flandeep Holh1, belre\"ec:J to be lhe human beh1C'd tr1e resl;1-bash1"g TWttfer account
-..::t51Ulbo05hko, has bOon is.sued a lemporary restrtlln,ng oraor a.her allogodly ttytng 10 causo
an ~CCJdenl during a Model 3 test dnve th81 dernonstmled ltie NaYiCJ.flte on Au:op lol tealure
Tes.Id says itil~ Wit.S:11'! tho 9iltHly's l1rst pn~ic.il c.o,~fruma~or, wilh cr,rn~ny om~loyoos hs
f~s~ wroto m •ls requo~t tor a returalnlng order
11'1 an lnad(trn m FMJrutt.ry 2019. R8Sp,Oltf1&nf hil Tes/;,~ 5ecuri!y empJoyH Tylet
James 'Nl'lh his- car as Mr. James ap~oac/lea Resportt!enl to aSk him ID Isa~ TQSII :s
pnvato ptoperty Mt. Tyler sutrert.'d m;ncr v~...,,,~~ ThB Re~~t dtd not stop and
!IL}o(J Jhe scc,1e, Tho hc()'kJnt Pc!iCA ~psrt,ncnt wo,o cd#od aod ttmvld on tl'le .1cm,u.
Tl'tB Dopaffmf11'11 lal8f ar.ef11pled ta 16.JUe RB5P,orrckmt .J Wilrnmg nollW of traspass. oot
was unYuCC6$.SIOI ~aun Rtt$p0/l(l(t(I/ Ila."> al/lOldml :mcf been ur1()()(;,:;1;1ralwe in
mooting M-1lh Fromc)(JI pottca off,co1s
Mare roccnrJ),'. an Apr,t 16. 2019, Respondent SliJlktld, hartJSSOO, and rodnngafD'd
/lhre• Tom smp/oy,,os} wll<> ""''' dtivmg on ll>e highway In • TftS/1KJwned Model WfflC:e Dea,1119 manufactumr ptlitBS ai:d ntowilBd with ca1n1ua equ:pmP.fl/. )l'l
pa,#a,lar. Jt,,jp,Jl!dcnl pursued ll>eso omp.'Oy..,. co lho ;;uMc highway lot abou/ m.iootes, vatio"sly drtving anond ul, beSl ct;,nge,ously Clo$O to th• •ct>JcJo ReSponcl6n/ swo"""1 so c/oso to lhe 5/do al the
T•sM 11111! 111-, vvh~•'s std•-colfision (t:tas/1) aw-,it1.V11.:a S1Jf11ty IBahJfd was tr,gge.1ild to
onga9e an emorgoncy- rnar.O'f.Jvor to avtM mo col/dlorl.
Eflf/M9•1 o,p,..,s. "Ralldeep a,.~ nos broll\er Gaga,, (who w<>t1ts tor VWJ aJloyocly also run
a Twitcer aa;.ounl 1'1ill trequenlty blasl.5 Musk aod Tes~. procla1m1ng lhe ccmpany·s Pte~otisly, use~ al~ Ink~ Iha Hom, C!Olh8f$ fo AQ\k11I aec:aunls thaf l'ltOdctrated 8 T6.',ls:ock subroddi1.· Tl\C Linl(odln Pf Ollie ol Aandccp's brolltor. Gag.1r, .:natu th.al ho works Jcr
ma nvol a1Jt01MkOt ilA a SYJ'Wot dAN(lO t~hnoklg1.~I. Ekm Mu:3k, i'lhl;!r di.,covering ln,51,
~~tQd, -"This iS o:icttomo,y trn)sstd up. @\/W. what's going onr
Sunon Al..,nroz:. wril1ng in To,J1raU, no:es thot tho reil.1-wortd act,vitios dosaibod
1n Tesla'!!
reMJa11..ng ordttr rtl'qur..• appear lo have been ir.l!ifH~ by ao eM~r d•S(:U:H,ion \n the
vehlctecras.tied
no 'r..\in.1ng Cl~ or no
hi
['I
l'l :it. ijlt·•J
lolkrr,
H(rl"II (Of .....~o, /8"'itobcoS."1J(~ )I~ uroao:01111Hi 'I 'ol'J 11 t'G re!t:
ft\O 1UI (.1t1\t .nc..,I.
~rs, is :. ZVfO •J ':(J,r,r.,u!k ,¥,fl QU
Pfr.li'IJrl.
https :// clea ntech nica .co m/2019 /05/ 16/whats-be hi nd-the-twi sted-te sla-short-seller-psyche/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
STSI.AO onr.ne community. When OC)Slll som& of oi.s ,o,.owerg sugge&led dit.rupttng me lest dnva by braJCJng in 1roru ol the vehicle
and intonbona11y S"Wotving ~tn Its lane - !.Otflfl also Jr,kt.d Iha.I it would bl;I t1..1nny it the
Page 65 RESPONDENT RAND EEP HOTHl'S MOTION FOR FEES
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
Exhibit G
Page 66 r;ngadget-
~
JrolJtodortldo
Late::;t In Gear
f
.,
"'

l.oo),n
Q
Tesla accuses investor of harassing and
stalking its workers
.............. -......,. ..-
\&
~-V
HONDA
.lih••1;J'.0\11,.'j'<•••••
tll\l
n•:l~t
:-
Sponsored links
••
;W·t ~
r\.·
r\.•.;h .)[d Ek,11 .\1u:::.l.. h,l',l:tl: 1wi.:11 tin-;nr pl.'op;t! <:,hr,rt .,ellm~l-,.,11,p;my
·•l•:~·:.. (
..
~ppJu:·nriv h.w,~
i'!-\lt;i
w.1.,
l".:"i.:.nn ro he•
p;Hllo1>1r. d1P hV 11?:ikt.·r
pJ; IJy ~l I,·',.p\!'.l'l~ Pl lL,,n. ~~ni: tJJf'\'
\"i'l"'H1C\t .1l1:"!t1t
<1·1t· ~11,)Jt s,-:\..-1 in
• a •,; 1 mp,ir.lf•; r•''!i:r.1!0H'b, .1hh r
h;::,; c
:1c-1:11S1 lt:111.th· 't> 1k! hi :t:)t'f :i•"•"IJsi:?~ lh, .. m,m \)r r,mtiH<'iJ rbP:lh';:in~
qilff, U•: (r:pnn,:Jlr h11;.:11;.•J
1n1 • l,.1Jl-.!!11.o01t.ll.lt;i
I •,,l"r ,p1( rn.1tlt,»l~1 tLJn•
\~J _.)h'tllt
J
:1-i
,,~i.:u:jt~ ,~r:1;d :1l l"t -..1.,·s FH.··uc~ilt :.,~ t:•r:. ,·~)th
/fr., c:~, in r..:L1ru.uy ,1lt1·: Jh.' .·.-.1~ ,; 1.!°l\.\.'t! hi l. .·.n ~ !Ii'-' p,,1~,11~; lc11, ,111d ,in :\jiri.
li'.:h ·a,1li<.C"1~ ;' I 1-\l,1 :,.vn1·:! \1r~,k! "J
(~•)!!ll
\·.'lu-r,e h,·
;w1~1d
·
f,:.
"35 rrmuh ~ !>n tht f:,-,".,·,w rt, tht:
r: 1T(1•,l 111•' -\l Wlf' ,i. -iUh)l11,ll! • dlkt,:o;l•l~cr Jl1~\::1·•··~· •r tu
cn!,;~u.n.
l~;ui..h~L [l .:n rw:n~--r ,!(CoHr.l th.If fre..1uL~n1 ly bi.1·,1•.: ~.-111,I... .111d I't•-,1;;, ;rn:1 Liimu:g I h1•
r~1n11pany·•.:.t.!c:1m1. P1t.•\;'i1)u5ly, ~;1..:t•r~.>:1:-... -
lh,, Jkihi br<1tl1N:, I, H:1ddH
_ic c1};mt,; ~h.11 rnn llcrh1 h.;),n·: ~h] l'c· 11 ·;. h:qtH"C:t fo1 'l loni,;:t_·c•l;,~I 1r~;,; (,Hh\r ~ ... •·,dll':thllt."d fc,t \1.,y 7th.
•;..:tl;..
d ll·.1~~;r•I ~,b,111t tb· u:-.t, 1i1~1nt~ 1)1ik~, ! 1u• CFO ..;1ici IW'd •·H!\"t.'f •n~•.•
;1~ 1 ;:1'~mJ~l1kPH 1 ,it1d ~-i:l~ 1;,if11,•d ~h:it hr•1·sl,u, Lkr-H11lhi \\ulll:1 ·,•:.mr tht~
https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/22/tesla-short-seller-accused-of-threats/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
-=
Page 67 t'\Tns:r,I :mo1 1:1dnm;·e't,·, 1n1f'{'U-ro·1-1h• t h,m '•JJ;f'I YJt ti\;.'1.t u.,
111• ·~Jrh1, ,~11:•ln ~~1.:0'• i,,~~tttr ,.1fu,.o;h. H J lhL') rrtt.r,,·lrd In
Tnt,1,•mrlo ·r~111ph\~tc;1id.;1J!"'t.:f 1' thci,1.llfn,.>rr.a 1:11rar,· 1t:1-m
~:II,: ,.n,h,1t\\u11U i-.rTi~l.1 gr. ln• -1 nnt,:Jw.,1,,
,,.
J
·.,, -n ~r ~ u ,111,r,,nJ ~,, .I. 1~11,1 I 1\1 • !J;,tf1.1J JI rn1-1• u L' t1;lt r.
c..n; \ 4::_',1r }llTN'l;r 1;,t :• ll<..flnfut.;r11rfl)f ,i lfu,· .i.u '" ~t•lul
,.,t;y ~ '~\I f1J."t1 -., ~ l.,-.
https ://www .engadget.com/2019/04/22/tesla-s hort-sel!er-accused-of-threats/
AA
Document received by the CA 1st District Court of Appeal.
1 ~ • l t;,i1
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?