`
`Date: June 16, 2022
`
`Judge: EDWARD M. CHEN
`
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`Northern District of California
`CIVIL MINUTES
`Time: 1:27-1:54
` 27 Minutes
`
`Case Name: In re Tesla Inc. Securities Litigation v.
`Case No.: 18-cv-04865-EMC
`Attorneys for Plaintiff: Nicholas Porritt, Adam Apton and Adam McCall
`Attorney for Defendant: Kathleen Sullivan
`
`
`Deputy Clerk: Vicky Ayala
`
`
`
`
`
`Court Reporter: Teri Veres
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`Motion for Certificate of Appealability. - held
`SUMMARY
`
`
`Parties stated appearances.
`Pending before the Court were (1) Defendants’ motion for leave to seek
`reconsideration and (2) Defendants’ motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
` The motions had partial overlap on the issues of materiality and reliance. On these
`issues, the Court affirmed its earlier ruling in its summary judgment order. The
`statements at issue were false and made with scienter but the Court left the issue of
`whether the statements were material (which also impacts reliance) for the jury to
`decide. The Court rejected Defendants’ argument that the issue of factual falsity and
`materiality had to be decided in tandem. A statement can be factually false but not
`material.
` Defendants’ motion for an interlocutory appeal also raised the issue of “whether the
`Court must consider the forum of the statement (in this case Twitter) when assessing
`whether the statement was materially misleading.” Mot. at 2. Here Defendants failed
`to show a substantial ground for a difference of opinion. As Plaintiff noted in his
`papers, “[s]ection 10(b) and SEC Rule 10(b)-5 are clear that it is unlawful to make
`‘any untrue statement of a material fact’”; “the plain meaning of the word ‘any’ in
`statute provides no limitation of coverage of the securities laws to formal regulatory
`filings [–] [t]here is no carve out for tweets.” Opp’n at 8.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-04865-EMC Document 446 Filed 06/16/22 Page 2 of 2
`
` Defendants’ motion for leave to seek reconsideration further raised a factual
`challenge – in essence, contending that the Court must have overlooked certain record
`evidence since it was not discussed in the Court’s order. But a court is not required to
`address each and every piece of record evidence in a summary judgment order. See
`Zuno v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-2392, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104629, at *9
`(E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2009) (“The Court is not required to address every piece of evidence
`and/or testimony in its [summary judgment] opinion, and the fact that each item on
`Plaintiff's list was not specifically addressed in my memorandum does not mean that it
`was not appropriately considered.”); Paz v. Wauconda Healthcare & Rehab. Ctr., No.
`04 C 3341, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15689, at *8-9 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2005) (“[T]he
`court is not required to make specific reference to every piece of evidence it reviews
`and Paz incorrectly presumes to know exactly what evidence was considered by the
`court. The court gave a thorough consideration to all of the evidence submitted by
`both parties when rendering its decision.”). Furthermore, Defendants did not point to
`any critical evidence that the Court failed to provide express commentary on.
` Accordingly, Defendants’ motions for relief were both denied.
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
