Jury selection in Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI is set for Monday, and the damages figure at the centre of the dispute is enormous. The complaint, pared back on the eve of trial, proceeds only on claims of unjust enrichment and breach of charitable trust, and Musk is seeking as much as $134 billion and the restoration of OpenAI’s nonprofit structure. The trial will be heard by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, and the case is docketed as 4:24-cv-04722.

You may be wondering what to watch for if you follow high-profile litigation. Start with the calendar. Jury selection for the Musk v. Altman case is scheduled to begin on Monday in federal court in Oakland, and the case number to note is 4:24-cv-04722, according to a second source. If you want primary documents, the Northern District of California electronic docket or a court-record service will show filings and the official calendar.

Who is running the room, and why that matters

Point is, the case will be overseen by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. She has a reputation among lawyers who have appeared before her as a tight, no-nonsense trial judge who actively controls courtroom procedure, according to one account. Practitioners say she interrupts long-winded arguments, asks probing questions from the bench and enforces time and decorum in ways that make participants expect strict oversight.

Those descriptions come with small, telling details. At a recent hearing the judge paused for emphasis and asked counsel, "Do I make myself clear?" One account reports she also told lawyers, "Experts. Are not. Conduits. For factual. Information," a clipped formulation that communicates how she treats evidentiary discipline. Such interventions aren't theatrical. Lawyers say she insists the public's time is precious and treats parties equally regardless of wealth or status.

Procedural control is likely to shape the first days of the trial more than anything else. Early rulings on witness lists, on how expert testimony will be presented, and on the courtroom logistics that govern high-profile witnesses will narrow what jurors actually hear. One account notes that at a March hearing the judge directed that trial witnesses, including high-profile figures reported as a list that may include Microsoft’s CEO and former OpenAI executives, will enter the courthouse through the public entrance rather than special routes. The judge also ordered that the parties cover the jury’s lunch during deliberations rather than leave that cost to taxpayers. Those are practical instructions, but they also signal a bench that prefers predictability and even treatment.

What remains in dispute and what Musk is seeking

On the legal posture, Musk substantially narrowed his November 2024 complaint on the eve of trial. He abandoned his fraud claims and asked the court to streamline the litigation, leaving two claims to proceed to trial: unjust enrichment and breach of charitable trust. A second source reports that Judge Gonzalez Rogers granted that streamlining request. The trial will be presented in a two-phase format. Phase one will have a jury hear evidence and issue an advisory verdict on liability. Phase two will be reserved for the judge to hear argument and decide remedies.

Mastheads

The advisory jury verdict won't be binding on the judge.

The remedies Musk seeks are specific and large. He is asking for as much as $134 billion in damages to be directed to OpenAI’s charitable arm if he prevails. He also seeks a court order restoring the nonprofit structure he says OpenAI abandoned, and removal of Sam Altman and Greg Brockman from their roles as CEO and president respectively. Those requests will be presented to Judge Gonzalez Rogers in the remedies phase if the jury’s advisory verdict leaves live issues for the court to resolve.

OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman and Microsoft have denied wrongdoing and characterised Musk’s claims as baseless. A second source reports that OpenAI told the court it viewed the proposed remedies as an eleventh-hour surprise and likened the filings to a "legal ambush" as trial neared. Those denials and objections will be part of the phase-one record that the jury reviews, and they will form the backdrop to the judge’s phase-two decisions on what relief, if any, should be ordered.

The dispute is rooted in the organisation’s history. Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI in 2015, but he left the board in 2018 and later formed a rival AI company, xAI. The complaint alleges OpenAI abandoned its founding nonprofit mission when it accepted large investments from Microsoft and reorganised to a for-profit structure. OpenAI says those steps were lawful and properly disclosed. Musk previously made a $97.4 billion unsolicited bid to acquire the assets of the nonprofit that controls OpenAI, which OpenAI rejected. The company later completed its for-profit restructuring and fundraising plans. Those background facts frame the competing narratives you will hear in court.

Courtroom logistics and witness arrangements have already attracted attention. As noted, one account describes orders about public entry for witnesses and the parties paying for jury lunches. The same account quotes the judge recounting a personal anecdote, saying she once mowed lawns to pay for Princeton. It's offered as context for her straightforward courtroom persona. Those portraits and specifics about witness lists and logistics are currently single-source reporting, and they should be treated as such unless other outlets corroborate them.

All of the above matters because a judge who actively manages evidence and procedure can dramatically shape how a jury perceives complex claims about corporate structure and charitable trusts. The two-phase format also concentrates the factual contest in front of jurors, while reserving the remedy questions for the judge, who will ultimately decide whether any of Musk’s dramatic demands should be granted.

If you plan to follow day-to-day coverage, the practical step is simple. Track reports timed to the start of jury selection and the judge’s early rulings, since those initial decisions are likely to shape how witnesses and expert testimony are handled. For direct access, consult the Northern District of California electronic docket for filings and the official case calendar under 4:24-cv-04722.

Related Articles

The next concrete milestone is jury selection on Monday in federal court in Oakland, where the advisory phase for liability begins and the remedies requests will later be argued to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

This article was created with AI assistance.