Tesla, Inc. v. Proception, Inc.

Background

Tesla sued Zhongji “Jay” Li and Proception, Inc., alleging that they misappropriated trade secrets related to Tesla’s development of an autonomous humanoid robot internally called “Optimus.” Tesla asked for expedited discovery—discovery allowed before the usual schedule—to support its pending motion for a preliminary injunction.

Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), a court may allow expedited discovery when there is good cause to depart from the normal discovery process. The court considered whether a preliminary-injunction motion was pending, the breadth of the requests, the purpose of the discovery, the burden on the defendants, and how early the discovery was sought.

The court found that the pending preliminary-injunction motion and the timing of Tesla’s requests favored expedited discovery. It also found that Tesla had shown the discovery was sought to support the injunction motion, assess the scope of any possible injunction, and prevent further alleged misappropriation. But the breadth and burden of Tesla’s original requests weighed against granting them as proposed. In particular, the court agreed with defendants’ concerns about the meaning of “Tesla’s information” and “Tesla’s Proprietary Information,” as well as the original lack of limits on the devices and time periods to be searched.

The court stated that it was not addressing defendants’ arguments that Tesla’s claims lacked sufficient support or that Tesla had caused its own urgency. It also overruled as moot defendants’ objection to a supplemental declaration because the evidence already submitted was sufficient to justify some expedited discovery.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part Tesla’s motion for expedited discovery and ordered the following:

- Devices and locations: Defendants must search Li’s identified iPhone and Android phone, his current smartphone, his personal laptop, and Proception’s laptop. The search must cover local contents, Li’s personal and company email accounts, and Proception’s network or shared drives for documents created by Li. - Time period: The searches must cover documents and communications from June 1, 2024, through June 1, 2025, inclusive. - Requests for production: Request No. 1 was granted as modified; Request No. 2 was granted as modified; Request No. 3 was denied without prejudice; and Request No. 4 was granted as modified. The modified requests concern Tesla or Optimus SharePoint addresses, nonpublic information about Tesla’s Optimus project, and specified file names or paths, subject to the limits in the order. - Interrogatories: Interrogatory No. 1 was granted as modified and requires identification of people to whom Li disclosed nonpublic Optimus-related information outside his Tesla employment. Interrogatory No. 2 was granted as modified and requires identification of devices or storage locations containing covered documents or communications. Interrogatory No. 3 was denied without prejudice. - Depositions: Tesla may depose Li and take one deposition of a Proception representative under Rule 30(b)(6). The depositions are limited to documents produced in response to the modified requests, defendants’ answers to the modified interrogatories, and general questions about Li’s conduct relating to and following his departure from Tesla. The order also restricts questioning about matters for which defendants produced no responsive documents and about Proception’s product development.

Defendants’ written responses and document production were due July 21, 2025, with a privilege-log schedule specified in the order. The depositions were to occur during the week of August 4–8, 2025, and the parties were to meet afterward about supplemental briefing on Tesla’s preliminary-injunction motion.