01 / DOCUMENTED RECORD

What the sources establish

The appeal concerned CRD’s authority to demand information, not whether those allegations were true. SpaceX’s jurisdictional challenge failed. [1]

The opinion was filed August 11 and certified for partial publication September 9; news coverage followed September 10. [1][2]

02 / RESPONSE & OUTCOME

The other side of the record

SpaceX argued Washington law governed. Its declaration attributed the firing to confidentiality violations and dishonesty in an internal investigation. [1]

03 / CONTEXT

What this does not establish

SpaceX is the defendant in this appeal. Neither this opinion nor the report establishes Musk’s personal liability.

04 / CHRONOLOGY

Key dates

  1. Employee complains to CRD. [1]

  2. Opinion affirms subpoena enforcement. [1]

  3. Partial-publication order. [1]

05 / READ THE SOURCES

Check the record yourself

A source link may require a subscription. A news report about a filing is labeled as reporting; it is not presented as the filing itself.

  1. Primary · opinion and publication orderPublished: Sep 9, 2026
    CRD v. SpaceX, B346853; August 11 opinion and September 9 publication order ↗

    California Court of Appeal

  2. ReportingPublished: Sep 10, 2026
    September 10 workplace reporting ↗

    San Francisco Chronicle