This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D entered into a consent decree with P. The consent decree required D’s compliance with 'procedures implemented by Tesla' regarding corporate communications, including those 'made in any format, including, but not limited to, posts on social media (e.g., Twitter).' The Tesla communications policy in turn required that covered communications would be subject to a pre-approval process such that certain senior executives, including Musk, would not be 'authorized to post or publish' without first consulting with Tesla's General Counsel or an in-house securities lawyer. At first the decree covered information material to [Tesla] or its shareholders. Later, the parties amended the agreement to replace the materiality standard with a list of specified subjects. The consent decree also required certification of compliance in the form of written reports and provided that the SEC 'may make reasonable requests for . . . evidence of compliance.' D agreed to 'provide such evidence.' P's subpoenas that gave rise to this litigation were anticipated by D.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.