A federal judge barred defendants in Musk v. Altman from questioning Elon Musk about ketamine use, based on the evidence before the court. The March 25, 2026 order did not find that Musk used ketamine; it limited what could be asked at trial because the record lacked other evidence supporting the proposed inquiry or explaining the drug’s effects.
What the judge ruled
In a March 25, 2026 pretrial order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Musk’s motion to exclude questions about his ketamine use. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wrote that a supposed memory lapse connected to ketamine during negotiations with OpenAI might be relevant, but defendants pointed to no other record evidence suggesting Musk had used ketamine or explaining its effects. Read the court’s order.
“The Court agrees with Musk that defendants may not inquire into Musk’s ketamine use because, although any supposed lapse in memory resulting from ketamine during Musk’s negotiations with OpenAI may be relevant, defendants could not point to other evidence in the record that suggests that Musk used ketamine or that could explain the effects of ketamine.”
What the ruling does—and does not—establish
This was an evidentiary ruling about proposed questioning in this case, not a factual finding about Musk’s medical history. The judge did not determine whether Musk used ketamine, and the order does not impose a general restriction on questions about his personal life. It sets a trial-evidence limit based on the record then before the court.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
Why other personal topics were treated differently
The order did not exclude every personal topic Musk sought to keep out of the case. The court found several subjects relevant to issues the parties were litigating, while warning that excessive questioning could become unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The order treated the topics as follows:
- Shivon Zilis: The court found Musk’s relationship with Zilis relevant to her credibility and her role as a conduit between Musk and OpenAI.
- Burning Man: His attendance at the 2017 event was relevant to questions about his attention during negotiations said to have taken place in the same period.
- Political activities: The court found these relevant to whether Musk tried to use political power against competitors.
Those topics were not unrestricted invitations to probe. The court cautioned that questioning about any of them could cross into undue prejudice if it went too far.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How this fits into the OpenAI case
The pretrial order addressed what evidence and questioning could be presented in Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and related defendants. The dispute concerns Musk’s allegations about OpenAI’s move away from its nonprofit roots and the parties’ earlier dealings. The ketamine ruling did not decide whether those allegations are true. Contemporary Bloomberg Law coverage described the practical limit on questioning by OpenAI’s lawyers; later Associated Press trial coverage also distinguished the excluded ketamine inquiry from the permitted topics of Burning Man attendance and Musk’s relationship with Zilis.
Quick Recap
Rank #3
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →
