Even as the case between Elon Musk and OpenAI is progressing, interesting discoveries about the evidence from both sides are being made known to the public at large.
Court documents filed January 15, 2026, in the Northern District of California reveal previously private writings by OpenAI co-founder and president Greg Brockman that show internal tensions over the company’s structure during a critical period in 2017. The documents, part of the discovery process in Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, include what the filing describes as Brockman’s personal files—entries that Musk’s legal team refers to as a “diary.”
The Core Allegation
Musk’s lawsuit centers on allegations that he was induced to fund OpenAI as a nonprofit organization, only for the company to later transition to a for-profit structure. The newly revealed documents shed light on internal deliberations about this potential shift during a period when, according to the court filing, OpenAI’s leadership was publicly reaffirming their commitment to the nonprofit model.
September 2017: Seeking Independence
The documents show that by September 2017, Brockman was contemplating OpenAI’s future structure and relationship with Musk. In his personal files, Brockman wrote about wanting to move beyond Musk’s involvement and questioned whether Musk was the leader he would choose. He also considered the financial implications of various structural arrangements, according to the court filing.
This is the only chance we have to get out from Elon. Is he the “glorious leader” that I would pick? We truly have a chance to make this happen. Financially, what will take me to $1B? . . . Accepting Elon’s terms nukes two things: our ability to choose (though maybe we could overrule him) and the economics.
November 2017: Internal Conflicts
After Brockman and Sam Altman had reassured Musk of their commitment to OpenAI’s nonprofit structure, Brockman met with fellow co-founder Ilya Sutskever on November 6, 2017. Following that meeting, Brockman documented his thinking about pursuing a benefit corporation structure instead of remaining a pure nonprofit.
According to the court filing, Brockman wrote that he and Sutskever could not say they were committed to the nonprofit form, expressing concern that doing so would constitute dishonesty if they pursued a benefit corporation structure shortly thereafter.
Brockman acknowledged feeling conflicted about the situation, writing that the leadership wanted Musk out of the organization. He anticipated that any move toward a for-profit structure would result in significant conflict, particularly given that OpenAI operated from office space Musk controlled.
conclusion is we truly want the b-corp. honestly we also want to get back to work, but it’s not super clear how we get there…cannot say that we are committed to the non-profit. don’t want to say that we’re committed. if three months later we’re doing b-corp then it was a lie…not feeling so great about all of this. the true answer is that we want [Musk] out.” can’t see us turning this into a for-profit without a very nasty fight. i’m just thinking about the office and we’re in the office. and his story will correctly be that we weren’t honest with him in the end about still wanting to do the for profit just without him.
The Moral Question
Perhaps most significantly for Musk’s case, Brockman’s notes from this period show him grappling with the ethical dimensions of converting OpenAI’s structure. After the November 6 meeting with Musk—during which leadership had affirmed their nonprofit commitment—Brockman reflected that it would be wrong to convert the organization to a benefit corporation without Musk’s involvement, describing such an action as morally problematic.
another realization from [this meeting] is that it’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. to convert to a b-corp without him. that’d be pretty morally bankrupt. and he’s really not an idiot
Days later, however, Brockman wrote about the financial appeal of a for-profit structure and noted that the leadership had been considering making such a transition.
it would be nice to be making the billions” and explained that “we’ve been thinking that maybe we should flip to a for profit.
Legal Implications
These documents appear central to Musk’s argument that OpenAI’s leadership was not acting in good faith regarding the company’s nonprofit mission. The entries suggest that even as Brockman and Altman were reassuring Musk of their commitment to the nonprofit structure, they were actively exploring alternatives.
The tension documented in Brockman’s files—between acknowledging the moral problems with converting the organization without Musk while simultaneously desiring both his departure and the financial benefits of a for-profit structure—may prove significant as the litigation proceeds.
OpenAI did eventually transition to a hybrid structure with a for-profit subsidiary capped by a nonprofit parent organization, a move that has drawn scrutiny from various quarters beyond this lawsuit.
What’s Next
The case continues to unfold in federal court, with both sides presenting evidence about the nature of the original agreements, the expectations set for donors and founders, and the circumstances surrounding OpenAI’s structural evolution. Brockman’s testimony and these contemporaneous writings are likely to feature prominently in arguments about whether OpenAI fulfilled its original commitments to Musk and other early supporters.
As discovery continues, additional evidence from both sides may further illuminate the decision-making process that led to one of the most influential AI research organizations transforming from Musk’s original vision into its current form.