Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallShort answer: In an October 1, 2025 deposition, OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever said he had considered removing Sam Altman for “at least a year.” He also immediately said that calling this a year-long “plan” was inaccurate because removing Altman had not seemed feasible until the board’s composition changed. The testimony supports a long-running effort to document and evaluate concerns—not proof of a fully scripted, year-long firing operation by the entire board.
What the deposition actually establishes
Sutskever appeared as a nonparty witness in Elon Musk et al. v. Samuel Altman et al., Northern District of California case 24-cv-04722-YGR. The publicly available material is a transcript excerpt from his October 1, 2025 deposition, not necessarily the complete deposition. The copy circulating online is labeled “Highly Confidential” and reproduces excerpts with deposition pagination reaching at least page 352: transcript excerpt.
A magistrate judge’s October 17, 2025 order authorized a second deposition about Sutskever’s financial interest and the separate “Brockman memo.” An October 28 order directed the parties to file the excerpt publicly with limited proposed redactions. Those orders matter because they show that disclosure and credibility issues were still being litigated; they do not establish that every portion of Sutskever’s testimony is public or independently verified.
The strongest supported conclusion is narrower than the headline: Sutskever had accumulated concerns and considered whether Altman should be removed for at least a year, while waiting for board circumstances that made action possible.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
“At least a year” does not mean a year-long operational plan
Questioning focused on how long Sutskever had been planning to propose removing Altman. Sutskever rejected that wording, saying “planning” was the wrong word because removal had not appeared feasible. He then said he had been considering it for at least a year and confirmed that answer when asked to clarify.
| Proposition | What the testimony supports |
|---|---|
| Sutskever considered removing Altman for at least a year | Yes; he said this directly under oath. |
| A detailed firing plan existed for at least a year | Not established; Sutskever expressly qualified “planning.” |
| Every independent director participated in a year-long scheme | Not established. |
| The November 17 execution was arranged a year in advance | Not established; Sutskever described the execution as rushed. |
| Sutskever waited for a board majority not obviously friendly to Altman | Supported by his testimony. |
This distinction changes the most defensible description of the episode. It points to a long accumulation of concerns and preparation for a possible governance intervention, not a confirmed script with a fixed date, succession plan and communications strategy.
The 52-page memo at the center of Sutskever’s account
Sutskever testified that OpenAI’s independent directors asked him to prepare a 52-page memo compiling evidence about Altman’s management. He recalled that Adam D’Angelo was the director most likely to have made the request, although he could not remember precisely. He also said he discussed the subject matter with D’Angelo, Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley.
What the memo contained
- Screenshots and “a large number of small pieces” of evidence concerning Altman’s management.
- A first-page characterization that Altman showed a “consistent pattern” of lying, undermining executives and setting executives against one another.
- Sutskever’s contemporaneous view that termination was the appropriate action.
Sutskever confirmed that the quoted characterization reflected his view at the time. It remains an allegation and assessment in an internal memo, not a court finding that Altman lied or committed misconduct.
Rank #2
Why it was sent covertly
The memo went to the independent directors rather than to Altman or the full company. Sutskever said he did not send it to Altman because he believed Altman would find a way to make the discussions disappear. He used disappearing email because he feared the material could leak. The testimony therefore describes deliberate evidence gathering and secrecy, but it does not show whether each screenshot was independently corroborated, whether the memo was the board’s principal basis for acting, or how its claims compared with other directors’ records.
The “Brockman memo” referenced in the court’s October 17 order is a separate item. The available testimony does not establish that it was the same document as Sutskever’s 52-page memo.
Why board composition was the trigger
Sutskever said he was waiting for circumstances in which a majority of the board was no longer “obviously friendly with Sam.” He connected the opening to a sequence of rapid board departures, but said he did not remember exactly who left or why.
That account suggests the issue was not a spontaneous reaction to one event on November 17, 2023. In Sutskever’s telling, board composition was a practical prerequisite: concerns could be documented earlier, but removal required a governing majority willing to act. His testimony does not prove that the directors formed a unified bloc, adopted a formal trigger or agreed years in advance on a replacement.
What happened on November 17, 2023?
OpenAI announced on November 17, 2023, that its board had removed Altman, saying he had not been consistently candid in communications with the board. A contemporaneous memo from COO Brad Lightcap, reported by Axios on November 18, said the decision was not based on financial, business, safety, security or privacy misconduct, but on a breakdown in communication between Altman and the board.
Sutskever’s later testimony adds a broader private context: he believed Altman’s management relationships and truthfulness were serious problems, and he had assembled a memo for directors. But the testimony does not prove that the board’s public explanation was knowingly false. It shows that the internal concerns may have been more extensive than the short public statement, while leaving the legal and factual significance contested.
Long-running concern, rushed execution
Sutskever retrospectively described the removal process as rushed because the board was inexperienced in board matters. That creates the central tension in the record:
- The concerns and documentation developed over at least a year, according to Sutskever.
- The board waited for favorable governance dynamics rather than acting when the concerns first arose.
- The actual removal process was hurried and lacked a clearly established succession plan.
- Employees strongly resisted the decision, and the board ultimately agreed to resign while Altman returned within days.
The most coherent reading is deliberate motivation paired with improvised execution.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesThe Anthropic proposal: important, but easy to overstate
Sutskever testified that he knew of a proposal around Saturday, November 18, 2023—the day after Altman’s removal—for OpenAI to merge with Anthropic and for Anthropic to take over leadership of the combined organization. He recalled a later call with Dario Amodei, Daniela Amodei and at least one other Anthropic participant.
He was unsure whether Toner contacted Anthropic or Anthropic contacted Toner. He remembered Anthropic expressing excitement while raising practical challenges, and said he was unhappy with the idea. He testified that the discussions ended extremely briefly after those obstacles arose.
This is not evidence of a completed merger, a binding offer or an identified transaction structure. Sutskever did not specify the obstacles, and “merger” may be shorthand for a proposed combination or leadership arrangement. The account is significant because it shows how quickly the board explored alternatives after removing Altman, but its commercial and legal details remain unclear.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the deposition does not prove
- It does not prove every allegation in the 52-page memo.
- It does not prove that all independent directors agreed with Sutskever for a year.
- It does not prove that the November 17 firing was fully scripted a year in advance.
- It does not prove that Anthropic made a binding offer or agreed to buy OpenAI.
- It does not prove that the board’s 2023 public explanation was knowingly false.
- It does not establish that the decision was driven by one issue such as AI safety, the Q* project, commercialization or financial misconduct.
- It does not establish that Sutskever was an unbiased narrator. He acknowledged retaining a financial interest in OpenAI, and his lawyer instructed him not to quantify it.
The court treated the value of that interest as potentially relevant to bias and ordered further testimony on the subject in its October 17 order. That context does not invalidate his account, but readers should weigh it alongside the fact that the testimony came nearly two years after the events and during litigation.
Best Value
Why this matters for governance and investors
Internal documentation is not the same as proven misconduct
A board memo can show what a director believed, what evidence he collected and what action he recommended. It cannot, by itself, establish that every allegation was true. Directors, employees and investors need the underlying messages, corroboration and responses before treating a management indictment as an adjudicated fact.
Board secrecy has preservation costs
Disappearing email may reduce the risk of leaks, but it can also make later reconstruction difficult. In a dispute involving a powerful founder-CEO, missing records complicate accountability for everyone: the directors who acted, the executive who was removed and investors assessing whether governance controls worked.
Succession planning is part of removal authority
The episode illustrates the danger of removing a high-profile chief executive without a ready transition plan. Even if directors have legitimate concerns, a rushed process can trigger employee revolt, destabilize customers and leave the board searching for alternatives immediately afterward.
Nonprofit control does not eliminate corporate politics
OpenAI’s unusual nonprofit-controlled structure placed major strategic and personnel decisions in a board whose composition and experience mattered enormously. Sutskever’s account highlights how informal trust relationships, director departures and perceived alliances can become decisive governance factors even when the formal authority to remove a CEO is clear.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Timeline of the evidence
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 17, 2023 | OpenAI announced that its board had removed Altman, citing inconsistent candor in communications. |
| November 18, 2023 | Sutskever placed the Anthropic merger-and-leadership proposal around this date. |
| Later in the week of November 17–22, 2023 | According to Sutskever, the board agreed to resign and Altman was restored. |
| October 1, 2025 | Sutskever gave the deposition. |
| October 17, 2025 | The court authorized a second deposition concerning his financial interest and the Brockman memo. |
| October 28, 2025 | The court ordered public filing of the deposition excerpt with limited redactions proposed by OpenAI. |
Bottom line: what changed?
The deposition strengthens the case that Sutskever’s concerns about Altman were developing well before November 2023 and that he helped create a documentary record for independent directors. It also reveals a governance calculation about waiting for a board majority capable of acting.
But Sutskever’s own qualification is decisive: “planning” was the wrong word. The evidence does not establish a fully developed, board-wide, year-long coup. It describes a year-long accumulation and consideration of concerns that culminated in a rushed, unstable removal attempt and an almost immediate search for alternatives.
Quick Recap
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.
