S4 H3: OpenAI CEO Dismissal

Military defense attorney Jocelyn Stewart looks at the federal court ruling that dismissed, with prejudice, the civil lawsuit Ann Altman filed against her brother, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, alleging years of childhood sexual abuse. Sam Altman has denied the allegations. The headlines said the case ended because she refused a mental health examination, so Jocelyn pulled the court filings to see what actually happened.

She walks through what she found: a stipulation in which both sides agreed to the examination, and the judge's findings about three missed examinations, unanswered and unverified interrogatories, missed deadlines and violated court orders. She also explains how Federal Rule 35 examinations work, and how the same question plays out in military courts, where a judge generally cannot order a complaining witness to undergo a mental health examination.

Forbes has reported on the judge's dismissal of the lawsuit.

Her law firm's website also explains how to survive sexual assault allegations.

The short version in the news was that the case ended because Ann Altman would not attend a mental health examination. Jocelyn went into the federal court record expecting to find a contested fight over that examination. According to the filings she reviewed, that is not what happened.

What does "dismissed with prejudice" mean?

A case dismissed "without prejudice" can usually be filed again later. A case dismissed "with prejudice" cannot. As Jocelyn puts it: "With prejudice means you can't bring it again. You don't get to take a timeout and try to bring it again. You're done."

In the same order, the judge granted Sam Altman's request to drop his own counterclaims without prejudice, on the condition that her case was dismissed. Other pending motions on the substance of the claims were denied as moot.

What is a Rule 35 mental health examination?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 allows a court to order a party in a civil lawsuit to undergo an independent mental or physical examination. Two things have to be shown: the person's condition must be "in controversy," and there must be "good cause."

In plain terms, Jocelyn explains, a mental health examination is not the usual next step when someone simply says a defendant caused them emotional distress. Courts also look at whether other discovery, such as treatment and counseling records, would be an adequate substitute. When these exams are contested, a judge has to make specific findings on those questions.

Why the headlines told only part of the story

Jocelyn expected to find a defense motion asking the court to force the exam, an opposition from Ann Altman, and a judge's ruling that there was good cause. Instead, she found a joint stipulation (Doc. 89 in the court record) in which both sides agreed the examination would go forward. Because of that agreement, the judge never had to decide whether there was good cause.

According to the order by U.S. District Judge Zachary M. Bluestone of the Eastern District of Missouri (Altman v. Altman, No. 4:25-cv-00017), Ann Altman then failed to appear for the examination three times. The order also describes interrogatories that were not answered or verified, missed deadlines including expert disclosures, requests for documents that were not met, and violations of multiple court orders. The judge found these failures willful, noted repeated warnings that dismissal with prejudice was the likely result, and gave two separate grounds for dismissal: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) and Rule 41(b).

Sam Altman has denied the allegations. The dismissal was based on how the case was litigated. No court decided whether the allegations themselves were true.

In military courts, the question works differently. Under a case Jocelyn discusses, United States v. Owen, 24 M.J. 390 (C.M.A. 1987), a military judge generally lacks the inherent authority to compel a complaining witness to undergo a mental health examination.

In the members section, Jocelyn walks through what the court's order says step by step, and tells the story of a court-martial where she used that same military case to win her motion.

Free Clips From This Episode

More Episodes You Might Like

• S1 H7: Alec Baldwin Case Dismissal
• S2 E1: Article 120 Dismissal & the Aftermath
• S4 H2: Cornell 7 Developments: Campus Police Interview & Special Prosecutor

Topics: Sexual Assault & Misconduct Allegations · Military Judges