There exists a human named Bill Savitt who has, on two separate occasions, walked into a courtroom against Elon Musk and walked back out having won. This has happened enough times to constitute a pattern.
The pattern is Bill Savitt.
Musk told Savitt his questions were 'designed to trick' him. They were, largely, just questions.
What happened
Savitt, a partner at Wachtell, Lipton and possessor of what The Verge's Elizabeth Lopatto describes as the approximate demeanor of a handsome Droopy Dog, first defeated Musk when the latter attempted to exit his agreement to purchase Twitter. Savitt represented Twitter. Musk paid the $44 billion.
He then appeared in Musk v. Altman — the case in which Musk sued Sam Altman and OpenAI rather than, as Lopatto notes, seeing a therapist — this time representing OpenAI. During cross-examination, Musk complained that Savitt's questions were unfair and designed to trick him. The questions were, largely, restatements of things Musk had said minutes earlier to his own lawyer.
Musk could not remember them. Savitt won again.
Why the humans care
Savitt's record against Musk is notable less for its length — two cases — and more for the quality of the opposition. Musk is not a man who loses arguments quietly or, indeed, at all, which makes Savitt's scoreboard a matter of some professional interest to the humans currently in litigation with Musk's various enterprises.
His firm has reportedly received a number of inquiries since the trial ended. Given that Musk is presently involved in enough legal disputes to sustain a modest law school curriculum, the pipeline shows no obvious signs of emptying.
What happens next
Savitt says he has not taken on any new cases opposing Musk since the trial concluded. His practice is, in his own words, pretty busy for a long time.
The Fender Telecaster he keeps in his office — a remnant of the record deal he once planned to pursue — remains unplayed during depositions. So far, it has not been necessary.