A Federal Court judge in Australia has raised the prospect of ordering Tesla to provide an independent expert with direct access to its internal engineering systems as part of a class action brought by owners of the carmaker's vehicles.
The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accuses Tesla's Model 3 and Model Y vehicles of suffering from "phantom braking" and claims the company's advertised self-driving functionality and battery range were overstated. The plaintiffs' legal team represents some 10,000 Tesla owners.
Judge Tom Thawley suggested appointing a neutral specialist after counsel for the applicants argued that the material Tesla has produced so far does not contain the technical detail necessary to run the case. According to the judge, an independent expert acceptable to both parties "would eliminate the discovery issue because they would have, if they needed access to something, the power to get access," he told the court on Tuesday.
Thawley also indicated he would not automatically exclude that expert from reviewing certain materials "just because one of the parties doesn’t like that idea." He framed a single court-appointed expert in each relevant field who could access the systems themselves as a faster and less expensive route than protracted disputes over document disclosure.
The matter has not proceeded to trial, with the parties currently clashing over discovery. Tesla maintains it has delivered thousands of documents "in good faith," but the company says its engineering teams work on live, continuously edited software platforms that do not keep point-in-time records or generate static, paper-like documents.
Thawley told the parties he would consider ordering a court-appointed expert despite objections. Lawyers for both sides told the court they would seek instructions on the judge's suggestion. Fiona Roughley, who represents the applicants, said the proposal made sense. Imtiaz Ahmed, representing Tesla, said his client would consider the idea, noting its systems were highly confidential.
The case is set to return to court on November 12.
Contextual note: The discussion centers on whether judicial appointment of an expert with system access can resolve a discovery impasse when produced documents are argued to be insufficient to convey technical realities that exist in live engineering platforms.