Court Orders Barron’s Reporter to Testify in NVIDIA Crypto-Revenue Fraud Case
On Wednesday, July 1, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena served on journalist Tiernan Ray. The subpoena, issued by lead plaintiff Stichting Pensioenfonds PGB (PGB) in connection with the NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, seeks Ray's testimony regarding an article he wrote for Barron's.
The underlying securities fraud lawsuit alleges that NVIDIA and its executives, including CEO Jensen Huang, misled investors about the company's reliance on cryptocurrency mining for sales of its graphics processing units (GPUs). Investors claim that NVIDIA and Huang downplayed the significant impact of cryptocurrency on the company's revenue from GPUs. When cryptocurrency prices fell, NVIDIA's sales and stock price experienced a sharp decline.
A key piece of evidence in the lawsuit is a statement attributed to Huang in a Barron's article published shortly after NVIDIA's February 8, 2018, earnings call. In the article, the reporter, Tiernan Ray, states that he asked Huang about the report and outlook, and Huang responded that cryptocurrency represented a "small, overall" part of the business in the past quarter. The plaintiffs allege this statement was false and misleading, as cryptocurrency constituted nearly 20% of NVIDIA's fourth-quarter fiscal 2018 revenues.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously affirmed that investors had adequately alleged that Huang and NVIDIA made materially false or misleading statements regarding the size of NVIDIA's crypto-related revenues.
After the case was remanded, the class was certified on March 25, 2026, with fact discovery set to close on September 23, 2026, and trial scheduled for September 2027.
NVIDIA and Huang, in their legal response, asserted that the portion of Huang's alleged statement quoted in the complaint was "modified, taken out of context, and [] incomplete." When asked to admit that he stated "crypto was a real part of our business this past quarter, even though small, overall," Huang responded that he lacked sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the request and could not recall the specifics of the exchange.
Following this, PGB served Ray with a document subpoena. Ray indicated that he did not have notes for the post and believed he typed the content directly into Barron's blogging software. He also stated that he typically typed while speaking to his interview subjects to accurately record their statements and then cleaned up the article for publication. Ray later objected to the document subpoena, invoking the journalist's privilege, and subsequently moved to quash a deposition subpoena.
The plaintiffs seeking Ray's testimony stated their sole purpose was to certify the accuracy of the article's quotes from Ray's question to Huang and Huang's response. They sought limited testimony on Ray's recollection of quoting interview subjects, his general practices, and his journalistic background.
The court denied Ray's motion to quash, finding the requested testimony relevant to a significant issue in the case. The court reasoned that NVIDIA's liability could hinge on the accuracy of the statement in the article, and Ray, as a percipient witness, could provide crucial information. The court also rejected Ray's argument that the testimony was disproportionate to the case's needs, stating that even one false statement can form the basis of a securities fraud claim.
Furthermore, the court noted that a claimed lack of memory is generally insufficient grounds to quash a deposition subpoena, and Ray's testimony regarding his reporting practices could be valuable even without specific recollection of the interview. The court also found that Ray had not established an undue burden, deeming his assertions conclusory.
Regarding the reporter's privilege, the court applied a qualified privilege standard for non-confidential materials, requiring the party seeking discovery to show the information is of likely relevance to a significant issue and not reasonably obtainable from other sources.
The court found that since Huang had formally denied recollection of the interview in response to requests for admission, Ray's testimony was not reasonably obtainable from Huang. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had satisfied the standard to overcome the journalist's privilege.
