I've wondered for a bit as to why they chose such an unrealistic number. Maybe because they knew this would bait the media into reporting on it again, now that his "whistleblower" case has effectively fallen apart?
Even in states which have anti-SLAPP laws, they target frivolous lawsuits to deter speaking out. If you really do have a case, but part of your motivation for bringing it is to deter future misconduct, that's perfectly kosher.
The whole point of the Anti-SLAPP statutes is to discourage companies from using lawsuits to "deter future misconduct." It provides, at a minimum, that the company pay all the defendant's legal costs and the complete dismissal of the company's case with prejudice (which usually means all of the related claims filed in the same lawsuit, though on rare occasions the company may be allowed to split off those claims into a separate case).
Unless Tesla has been concealing some facts in its court filings, they don't have prima facie evidence of all elements of their claims. Anti-SLAPP motions can precede the discovery phase, i.e., before Tesla can acquire that evidence. Moreover, unlike TV, such evidence must be presented in court filings. Ambush disclosures aren't a thing in real life.
This is not a frivolous lawsuit and is not without merit.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...
Obviously Tesla won't be able to recover that much from him, but that happens after the judgement.
If I wanted to win N dollars in a lawsuit I would start by asking for some multiple of N. I would probably get what I wanted if the defense convinces the judge or jury to reduce the damages or tries to negotiate a settlement.
Especially in the case of negotiating a settlement, if you start by asking for exactly what you want you'll get less than that.