I think, if I'm following the media reporting correctly, that they're disputing something which he didn't technically say. The BI article says that "In February, a misprogrammed robot that handles battery modules repeatedly punctured through the plastic housing (called a clamshell) and into some battery cells, the employee said, adding that instead of scrapping all the modules, some were fixed with adhesive and put back on the manufacturing line". That is, the modules were fixed and reused rather than being scrapped.

Tesla claims this is a lie because no punctured cells were ever used in vehicles. This would be true even if - as the article claims - modules were punctured, the battery cells were damaged, and those modules were fixed and put into cars rather than being scrapped, just so long as any obviously punctured cells were replaced in the process. The article is rather vague on that crucial detail. In fact, Tesla's claim would be true even if damaged cells were shipping in actual Model 3s and they knew they were, so long as those cells weren't punctured.