On October 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila granted Apple’s request for expedited discovery in part, allowing access to specified records and depositions while denying or deferring other requests. The ruling in Apple’s trade-secrets case against OpenAI-related defendants sets the scope of evidence gathering; it does not decide whether trade secrets were misappropriated. Read the court’s order.
What the order covers
The order identifies three categories of material for expedited discovery: forensic images already collected in connection with the litigation; records used to guide or conduct interviews of Apple candidates for OpenAI’s consumer hardware groups, including technical presentations and records of interview content or references to Apple technology or parts; and LINE conversations between Chang Liu and Alyssa Peng dating from January 1, 2026.
For responses to the permitted requests, the order sets a 14-day deadline, shortened to five days for materials already collected in connection with the litigation. It also authorizes depositions of Liu, Tang Yew Tan and Peng within 30 days after Apple receives all responses to those requests.
The court authorized a corporate deposition of one or more designees of OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC and io Products, LLC on at least one specified topic: relevant positions, roles and responsibilities.
What the judge denied or deferred
The judge denied expedited production of research and development records about metal finishes, power management and battery functionality, leaving those subjects for ordinary merits discovery. Requests using the term “Apple Originated Information” were deferred because the court considered the definition amorphous. Apple was directed to confer with the defendants and, if it wished to pursue those requests, provide a narrower definition within five days of the October 13 order. The court also vacated the hearing scheduled for October 14.
The trade-secret claims remain unresolved
Apple’s lawsuit alleges that former employees accessed and used its proprietary information. The order describes competing expert positions concerning a purported trade-secret file: Apple’s expert reportedly concluded that Liu used it in March 2026, while the defendants’ expert reportedly found no evidence that Liu used it in connection with an AI platform. Davila declined to weigh those findings at this stage. The discovery order therefore makes no finding on whether misappropriation occurred.
In an August 3, 2026 post, OpenAI disputed Apple’s underlying allegations, said it did not have or want Apple’s trade secrets, and challenged Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction. That company statement preceded the discovery order. OpenAI’s statement.
