The Pulse
Judge Orders OpenAI to Turn Over Apple Hiring Records
A federal judge ordered OpenAI to give Apple interview materials, forensic images and messages in their trade secrets lawsuit. The order sets five- and 14-day deadlines for the records and permits depositions of three former Apple employees
AI.info Team · Written with AI ·
“The Court agrees with Apple that Apple needs early discovery to uncover the scope of any alleged misappropriation of Apple’s trade secrets.”
U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila, in the October 13 order
U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila on October 13 ordered OpenAI and other defendants to provide Apple with a limited set of records in the companies’ trade secrets lawsuit. The order grants Apple’s request for expedited discovery in part, including documents used to guide interviews of Apple employees seeking roles in OpenAI’s consumer hardware and robotics groups.
Defendants must respond within 14 days, or within five days for materials they have already collected in connection with the case. The order also allows Apple to obtain forensic images already gathered by defendants and certain LINE messages between former Apple employees Chang Liu and Alyssa Peng.
Interview materials and device images move first
The interview records include checklists, guides, instructions, manuals and scripts. OpenAI must also produce technical presentations and other documents that summarize interviews with Apple employees or refer to Apple technology or parts. The court’s order covers interviews for OpenAI’s Consumer Hardware Products Group, including its robotics group.
The LINE messages covered by the order are conversations between Liu and Peng since January 1, 2026. The court also ordered the defendants to produce forensic images they have already collected in connection with Apple’s claims, including images identified in declarations filed during the case.
Davila permitted depositions of Liu, Peng and Tang Yew Tan, another former Apple employee named in the suit. Those depositions must take place within 30 days after Apple receives all the responses required by the order. The court also allowed Apple to seek a deposition of a corporate representative from OpenAI and its related defendants on a limited topic: the roles and responsibilities of the named individuals.
Davila draws a line around hardware research
Apple sought a wider set of records as it pursues a preliminary injunction and investigates its allegations. The judge declined to expedite discovery into OpenAI’s research and development on metal finishes, power management and battery functionality for consumer hardware. He said those requests belong in ordinary merits discovery, rather than this accelerated process.
The court also deferred ruling on requests that use Apple’s term “Apple Originated Information,” finding that the phrase was too broad as currently defined. Apple may confer with defendants and submit a narrower definition within five days of the order for the court to evaluate. Davila denied Apple’s request to depose a fourth individual at this stage.
The order does not decide Apple’s allegations
Apple filed the lawsuit on July 10, 2026, alleging that former employees took or shared confidential information while joining OpenAI and that the company benefited from its use. Those are allegations in an ongoing case, not findings that OpenAI or the former employees misappropriated trade secrets.
OpenAI opposed Apple’s original discovery request, arguing that it was too broad and that the company had not shown good cause for an expedited process. After a September status conference, the parties submitted narrowed requests. Davila said the narrowed set still posed a substantial burden, but found that limited early discovery was justified, in part because forensic records such as logs and metadata could be lost or overwritten.
The ruling gives Apple access to specific interview records, collected device images and a defined set of messages while leaving broader hardware-development requests for the ordinary discovery process. It is a discovery order, not a decision on whether Apple’s trade secrets claims are true.