Judge gives Apple early access to OpenAI documents and depositions in its trade secrets case, but not everythingJudge gives Apple early access to OpenAI documents and depositions in its trade secrets case, but not everything

A federal judge has granted most of Apple's request for early evidence from OpenAI and io Products in Apple's trade secrets lawsuit.

Judge Edward Davila issued the order on 13 October, the day before the hearing on Apple's request for a preliminary injunction, according to 9to5Mac, which published the order. Apple sued two former employees, Chang Liu and Tang Tan, along with OpenAI and io Products, alleging that confidential Apple information was used to advance OpenAI's consumer hardware work, and that information was also drawn from Apple staff during recruitment interviews.

What must OpenAI and io hand over?

• Forensic images the defendants have already collected on the subject of Apple's claims, including those their own forensic expert examined.
• Documents used to guide interviews of Apple candidates for OpenAI's Consumer Hardware Products Group, such as checklists, guides and scripts, and any record of those interviews that mentions Apple technology or parts, including technical deep-dive presentations.
• All LINE messages between Mr Liu and Yu-Ting Peng since 1 January 2026.

Apple may also depose Mr Liu, Mr Tan and Ms Peng early, as well as corporate representatives of OpenAI and io Products.

What did Apple not get?

The judge refused early access to OpenAI's research on metal finishes, power management and battery functionality for consumer hardware, leaving it to normal discovery. He also put off ruling on material Apple calls Apple Originated Information, describing Apple's definition as amorphous; Apple has five days to agree a narrower one with the defendants. OpenAI had argued that Apple's requests were too broad and that normal discovery was about to begin.

Our take

Expedited discovery is granted when a party seeking an injunction shows it needs evidence quickly, and the judge has given Apple the evidence closest to its core claim: how OpenAI interviewed Apple engineers, and what its own forensic expert has already found. The refusals are just as telling. OpenAI's battery and finishing research would show what OpenAI is building, not what it took, and the judge has kept that out of the fast track.

This is a separate fight from the one in which an OpenAI filing said the ChatGPT integration in Apple Intelligence underperformed. Here, Apple is the plaintiff and the subject is hardware. APPDOOK's reading is that the order makes the injunction hearing less important than it looked: whatever the judge decides on 14 October, Apple now gets the interview records and depositions it says will prove its case. The dispute over OpenAI's evidence objections ahead of that hearing is where the case stood a week ago.