On 13 October 2026, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part Apple’s motion for expedited discovery in a trade-secrets case Apple filed on 10 July 2026. The order is document 175 in case 5:26-cv-07078-EJD, in the San Jose division of the Northern District of California. It is dated 13 October 2026. The order says the complaint was filed on 10 July 2026. The CourtListener docket shows a complaint that day for trade-secret misappropriation and breach of contract against OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC, io Products, LLC, and individual defendants.
The order recounts Apple’s allegations and does not decide them. As the order summarizes the complaint, Apple alleges that former employees now at OpenAI used Apple proprietary information to help develop hardware, to learn more in interviews of Apple employees considering OpenAI jobs, and to coach new hires on leaving Apple without scrutiny. Apple also alleges the corporate defendants acted together to use that information as OpenAI tries to enter consumer hardware. The order says the defendants opposed expedited discovery as too broad, and argued Apple had not shown good cause.
What the judge ordered produced
The court found good cause for a narrower set. Within 14 days of the order, or within five days for material the defendants have already collected, they must produce three categories:
- forensic images they have already collected in connection with Apple’s claims
- documents used to guide or conduct interviews of candidates from Apple for OpenAI’s consumer hardware group, including its robotics group, including checklists, guides, instructions, manuals and scripts, and technical presentations that record those interviews or any reference to Apple technology or parts
- LINE messages since 1 January 2026 between two people the order names
The order denies expedited discovery of OpenAI research on metal finishes, power management or battery function, and says that belongs in ordinary discovery. It defers requests built on the phrase “Apple Originated Information,” which it calls amorphous, unless Apple submits a tighter definition within five days.
The order allows depositions of three people it names, within 30 days after the document responses, and a corporate deposition of the OpenAI entities and io Products on a narrowed topic. It denies a fourth deposition for now, and it does not add these depositions on top of the ordinary limit.
TechCrunch, Sarah Perez, 20:36 UTC on 13 October, reports the hiring records and the five-day and 14-day deadlines. It quotes no comment from Apple or OpenAI. The granted list and the denial above are the order’s.
OpenAI’s filing the next day
On 14 October 2026, OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC and io Products filed a supplement to the parties’ 1 October joint case-management statement. It is document 176, dated 14 October 2026. The filing says a recent and ongoing forensic investigation found that a former OpenAI employee, who joined OpenAI from Apple, worked there for six months, and has returned to Apple, sent over a hundred highly confidential files about at least one unreleased OpenAI device to personal accounts. It says the files include detailed images, engineering and manufacturing data, supplier information, project files, standards for cosmetic finishes, and reports on coating and sealing of hardware parts. It says some files were sent just after midnight in Singapore on 2 June 2026, which it calls the employee’s last day. It says it is OpenAI’s understanding that the employee presented OpenAI product plans to Apple senior leadership, including the vice president of operations in Asia, and that the presentation appears to have happened months earlier.
The filing says OpenAI raised the matter with Apple and has not received assurances that Apple lacks the information and has not used it. It asks the court, at a case-management conference on 14 October 2026, for a schedule that would let OpenAI investigate and, if necessary, file counterclaims. The supplement is that allegation and that request. The filing does not name the former employee.
A footnote cites Apple’s Home Collection newsroom post and a TechCrunch story about a product called HomeView, which were not opened here, as support for OpenAI’s line that Apple is making a new push into AI-enabled products.
The Verge, timestamped 16:43 UTC on 14 October, reports the filing and says Apple did not immediately respond to The Verge. A Reuters story the same day, by Stephen Nellis and Deepa Seetharaman, as carried by WTVB, reports that Apple said it has policies and procedures so new employees do not use confidential information from previous employers, and that Apple has found no evidence to support OpenAI’s allegations. The same Reuters copy says OpenAI has denied Apple’s allegations in the underlying case. It also calls the supplement a Tuesday filing. The document is dated 14 October 2026 and stamped filed that day, a Wednesday. A reuters.com address tried for this story returned 401, so the Reuters wording here is the copy on the station’s page, which labels the piece Thomson Reuters.
The complaint, the discovery order and the supplement are one open case. None of the three decides that either side misused the other’s information.
The Campfire
No commentsNobody has pulled up a log by this one yet. Be the first to say what you make of it.
Held for the desk. It appears after a look.