Apple v. Liu: Judge orders targeted discovery in OpenAI hardware trade-secret fight

A federal judge in California has given Apple early access to a defined set of evidence in its trade-secret case involving former Apple employees, OpenAI, and OpenAI’s consumer-hardware venture. The October 13 order is significant because it allows targeted discovery tied to Apple’s preliminary-injunction request while rejecting or deferring broader requests.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Liu, No. 5:26-cv-07078-EJD, in the Northern District of California. Apple filed suit on July 10, 2026. The complaint alleges trade-secret misappropriation and breaches of intellectual-property agreements. Those are allegations, not findings.

The order

Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part Apple’s motion for expedited discovery. The court vacated the October 14 hearing after finding the matter suitable for decision without oral argument.

The court applied the good-cause standard generally used by district courts within the Ninth Circuit for discovery before the ordinary schedule. It considered the relationship to Apple’s preliminary-injunction motion, the breadth and purpose of the requests, the burden on the defendants, and how early the request came in the case.

The court found a clear relationship between at least some of Apple’s requested discovery and the preliminary-injunction motion. It also accepted Apple’s concern that forensic evidence, including logs, metadata, and usage records, could be lost or overwritten. But the court rejected the full scope of Apple’s proposed requests as too broad and ordered a more tailored set.

What Apple can seek

The order requires production of forensic images that defendants already collected in connection with the claims, including images relied upon by a forensic expert. It also permits narrowed requests for materials used to guide or conduct interviews of Apple candidates for OpenAI’s consumer-hardware groups, including interview materials and presentations addressing Apple technology or parts.

Apple may seek LINE conversations between former Apple employees Chang Liu and Alyssa Peng from January 1, 2026, including messages cited in a declaration. The court also authorized depositions of Liu, former Apple executive Tang Yew Tan, and Peng on the topics identified in Apple’s narrowed requests.

The court granted Apple’s request for a corporate deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) of OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC, and io Products, LLC. At least one permitted topic concerns the roles and responsibilities of designated witnesses and the roles of Liu, Tan, Peng, and another individual identified in the order.

The order sets response and deposition timing tied to the defendants’ production. The three individual depositions are to occur within 30 days after Apple receives the permitted responses, subject to the order’s terms.

What the court declined to accelerate

The court denied expedited treatment for requests concerning OpenAI’s research and development related to metal finishes, power management, or battery functionality for consumer-hardware products. Those matters were left for ordinary merits discovery.

The court also deferred requests that depended on Apple’s definition of “Apple Originated Information.” Judge Davila found that definition amorphous as written and required Apple to confer with the defendants and provide a more tailored definition if it wants to pursue those requests.

That line is important. The order does not give Apple unrestricted access to OpenAI’s hardware-development files. It allows discovery tied to the alleged misappropriation and the preliminary-injunction record, while reserving broader product-development questions for later proceedings.

The factual dispute behind the order

The order describes Apple’s allegation that former employees accessed and used proprietary information to assist OpenAI’s hardware development, gain insider knowledge during recruiting interviews, and instruct new OpenAI hires on how to avoid scrutiny when they leave Apple. Apple also alleges that the corporate defendants acted together to exploit confidential information as OpenAI entered consumer hardware.

The court did not resolve those allegations. It noted competing forensic positions concerning a MacBook and Mac Mini, including disputes over whether a trade-secret file was used and whether devices were restored or deleted. The court expressly declined to weigh the competing expert findings at this stage.

Instead, the court concluded that early discovery could help determine the scope of any alleged misappropriation and address the risk that relevant forensic material might disappear. That is a discovery-management ruling, not a preliminary finding that trade secrets were stolen.

What comes next

The order moves the case into a more concrete evidentiary phase. Apple will receive a defined set of device, interview, messaging, and deposition discovery. The parties must still litigate the underlying trade-secret claims and any preliminary-injunction request on the merits.

The next important developments will be the parties’ production, the permitted depositions, any decision on a more precise “Apple Originated Information” definition, and the court’s eventual treatment of Apple’s requested injunction. For now, the ruling shows a court trying to preserve potentially transient evidence without allowing expedited discovery to become a broad search through a competitor’s product-development files.

Sources: October 13, 2026 expedited-discovery order; Apple Inc. v. Liu docket