// 9TO5MAC — MOBILE & WEB
Apple wins expanded access to evidence in OpenAI trade secrets lawsuit
Apple has scored another win in its trade secrets misappropriation lawsuit against two former employees, OpenAI, and io Products. Here are the details.
Earlier this month, Judge Edward Davila granted some of Apple’s requests for expedited discovery in the lawsuit where the company accuses two former employees (Chang Liu and Tang Tan), as well as OpenAI and io Products, of trade secret misappropriation.
As we’ve been covering since July, Apple filed this lawsuit accusing the defendants of improperly accessing or using confidential information about its products and technologies to help advance OpenAI’s consumer hardware development efforts.
As part of the lawsuit, Apple asked Judge Davila to issue a preliminary injunction (aimed at preventing the defendants from further using its alleged trade secrets), as well as expedited discovery to obtain early access to internal documents, forensic evidence, and employee testimony.
In his decision partially granting Apple’s request for expedited discovery, Judge Davila gave the company early access to select internal documents, forensic evidence, and employee testimony.
However, he postponed ruling on several other requests, finding Apple’s definition of “Apple Originated Information” too broad.
Following the decision, Apple and the defendants agreed on a narrower definition of the term, which Judge Davila has now adopted (with modifications), allowing Apple to pursue additional discovery.
In his new decision, Judge Davila granted several of Apple’s previously deferred requests, expanding the company’s access to records concerning its former employees’ handling of confidential information, their use of AI tools, and OpenAI’s recruitment and hardware development practices.
That said, he also denied Apple’s requests for details about OpenAI’s own devices and accounts, its internal investigations, and any potential deletion of confidential Apple information.
He also denied two additional requests for corporate testimony, finding that they were “too broad at this stage and better suited for merits discovery,” meaning Apple can pursue them through the regular discovery process.