// 9TO5MAC — MOBILE & WEB
Apple renews push for expedited discovery in OpenAI trade secret misappropriation lawsuit
Apple has submitted its response to OpenAI’s attempt to block expedited discovery in its ongoing trade secret lawsuit. Here are the details.
Earlier this month, Apple asked for an expedited discovery process in its lawsuit accusing former employees, OpenAI, and io Products of trade secret misappropriation.
That would include early production of documents and communications, forensic imaging of devices and accounts, and depositions of key witnesses.
Essentially, Apple wants substantive responses to its written discovery within 30 days and an OpenAI corporate deposition within 50 days, with both completed at the outset of the case rather than left to the broader fact-discovery process.
Apple needs expedited discovery to uncover dissipating facts outside its control to determine the full scope of how its proprietary information and trade secrets have been misappropriated.
Apple’s motion came one day after Apple filed for a preliminary injunction, seeking to stop OpenAI and the other defendants from accessing, using, or disclosing Apple’s alleged proprietary information while the case proceeds.
In essence, Apple argues that the longer OpenAI and the other defendants are allowed to use its alleged trade secrets, the harder it will be to reverse the alleged damage.
The harm is happening now—every day that passes without an injunction allows OpenAI to embed their knowledge of Apple’s stolen information into its hardware development efforts, further damaging Apple and making it increasingly more difficult to unwind the harm.
Following Apple’s motion for expedited discovery, OpenAI and the other defendants filed an opposition, arguing that the request was unnecessary because much of the regular discovery process would overlap with Apple’s proposed expedited timeline. It also argued that Apple’s requests were “overbroad,” “burdensome,” and based on “improper purposes.”
In any event, Apple fails to show the requisite good cause for expedited discovery, including because Apple’s discovery requests are untethered to the requested preliminary injunction, and instead appear aimed at gaining an improper peek at the corporate Defendants’ competitive product plans and strategies.