Judge Orders OpenAI to Hand Apple Its Hiring Records in Trade Secrets Fight

A federal judge has ordered OpenAI to turn over hiring records tied to the trade secrets lawsuit Apple filed against the company this past July, and the clock is already running. U.S. District Judge Edward Davila ruled that Apple can get expedited access to documents from OpenAI's interviews with former Apple employees who applied for roles in its consumer hardware and robotics teams, ahead of the device OpenAI is reportedly building as its first piece of hardware.

The scope is specific. Apple will be able to review interview checklists, guides, instructions, manuals, and scripts, along with technical presentations and any records showing that interview conversations touched on Apple technology or components. OpenAI has five days to hand over material it's already collected and 14 days for anything else that falls under the request. Davila agreed with Apple that the timeline should move fast rather than drag through the usual discovery process.

Apple sued OpenAI in July, alleging what it called a pattern of theft. The complaint includes specific accusations: former Apple employees allegedly used company laptops to download confidential files containing details on unannounced technologies, features, and products, including technical specifications and engineering presentations tied to proprietary projects. Apple also claims that employees already at OpenAI coached people still at Apple on exactly what information to bring with them if they made the jump.

What the judge granted

Davila didn't hand Apple everything it asked for, but he gave the company more than a token win. Beyond the interview materials, the judge approved Apple's request for private LINE messages, exchanged on the messaging app, between individuals named in the case. That includes OpenAI employees Chang Liu and Alyssa Peng.

He also cleared the way for depositions of three people: Liu, Peng, and Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI's chief hardware officer. All three previously worked at Apple, which is the detail that makes this case more than a routine corporate dispute. Apple isn't just alleging that generic trade secrets leaked out the door. It's alleging that its own former hardware and robotics talent carried specific knowledge directly into a rival project, one that could eventually compete with the iPhone itself if OpenAI's hardware ambitions pan out the way the company apparently hopes.

Where the judge drew the line

Apple asked for more than it got. Davila declined to expedite Apple's access to OpenAI's research and development work in areas like metal finishes and power management, two subjects that would sit close to the actual engineering of a physical device rather than the hiring process around it. He also turned down several broader discovery requests, including Apple's bid to see OpenAI's hardware research more generally and information about what its former Apple employees have actually built since joining the company.

That's not necessarily the end of it, though. Davila left room for Apple to come back with narrower, more targeted requests on those fronts. In other words, the door isn't locked. Apple just has to ask more precisely for what it wants.

The split outcome is a reasonably normal feature of early discovery disputes in litigation like this. Courts tend to move faster on requests tied to a specific, provable pattern, like whether interview questions referenced a competitor's proprietary tech, than on sweeping requests for a company's entire internal R&D record. Apple got the former. The latter will take more work, if it comes at all.

Why this case matters beyond the courtroom

OpenAI's rumored hardware device has been one of the more closely watched bets in the AI industry, largely because of what it implies about where the company thinks computing is headed. If OpenAI builds something that becomes a genuine alternative to the smartphone, or even just a meaningful new layer between people and their software, that's a direct challenge to the device Apple has built its business around for nearly two decades.

That stakes-raising context is probably why Apple moved as aggressively as it did, and why the court agreed to fast-track at least part of the discovery process. Depositions for Liu, Peng, and Tan will put three people with direct knowledge of both companies' hardware ambitions under oath, and the interview records could show, in OpenAI's own documentation, whether its hiring process leaned on specifics about Apple's unreleased products.

None of this settles whether Apple's trade secrets claims actually hold up. Discovery disputes are about access to evidence, not about who's right. But the ruling gives Apple a real foothold heading into the next phase of the case, and it signals that Davila is willing to move quickly on requests he finds reasonably scoped, even in a fight this contentious. Apple's broader requests aren't dead, just deferred, and how the company rewrites them will be the next thing worth watching.