Judge grants Apple access to former employee’s AI records in OpenAI lawsuit

Apple can now seek a former employee’s AI-tool records and testimony about OpenAI’s hardware work under an October 27, 2026, court order. Judge Edward Davila granted additional early evidence access in Apple’s trade-secrets lawsuit against OpenAI, io Products and two former employees. Defendants have up to 14 days to produce records and answer questions.

The order allows Apple to gather evidence before the regular discovery process. It does not decide whether the defendants misused Apple’s confidential information. Apple alleges that former employees Chang Liu and Tang Tan, OpenAI and io Products improperly accessed or used that information to further OpenAI’s consumer hardware development.

A narrower definition unlocks more evidence

Earlier in October, Davila approved some requests for company records, forensic evidence and employee testimony. He put others on hold, finding Apple’s definition of “Apple Originated Information” too broad. Apple and the defendants later negotiated a narrower definition, which the judge adopted with changes.

That change allowed several previously deferred requests to proceed. The additional access covers how the former employees handled information, Liu’s use of AI tools, and testimony about OpenAI’s recruitment and hardware practices. The permitted records include:

• Liu’s use of ChatGPT, Claude, Codex, OpenClaw and other AI tools, across personal and corporate devices and accounts.
• Devices, accounts and messaging apps that Liu and Tan allegedly used to access, store or share confidential Apple information.
• Details of confidential Apple information that may have been deleted or destroyed, including when, how, why and by whom.

Apple may question OpenAI and io Products representatives about work involving Apple information on batteries, power management and metal finishing. The order limits this testimony to those specific areas; it does not open all of OpenAI’s hardware work to questioning.

Apple may also ask about OpenAI interviews with Apple employees, including whether confidential Apple information came up or was sought. Representatives may be questioned about OpenAI’s efforts, or lack of efforts, to prevent unauthorized use or disclosure of that information. The testimony covers both recruitment discussions and safeguards.

Broader questions must wait

Davila also rejected requests for details about OpenAI’s internal investigations and any potential deletion of confidential Apple information by OpenAI itself. This separates the newly permitted inquiry into the former employees’ handling of information from broader demands directed at the company’s own systems and investigations.

Two other requests for corporate testimony were denied because the judge considered them too broad for this stage. Apple can pursue those subjects through regular discovery on the merits of the case. Their exclusion from the accelerated process does not close off that later route.

Apple has separately asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from using its alleged trade secrets. That request remains pending. The immediate obligation under this order is to produce specified evidence and respond to questions, not to comply with an injunction barring use of the disputed information.