Judge orders OpenAI to give Apple hiring records, limits broader hardware discovery

Apple sought a fast route into OpenAI’s records. On October 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila partially granted that request, ordering hiring materials and other evidence turned over early in its trade-secrets lawsuit. But the ruling stopped short of accelerating access to several areas of OpenAI’s hardware research, leaving Apple with a narrower win.

The dispute began in July, when Apple sued OpenAI, former engineer Chang Liu and former hardware chief Tang Yew Tan. Apple alleges a coordinated effort to steal information about upcoming products. OpenAI calls the lawsuit baseless and argues that Apple is using litigation to compensate for its shortcomings in the market for talent.

Apple’s allegations include former employees using Apple laptops to download confidential files containing technical specifications, engineering presentations and information about unannounced technologies. It also alleges that former employees at OpenAI coached prospective recruits on what information to bring to interviews. Those are Apple’s accusations, not findings of theft in this discovery ruling.

The interviews move to the front of the queue

The interview records concern former Apple employees who applied to OpenAI’s consumer hardware and robotics groups. TechCrunch reports that the materials could include interview checklists, guides, instructions, manuals and scripts, along with technical presentations and records showing whether discussions referenced Apple technology or components. That puts the content of recruitment conversations within Apple’s early evidence request.

The order extends beyond hiring paperwork. Davila also directed OpenAI to provide the following evidence, according to Bloomberg Law:

• Forensic images of devices, alongside summaries of certain interviews with Apple employees.
• Conversations on the LINE messaging platform between Liu and Alyssa Peng, another former Apple employee.
• Documents describing former Apple employees’ responsibilities at OpenAI.

Liu, Peng and Tan must also sit for early depositions. All three previously worked at Apple; Tan is now OpenAI’s chief hardware officer. The approved requests therefore cover both records and testimony, including what the former employees discussed with one another and the responsibilities they took on after moving to OpenAI.

A conversation about wiping devices gave the request urgency

Davila identified a risk that critical forensic evidence on the engineers’ devices could be destroyed. He pointed to a conversation between Liu and Peng about wiping Apple-owned electronics. That concern supplied a specific reason to accelerate the evidence exchange rather than leave every request on the ordinary schedule.

The judge also tied the timing to Apple’s claimed risk of lasting harm. He wrote that discovery was necessary to uncover the scope of any alleged misuse, particularly if trade secrets became deeply entangled with OpenAI’s hardware products or other research and development. His concern was that such harm could become impossible to undo.

Hardware research does not get the same fast track

Davila denied expedited access to OpenAI research and development concerning metal finishes, power management and battery functionality. He found those documents suitable for discovery on the ordinary timeline. The distinction is important: those subjects did not qualify for faster production, but the ruling did not place them outside discovery altogether.

He deferred a decision on requests using the term “Apple Originated Information.” Davila described that definition as amorphous and warned that it could impose an extremely burdensome, potentially untenable task on OpenAI. Here, the obstacle was the breadth and definition of the request, rather than the specific device-preservation concern that supported faster access elsewhere.

The order came one day before a hearing scheduled for October 14 on OpenAI’s motion to dismiss and Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction. Apple seeks to bar OpenAI and the former employees from using the alleged trade secrets. Those requests concern whether the case proceeds and what conduct should be restricted while it does.