Judge Orders OpenAI to Hand Apple Hiring Files in 14 Days

A federal judge in San Jose granted Apple limited early discovery on 13 October 2026 in its trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI, OpenAI’s hardware company io and two former Apple employees, according to the order filed on the court docket. Under the order, the defendants have 14 days to answer three document requests, including OpenAI’s materials for interviewing job candidates from Apple.

Judge Edward J. Davila also granted depositions of three people and of the companies, denied part of what Apple asked for, and deferred the rest. The order is a discovery ruling. It does not decide whether anyone took Apple’s trade secrets.

What the Order Requires

The order says the defendants must respond within 14 days, or within five days for material they have already collected for the case, to three requests:

• all forensic images the defendants have already collected on the subject of Apple’s claims, including those their forensic expert relied on;
• all documents used to guide or conduct interviews of candidates from Apple for OpenAI’s Consumer Hardware Products Group, which the order says includes its Robotics Group: checklists, guides, instructions, manuals and scripts, plus Technical Deep Dive presentations and other records of those interviews;
• all LINE conversations between former Apple engineer Chang Liu and Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng since 1 January 2026.

The order grants depositions of Chang Liu, Tang Yew Tan and Alyssa Peng, to take place within 30 days after Apple receives all the responses. It also grants a deposition of OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC and io Products under Rule 30(b)(6), on one topic: the positions, roles and responsibilities within OpenAI of the witnesses, Tan, Liu, Peng and one person whose name is redacted.

What the Judge Denied or Deferred

The order denies early access to all documents on OpenAI’s research and development on metal finishes, power management or battery functionality for consumer hardware products. It says those requests belong in ordinary merits discovery. It also denies, for now, a deposition of a fourth person Apple had listed.

The judge deferred every request built on Apple’s term “Apple Originated Information”, which he called “amorphous as currently defined”. The order gives Apple five days to confer with the defendants and propose a narrower definition.

He also declined Apple’s request that these depositions not count against the usual limits under the federal rules, and vacated the hearing that had been set for 14 October.

Why the Judge Granted Part of It

The order weighs five factors. It says Apple’s preliminary injunction motion is pending and that forensic images of Liu’s devices have become a prominent part of that motion. It says Apple’s requests, even narrowed, remain broad enough that complying would be onerous.

The defendants argued that Apple wanted to “rummage through its former employees’ and competitor’s files in an effort to find something it can then claim is a trade secret”. The judge wrote that, given how broad some requests are, that claim is “not entirely frivolous”, but that Apple has already given the defendants a preliminary list of the trade secrets it says were taken.

The order says the judge did not weigh the two sides’ competing forensic findings at this stage. He agreed with Apple that forensic records such as logs and metadata can be lost, citing a conversation in which Liu and Peng discussed restoring Apple-owned devices. He also cited Apple’s concern that the alleged trade secrets could become “so deeply entangled with OpenAI’s hardware products or other research and development efforts that the harm cannot be undone”.

What Apple Alleges

Apple filed the suit on 10 July 2026. Its complaint opens: “This case is about Apple’s former employees stealing Apple’s trade secrets for the benefit of OpenAI.” It brings trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act against Liu, Tan, OpenAI and io, and claims for breach of Apple’s intellectual property agreement against Liu and Tan.

The complaint says Liu spent eight years at Apple as a Senior System Electrical Engineer and left in January 2026 to join OpenAI. It says Tan spent more than 24 years at Apple, most recently as Vice President of Product Design for iPhone and Apple Watch, co-founded io, which merged with OpenAI, and is now OpenAI’s Chief Hardware Officer.

Among its allegations, the complaint says Tan directed job candidates still working at Apple to bring “Actual parts” to their interviews for “show and tell” sessions. The order summarises Apple’s claim that the companies were “exploiting Apple’s confidential information to advance OpenAI’s efforts to enter the consumer hardware market”.

These are allegations. According to the order, the defendants’ forensic expert found no evidence that Liu used the file Apple points to in connection with any AI platform. Our 10 July report on the lawsuit covered the original filing.

The Structural Read

As we read it, the requests the judge granted are the ones closest to the people: forensic images already collected, interview materials, one set of chats and three depositions.

As we read it, the requests he refused are the ones closest to OpenAI’s product work, its research on metal finishes, power management and battery functionality, which the order sends to ordinary discovery.

As we read it, the next dates the order sets are Apple’s narrower definition in five days and the defendants’ responses in 14.

Three Implications

OPENAI The order says it must respond to the interview-documents request within 14 days and produce a corporate witness on the roles of Tan, Liu, Peng and one redacted person.

APPLE The order gives it five days to propose a narrower definition of ‘Apple Originated Information’ if it wants those requests revived.

HARDWARE HIRING The order covers documents used to interview Apple candidates for OpenAI’s Consumer Hardware Products Group, which it says includes the Robotics Group.

The Business Engineer Lens

This story maps onto the Business Engineer framework The Four Intelligence Moats.

The framework puts it this way: “Every AI paradigm produces a different kind of moat.”

As we read it, Apple’s complaint treats decades of hardware know-how as that kind of asset, and this order is the first step in testing, through documents and depositions, whether any of it moved to OpenAI with the people.

What Is Not Established

The court has not ruled on Apple’s preliminary injunction motion, and the order makes no finding that any trade secret was taken.

The order redacts one name and the counterparty in the denied research request, so we cannot say who they are. We did not read a statement from Apple or OpenAI on the order. Bloomberg Law reported the ruling; we did not read its article and nothing here relies on it.

The Bottom Line

As we read it, the judge gave Apple a narrow, fast look at how OpenAI recruits from Apple, through its interview materials and three depositions, and refused for now the wider sweep into OpenAI’s hardware research.

The order lands on the same day Apple announced its HomeView home hub, which we covered separately. The next steps the order sets are Apple’s narrower definition within five days and the defendants’ responses within 14.