Apple–OpenAI Trade-Secret Dispute: Expedited Discovery and Digital Evidence

On October 13, 2026, Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California partially granted Apple’s request for expedited discovery in Apple Inc. v. Liu. The order permits accelerated evidence gathering; it does not decide liability for trade-secret misappropriation. ¹

Apple alleges misuse of confidential information. OpenAI disputes the allegations and has publicly stated that it neither has nor wants Apple’s trade secrets. ²

The authorized discovery includes already-collected forensic images, specified recruitment and interview materials, certain LINE messages, and individual and corporate depositions. The court denied expedited treatment for specified research-and-development requests and deferred requests using an insufficiently defined category of Apple information. ¹

Discovery is the process through which parties obtain information relevant to a lawsuit. Rule 26(d)(1) generally restricts discovery before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, subject to specified exceptions, stipulation, or a court order. ³

Here, that conference had already occurred. The court nevertheless considered whether good cause justified accelerating discovery, weighing its purpose, scope, burden, timing, and relationship to requested injunctive relief. ¹

Discovery also has limits. Rule 26(b)(1) requires relevance and proportionality, and Rule 26(c)(1)(G) permits protective orders addressing trade secrets and other confidential commercial information. ³ A request for early evidence does not provide unrestricted access to a competitor’s systems.

The court recognized a risk of losing forensic evidence but declined to resolve the experts’ competing findings about deletion or spoliation at that stage. ¹

More generally, Rule 37(e) addresses electronically stored information that should have been preserved for anticipated or ongoing litigation but was lost because reasonable preservation steps were not taken and cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.

Measures to cure prejudice must be limited to what is necessary. The adverse presumptions, jury instructions, dismissal, and default judgment described in Rule 37(e)(2) require a finding of intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation. ⁴ A missing file does not automatically establish entitlement to sanctions.

When investigating suspected misuse of confidential information, businesses should discuss with counsel:

These are general planning questions, not findings about the parties’ conduct. Preservation, access to evidence, and proof of misappropriation are separate issues.

Related firm services are described on the intellectual property practice page. For a separate example of employee-mobility trade-secret claims, see our discussion of the Joby–Archer dispute.