Apple has filed its reply to OpenAI’s bid to prevent expedited discovery in the ongoing trade secret lawsuit. Here are the details.
Background
Earlier this month, Apple requested an accelerated discovery process in its lawsuit accusing former employees, OpenAI, and io Products of misappropriating trade secrets.
This would involve early production of documents and communications, forensic imaging of devices and accounts, and depositions of key witnesses.
In essence, Apple seeks substantive answers to its written discovery requests within 30 days and an OpenAI corporate deposition within 50 days, both to be completed at the start of the case instead of being deferred to the broader fact-finding process.
From Apple’s motion:
Apple needs expedited discovery to uncover dissipating facts outside its control to determine the full scope of how its proprietary information and trade secrets have been misappropriated.
Apple needs expedited discovery to uncover dissipating facts beyond its control to determine the full extent of how its proprietary information and trade secrets have been misappropriated.
Apple’s motion followed one day after the company filed for a preliminary injunction, aiming to prevent OpenAI and the other defendants from accessing, using, or disclosing Apple’s alleged proprietary information during the litigation.
Apple contends that the longer OpenAI and the other defendants are permitted to use its alleged trade secrets, the more difficult it will be to reverse the alleged harm.
Here’s Apple:
The damage is occurring now—each day without an injunction lets OpenAI integrate their knowledge of Apple’s stolen information into its hardware development, further harming Apple and making it increasingly harder to undo the damage.
The harm is happening now—every day that passes without an injunction allows OpenAI to embed their knowledge of Apple’s stolen information into its hardware development efforts, further damaging Apple and making it increasingly more difficult to unwind the harm.
After Apple filed its motion for expedited discovery, OpenAI and the other defendants submitted an opposition, claiming the request was unnecessary because much of the standard discovery process would overlap with Apple’s proposed accelerated timeline. They also asserted that Apple’s requests were “overbroad,” “burdensome,” and based on “improper purposes.”
From the opposition filing:
In any case, Apple fails to demonstrate the necessary good cause for expedited discovery, including because its discovery requests are not linked to the requested preliminary injunction, and instead seem intended to improperly glimpse the corporate Defendants’ competitive product plans and strategies.
In any event, Apple fails to show the requisite good cause for expedited discovery, including because Apple’s discovery requests are untethered to the requested preliminary injunction, and instead appear aimed at gaining an improper peek at the corporate Defendants’ competitive product plans and strategies.
Which brings us to today.
Apple fires back
Apple today submitted its response to OpenAI’s opposition, contending that it not only established “good cause for expedited discovery” in its initial filing, but also that its request remains valid, “even if expedited discovery overlaps with ordinary discovery.”
Apple further notes that the opposition brief “signals the alternative: without a court order, they will object, delay, and condition discovery into their misappropriation on tangential ‘reciprocal’ demands.”
From Apple’s new filing:
The Defendants’ “mootness” stance cannot be reconciled with court rulings in this district that grant expedited discovery, even when ordinary discovery is about to begin. Moreover, this motion is now fully briefed, and resolving it promptly will shape the earliest stages of these proceedings. Even if expedited discovery overlaps with ordinary discovery, an order requiring some limited, urgent discovery to be completed at the start will ensure that Defendants provide substantive responses initially, rather than generic objections and promises to supplement over weeks and months.
Defendants’ “mootness” position cannot be squared with court decisions in this district granting expedited discovery, even when ordinary discovery is set to open shortly. Moreover, this motion is now fully briefed, and resolving it promptly will inform the earliest stages of these proceedings. Even if expedited discovery overlaps with ordinary discovery, an order requiring some limited, urgent discovery to be completed at the outset will ensure that Defendants respond substantively in the first instance, rather than with boilerplate objections and promises to supplement over weeks and months.
In its response, Apple also narrows the timeframe of its document requests to August 1, 2023, and later, while countering OpenAI’s objection that the requests lacked a date limit:
The Defendants also contend that Apple’s [requests for production] are not confined to a specific timeframe. Defendants should not possess Apple’s confidential information from any timeframe. Nevertheless, to address the Defendants’ concerns, Apple further clarifies that it seeks Communications, Documents, and Things (as defined in the RFPs) dated on or after August 1, 2023, roughly six months before Mr. Tan departed Apple to join OpenAI.
Defendants also argue that Apple’s [requests for production] are not limited to a specific timeframe. Defendants should not have Apple’s confidential information from any timeframe. However, to address Defendants’ concerns, Apple further specifies that it seeks Communications, Documents, and Things (as defined in the RFPs) dated on or after August 1, 2023 approximately six months before Mr. Tan left Apple to join OpenAI.
Finally, Apple reiterates that its urgency stems from concerns that OpenAI and the other defendants could continue using the alleged trade secrets while developing their own hardware, while Apple waits “months or years” to question key witnesses:
The Defendants admit that Apple should be allowed to take its requested depositions but suggest that they happen only once, presumably at the end of fact discovery. This proposal fails to address the need to promptly determine the extent of the Defendants’ misappropriation and to handle the actual or potential spread of Apple’s trade secrets. It would mean Apple would have to wait months or years to question a witness about that information. Meanwhile, OpenAI could keep using Apple’s hardware trade secrets while racing to design and launch its own hardware device.
Defendants concede that Apple should be permitted to take its requested depositions but propose that they occur only once, presumably at the end of fact discovery. That proposal does not address the need to promptly discover the scope of Defendants’ misappropriation and deal with the actual or potential dissemination of Apple’s trade secrets. It would mean that Apple would have to wait months or years to ask a witness about that information. Meanwhile, OpenAI could continue to use Apple’s hardware trade secrets while racing to design and launch its own hardware device.
Apple’s motion for expedited discovery is set for a hearing before Judge Edward Davila on October 1, though the judge may rule on the request earlier.
You can read Apple’s full response below:
Do you think Apple should be granted expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon