Apple has asked the court overseeing its lawsuit against OpenAI and other defendants to let its own experts review forensic images used in the case, while also seeking documents related to parts of OpenAI’s hardware R&D. Here are the details.
A bit of background
In early July, Apple sued former employees, OpenAI, and io Products, accusing them of trade secret misappropriation.
The lawsuit involves former Apple employees who allegedly took confidential information with them when they left the company. Apple also alleges that former employee Chang Liu coached another Apple employee on materials to review ahead of an OpenAI interview, while Tang Tan directed Apple job candidates to bring hardware components and other materials to interviews.
More recently, Apple said an initial forensic inspection of a MacBook used by Liu after leaving the company showed that he had used a confidential Apple circuit schematic to run a simulation while working at OpenAI. Apple also said the MacBook pointed to Liu’s use of a Mac mini, which the company has since sought access to as part of the case.
OpenAI has since refuted Apple’s allegations, arguing that this situation is “a mess of Apple’s own making,” since the company’s allegedly lax offboarding and security practices made it easier for employees to unintentionally retain access to confidential information after leaving.
One of the many points of contention in the case is Apple’s request for expedited discovery, which OpenAI has opposed. Another is Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction that would restrict OpenAI’s use of Apple’s alleged trade secrets while the lawsuit proceeds, potentially affecting its ongoing hardware development.
Apple argues that it needs expedited access to certain evidence precisely because OpenAI is still developing its hardware product, meaning that any alleged use of Apple’s trade secrets could become further intertwined with that work and increasingly difficult to undo.
OpenAI, in turn, argues that Apple has not shown why a separate expedited discovery process is warranted, and says that Apple’s requests are too broad.
Due to this impasse, the court asked both sides to submit a joint filing laying out their respective positions on expedited discovery. That document, filed last Friday, has now been made public.
Apple wants access to forensic images, R&D material
In the joint filing, Apple asks the court to allow its own forensic experts to review the underlying forensic images that the defendants’ experts relied on to analyze Liu’s devices and determine whether he accessed or used Apple’s confidential information after leaving the company.
Apple says one of its forensic experts has already identified what it describes as “critical flaws” in that analysis, and argues that its experts need direct access to determine whether there were other problems with the defendants’ forensic analysis.
Here’s Apple:
Apple’s forensic expert has already uncovered several critical flaws in the analysis conducted by Defendants’ experts, including (1) failures to locate files on Mr. Liu’s Mac Mini that were demonstrably used and stored on that device and (2) incorrect conclusions that the presence of files with zero bytes or an empty kMDItemLastUsedDate field on the Mac Mini means those files were not accessed. […] Giving Apple’s experts direct access to these forensic images is critical to understanding what other errors Defendants’ experts may have committed.
OpenAI argues that Apple’s experts should not be given unrestricted access to the forensic images, proposing instead that a neutral forensic expert handle them under a jointly agreed protocol.
Apple argues that this would put it at a disadvantage, since the defendants’ own forensic experts have already had direct access to the same material.
In addition to the forensic material, Apple is seeking expedited access to documents related to OpenAI’s hardware development, including work on metal finishes, power management, and battery functionality.
OpenAI previously argued that its metal finishes were developed independently, without using Apple confidential information, and that a simulation Liu ran using an Apple confidential file had nothing to do with its upcoming product.
Apple is now asking for the underlying development records so it can test those claims, which OpenAI says is just an attempt to “snoop on a competitor.”
Here’s Apple:
As Defendants have now put their development at issue, they must prove their assertions that they “developed their own standard metal finishes and colors” by producing supporting documents. Apple is not requesting “a complete technical record of OpenAI’s development of any technology,” as OpenAI asserts, but rather technology related to “metal finishes, power management, or battery functionality,” the technology that Defendants have put at issue in defending against Apple’s claims.
And here’s OpenAI:
This demand for a complete technical record of OpenAI’s development of any technology within Apple’s broad categories is overbroad and premature, and an apparent attempt to snoop on a competitor. Apple’s request is not even limited to OpenAI’s first product under development, which Apple expressed ostensible concern about […]—it encompasses any research and development. And it requires OpenAI to reveal its trade secrets before Apple has revealed its own (which are the subject of this lawsuit)—placing this request far beyond the scope of merits-based discovery, let alone “expedited” discovery.
The joint filing also touches on several other points of contention, including:
– Apple’s broader request for forensic images from devices used by Liu, Tan, former Apple employee Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng, and another OpenAI employee that contain or previously contained what Apple defines as “Apple Originated Information;
– Records related to Liu’s use of AI tools, after the defendants said a forensic investigation found no evidence that he used an Apple confidential file with platforms including ChatGPT, Codex, Claude, or OpenClaw;
– Interview-related documents from OpenAI’s Consumer Hardware Products Group, including materials showing what the group actually uses during interviews and communications with departing Apple employees;
– Interrogatories that OpenAI says could reach more than 400 former Apple employees now working at the company.
Apple is also seeking the full LINE conversations between Liu and Peng, which include exchanges in which Peng asked Liu technical questions about Apple work after he had left the company.
The defendants had already submitted excerpts from those conversations in opposing Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction, but Apple argues that it should be allowed to review the full exchanges rather than only the messages the defendants chose to submit.
You can read the full joint submission below.
Worth checking out on Amazon