Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Apple filed suit on July 10, 2026, alleging that former employees Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan misappropriated trade secrets and breached Intellectual Property Agreements to assist OpenAI in developing consumer hardware. Apple claimed the Individual Defendants accessed proprietary information, used insider knowledge during interviews of Apple employees considering jobs at OpenAI, and instructed new hires on avoiding scrutiny when leaving Apple. Apple also alleged the Corporate Defendants (OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC, and io Products, LLC) acted in concert as an enterprise exploiting Apple’s confidential information.
On August 4, 2026, Apple moved for expedited discovery in connection with its concurrently filed preliminary injunction motion, seeking documents, interrogatory responses, and depositions. Defendants opposed, arguing the requests were overbroad, not tailored to the preliminary injunction, and that good cause was lacking. The parties submitted supplemental briefing addressing competing forensic analyses of Liu’s MacBook and Mac Mini, and after a September 14 status conference, filed a joint submission with Apple’s narrowed discovery requests.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion for expedited discovery. Applying the five-factor good-cause test, the Court found the pending preliminary injunction motion and risk of evidence spoliation weighed in favor of limited expedited discovery, but the breadth of Apple’s proposed definition of “Apple Originated Information” and the resulting compliance burden weighed against granting the full request. The Court ordered production within 14 days (5 days for already-collected materials) of: (1) all forensic images Defendants collected or relied upon; (2) documents guiding interviews of Apple candidates for OpenAI’s Consumer Hardware Products Group, including technical presentations referencing Apple technology; and (3) all LINE conversations between Liu and Peng since January 1, 2026. The Court denied expedited discovery for broad R&D documents on metal finishes, power management, and battery functionality.
The Court granted 30(b)(1) depositions of Liu, Tan, and Peng within 30 days of receiving permitted responses, but denied deposition of a fourth individual. It granted a 30(b)(6) deposition for the Corporate Defendants limited to Topic 1 (positions, roles, and responsibilities of designated witnesses, Liu, Tan, Peng, and a redacted individual). The Court deferred ruling on all requests incorporating “Apple Originated Information,” ordering Apple to confer and propose a more tailored definition within 5 days. The Court declined to exempt the expedited depositions from Rule 30 limits.
Key Takeaways
- Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a five-factor ‘good cause’ test for expedited discovery: (1) pending preliminary injunction, (2) breadth of requests, (3) purpose, (4) burden on defendants, and (5) timing relative to standard discovery.
- A pending preliminary injunction motion weighs in favor of expedited discovery to allow for enforcement, but does not alone justify it.
- Risk of spoliation of transient forensic artifacts (logs, metadata, usage records) supports good cause, especially when combined with evidence discussing device restoration.
- Overbroad definitions like “Apple Originated Information” that are untethered to the preliminary injunction issues and encompass third-party information will be rejected or deferred.
- Expedited depositions granted under Rule 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6) count toward the presumptive limits of Rule 30 unless the court later orders otherwise.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the Northern District of California’s approach to balancing the need for early discovery in trade secret cases against the burden of overbroad requests. The Court recognized the particular vulnerability of digital evidence to spoliation and the need to investigate the scope of misappropriation before trade secrets become entangled with a competitor’s products. However, it drew a clear line at discovery requests that function as a ‘rummage’ through a competitor’s files, requiring definitions tied to the specific claims at issue.
The deferral of the “Apple Originated Information” definition forces the plaintiff to precisely tailor its trade secret identification early, a practice increasingly demanded in trade secret litigation. The ruling also confirms that expedited discovery does not automatically supplement the Federal Rules’ numerical limits on depositions and interrogatories. The order resolves only the motion and issues described above. Any claims, defenses, or later approval questions not decided by the order remain for further proceedings in the trial court.