Apple has filed a new response opposing OpenAI’s attempt to block expedited discovery in their ongoing trade secret lawsuit, arguing that faster access to documents, communications, devices, and witness testimony remains necessary while the alleged misuse of Apple information continues.
Earlier this month, Apple asked the court to require substantive responses to written discovery within 30 days and an OpenAI corporate deposition within 50 days, saying delays would make it harder to determine how widely its alleged trade secrets have been used or shared.
OpenAI and the other defendants opposed that request, calling Apple’s discovery demands “overbroad” and “burdensome,” while arguing that normal discovery would cover much of the same ground.
Don’t miss the best of The Mac Observer
Set us as a preferred source and our Apple reporting ranks higher in your Google Search results and Discover feed — one tap, no account changes.
Apple narrows its request but keeps pressure on OpenAI
Apple responded by saying its request still serves a clear purpose even if expedited discovery overlaps with the normal process, because an early court order would force substantive responses instead of delays and repeated objections.
Apple said in its latest court filing:
“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.”
Apple also narrowed the date range for its document requests to August 1, 2023, and later, around six months before former employee Mr. Tan left Apple to join OpenAI.
The company also repeated its concern that OpenAI could continue using Apple’s alleged hardware trade secrets while developing its own devices, while Apple waits “months or years” to question key witnesses during normal discovery.
Apple’s expedited discovery motion is currently scheduled for an October 1 hearing before Judge Edward Davila, although the judge can rule on the request before that date.
Discussion