Apple and the Department of Justice have hit a roadblock in their ongoing antitrust lawsuit over how recent internal corporate documents need to be for the discovery phase. Both parties filed a joint notice with the court to explain their disagreement. The core issue revolves around whether the tech giant must hand over records up until the very end of the extended trial timeline.
DOJ demands newer records while the company refuses further delays
Under the first schedule for the case, the presumptive cutoff date for document discovery was set for June 20, 2025. However, the court has pushed the close of fact discovery all the way to late May 2027. Now, the government wants Apple to keep handing over internal records until 30 days before that new 2027 deadline.
The tech maker strongly disagrees with this demand. The company stated that it already spent massive resources to evaluate 11 million files and submit over two million documents covering an 18-year period. Collecting and reviewing new materials from 54 custodians for an extra 22-month window would push the schedule back by several more months.
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.
The two sides blame each other for dragging out the lawsuit
To compromise, the tech company offered to consider specific requests for newer documents on an individual basis. The government rejected this idea, arguing that handling targeted requests would be unworkable and just lead to more arguments.
The two sides also traded blame for the shifting schedule. While the government claims Apple caused the timeline extensions, the company pointed out that federal prosecutors have still not provided documents for requests served over 15 months ago.
With both sides completely stuck, the federal judge overseeing the case will now have to step in. The upcoming ruling on this document cutoff date will heavily influence how much new evidence appears in court and whether the trial faces even more schedule changes.
Discussion