Apple has shared new details in its ongoing lawsuit over the iOS 26 leak, confirming that it is coordinating a deposition with Jon Prosser even after the court entered a default judgment against him. The update comes as part of a joint status report filed with Michael Ramacciotti’s legal team, and it shows that the case is still moving through discovery.
Last July, Apple sued Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti, accusing them of misappropriating trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Apple alleges that Ramacciotti accessed a development iPhone belonging to Ethan Lipnik, who was later fired, and then used a FaceTime call to show Prosser details of what became known as the Liquid Glass redesign of iOS 26.
According to court filings, Ramacciotti has cooperated with Apple and the court in recent months, while Prosser failed to meet the deadline to respond to Apple’s complaint. In October, the court granted Apple’s request for a default judgment against Prosser, meaning he lost the right to formally contest the allegations.
At the time, Prosser responded publicly:
“Regardless of what is being reported, and regardless of what the court documents say, I have, in fact, been in active communications with Apple since the beginning stages of this case. The notion that I’m ignoring the case is incorrect. That’s all I am able to say.”
Deposition and Discovery Continue
Despite the default judgment, the latest joint report states that Apple served Prosser with document and deposition subpoenas, and that he acknowledged receipt. Apple is now working with him to schedule a date for his deposition.
This step matters because the deposition and related discovery will help determine the full scope of what confidential information Ramacciotti accessed on Lipnik’s iPhone and what Prosser received or used. That information will guide the court in deciding potential damages and remedies.
Apple has requested a jury trial and is seeking judgment in its favor, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and orders preventing further use or disclosure of its confidential information. The company also wants defendants to return or destroy any proprietary materials in their possession.
The case now moves into a phase focused on damages and enforcement, as the court evaluates how far the alleged leak went and what penalties, if any, should follow.
