A federal judge has scrapped Wednesday’s scheduled hearing in Apple’s trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI — deciding the dispute on the papers instead — while handing Apple a fast but narrow win on early access to OpenAI’s hiring documents and employee testimony.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila issued the order on Tuesday, October 13, in the Northern District of California, ruling on Apple’s motion for expedited discovery. Finding the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument under the district’s local rules, he vacated the preliminary-injunction hearing that had been set for October 14, 2026. (Apple Inc. v. Liu et al., No. 5:26-cv-07078, ECF 175.)

The ruling is a discovery order, not a verdict. Davila has not ruled on Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction, and the order makes no finding that any Apple trade secret was actually taken by OpenAI or the individual defendants. That central question remains pending.

What Apple gets — and how fast

Davila granted most of Apple’s expedited-discovery requests, on a tight clock. The defendants must respond within 14 days — or within five days for material they have already collected — to three categories of requests:

• Forensic images already collected on the subject matter of Apple’s claims, including the images examined by OpenAI’s own forensic expert.
• Interview materials used to recruit from Apple: all documents that guided or recorded interviews of Apple candidates for OpenAI’s Consumer Hardware Products Group — which the order notes includes its Robotics Group — such as checklists, guides, instructions, manuals, scripts, and “Technical Deep Dive” presentations or other records of those interviews.
• Private chats: all LINE conversations between former Apple engineer Chang Liu and Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng going back to January 1, 2026, including the messages cited in an earlier defense filing.

The judge also authorized depositions of three people — Chang Liu, Tang Yew Tan, and Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng — to take place within 30 days after Apple receives all the ordered responses. A corporate deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) of OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC, and io Products was granted on one topic: the positions, roles, and responsibilities within OpenAI of the designated witnesses, Tan, Liu, Peng, and one individual whose name is redacted in the order.

What the judge refused — for now

The order is not the sweeping early access Apple wanted. Davila denied expedited treatment of Apple’s request for OpenAI’s research and development documents on metal finishes, power management, and battery functionality for consumer hardware products, ruling those belong in ordinary discovery on a normal timeline.

He also denied — for now — Apple’s request to depose a fourth individual named in its narrowed requests, and he declined Apple’s request to rule that these depositions fall outside the usual deposition limits under the federal rules, writing that the court will entertain future motions to exceed those limits as necessary.

And every request built on Apple’s defined term “Apple Originated Information” was deferred. The judge called the definition “amorphous as currently defined,” finding it broad enough to reach information belonging to third parties and potentially creating what Bloomberg Law described as an “extremely burdensome, and perhaps untenable task” for OpenAI. Apple has five days to confer with the defendants and propose a narrower definition if it wants those requests revived.

Why the judge split the difference

In weighing the request, Davila acknowledged the force of OpenAI’s objection that Apple wanted to “rummage through its former employees’ and competitor’s files in an effort to find something it can then claim is a trade secret” — a claim the judge wrote was “not entirely frivolous,” while noting Apple had already given the defendants a preliminary list of the trade secrets it says were taken.

Two considerations tipped the balance toward granting the narrowed requests. First, forensic records such as logs and metadata can be lost: the order cites a conversation in which Liu and Peng discussed restoring Apple-owned devices. Second, Apple argued the alleged secrets could become so deeply entangled with OpenAI’s hardware products and research efforts that the harm could not be undone — a concern the judge credited. He declined, at this stage, to weigh the two sides’ competing forensic findings.

The case so far

Apple filed the lawsuit on July 10, 2026, accusing two former employees — Chang Liu, a senior system electrical engineer who left Apple in January 2026, and Tang Tan, a former vice president of product design for iPhone and Apple Watch who left in February 2024 — along with OpenAI and io Products, of misappropriating its confidential information and trade secrets. Tan co-founded io, which merged with OpenAI; he is now OpenAI’s chief hardware officer.

Apple’s complaint alleges, among other things, that Tan directed job candidates still working at Apple to bring “actual parts” to “show and tell” interview sessions, and that Liu downloaded a compilation of more than a thousand pages of technical files before leaving. These are Apple’s allegations; the defendants dispute them. OpenAI has moved to dismiss the case and has said it neither possesses nor wants Apple’s trade secrets. The defendants’ forensic expert, according to the order, found no evidence that Liu used the file Apple points to in connection with any AI platform.

The preliminary injunction Apple seeks would bar the defendants from accessing, using, disclosing, or soliciting Apple’s confidential information and trade secrets while the case plays out — restrictions Apple argues would stop its alleged secrets from becoming further embedded in OpenAI’s hardware development. That motion is still pending; the evidence fight over what forms part of the record — including Apple’s reply brief backed by five expert declarations and the defendants’ bid to strike two of them — continues alongside it.

For more on the case before this order, read our earlier story and our coverage of OpenAI’s GPT-6.1 Astra saga.

What happens next

The order sets a brisk calendar: Apple’s narrower definition of “Apple Originated Information” is due within five days; already-collected material is due in five days; the remaining document responses in 14; and the three depositions plus the corporate deposition within 30 days after Apple receives all responses.

Whether the vacated hearing gets rescheduled for the injunction motion itself — and whether the fast-tracked discovery turns up anything that moves the needle — will determine how quickly this case, with its unusual window into how OpenAI recruits from Apple, develops from here.

Frequently asked questions

Was the October 14 hearing cancelled?

Yes. Judge Davila decided Apple’s expedited-discovery motion without oral argument and vacated the hearing that had been set for October 14, 2026. The preliminary-injunction motion itself remains pending.

Did the judge rule that OpenAI stole Apple’s trade secrets?

No. The October 13 order is a discovery ruling only. It makes no finding that any trade secret was taken, and Apple’s underlying allegations remain unproven.

What documents must OpenAI turn over?

Forensic images already collected, interview materials used to recruit Apple employees for OpenAI’s Consumer Hardware Products Group (including its Robotics Group), and LINE chats between Chang Liu and Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng since January 1, 2026 — within 5 to 14 days.

Who can Apple depose?

Chang Liu, Tang Yew Tan, and Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng, plus corporate representatives of OpenAI and io Products on the roles and responsibilities of the key people involved. A fourth person’s deposition was denied for now.

What did Apple fail to get?

Early access to OpenAI’s R&D documents on metal finishes, power management, and battery functionality (those go to ordinary discovery), and — for now — everything built on its “Apple Originated Information” definition, which the judge called amorphous. Apple has five days to propose a narrower version.

Who are the individual defendants?

Chang Liu, a former Apple senior system electrical engineer who left in January 2026, and Tang Tan, Apple’s former vice president of product design for iPhone and Apple Watch, who left in February 2024, co-founded io, and is now OpenAI’s chief hardware officer.

Sources: Order granting limited expedited discovery, Apple Inc. v. Liu et al., N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-07078, ECF 175 (Oct. 13, 2026), as reported by FourWeekMBA (which read the docket), 9to5Mac, Bloomberg Law, iThinkDiff, and unite.ai. All allegations described are Apple’s claims, disputed by the defendants.