Judge Orders OpenAI to Hand Over Hiring Records in Apple Case

A federal judge has ordered OpenAI to turn over its hiring records within five days, giving Apple an early foothold in its trade secrets lawsuit against the AI company it sued in July.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila ruled that Apple deserves expedited access to documents tied to OpenAI's interviews with former Apple employees who applied for jobs inside OpenAI's consumer hardware and robotics groups. The ruling lands just ahead of the rumored launch of OpenAI's first hardware device — the product at the center of the dispute.

The stakes are straightforward. Apple is trying to prove a pattern of theft before OpenAI ships a device that could one day rival the iPhone. Early access to hiring records could show whether OpenAI's recruiters knowingly harvested Apple secrets during interviews.

What exactly did the judge order?

The court will let Apple see a specific slice of OpenAI's hiring materials. That includes:

• Interview checklists, guides, instructions, manuals, and scripts
• Technical presentations used in interviews
• Records showing that interview discussions included references to Apple technology or components

The timeline is tight. OpenAI has five days to hand over materials it has already collected, and 14 days for anything else covered by the request. The judge agreed with Apple's argument that these documents warranted expedited handling.

Davila didn't give Apple everything it asked for. But he did approve access to the interview materials along with private LINE messages — from the messaging app — exchanged between individuals named in the case, including OpenAI employees Chang Liu and Alyssa Peng.

The judge also greenlit depositions for Liu and Peng, plus a third person: OpenAI's chief hardware officer, Tang Yew Tan. All three are former Apple employees.

That combination — interview files, private messages, and sworn testimony from the people Apple accuses — gives the company its clearest early look at how talent moved between the two firms.

What does Apple actually allege?

Apple's lawsuit, filed in July, accuses OpenAI of a pattern of theft. The complaints get concrete. Apple says it caught former employees using Apple laptops to download confidential material, including files with information about unannounced technologies, features, and products.

According to Apple, those files covered technical specifications, engineering presentations, and proprietary project data.

Apple also claims that former Apple employees now at OpenAI coached colleagues who were considering the jump — specifically on what information to bring to their OpenAI interviews. If true, that allegation would fit squarely with the interview records Davila just ordered released.

No court has ruled on the merits of these claims. The current order is about discovery — what evidence Apple can see, and how fast.

Where did the judge draw the line?

Davila denied several of Apple's broader requests. Notably, Apple won't get expedited access to OpenAI's research and development in specific technical areas, such as metal finishes and power management.

He also rejected Apple's push to see OpenAI's hardware research more broadly, along with information about what the former Apple employees created after arriving at OpenAI.

Those denials aren't necessarily permanent. The judge left the door open for Apple to narrow its requests and try again.

The split suggests the court wants to keep discovery focused. Apple gets documents tied directly to the alleged theft — interviews, messages, and testimony. It doesn't yet get a look inside OpenAI's labs.

Why does this case matter beyond the two companies?

The lawsuit sits at the intersection of two converging ambitions. OpenAI is building a consumer hardware device that, if it becomes central to how people use software and services, could compete with the iPhone — or with smartphones generally.

Apple, meanwhile, is defending the moat around its most important product. Its lawyers are arguing that OpenAI's hardware effort was seeded, in part, with secrets lifted from Apple's own engineers.

The case also tests how courts handle talent-driven knowledge transfer in AI. Employees move between tech companies constantly, and the line between what a person knows and what a company owns is often blurry. Apple's allegation that interview coaching was used to extract specifics — not just hire skilled people — pushes into new territory.

For the wider industry, the discovery rules set here could shape how aggressively companies police departures to AI rivals.

What happens next?

The clock is already running. OpenAI must produce its collected hiring materials within five days, and the rest within 14 days. Depositions of Liu, Peng, and Tan will follow.

Apple will likely come back with narrowed requests for OpenAI's R&D materials, which Davila has signaled he's willing to reconsider. And the rumored hardware launch adds pressure on both sides: whatever OpenAI ships, Apple's lawyers will now have a documentary record of how the team that built it was assembled.