A court ruling has granted Apple the right to obtain personnel records and related documentation from OpenAI as part of its trade-secrets litigation against the artificial intelligence company. A ruling from US District Judge Edward Davila extended the document disclosure order to cover records tied to interviews conducted with former Apple staff who had been working across that company's consumer hardware and robotics divisions.
Among the materials potentially covered are interview guides, checklists, technical presentations, and internal communications. Under the same ruling, Tang Yew Tan — now serving as OpenAI's chief hardware officer but previously employed at Apple — is among three former Apple staff members whose private communications the company may review and who can be called in for questioning.
The lawsuit connects to OpenAI's wider move into consumer hardware — a market where Apple has built a long-established foothold. A lawsuit lodged by Apple in July 2026 centred on allegations that former employees had moved confidential company data to OpenAI. No court has yet validated those allegations, and the order handed down addresses the collection of evidence rather than settling the matter on its merits.
Court authorisation gave Apple the ability to obtain specific records connected to OpenAI's recruitment of former employees from the tech company's consumer hardware and robotics teams. Among the materials covered are interview guides, checklists, instructional manuals, operational scripts, and technical presentations. Those documentary records — covering whether conversations during interviews touched on Apple's technology or hardware components — fall within the company's review rights.
Under the terms of the order, materials OpenAI has already gathered are to be turned over within five days, while additional documents falling within the scope of the request carry a 14-day deadline, a news outlet has reported. As part of the same ruling, the court granted Apple access to private LINE messaging records tied to individuals named in the proceedings, among them OpenAI staff members Chang Liu and Alyssa Peng. Prior to their current roles, the two individuals had each held positions at Apple.
Documentation of that kind could place Apple in a position to determine whether restricted information surfaced in hiring conversations and whether departing staff passed along materials they had no permission to share. At the heart of Apple's legal action lie claims that OpenAI drew on confidential material passed along by former staff members to advance its push into consumer hardware.
The lawsuit filed by Apple put forward claims that certain staff members had removed proprietary documents or tapped into internal systems either shortly before or after their employment ended. Allegations put forward by the organisation included that OpenAI staff who had previously worked at Apple steered other job applicants toward what materials to present during their interviews. Apple's concerns centre on the potential exposure of its own hardware blueprints, internal technical data, and details tied to products not yet made public.
Among those identified in the proceedings is Chang Liu, who previously held a systems electrical engineering post at Apple. The court filing from Apple contends that proprietary hardware documents were taken from its systems by him. The lawsuit additionally lists Tang Yew Tan — who holds the position of chief hardware officer at OpenAI and previously worked as an executive at Apple — among its named defendants. What Apple has put forward represents a set of unproven claims rather than any adjudicated conclusion of misconduct.
In response to the lawsuit, OpenAI pushed back against Apple's position, contending that the legal action lacked merit and that Apple's underlying motivation was difficulty attracting workers away from competitors. The tension surfaced as OpenAI was broadening its footprint beyond software into hardware aimed at everyday consumers.
Valued at $6.5 billion when the transaction was disclosed in 2025, the purchase of io Products — a startup that took shape under the direction of former Apple design chief Jony Ive — brought that venture under the company's ownership. Such a hardware push by OpenAI could place the company in direct competition with Apple for the attention of general consumers. A dedicated AI device would offer users a fundamentally different relationship with digital assistants than the one Apple's hardware — the iPhone in particular — channels through its proprietary software ecosystem.
Apple has raised concerns that sharing proprietary data with OpenAI could hand the company a competitive edge as it builds out its own hardware lineup. The position put forward by OpenAI holds that recruiting staff away from rival firms does not, on its own, constitute proof that proprietary information was taken. No finding of OpenAI having drawn on Apple's confidential material in its products arose from the ruling handed down by the court.
Under the order, Apple gains the right to gather defined pieces of evidence that could bear on whether its claims hold up. Apple's requests to the court were only partially met. A request from parties seeking faster access to certain OpenAI research and development materials — covering areas including metal finishes, power management, and battery functionality — was not granted by Judge Davila on an expedited basis.
Requests from Apple for faster, broader access to OpenAI's hardware research — along with information about the work that former Apple staff had taken on after moving to the AI company — went unmet. Hiring records and select other materials were made available to Apple under a limited court order, while OpenAI's hardware development files remained outside the scope of what the judge authorised for release. The company retains the option of refiling a narrowed version of those requests. Petitions that did not succeed the first time around may be refiled with the court in a tighter, more precisely scoped version.
Deposition requests for Liu, Peng, and Tan received court approval as well. Before a case reaches trial, attorneys on both sides can put witnesses and parties under oath to answer questions on the record — a process that helps establish the facts and narrow which evidence will be relevant in court. Under that order, the proceedings advance into a phase focused on gathering detailed evidence.
Under the court's timetable, OpenAI is bound to meet scheduled deadlines, while Apple holds authorisation to review the released documents and put questions to former staff members. A legal complaint lodged with the US District Court for the Northern District of California in July 2026 alleged that OpenAI, along with a handful of former employees, had unlawfully taken proprietary information to advance the company's ambitions in hardware development.
No ruling on whether OpenAI misappropriated Apple's trade secrets has been issued by the court. A ruling on the matter will follow once the evidence has been reviewed and the hearing concludes. Under the ruling, Apple stands to obtain a portion of the documentation that attorneys there plan to draw on when building their legal argument. OpenAI's wider body of research and development documentation falls outside the scope of the accelerated disclosure process authorised so far.
