A California federal judge gave OpenAI and its codefendants 14 days to respond to requests for records of OpenAI’s interviews with Apple candidates. On October 14, OpenAI raised its own allegation about a returning employee, and counsel agreed to submit a proposed order that would moot Apple’s preliminary injunction motion.
On October 13 in San Jose, California, Judge Edward J. Davila gave OpenAI 14 days to respond to requests for its Apple candidate interview files. His limited expedited discovery order identified the records Apple could obtain before ordinary discovery. The order directs the defendants to respond to a request for documents used to guide or conduct interviews of Apple candidates for OpenAI’s Consumer Hardware Products Group, including its Consumer Hardware Product Group and Robotics Group. Material the defendants have already collected carries a five-day clock from the order, and counsel agreed on October 14 to submit a stipulation and proposed order that would moot Apple’s preliminary injunction motion.
Apple’s July 10 complaint alleges that Tang Yew Tan directed candidates still working for Apple to bring “Actual parts” to OpenAI interviews for “show and tell.” One candidate, according to the complaint, said he “didn’t even know we could take those from the office.” Apple alleges that Tan used an internal Apple project name to question a candidate about an unannounced product. These are Apple’s allegations, not findings by the court.
The 5 sources behind this story: 5 court records, each linked with what it shows. Free with the weekly Litigation Sentinel brief.
The interview records now have their own court order. Davila ordered the defendants to respond to requests for guides, checklists, scripts and presentations used to conduct or memorialize interviews with Apple candidates, including references to Apple technology or parts. He also ordered responses concerning forensic images the defendants had already collected in connection with Apple’s claims and LINE conversations between defendant Chang Liu and a nonparty witness since January 1, 2026.
That is a narrower order than Apple sought. Davila declined to accelerate discovery of all OpenAI research and development records concerning metal finishes, power management and battery functionality. He deferred requests built around Apple’s definition of “Apple Originated Information,” calling the term “amorphous as currently defined.” Apple may return with a tighter definition after conferring with the defendants.
The distinction cuts through the fight. Apple alleged that hiring conversations were a way to draw out confidential hardware information. The judge authorized early access to the records of those conversations, but held back a broader search of OpenAI’s hardware work. He also allowed depositions of Liu, Tan and the nonparty witness, plus a corporate witness on specified roles and responsibilities.
Analysis: For a company hiring from a competitor, the order shows what an interview file can become: responses to discovery requests due within 14 days, with depositions permitted, while the complaint leaves Apple’s damages amount to be proven at trial.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
On October 14, OpenAI’s supplemental filing introduced a different employee journey. OpenAI alleged that a former employee who came from Apple, spent six months at OpenAI and returned to Apple sent more than 100 confidential files about at least one unreleased OpenAI device to personal accounts. OpenAI asked for room in the case schedule to investigate and, if warranted, pursue counterclaims. The filing did not establish that Apple received or used those files.
Apple answered on October 14 as well. In its response, Apple said OpenAI had raised the concern with it on October 9. Apple said it investigated and told OpenAI on October 12 that it had been unable to locate OpenAI confidential information. It also said it sought more specific information for further searches and argued that OpenAI’s allegation was unrelated to Apple’s case.
The competing filings left two accusations on the table, each tied to an employee crossing between the companies. Apple’s complaint targets what it alleges happened as candidates prepared for and attended OpenAI interviews. OpenAI’s supplement targets what it alleges a returning employee sent to personal accounts. Neither accusation was resolved in the October 14 filings.
The court’s October 14 minute entry records more than three and a half hours in court. It does not record an injunction ruling. Instead, it says counsel agreed to submit a stipulation and proposed order addressing provisions in an earlier joint filing that “will moot Apple's motion for preliminary injunction.”
That shift does not erase Davila’s discovery order. The defense asked the court to reconsider part of the order related to Request for Production No. 2, and counsel agreed to production of documents from July 2025, the io Products acquisition date, designated confidential for outside counsel eyes only. The order’s interview documents, device images, messages and depositions remain the concrete court action on the docket. Nor does the minute entry decide OpenAI’s motion to dismiss. Davila took that motion under submission and said an order would issue.
One fixed date belongs to both sides: a joint proposed case schedule is due October 23, 2026. The court directed them to work from a presumptive July 19, 2027 trial date. In this case, the injunction fight has moved toward a stipulated order, and no injunction has been granted. The docket lists three filings titled “Stipulation and Proposed Order” on October 15, and as of that date it shows no ruling on them. What those filings say, and what Davila does with them, will shape the case as Apple’s interview evidence comes due.
The Executive Briefing has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the Executive Briefing →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.