Apple has submitted its response to OpenAI’s attempt to block expedited discovery in its ongoing trade secret lawsuit. Here are the details.
A bit of background
Earlier this month, Apple asked for an expedited discovery process in its lawsuit accusing former employees, OpenAI, and io Products of trade secret misappropriation.
That would include early production of documents and communications, forensic imaging of devices and accounts, and depositions of key witnesses.
Essentially, Apple wants substantive responses to its written discovery within 30 days and an OpenAI corporate deposition within 50 days, with both completed at the outset of the case rather than left to the broader fact-discovery process.
Apple needs expedited discovery to uncover dissipating facts outside its control to determine the full scope of how its proprietary information and trade secrets have been misappropriated.
Apple’s motion came one day after Apple filed for a preliminary injunction, seeking to stop OpenAI and the other defendants from accessing, using, or disclosing Apple’s alleged proprietary information while the case proceeds.
In essence, Apple argues that the longer OpenAI and the other defendants are allowed to use its alleged trade secrets, the harder it will be to reverse the alleged damage.
The harm is happening now—every day that passes without an injunction allows OpenAI to embed their knowledge of Apple’s stolen information into its hardware development efforts, further damaging Apple and making it increasingly more difficult to unwind the harm.
Following Apple’s motion for expedited discovery, OpenAI and the other defendants filed an opposition, arguing that the request was unnecessary because much of the regular discovery process would overlap with Apple’s proposed expedited timeline. It also argued that Apple’s requests were “overbroad,” “burdensome,” and based on “improper purposes.”
In any event, Apple fails to show the requisite good cause for expedited discovery, including because Apple’s discovery requests are untethered to the requested preliminary injunction, and instead appear aimed at gaining an improper peek at the corporate Defendants’ competitive product plans and strategies.
Which brings us to today.
Apple fires back
Apple today filed its reply to OpenAI’s opposition, arguing that not only did it establish “good cause for expedited discovery” in its initial filing, but also that its request isn’t moot, “even if expedited discovery overlaps with ordinary discovery.”
Apple also says the opposition brief “telegraphs the alternative: absent a court order, they will object, delay, and condition discovery into their misappropriation on tangential ‘reciprocal’ demands.”
Defendants’ “mootness” position cannot be squared with court decisions in this district granting expedited discovery, even when ordinary discovery is set to open shortly. Moreover, this motion is now fully briefed, and resolving it promptly will inform the earliest stages of these proceedings. Even if expedited discovery overlaps with ordinary discovery, an order requiring some limited, urgent discovery to be completed at the outset will ensure that Defendants respond substantively in the first instance, rather than with boilerplate objections and promises to supplement over weeks and months.
In its response, Apple also narrows the timeframe of its document requests to August 1, 2023, and later, while poking at OpenAI’s objection that the requests lacked a date limit:
Defendants also argue that Apple’s [requests for production] are not limited to a specific timeframe. Defendants should not have Apple’s confidential information from any timeframe. However, to address Defendants’ concerns, Apple further specifies that it seeks Communications, Documents, and Things (as defined in the RFPs) dated on or after August 1, 2023 approximately six months before Mr. Tan left Apple to join OpenAI.
Finally, Apple reiterates that its urgency comes from concerns that OpenAI and the other defendants could keep using the alleged trade secrets while developing their own hardware, while Apple waits “months or years” to question key witnesses:
Defendants concede that Apple should be permitted to take its requested depositions but propose that they occur only once, presumably at the end of fact discovery. That proposal does not address the need to promptly discover the scope of Defendants’ misappropriation and deal with the actual or potential dissemination of Apple’s trade secrets. It would mean that Apple would have to wait months or years to ask a witness about that information. Meanwhile, OpenAI could continue to use Apple’s hardware trade secrets while racing to design and launch its own hardware device.
Apple’s expedited-discovery motion is scheduled for a hearing before Judge Edward Davila on October 1, although the judge could rule on the request before then.
You can read Apple’s full response below:
gov.uscourts.cand.474095.90.0Download
Do you think Apple should be granted expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon
You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel
