OpenAI must turn over certain interview materials involving job candidates from Apple, including recruiting scripts and technical presentations. Apple will not get the broad, expedited access to its rival’s hardware research that it sought.
The October 13 ruling gives Apple an early look at evidence tied to OpenAI’s consumer-hardware and robotics recruiting. It also permits testimony from senior former Apple employees, including OpenAI chief hardware officer Tang Yew Tan.
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila granted Apple’s expedited-discovery motion only in part. The order accelerates access to specified evidence; it does not establish that OpenAI or any former Apple employee stole trade secrets, or give Apple unrestricted access to OpenAI’s hardware development.
The Order Covers Interview Records, Forensic Images and Messages
The ruling, issued in the Northern District of California in Apple Inc. v. Chang Liu et al., requires the defendants to respond to three categories of document requests. Materials already collected in the litigation must be produced within five days; other covered materials are due within fourteen days.
The permitted document requests reach beyond conventional recruiting records:
- Interview materials: Documents used to guide or conduct interviews of candidates from Apple for OpenAI’s consumer-hardware organization, including its consumer-hardware and robotics groups. These include checklists, guides, instructions, manuals and scripts.
- Technical interview records: Technical Deep Dive presentations and other documents recording the content of those interviews, including references to Apple technology or parts.
- Forensic images: Device images the defendants have already collected in connection with the subject matter of Apple’s claims, including material examined or relied upon by their forensic expert.
- Private messages: All LINE conversations between Chang Liu and Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng since January 1, 2026, including the conversations containing messages cited in Liu’s earlier court declaration.
The interview request is particularly consequential: it covers both how candidates were questioned and what they presented. A recruiting script can show what an employer asked candidates to discuss; a technical presentation can show what information entered the process. Neither, by itself, establishes that protected information was improperly requested or disclosed.
