Apple v. OpenAI Trade-Secret Case Enters Discovery: Reading the Court's Pretrial Calendar Date by Date
No side has won anything yet. What the court has produced instead is a timetable, and right now that timetable is the most concrete piece of information available about one of the AI industry's most closely watched legal fights. Paper submissions are to be substantially complete by February 5, 2027; fact discovery closes on March 12; expert discovery closes on April 28. Lead attorneys for both camps must sit down on June 1, and the final pretrial conference is penciled in for June 24, with Davila set to take up evidence experts and other substantive motions on June 10. The dispute pits Apple against OpenAI, against two former Apple employees identified in the filings as Don Tan and Liu Chang, and against io Products. Readers should treat every one of those dates as procedural housekeeping for a federal civil case — the schedule signals that the case is moving, not that the parties are preparing to shake hands.
The calendar, milestone by milestone
| Date | What the order schedules | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|
| June 1 | Chief attorneys for the two sides meet to talk settlement prospects, joint pretrial filings and narrowing the disputed issues | A routine case-management step; it is not evidence that either party is conceding |
| February 5, 2027 | Document and filing submissions expected to be largely finished | Draws the outer boundary of the written record before the evidentiary phases close |
| March 12 | Fact discovery ends | After this point the factual record is effectively frozen |
| April 28 | Expert discovery ends | Closes the collection of opinion testimony that typically carries the technical arguments |
| June 10 | Davila plans to hear evidence experts and other substantive motions | The first scheduled moment when legal theories, not just documents, are stress-tested |
| June 24 | Final pretrial conference | The last listed checkpoint before the case reaches a trial-ready posture |
The case on one screen
- Filed: July 2026
- Plaintiff: Apple
- Defendants: OpenAI; two former Apple employees, Don Tan and Liu Chang; related OpenAI entities; io Products
- Core allegation: after the two employees left, confidential material involving product design and technology went with them and was used to support consumer hardware development
- Core response: OpenAI rejects the account, saying staff may have retained or still been able to reach Apple files without realizing it
- Current stage: evidence gathering
- Ruling status: the court has made no finding on whether trade secrets were misappropriated
How the complaint took shape
Apple brought the suit in July 2026, and the defendant list itself tells part of the story: it names not only OpenAI but also the two individuals who moved between the companies, an OpenAI-affiliated entity, and io Products. The pleading frames the allegation narrowly around departure and information flow — the claim is that design and technology secrets left Apple with Don Tan and Liu Chang and ended up feeding work on consumer hardware.
OpenAI's position, as stated publicly, does not accept that characterization. The company has raised the possibility that access to or retention of Apple material could have persisted without the employees' knowledge — a framing that shifts the question from deliberate transfer to the hygiene of account permissions, device management and offboarding practice. That is a meaningful distinction for companies hiring across rivals: it converts an ethics story into a controls story.
What the parties have already been arguing about
Before the scheduling order, the quarrel was procedural rather than factual. Apple sought limits, asking the court to restrain the use of the material it describes as confidential by OpenAI and by the former employees. OpenAI answered with a commitment to abstain from using Apple trade secrets while the litigation runs.
The court's recent activity has leaned toward widening the record. It approved Apple's request to pull additional material tied to Apple alumni now working for OpenAI — devices, communications, recruiting interviews and internal handling of confidential files. Nothing in that order resolves the underlying question. It means the evidence collection phase is being taken seriously, and that hiring paperwork, interview notes and laptop custody records are now part of the case file.
Three readings the dates do not support
- Not a settlement signal. The June 1 discussion covers the possibility of settlement along with joint filings and issue-narrowing; the schedule simply requires that conversation to happen.
- Not a finding of wrongdoing. The calendar advances the process; Apple's allegation about misappropriated secrets has not been adjudicated.
- Not an unusual docket. Every listed step falls inside normal federal civil practice, so the dates describe pace, not severity.
FAQ: what observers keep asking
Has the court decided whether Apple's secrets were taken?
No. The litigation is still in the evidence-gathering stage, and no ruling has been issued on whether the allegation holds.
What does OpenAI actually concede?
It has promised not to use Apple trade secrets during the lawsuit. That commitment addresses conduct during litigation, not liability for what already happened.
Which records are now in play?
The court recently let Apple obtain further material connected to former Apple staff at OpenAI, spanning hardware, communications, recruiting interviews and internal handling of confidential information.
Why does the "without knowing" argument matter beyond this case?
If retained access after departure becomes the central defense, the practical lesson for the industry is about offboarding: revoking credentials, reclaiming devices and logging data access when senior engineers resign.
What is the next date worth watching?
February 5, 2027, when filings are expected to be largely done, then March 12 for fact discovery, April 28 for expert discovery, June 10 for substantive motions before Davila, and June 24 for the final pretrial conference.
The bottom line for the industry
For anyone covering the movement of talent between model labs and hardware programs, the takeaway is procedural clarity rather than legal resolution. The court has replaced an open-ended dispute with six fixed checkpoints running from June 1 through June 24 and into the spring, which means the record — devices, messages, interview notes — will either support Apple's account or it will not, and the answer will surface on that calendar. Until March 12 closes fact discovery and April 28 closes the expert phase, the case remains a set of competing claims with a schedule attached, and the safer read for now is exactly that.