OpenAI and other defendants filed a motion in a California federal court to strike two expert declarations and exclude additional evidence submitted by Apple in its trade secret misappropriation case. The filing argues that Apple improperly introduced new materials after the discovery period closed, violating procedural rules. The lawsuit stems from Apple’s claim that OpenAI and former Apple designer Jony Ive’s company io Products stole confidential information related to product design and development.
Apple initiated the legal action alleging that OpenAI and io Products misappropriated trade secrets during collaborations involving artificial intelligence and hardware innovation. The defendants contend that the evidence Apple now seeks to introduce was not disclosed during the mandated discovery phase and should therefore be inadmissible. They assert that allowing such late submissions would undermine fair trial principles and give Apple an unfair advantage. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to strike.
OpenAI’s legal team argues that Apple’s recent submissions include expert opinions and documents that were not part of the original discovery exchange, making them untimely under federal court rules. The defendants maintain that Apple had ample opportunity to present this information earlier and is now attempting to bolster its case through procedural maneuvering. They emphasize that the court should uphold discovery deadlines to ensure both sides have equal footing in litigation. The motion specifically targets two expert declarations and related exhibits filed by Apple in late March.
If the court grants the motion to strike, Apple’s ability to support its claims could be weakened, particularly if the excluded evidence is central to proving alleged misappropriation. A denial, however, would allow Apple to proceed with its current evidence lineup, potentially strengthening its position. Legal experts note that rulings on evidentiary disputes like this often influence settlement discussions or shape the trajectory of pretrial proceedings. The outcome may also signal how courts handle similar disputes in high-stakes tech litigation involving AI and design innovation.
Should the court reject OpenAI’s request, the defendants would need to respond to the newly admitted evidence, possibly requiring additional expert rebuttals or further discovery. This could prolong the litigation and increase legal costs for both parties. OpenAI might then consider appealing the decision or focusing on undermining the credibility of the evidence during trial. Either way, the dispute over evidence admissibility adds another layer of complexity to an already contentious case involving prominent figures in technology and design.
What evidence is OpenAI trying to have removed from the case? OpenAI seeks to strike two expert declarations and related documents that Apple submitted after the discovery period ended, arguing they were not properly disclosed and violate court rules on timely evidence submission.
Why does OpenAI believe Apple’s evidence is improper? OpenAI claims Apple had sufficient opportunity to present the evidence during discovery and is now attempting to introduce it late to gain an unfair advantage, which undermines procedural fairness in litigation.
What could happen if the court allows the evidence to stand? If admitted, the evidence could strengthen Apple’s case, potentially affecting settlement talks or trial outcomes, and may require OpenAI to mount a stronger defense or seek expert counter-testimony.