OpenAI asks court to strike Apple’s new reply expert declarations in trade-secrets suit

OpenAI and co-defendants have asked a federal judge to strike or disregard new expert evidence Apple filed with its reply brief in Apple’s trade-secrets misappropriation suit, according to a September 24, 2026 filing and reporting by 9to5Mac (Marcus Mendes, September 25, 2026).

The objection is captioned Defendants’ Objections to Reply Evidence Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(1) in Apple Inc. v. Chang Liu, Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC, and io Products, LLC, Case No. 5:26-CV-07078-EJD (N.D. Cal., San Jose Division), before Judge Edward J. Davila. A hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion is listed for October 14, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.

These are defendants’ procedural objections to reply-brief evidence — not a ruling on Apple’s trade-secret claims or on the injunction request.

What Apple put on reply — and what defendants challenge

Per the defendants’ filing (and 9to5Mac’s summary), Apple’s reply in support of its preliminary-injunction motion (ECF No. 152) attached five new expert declarations totaling 126 pages, plus numerous new exhibits. The experts named in coverage and the objection include Daniel Roffman, James Pooley, Dr. Ayman Fayed, Dr. Paul Hatch, and Dr. Jude Runge.

Defendants argue that new evidence and arguments first raised on reply are improper because the opposing party has no fair chance to respond, citing Northern District of California practice and Civil L.R. 7-3(d). In their words, Apple’s reply declarations “go far outside the scope of Apple’s opening brief and Defendants’ opposition, and in any event do not save Apple’s deficient motion.”

Which declarations they want struck or disregarded

The filing walks through each expert:

• Runge — Defendants ask the court to strike the declaration of Dr. Jude Runge as untimely, duplicative of Hatch’s metal-finishing opinions, and of limited value; they also note Runge is a former Apple employee whose participation remains subject to objection.
• Fayed — They ask the court to disregard new opinions on the value of Apple’s purported trade secrets that they say could have appeared in Fayed’s opening declaration.
• Pooley — They challenge “further” opinions on Apple’s secrecy measures that rely on a mid-September 2026 fact investigation (including unsworn employee interviews) conducted after Pooley’s first declaration.
• Roffman — They ask the court to strike the Roffman declaration and its five exhibits, arguing the forensic materials and messages could have been developed earlier (including MacBook data they say was available before Apple’s opening motion) and that some Liu communications are presented out of context.

If the court nevertheless considers Roffman’s declaration and exhibits, defendants ask that it also consider a new declaration from Chang Liu clarifying the messages and device activity Apple cites.

Broader case context (background only)

Separately from this reply-evidence fight, Apple has alleged that former employees Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan accessed or sought confidential hardware information after leaving Apple in ways that allegedly benefited OpenAI’s consumer-hardware efforts and io Products. Apple has sought a preliminary injunction limiting access to, use of, disclosure of, or solicitation of its confidential information while the case proceeds. Key categories discussed in secondary coverage of the expert papers include power-management trade secrets and metal-finishing processes — treat those labels as case issues under dispute, not adjudicated facts.

This piece focuses on the new strike / disregard request against Apple’s reply experts — distinct from OpenAI’s separate ChatGPT-in-Siri antitrust filings and from unrelated Apple Pay class-certification coverage.

What the court has not decided (yet)

• Whether any reply declarations or exhibits will be stricken, limited, or considered.
• Whether Apple has shown a likelihood of success on trade-secret misappropriation or is entitled to a preliminary injunction.
• How Liu’s clarifying declaration will be weighed if Roffman’s materials stay in the record.

Sources: Court PDF — Defendants’ Objections to Reply Evidence (dated Sept. 24, 2026); 9to5Mac — Marcus Mendes (September 25, 2026, ~6:14 p.m. PT).