Apple is asking a federal judge in New Jersey to force the U.S. government to turn over documents from 14 federal agencies that it says could support its defense in the DOJ’s antitrust case. The government, however, disagrees. Here are the details.
Apple seeks government data in iPhone antitrust lawsuit
Apple and the U.S. government have filed a joint discovery dispute letter with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, formalizing their disagreement over whether Apple is entitled to obtain documents from 14 federal agencies.
The request is part of Apple’s defense in the antitrust case the DOJ brought against the company in 2024, alleging that Apple illegally maintains a monopoly in the smartphone market by restricting apps, services, and accessories that could make it easier for users to switch away from iPhone.
According to Apple:
Apple is basing its request on two separate discovery paths: Rule 34, which generally governs document requests directed at parties in a lawsuit, and Rule 45, which governs subpoenas directed at non-parties.
Apple argues that the documents should be produced either way: if the federal agencies are treated as part of the United States for discovery purposes, the documents are covered by Rule 34. If they are treated separately, Apple says its Rule 45 subpoenas still require production.
Apple claims that despite its many attempts to obtain these documents, “the United States has refused to produce a single document from the relevant agencies, and in the meantime has forced Apple to run in circles,” offering conflicting and sometimes contradictory procedural objections to producing them.
Apple is seeking documents related to:
Apple’s argument is basically the following: if the documents can show that federal agencies independently recognized the benefits of Apple’s approach to security, privacy, pricing, or app development, then the government’s claims about anticompetitive iPhone practices could become weaker, since parts of the government itself would have treated those same practices as legitimate product advantages.
Apple further notes that it has carefully selected 14 out of the government’s 444 agencies, in an attempt to preempt the argument that its request is too broad or burdensome.
Finally, Apple says the government cannot use the possibility that some documents may be privileged, classified, or protected to justify refusing to search for relevant documents altogether.
U.S. government shoots back
In its response, the U.S. argues that Apple’s requests are irrelevant, overly burdensome, and likely to implicate privileged or classified materials.
From the “Position of the United States” section of the document:
The government then expands on that argument in three parts. First, it says the subpoenaed agencies are too far removed from the consumer smartphone market at the center of the case. Second, it argues that those agencies should be treated as non-parties under Rule 45, not as part of the United States for ordinary party discovery. And third, it says Apple’s requests are too broad and would require burdensome searches through sensitive government systems, even though the U.S. argues the likely relevance is limited.
The government ends its request by telling the court that “Apple’s requests for production by 14 agencies that are otherwise uninvolved in this action should be denied, and the subpoenas quashed.”
You can read the full joint discovery dispute letter below:
