Skip to content
Tech News
← Back to articles

DOJ fights Apple’s bid for records from 14 federal agencies in antitrust case

read original more articles
Why This Matters

The DOJ's effort to block Apple from accessing federal agency records highlights the ongoing tension between corporate discovery rights and government confidentiality concerns in antitrust litigation. This case could set important precedents for how federal agencies' involvement is evaluated in legal disputes, impacting future corporate investigations and privacy considerations.

Key Takeaways

The US Department of Justice has asked the court to reconsider a recent ruling that would allow Apple to pursue records from 14 federal agencies in its antitrust case. Here are the details.

A bit of background

Earlier this month, retired federal judge Jose Linares, who is serving as a special discovery master in the case, rejected the government’s effort to block Apple from seeking documents from 14 federal agencies as part of discovery in the DOJ’s 2024 antitrust lawsuit against the company.

According to Apple, if these documents show that the agencies chose its products because of their privacy, security, or other features, they could help undermine the DOJ’s antitrust claims.

The reason this dispute reached the special master is that the government argued that the agencies are not involved in the case and that Apple’s requests are irrelevant, overly broad, and risk disclosing privileged, classified, or national-security-sensitive information.

Judge Linares ultimately sided with Apple, finding that the requested documents were relevant and that the government had not sufficiently supported its objections.

DOJ asks court to reverse Apple’s discovery win

Now, the DOJ, backed by declarations from officials at several federal agencies and offices, has asked Judge Linares to reconsider that decision. Notably, neither the Commerce Department nor the FTC submitted a declaration.

In its motion, the DOJ argues that Linares applied the wrong legal standard by treating the agencies as parties to the case rather than non-parties entitled to greater protection from discovery.

From the filing:

... continue reading