What happened
U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila signed a Case Management Order on October 28, 2026, in Apple Inc. v. Liu, case number 5:26-cv-07078-EJD, in the Northern District of California’s San Jose Division. The order follows a case management conference held October 14 and refers to the parties’ joint case-management statement and joint submission regarding the schedule. It adopts the parties’ statements of disputed factual and legal issues as set out in the case-management statement.
The order establishes a sequence of deadlines rather than making findings about the underlying trade-secret claims. The parties must exchange electronically stored information by November 2, 2026. The last day to amend pleadings or join parties is November 30. Substantial completion of document production is set for February 5, 2027, followed by a joint status report on February 26 and a status conference on March 11 at 10 a.m. Fact discovery closes on March 12.
The next stage is expert evidence. Opening expert designations and reports are due March 31, 2027; rebuttal expert designations and reports are due April 14; and expert discovery closes April 28. The deadline for filing Daubert and dispositive motions is May 5. Oppositions are due May 19 and replies May 26. The order also requires lead counsel to meet and confer on June 1 about settlement, joint pretrial filings, and clarifying or narrowing contested issues for trial.
The remaining pretrial dates are set in June. Motions in limine are due June 3. A hearing on Daubert and dispositive motions is scheduled for June 10 at 9 a.m.; several pretrial submissions, including a joint pretrial statement and proposed jury instructions, are due that day as well. The final pretrial conference is June 24 at 10 a.m. Trial is scheduled for July 19, 2027, at 9 a.m. The court directs the parties to follow its standing order for civil cases on the timing and content of pretrial submissions.
The order also says that discovery will follow the presumptive limits in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Either side may seek leave for additional discovery if it believes that is necessary, but the judge cautions the parties not to build discovery strategies on an assumption that such leave will be granted. Discovery or disclosure disputes will be filed with the assigned judge, who may consider referring them to the assigned magistrate judge. The order does not describe the evidence or decide the disputed merits.
What the archive adds
New Runtime’s earlier coverage reported OpenAI’s agreement not to use trade secrets claimed stolen from Apple on October 21, 2026, as an operational step before the court resolves the merits. An earlier note covered the dispute’s origins on August 6, 2026. This order is a new procedural fact in the known story: it supplies the court’s schedule, not a ruling on liability.
Trend signal
This update does not yet fit a pattern New Runtime tracks. A court’s case calendar is a concrete development in one dispute, but it does not by itself establish a broader change in how AI products are built, governed or deployed.
Why now
The order formalizes the schedule after the parties appeared before Judge Davila on October 14, 2026, and submitted joint case-management materials. It starts the discovery calendar with an ESI exchange deadline of November 2 and sets the trial date more than eight months later.
Connections to other events
The schedule follows the earlier agreement covered by New Runtime in October, under which OpenAI agreed not to use trade secrets claimed stolen from Apple while the dispute proceeds. That agreement addressed an interim operational boundary; the new order maps the litigation steps toward a possible trial. Neither development decides whether Apple’s allegations are true.
Why it matters
For teams building AI products, the immediate significance is limited: this order changes no API, model access, product capability or compliance requirement. Its relevance is as a reminder that disputes over talent, confidential information and product development can move through distinct stages. An interim commitment may constrain conduct while a case is pending, while discovery and later motions determine which factual and legal questions remain for trial.
The schedule also shows why legal risk should not be treated as settled just because a company has made a public commitment or entered an agreement. The court has set dates for evidence exchange, expert analysis, dispositive motions and trial, but those steps can produce further changes to the issues or timetable. Companies handling sensitive technical information can use this as a prompt to keep access controls, documentation and employee offboarding processes well-defined. Those are general risk-management practices, not requirements imposed by this order.
What happens next
- The case will reach the scheduled fact-discovery close on March 12, 2027. (6 months, 70%). Watch for: a docket entry extending discovery or reporting that fact discovery has closed.
- The court will hold the scheduled trial on July 19, 2027. (12 months, 55%). Watch for: a docket entry confirming the trial date or an order moving it.
Limits and uncertainty
The order is a case-management document, not a merits ruling. It does not establish whether trade secrets were misused, whether any party is liable, or what remedy might follow. The dates are scheduled events and may be revised by later court orders. The order allows parties to request additional discovery but warns that they should not assume such requests will be granted. This account has not independently checked later docket activity, so it describes the schedule as set in the October 28 order rather than as a guarantee that every deadline remains current.
Reader takeaway
The important new fact is the formal path to trial: discovery, expert work and pretrial motions are now assigned dates, with trial set for July 19, 2027. That advances the public timeline of Apple’s dispute with OpenAI, but it is not a decision about the underlying allegations.