Apple is pushing back against the Department of Justice’s bid to overturn a court decision allowing the company to seek documents from more than a dozen federal agencies. Here are the details.

A few weeks ago, Apple secured the right to seek documents from 14 US agencies as part of its defense against the antitrust case the Department of Justice brought against the company in March 2024.

That includes the following agencies and departments:

• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
• Department of Commerce
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of Defense
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
• General Services Administration
• Department of Labor
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
• National Security Agency (NSA)
• Office of the Director of National Intelligence
• Office of Management and Budget
• Office of Personnel Management
• Department of State

Apple’s premise is that if it can show the federal government chose its products for their privacy features, that evidence could support its argument that the practices challenged by the DOJ have legitimate justifications rather than being anticompetitive.

Following Apple’s victory in this dispute, the DOJ filed a motion asking retired federal judge Jose Linares, who is serving as a special discovery master in the case, to reconsider his decision.

In complex cases involving extensive discovery, courts sometimes appoint a special master to resolve narrower disputes and ease the workload of the judge overseeing the broader case. Special masters can be retired judges, practicing attorneys, or other experts with relevant experience.

In its motion, the DOJ asks the court to reverse Apple’s discovery win, arguing that Judge 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.

The DOJ also argues that Apple’s requests would impose an undue burden on the agencies, relying on 13 newly submitted declarations, and that the documents have limited relevance because federal agencies are not “ordinary consumers.”

Apple’s response to the DOJ’s motion has now been made public, and the company minces no words in refuting every argument made by the DOJ in its bid to reverse the decision.

Apple cites several previous cases to argue that “the special master correctly applied the legal standard for party discovery from federal agencies,” and then picks apart the DOJ’s arguments of undue burden and relevance.

In its conclusion, Apple says:

The Motion fails at every level. Its legal arguments are impermissible re-litigation; its new evidence” was always available and cannot properly be considered; and even on the merits, the declarations do not establish undue burden. Apple respectfully requests that the Motion be denied.

According to the timeline set by Judge Linares on August 4, no further briefing will be permitted, and it is now up to him to either uphold his original discovery order or grant the DOJ’s request to reconsider it.

You can read Apple’s response to the DOJ’s motion below:

• Geoffrey Cain – ‘Steve Jobs in Exile’
• David Pogue – ’Apple: The First 50 Years’
• MacBook Neo
• Logitech MX Master 4
• AirPods Pro 3
• AirTag (2nd Generation) – 4 Pack
• Apple Watch Series 11
• Wireless CarPlay adapter