Apple and Jon Prosser coordinating deposition in iOS 26 leak case

Source: 9to5Mac

In a joint status report with Michael Ramacciotti’s legal team, Apple disclosed new details about its efforts to depose Jon Prosser as part of the iOS 26 leak case.

A bit of background

Last July, Apple sued Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti, accusing them of misappropriating trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act over the leak.

Apple alleges that Ramacciotti broke into the development iPhone of Ethan Lipnik (who was later fired from Apple) earlier in the year, and held a FaceTime video call to show Prosser the details of what turned out to be the Liquid Glass redesign of iOS 26.

In the months that followed, court records show that while Ramacciotti worked with Apple and the court, Prosser missed the deadline to answer Apple’s complaint.

In October, the court accepted Apple’s request to enter a default judgment against Prosser, effectively forfeiting his right to formally contest the allegations. Prosser responded, stating that he had been in active communications with Apple since the beginning stages of the case.

Apple and Prosser coordinate deposition

In a joint status report filed by Apple and Ramacciotti’s attorneys, both parties informed the court that they have continued exchanging limited discovery, and that Apple is still working to determine the full scope of how much Ramacciotti accessed on Lipnik’s iPhone.

The document states:

Apple served Mr. Prosser with document and deposition subpoenas. Mr. Prosser has acknowledged receipt of the document and deposition subpoenas, and Apple is working with him to coordinate a date for his deposition.

Despite the default judgment, the two sides remain in contact. Prosser’s deposition and other discovery obligations will help determine the extent of accessed confidential information and the potential damages and remedies the court may award.

Relief sought by Apple

In the lawsuit, Apple asked for a jury trial and demanded:

• Judgment in Apple’s favor and against Defendants on all causes of action alleged herein;
• Injunctive relief as the Court finds necessary and appropriate;
• Damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
• Punitive damages based on Defendants’ willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets;
• An order directing Defendants not to use or disclose Apple’s confidential, proprietary, and trade‑secret information to third parties without written consent, and to return or assist Apple in locating and destroying any such information in their possession, custody, or control;
• Pre‑judgment and post‑judgment interest at the maximum legal rate applicable, as an element of damages that Apple has suffered as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts;
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred; and
• Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.