Apple says U.S. is refusing to produce federal agency documents in DOJ antitrust case

Source: 9to5Mac

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, which alleges 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.

Apple’s Position

“The United States is refusing to produce its own agency documents that are relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses. These documents reflect the United States’ own assessments of key issues, such as iPhone’s market differentiators, privacy and security risks associated with various smartphones, and the potential dangers of exposing iPhone’s secure ecosystem to less rigorous and less vetted third parties. Apple believes these materials will support its arguments that the practices Plaintiffs challenge make Apple’s products different—and, in the eyes of Apple’s customers, better—than alternatives and thus promote competition. Whether through Rule 34 party discovery or Rule 45 subpoenas, these agency documents are discoverable and should be produced.”

Apple bases its request on two discovery mechanisms:

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 fall under Rule 34.
• If they are treated separately, Apple’s Rule 45 subpoenas still require production.

Apple claims that despite numerous attempts, “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.

Documents Sought

Apple is seeking information related to:

1. How federal agencies find, evaluate, and purchase smartphones and wearables, including agency evaluations and guidance on selection and use of the products at issue.
2. Agencies’ concerns regarding non‑Apple operating systems and app marketplaces, and the risks associated with mandating third‑party access to Apple’s platforms.
3. The United States’ own smartphone pricing and market‑share data.
4. Documents concerning several agencies’ involvement in Apple’s developer program for creating internal‑use apps.

Rationale

Apple argues that if the documents show federal agencies independently recognized the benefits of Apple’s approach to security, privacy, pricing, or app development, the government’s anticompetitive claims could be weakened—since the same practices would have been treated as legitimate product advantages by the government itself.

Apple notes that it has carefully selected 14 out of the government’s 444 agencies to avoid the argument that its request is overly broad or burdensome.

Finally, Apple asserts that the government cannot rely on potential privilege, classification, or protection to justify refusing to search for relevant documents altogether.

U.S. Government Shoots Back

In its response, the United States argues that Apple’s requests are irrelevant, overly burdensome, and likely to implicate privileged or classified materials.

Position of the United States
Apple has issued subpoenas to 14 federal government agencies—including several in the Intelligence Community—none of which regulate smartphones, participated in the investigation, or are otherwise part of this litigation. Not surprisingly, Apple’s requests on their face reflect that any documents these agencies may have that would be responsive are at best tangentially relevant to the factual disputes presented by this case. Collecting, reviewing, and producing responsive documents, including from classified document systems, would require extraordinary effort and cause exceptional burden on these agencies, in part because many documents Apple requests are highly likely to be privileged or classified. The information sought lacks relevance because these agencies do not regulate the products or markets at issue, and they do not purchase or use smartphones in the same ways as ordinary consumers. The requests are overbroad, and Apple has neither offered nor accepted any workable narrowing to reduce the burden on these agencies and limit the expense to taxpayers.

The government expands on that argument in three parts:

1. Agency relevance – The subpoenaed agencies are too far removed from the consumer‑smartphone market at the center of the case.
2. Rule 45 treatment – Those agencies should be treated as non‑parties under Rule 45, not as part of the United States for ordinary party discovery.
3. Scope and burden – Apple’s requests are overly broad and would require burdensome searches through sensitive government systems, while the likely relevance is limited.

The government concludes by asking the court to deny Apple’s requests for production by the 14 agencies and quash the subpoenas.

Worth Checking Out on Amazon

• 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

FTC: We use income‑earning auto‑affiliate links. More…