Court Makes Apple Exec a Custodian in Musk Antitrust Fight

Federighi Named Custodian, Cook Excluded

The federal court granted xAI’s request to designate Apple senior vice president of software engineering Craig Federighi as a document custodian in the antitrust suit against Apple and OpenAI. The same motion to add CEO Tim Cook was denied.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray Jr. found that Federighi “made high‑level, strategic decisions about the Apple‑OpenAI Agreement” and therefore may hold unique evidence. The court ordered Apple to produce responsive documents in his possession by June 17 2026. By contrast, the plaintiffs failed to show that Cook could offer evidence not already in the record, so the court rejected that request. The decision also left untouched a request to add an unnamed Apple employee who could speak to iPhone sales, with the judge noting that “documents regarding competition in the smartphone industry writ large far exceed the scope of the claims in this case.”

The ruling sharpens the focus on software‑engineering decisions around Apple Intelligence, the suite that embeds OpenAI’s ChatGPT into Siri and other iOS features. Federighi’s involvement suggests that the discovery will now probe the technical integration work, version histories, and internal assessments of alternative large language models.

Narrowed Discovery on Partnerships and Internal AI Use

The court partially granted xAI’s motion to obtain documents relating to Apple’s partnership with Google. While the request was deemed “overly broad,” the judge limited production to materials that reference potential exclusivity clauses for AI providers on Apple devices. Apple must deliver those documents by the same June 17 2026 deadline.

Simultaneously, the court denied xAI’s bid to compel Apple to reveal how it uses AI internally. The judge concluded that such information “goes beyond the scope of the claims.” That refusal preserves Apple’s internal AI roadmaps from public scrutiny, at least for now.

OpenAI scored a modest win as the court ordered Elon Musk to hand over emails from Tesla, SpaceX, and his XChat accounts by June 3 2026. The order aligns with OpenAI’s effort to establish Musk’s communications as evidence of his strategy in the lawsuit.

International Discovery Hurdles Persist

xAI’s attempts to broaden discovery beyond U.S. borders have met resistance. A Singapore court rejected the company’s request for documents from local firms, citing insufficient relevance under the Hague Convention. Earlier, South Korean authorities turned down a similar bid for records from Kakao, the operator of a major super‑app.

Those setbacks contrast with a U.S. court’s willingness to entertain foreign‑company requests, highlighting a split in how jurisdictions interpret the reach of antitrust discovery. The plaintiff’s strategy of tapping the Hague Convention to compel overseas data remains uncertain, and future motions may face additional judicial scrutiny.

The international refusals also underscore the limited leverage xAI has over entities that are not directly party to the U.S. litigation. Without cooperation from foreign partners, the case may rely more heavily on domestic evidence, such as the newly‑designated Federighi documents.

Strategic Implications for Musk’s Antitrust Claim

The selective granting of custodial status to Federighi narrows the evidentiary window to software‑engineering decisions rather than broader corporate strategy. Musk’s complaint alleges that Apple’s deal with OpenAI gives ChatGPT preferential placement in the App Store and Apple Intelligence, marginalizing xAI’s Grok model. Access to Federighi’s files could reveal whether Apple imposed technical constraints that favored ChatGPT or whether integration choices were neutral.

Denial of Cook’s custodianship limits the plaintiffs’ ability to probe high‑level business decisions, such as pricing, marketing, or App Store ranking algorithms. That restriction may force xAI to lean on other discovery avenues, including the limited Google‑Apple partnership documents and the forthcoming Federighi production.

The court’s refusal to release internal AI usage details preserves Apple’s competitive secrets and may blunt arguments that the company “locked up markets” for OpenAI. However, the partial victory on the Google partnership could still expose any exclusivity clauses that bind Apple to a single AI supplier, a key point in Musk’s antitrust narrative.

What to Watch

The June 17 2026 deadline for Federighi‑related documents will be the first major influx of technical evidence. Watch for filings that reference integration timelines, code reviews, or performance benchmarks comparing ChatGPT and Grok. The next filing deadline for the Apple‑Google partnership documents follows the same schedule and may surface clauses that limit Apple’s ability to work with alternative AI providers. Finally, monitor any appellate motions that Musk’s team may file to overturn the Cook exclusion, as that could reopen the path to higher‑level corporate records.