Apple has rejected the DOJ’s attempt to overturn a major discovery victory, calling the government’s arguments improper re-litigation and unfounded claims of undue burden on federal agencies. A few weeks before, Apple secured the right to seek documents from 14 US agencies. The DOJ then filed a motion asking retired federal judge Jose Linares, serving as special discovery master in the antitrust case, to reconsider his earlier ruling. On August 17, Apple filed its response, systematically dismantling the government’s position.
Apple stated: “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.”
Why Apple Wants These Documents
The DOJ’s antitrust case, filed in March 2024, alleges that Apple uses anticompetitive practices across five areas of the iPhone experience: super apps, cloud streaming games, third-party messaging apps, third-party smartwatches, and third-party digital wallets. Apple’s defense hinges on a straightforward argument: if the federal government itself chose Apple’s products for their privacy and security features, that choice constitutes legitimate business justification rather than anticompetitive conduct.
The 14 federal agencies targeted in Apple’s subpoenas include several from the Intelligence Community. None regulate smartphones, participated in the DOJ’s investigation, or are otherwise parties to the litigation. Judge Linares sided with Apple in his original ruling, finding all of the company’s document requests relevant to the case’s core allegations and that the government failed to substantiate its broader objections.
The DOJ’s Reconsideration Strategy
The government’s motion claims Judge Linares mistakenly treated the agencies as parties to the case rather than non-parties entitled to greater discovery protection. It also argues the documents have limited relevance because federal agencies are not “ordinary consumers.” The DOJ’s 13 newly submitted declarations attempt to demonstrate undue burden on the agencies, though Apple contends this evidence was always available to the government.
Apple systematically refutes both points, the company cites precedent from previous cases to argue that the special master correctly applied the legal standard for party discovery from federal agencies, then dismantles the DOJ’s specific claims of burden and relevance.
According to the timeline set by Judge Linares on August 4, 2026, no further briefing will be permitted. It is now up to him either to uphold his original discovery order or grant the DOJ’s reconsideration request. If Linares stands by his ruling, the government could appeal to the district judge overseeing the broader case.
Settlement Negotiations Continue
This discovery fight occurs against broader settlement discussions. As of July 17, 2026, Apple is working to settle the antitrust lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice, proposing several offers to resolve the litigation. The discovery victories in July and now August strengthen Apple’s negotiating position considerably.
Resolving this case before John Ternus takes over as CEO in September 2026 would spare the company a protracted regulatory battle during a critical leadership transition and remove a persistent overhang from Apple’s public narrative. The Epic App Store dispute shows how Apple’s legal battles can drag on for years through multiple court levels.
The DOJ’s repeated reliance on late-stage declarations and requests for reconsideration signal a government position that has weakened significantly since the case was filed more than two years ago.
