RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from 9to5Mac — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 1 sourcesGo to the 9to5Mac home page Switch site 9to5Toys 9to5Google Logo 9to5Google Electrek Drone DJ Logo DroneDJ Space Explored About Privacy Toggle social menu Toggle dark mode Search for: Submit Toggle search form Forums Store Podcasts Apple@Work Happy Hour 9to5Mac Daily Overtime iPhone iPhone Mac Mac MacBook Pro MacBook Air iMac Mac mini Mac Studio Mac Pro iPad iPad Pro iPad Air iPad mini iPad iPadOS Watch Apple Watch Apple Watch Ultra Apple Health Apple Watch SE Vision Vision Pro visionOS Music and TV Apple Music AirPods HomePod Apple TV Guides Reviews How Tos AAPL Apple Store Apple Arcade Apple Card Apple Silicon Apple One Apple Fitness+ CarPlay Siri HomeKit Toggle dark mode AAPL Company Apple cleared for the second time to pursue documents from federal agencies in antitrust case Marcus Mendes | Aug 27 2026 - 1:08 pm PT 0 Comments Special Master Jose Linares has rejected the DOJ’s request to reconsider his decision allowing Apple to seek documents from 14 separate government agencies in the antitrust case against the company. Here are the details.
One of Apple’s defense strategies in the antitrust lawsuit the DOJ brought against the company involves the US government’s own use of its products.
Apple’s basic argument is that some of the practices challenged by the DOJ are, in fact, legitimate security and privacy safeguards. Hoping to support that defense, Apple wants to examine how federal agencies evaluate security and privacy when setting smartphone policies and making purchasing decisions.
To that end, Apple has been seeking documents from the following 14 agencies:
Following Apple’s initial request to force these agencies to turn over the documents, the DOJ objected. The dispute was then referred to Special Master Jose Linares for a ruling.
Last month, Linares granted Apple’s request, prompting the DOJ to file a motion for reconsideration . It argued that he had applied the wrong legal standard, that Apple’s requests were unduly burdensome and disproportionate, and that the documents sought had limited relevance to the case.
Apple then filed an opposition arguing that the DOJ’s motion “failed at every level” and refuting the department’s arguments point by point.
Linares has now issued his new decision, concluding that “none of [the DOJ’s] arguments in support of its application for reconsideration are persuasive,” and leaving his original ruling in place.
The Special Master concludes that none of Plaintiff’s arguments in support of its application for reconsideration are persuasive.
It adds that Linares saw “no reason, persuasive or otherwise, to reverse course at this point,” adding that “Federal Agencies, in this case, (are) part of the United States for purposes of party discovery.”
Plaintiff tries to split hairs by asserting that, under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a non-party to litigation is afforded greater protection from discovery than a party.” […] Thus, Plaintiff concludes that the Special Master’s Order and Opinion rests on flawed reasoning since it did not reference or incorporate Rule 45 into the analysis.
The Special Master is familiar with Rule 45 and the different standards applicable to third-party discovery. A quick review of the Special Master’s Opinion and Order reveals that Plaintiff is simply incorrect. Indeed, the Special Master detailed how this dispute arose in detail. […]. A review of that portion of the Opinion and Order reveals that Plaintiff itself is the reason why Defendant had to issue the subpoenas in the first place.
The document goes on to explain that Linares considered the 14 federal agencies to be part of the United States, rather than third parties entitled to the additional protections that normally apply under Rule 45:
[…] the discovery sought here from the specific Federal Agencies is appropriate party discovery because “the definition of the ‘United States’ also includes agencies that inform the policies, rules, and regulations the executive branch sets.” (Order at 6 (emphasis in original and added)). Thus, Plaintiff is wrong that the Special Master needed to perform a Rule 45 third-party burden analysis here. […]
The document also says the DOJ “misunderstands the legal framework applicable to this dispute,” while criticizing its assertion that the requested information had “minimal” relevance as being made “without citation to any support.”
As a result, Apple is once again cleared to seek the documents from the 14 federal agencies.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:
Expand Close comments Expand Close comments Guides AAPL Company Breaking news from Cupertino. We’ll give you t…
Marcus Mendes is a Brazilian tech podcaster and journalist who has been closely following Apple since the mid-2000s.
He began covering Apple news in Brazilian media in 2012 and later broadened his focus to the wider tech industry, hosting a daily podcast for seven years.
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.