Apple and Jon Prosser coordinate deposition in iOS 26 leak case – 9to5Mac

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

A little 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.

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

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

In October, the court granted Apple’s request for a default judgment against Prosser, essentially meaning he lost the right to formally challenge the allegations in the lawsuit.

At the time, Prosser said that “regardless of what’s reported and regardless of what the court documents say — I’ve actually been in active communication with Apple since the early stages of this case,” adding that “the notion that I’m ignoring the case is incorrect. That’s all I’m able to say.”

Apple and Prosser coordinate deposition

In a joint status report filed this week by representatives of Apple and Ramacciotti, both sides informed the court that they continue to exchange limited discovery and that Apple is still working to determine the full extent of how much Ramacciotti had access to on Lipnik’s iPhone.

In addition, the document states:

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

This means that despite the court entering a default judgment against Prosser (essentially ruling in favor of Apple on liability for not responding to the complaint), the two sides are in contact.

Its deposition and other discovery obligations will help determine the extent of what Apple’s confidential information was disclosed and, ultimately, what damages and remedies a court may award the company.

In the lawsuit, Apple requested a jury trial and demanded:

• Judgment in favor of Apple and against Defendants on all counts herein;
• Injunctive relief as the court deems necessary and appropriate;
• Damages in an amount to be proven in court;
• Punitive damages based on defendants’ willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets;
• An order enjoining the defendants from using or disclosing Apple’s confidential, proprietary and trade secret information to third parties without Apple’s written consent; and return or assist Apple in locating and destroying any such information in its possession, custody or control;
• Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum statutory rate, as applicable, as an element of damages suffered by Apple as a result of Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful acts;
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred; and
• Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

What is your opinion on this case? Let us know in the comments.

Accessories offer on Amazon