The Justice Department is asking to undo Apple’s July discovery win in the federal antitrust case over the iPhone ecosystem, arguing that 14 government agencies should receive the stronger protections afforded to non-parties rather than be treated like litigants.
As reported by 9to5Mac, retired federal judge Jose Linares, acting as special discovery master, had rejected the government’s attempt to prevent Apple from seeking agency records on how federal buyers evaluate, purchase, and use smartphones and wearables. Apple argues the material could show that agencies chose its products for security, privacy, or other product merits—evidence it believes would weaken the DOJ’s monopoly claims.
The DOJ’s new motion does not decide whether Apple gets the records. It asks Linares to reconsider the threshold procedural finding that each agency is sufficiently connected to the lawsuit to face broad party discovery obligations.
The 14 agencies reportedly include the CIA, FBI, NASA, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, General Services Administration, FTC, and Commerce Department. Their files could include procurement evaluations and internal device-security assessments, but also privileged, classified, and national-security-sensitive material.
The government’s position is that filing a lawsuit does not automatically make every federal agency part of the case. Under its interpretation of Rule 45, each agency needs an individual assessment before Apple can impose the broader demands normally directed at a party to litigation.
That distinction matters. Non-parties generally have more room to object to burdensome subpoenas, narrow their production, and protect sensitive materials. The DOJ says Linares did not perform that agency-by-agency analysis before concluding that none of the 14 agencies qualified for those safeguards.
For Windows administrators and enterprise mobility teams, the immediate issue is familiar: procurement records often document the real reasons an organization standardizes on a device platform. Security management, identity integration, application compatibility, lifecycle support, encryption, and user productivity can all be weighed alongside price.
Apple wants to use federal agencies’ own decisions as evidence that iPhones compete on those merits rather than because Apple improperly locks customers into its ecosystem. The DOJ is not necessarily disputing that the records could contain relevant information; it is contesting the scope and mechanism of Apple’s requests, particularly where classified systems and internal deliberations are involved.
The DOJ and the agencies have also asked to keep the clock paused on any appeal while Linares considers reconsideration. If he leaves his prior ruling intact, the government can then seek review from U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals.
The fight arrives while Bloomberg-reported settlement discussions between Apple and the DOJ are said to be in early stages. Unless those talks produce a deal, the outcome will determine how much of the federal government’s own mobile-device buying rationale becomes part of Apple’s antitrust defense.
As reported by 9to5Mac, retired federal judge Jose Linares, acting as special discovery master, had rejected the government’s attempt to prevent Apple from seeking agency records on how federal buyers evaluate, purchase, and use smartphones and wearables. Apple argues the material could show that agencies chose its products for security, privacy, or other product merits—evidence it believes would weaken the DOJ’s monopoly claims.
The DOJ’s new motion does not decide whether Apple gets the records. It asks Linares to reconsider the threshold procedural finding that each agency is sufficiently connected to the lawsuit to face broad party discovery obligations.
The dispute is about discovery rules, not iPhone encryption
The 14 agencies reportedly include the CIA, FBI, NASA, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, General Services Administration, FTC, and Commerce Department. Their files could include procurement evaluations and internal device-security assessments, but also privileged, classified, and national-security-sensitive material.The government’s position is that filing a lawsuit does not automatically make every federal agency part of the case. Under its interpretation of Rule 45, each agency needs an individual assessment before Apple can impose the broader demands normally directed at a party to litigation.
That distinction matters. Non-parties generally have more room to object to burdensome subpoenas, narrow their production, and protect sensitive materials. The DOJ says Linares did not perform that agency-by-agency analysis before concluding that none of the 14 agencies qualified for those safeguards.
Apple’s federal procurement evidence could matter beyond the paperwork
Apple is defending against the DOJ and state attorneys general’s 2024 complaint alleging that it illegally maintained monopoly power in the U.S. performance-smartphone market. The case survived Apple’s motion to dismiss in June 2025 and has moved into the costly, document-heavy discovery stage.For Windows administrators and enterprise mobility teams, the immediate issue is familiar: procurement records often document the real reasons an organization standardizes on a device platform. Security management, identity integration, application compatibility, lifecycle support, encryption, and user productivity can all be weighed alongside price.
Apple wants to use federal agencies’ own decisions as evidence that iPhones compete on those merits rather than because Apple improperly locks customers into its ecosystem. The DOJ is not necessarily disputing that the records could contain relevant information; it is contesting the scope and mechanism of Apple’s requests, particularly where classified systems and internal deliberations are involved.
The DOJ and the agencies have also asked to keep the clock paused on any appeal while Linares considers reconsideration. If he leaves his prior ruling intact, the government can then seek review from U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals.
The fight arrives while Bloomberg-reported settlement discussions between Apple and the DOJ are said to be in early stages. Unless those talks produce a deal, the outcome will determine how much of the federal government’s own mobile-device buying rationale becomes part of Apple’s antitrust defense.