In a joint status report with Michael Ramacciotti’s legal team, Apple also disclosed new details about its efforts to depose Jon Prosser as part of the iOS 26 leak case. Here are the details.
A bit of 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 a nutshell, Apple alleges that Ramacciotti broke into the development iPhone of Ethan Lipnik (who was later fired from Apple) earlier in the year, and held a FaceTime video call to show Prosser the details of what turned out to be the Liquid Glass redesign of iOS 26.
In the months that followed, court records show that while Ramacciotti worked with Apple and with the court, Prosser missed the deadline to answer Apple’s complaint.
In October, the court accepted Apple’s request to enter a default judgment against Prosser, which essentially means that he forfeited his right to formally contest the allegations in the lawsuit.
At the time, Prosser said that “regardless of what is being reported, and regardless of what the court documents say — I have, in fact, been in active communications with Apple since the beginning stages of this case,” adding that “The notion that I’m ignoring the case is incorrect. That’s all I am able to say.”
Apple and Prosser coordinate deposition
In a joint status report filed by Apple and Ramacciotti’s attorneys this week, both parties informed the court that they have continued exchanging limited discovery, and that Apple is still working to determine the full scope of how much Ramacciotti was able to access on Lipnik’s iPhone.
In addition, the document states:
Apple served Mr. Prosser with document and deposition subpoenas. Mr. Prosser has acknowledged receipt of the document and deposition subpoenas, and Apple is working with him to coordinate a date for his deposition.
This means that despite the court entering a default judgment against Prosser (basically, ruling in Apple’s favor on liability due to his failure to respond to the complaint), the two sides are in contact.
His deposition and other discovery obligations will help determine the scope of what Apple confidential information was accessed, and ultimately what damages and remedies the court may award the company.
In the lawsuit, Apple asked for a jury trial, demanding:
- Judgment in Apple’s favor and against Defendants on all causes of action alleged herein;
- Injunctive relief as the Court finds necessary and appropriate;
- Damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
- Punitive damages based on Defendants’ willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets;
- An order directing Defendants not to make use of or disclose Apple’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information to third parties without its written consent; and to return or assist Apple in locating and destroying any such information in their possession, custody, or control;
- Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate as applicable, as an element of damages that Apple has suffered 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’s your take on this case? Let us know in the comments.
Accessory deals on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
