xAI’s newly unsealed filings reveal broad foreign discovery push, procedural shifts

Newly unsealed court papers in antitrust litigation filed by xAI and affiliated X companies against Apple and OpenAI reveal an expansive discovery strategy that reaches beyond Silicon Valley. Analysis published by tech site 9to5Mac on December 12, 2025 shows the plaintiffs seeking what the outlet described as “extensive discovery,” and specifically “seeking information from a mystery South Korean entity,” a request that highlights the transnational dimension of the cases.

The suits, brought by companies tied to Elon Musk, allege anticompetitive conduct by Apple and OpenAI as they vie to build and deploy next generation artificial intelligence. The newly unsealed materials, as reported by 9to5Mac, show xAI probing a broad array of potential sources of evidence, though the public reporting does not include the full text of the filings and therefore does not enumerate the precise categories of documents, custodians, or date ranges sought.

The inclusion of a South Korea related discovery request has prompted industry and legal observers to speculate about the possible target, given the country’s central role in supplying hardware and operating major consumer platforms. A social media post by 9to5Mac on November 28 flagged the request and labeled the target a mystery. Public accounts of the filings do not identify any firm in South Korea by name, and the question of whether xAI is pursuing records from a hardware supplier, a local app partner, or a different intermediary remains unresolved.

Procedural developments accompanied the unsealing. Both Apple and OpenAI have been granted extensions of applicable deadlines in the litigation, according to the 9to5Mac reporting and its social notice. The available summaries do not specify the new deadlines or provide the court’s rationale for the scheduling changes, leaving the cases in a state of procedural fluidity as discovery unfolds.

The foreign element of the discovery raises legal and practical issues that may affect timing and scope. Absent from the publicly reported materials is any detail about the mechanisms xAI might invoke to obtain documents across borders, such as letters rogatory, Hague Convention requests, or other mutual legal assistance procedures. Those avenues can slow or complicate access to records, especially where corporate confidentiality and national legal regimes intersect.

The limited public record also means key questions remain unanswered. The identity of the South Korean entity named in the filings is not disclosed. The precise documents and communications xAI hopes to obtain are not detailed in the summaries available, and none of the principal parties have publicly released statements tied to the newly unsealed materials in the accounts reviewed.

As the litigation progresses, the scope of discovery and the handling of foreign requests could become critical to the merits of the antitrust claims, shaping what evidence is available to show how dominant tech platforms interact with AI developers and global suppliers. For now, the filings point to an assertive strategy by xAI and underscore how modern antitrust disputes often hinge on cross border data and supply chain evidence that is complex to gather and litigate.