03/11/2025 - Court Authorizes Plaintiff to Record Apple During Discovery Conferences

In a significant — and frankly, monumental — development in my litigation against Apple, the federal court issued an order granting me the right to record all future discovery meet-and-confer sessions with Apple’s attorneys.

This is especially important because, under normal circumstances, California's strict "two-party consent" recording law generally would have required Apple’s permission to record these meetings as proof of misconduct in civil litigation. Apple, predictably, had repeatedly refused to consent — leaving me vulnerable to exactly the kind of coercion and misrepresentation I’ve been documenting for years.

But now, the Court stepped in.
​
The Order, issued on March 11, 2025, states: “If Plaintiff is concerned about the possibility of Defendant making ‘unlawful threats and coercive statements’ during the meet and confer or the potential that the discussions will be misrepresented, the parties can meet via video conference and record the meet and confer session.”
​
This means:

• I am no longer dependent on Apple's consent to record our discovery meetings.
• I can create an accurate, verifiable record of all interactions with Apple's lawyers.
• This recording authorization neutralizes Apple's past tactics of making threats and then falsely claiming misconduct on my part.

How We Got Here

Leading up to this order, I filed multiple discovery dispute letters with the Court documenting Apple’s refusal to engage in good faith discovery discussions. I detailed:

• Apple’s pattern of ignoring my meet-and-confer requests.
• Apple’s history of making coercive and misleading statements, which I previously reported to the NLRB, FBI, and referenced in my filings​​.
• Apple's abusive use of California’s recording laws to prevent transparency during discussions​.

When I sought reconsideration of an earlier order dismissing my discovery letters, I reminded the Court of Apple's prior unlawful threats, coercion, and false accusations. I made clear that without the ability to record these discussions, Apple would continue its pattern of misconduct unchecked​.

The Court recognized the seriousness of my concerns and proactively granted me this recording right.

Read the Court’s Order and Filings:

• Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (but authorizing recordings)
• Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
• Plaintiff’s Exhibits: Prior Court Transcript and NLRB Filings
• Plaintiff’s Objections to Apple’s Opposition

Full district court docket: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (District Court Docket)

What This Means Moving Forward

This is a critical safeguard as discovery proceedings intensify. With the Court’s authorization:

• Apple can no longer use secrecy to their advantage.
• Any attempts by Apple to coerce, threaten, or misrepresent discussions will now be captured in a clear, undeniable record.
• This also strengthens my position should Apple attempt further gamesmanship, as recordings provide undeniable evidence for court oversight or even potential future sanctions.

But more importantly, this order undermines Apple’s original justification for firing me. One of Apple’s supposed reasons for my termination was that I wanted to create a record of our conversations — specifically because I feared unlawful threats and misrepresentations. This federal court order now implicitly confirms that my concern was not only reasonable but legally justified. In fact, the Court itself recognized that the risks of Apple making unlawful threats and misrepresenting discussions are significant enough to warrant preemptive permission for me to record the meetings. That directly invalidates Apple's prior position and highlights the retaliatory nature of their actions.

This is bigger than my case alone.

The Court’s order also sets a pro-worker precedent, especially valuable for:

• Pro se plaintiffs, who often face corporate law firms' aggressive tactics without institutional support.
• Labor rights and whistleblower cases, where power imbalances and coercion are rampant.
• Workers in states like California, where two-party consent laws have historically been weaponized to intimidate employees from documenting abuse.

​
This Court decision implicitly affirms that workers — especially whistleblowers and pro se litigants — have the right to protect themselves from bad faith litigation tactics and coercive behavior, including by creating their own record of interactions.

This is not just a procedural step forward; it’s a statement of legal principle.

As I continue to push forward in this fight for accountability, transparency remains my shield — and now, the Court has ensured I can maintain it.