|
Today, I filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their dismissal of my appeal against Apple. This isn't just about my case—it's about protecting whistleblowers, AI safety, and fundamental due process rights that affect everyone. What Happened: A Procedural Trap The Ninth Circuit dismissed my appeal in May, claiming it lacked jurisdiction because the case wasn't "final." But they missed something crucial: federal law gives courts mandatory jurisdiction over appeals from orders denying injunctive relief, even if the case is still ongoing. Here's what the district court did:
This created an impossible situation: the court dismissed my claim for not addressing certain issues (even though I did address them), then refused to let me try to address those exact issues again. That's not how justice is supposed to work. Why This Matters Beyond My Case While I was fighting this procedural maze, Congress was paying attention to the underlying issues: New Federal Laws Vindicate My Claims
California Recognizes the Crisis In 2025, California passed comprehensive AI whistleblower protections after recognizing that employees represent "the last line of defense when corporate incentives prioritize growth, profit, or competitive advantage over public welfare." The state's analysis found that AI companies use "broad non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements" to prevent employees from reporting safety concerns—creating dangerous information asymmetries between companies and regulators. The Bigger Picture: Biometric Privacy Rights My advocacy directly prompted California's first comprehensive biometric privacy bill (SB 1189) in 2022. After I contacted my state senator about Apple's mass collection of biometric data through the "Gobbler" study, that same senator introduced legislation to protect Californians from exactly these practices. The bill would have prohibited:
This legislative response proves my case identified a genuine public policy crisis, not just a personal employment dispute. The Legal Arguments My motion for reconsideration makes several key points: 1. Mandatory Jurisdiction Exists Federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)) requires courts to hear appeals from orders denying injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit simply ignored this jurisdictional basis. 2. Due Process Violations You can't strike someone's legal arguments then claim they "waived" them. The district court created an impossible procedural trap that violates fundamental fairness. 3. Ongoing Irreparable Harm Apple still possesses intimate images obtained through illegal data collection and continues using them in litigation. This ongoing harm is exactly what immediate appellate review was designed to address. 4. National Importance Congress recognized these issues are so important they required emergency federal legislation. California found the same issues threaten public welfare statewide. What's at Stake This case isn't just about holding one company accountable. It's about:
Why I Keep Fighting As someone who worked on machine learning ethics at Apple, I saw firsthand how the company prioritized data collection over employee privacy and safety. When I tried to report these concerns, I faced retaliation that continues today. The federal investigations I'm supporting involve potential threats to millions of people. When tech companies can silence whistleblowers through procedural gamesmanship, everyone loses. Recent events prove I was right to sound the alarm:
The Road Ahead The Ninth Circuit now has a choice: follow federal law requiring them to hear appeals from injunctive relief denials, or continue enabling procedural traps that silence whistleblowers reporting on matters of national importance. I'm not asking for special treatment — just basic due process and application of existing law. Every whistleblower, every pro se litigant, and everyone who cares about AI safety should want courts to follow their own rules fairly. The motion is comprehensive, citing extensive evidence of procedural violations and demonstrating why immediate appellate review serves the public interest. It's time for the courts to prioritize justice over case management convenience. Documents
The fight for AI safety and whistleblower protection continues. Every voice matters, and every person who stands up for transparency and accountability helps build a safer future for everyone. - Ashley 
0 Comments
Apple's "ANswer" to My Complaint it Illegally Fired MeOn May 19, 2025, the Court granted my motion to strike multiple defenses from Apple’s Answer to my Fifth Amended Complaint in the Gjovik v Apple civil litigation. (You can read my earlier post here.) The Court found that many of Apple’s defenses — Apple's arguments for why Apple should not be held liable for the harm it caused me — were legally deficient. This is litigation, so it is not enough to simply claim a termination was lawful or justified; a defendant must identify:
The Court struck a number of Apple’s defenses, including:
The Court directed Apple to file an amended Answer within 14 days — by June 3 — and required that each defense include concrete allegations supported by actual facts. Apple’s Amended Answer (Filed June 2, 2025)Apple filed a revised Answer one day early. However, the changes are mostly superficial. The newly inserted language is generic, formulaic, and legally insufficient. Example inserted language (repeated verbatim across defenses): “Plaintiff’s employment was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory and/or non-retaliatory business reasons… Plaintiff disclosed confidential product-related information… and failed to cooperate… during the Apple investigatory process.” These additions include no names, no dates, no documents, no policy citations, and no context — only broad, conclusory language with no factual grounding. Even in its revised “failure to mitigate damages” defense, Apple simply states that it is “currently unaware” of whether I sought other employment and is preserving the defense pending discovery. This defies the Court’s instruction to include some factual basis to justify asserting the defense. You can view the Microsoft Word "diff" of the first and second version here (and excerpt below). Legal Analysis (Crash Loop)Apple’s filing fails to comply with the Court’s order. Courts require more than legal conclusions — especially after being told exactly what’s missing. Apple appears to have simply copied the Court’s language back into the pleading without supplying the required facts. The Court’s Prior Instructions:
Yet, Apple’s response simply recites: “Plaintiff disclosed confidential product-related information… failed to cooperate… violated Apple policies…” That is not compliance — it is deflection. Further, Apple also:
The Court granted leave to amend to allow Apple to defend itself — not to recycle prior language or make new baseless accusations. This failure to comply not only leaves Apple exposed to another Rule 12(f) motion to strike, but risks a judicial finding of bad faith or procedural abuse. Consequences for AppleIf the Court strikes these defenses again:
This narrows the case. It tightens discovery. It makes the damages math simpler. And it removes one of the few remaining litigation levers. And the risk for Apple, if it refuses to resolve this, only compounds. Behind the ScenesThis amended Answer does not reflect a good-faith attempt to cure pleading deficiencies. It reflects a deliberate retreat from factual litigation altogether. Apple was given 14 days to revise its defenses after the Court struck them for being conclusory and unsupported. The Court explicitly instructed Apple to plead concrete facts — names, dates, events, documents. Instead, Apple submitted a filing that merely repeats legal conclusions, substitutes the Court’s own illustrative language as if it were factual pleading, and copy-pastes boilerplate text across multiple defenses — likely assembled in under 30 minutes. This is not a legal defense strategy. It is a procedural maneuver — unusually cautious, and concurrently reckless. Apple has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity for aggressive litigation. It filed nine motions to dismiss, repeatedly sought sanctions, and briefed complex jurisdictional and preemption issues. Since 2023, Apple’s litigation teams have fought my detailed allegations of environmental violations, racketeering, obstruction of justice, and antitrust violations. It is represented by multiple top-tier law firms with national reputations, and its internal legal department rivals most federal agencies. To suggest this filing reflects negligence or inexperience defies credibility. There is only one plausible explanation for this level of risk aversion: Apple did not want to tie itself to any factual narrative. More specifically, it appears Apple may have been preparing to plead “facts” derived through extrajudicial influence — and was ultimately forced to abandon that plan. In the days leading up to this filing, I raised concerns — through protected speech and formal agency communications — that Apple appeared to be interfering in parallel government proceedings, seemingly to engineer official findings to then cite in its civil Answer. I notified both government officials and the public (albeit cryptically) that if Apple exploited premature or coordinated agency action to shape its defense, it would face immediate and appropriate legal response from me. It is now especially notable that Apple’s Answer:
This last allegation is not just unsupported — it is reactive. It appears crafted to preemptively deflect from the very type of interference I warned about. This is not coincidence. It is confirmation. To underscore the point: Apple appeared to have coordinated with a major news outlet to publish a story reinforcing its planned defense narrative — timed to support a position in another proceeding. I became aware of this effort in real time. I contacted the outlet and, in precise legal terms, explained what Apple was doing: attempting to manipulate press coverage to manufacture evidentiary material. The article was pulled. It was never published. This isn’t the strategy of a company trying to win on the merits. It’s the strategy of a company trying to control the record — and failing. Containment is not a legal strategy. It’s reputational triage. And in litigation — where discovery, testimony, and trial timelines exist to surface the truth — triage almost always fails. Apple’s refusal to plead facts is now part of the evidentiary record. Its use of boilerplate in place of fact is part of the litigation history. If this Answer represents the collapse of a pre-fabricated narrative — forced to detour after exposure or internal panic — then what you’re seeing is not defense strategy: it’s collapse. -Ashley Diff of Apple's First Answer and Amended Answer:
The full Gjovik v Apple case Docket is here:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ Today, I’m proud to share the launch of Silentium Fractum, the first issue of The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance — a self-published, open-access academic journal that documents how powerful institutions weaponize legal systems, and how those systems can be tactically resisted. This issue emerges directly from my experience confronting Apple Inc. in ongoing federal litigation and regulatory proceedings. Copies of the journal and individual articles are linked below. The full journal is open access and permanently archived here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15524514 The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance, Volume 1, Issue 1: Silentium Fractum (Summer 2025) The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance is an independent, interdisciplinary academic journal dedicated to the analysis of corporate power, legal systems, institutional violence, and tactical resistance. The journal’s mission is to dissect the structures that enable unaccountable authority — and to publish work that equips readers to confront and dismantle those systems. It exists to provide a forum for documenting how institutions exercise power through design, process, and doctrine—and how that power may be resisted, challenged, or exposed. It prioritizes work that bridges theory and praxis, drawing from law, ethics, philosophy, and lived experience. It rejects complicity with oppressive systems and embrace intellectual insurgency. Our focus spans corporate law, political philosophy, and ethics, examining how structural power perpetuates itself and how individuals and movements disrupt these systems. This journal takes as its premise that law and policy do not operate in a vacuum. They are structured systems embedded with assumptions, incentives, and political compromises that shape how truth is constructed, whose voices are heard, and which harms are made legible. Too often, the architecture of rights and remedies serves to shield institutional actors from accountability, rather than expose or rectify misconduct. This journal aims to document, analyze, and challenge the mechanisms by which systems of power are maintained—particularly through procedural obstruction, administrative evasion, retaliatory suppression, and narrative control. It welcomes work that crosses traditional boundaries: legal analysis informed by ethics and human rights; case studies grounded in lived experience; structural critiques sharpened by theory; and tactical frameworks developed through practice. This journal is a project in public reasoning, democratic accountability, and epistemic clarity. I publish in the belief that documentation itself is a form of resistance, and that naming the design is a necessary first step toward its deconstruction. I believe that resistance requires documentation—and that truth, when carefully and publicly recorded, can outlast obstruction. Volume 1, Issue 1 – Silentium Fractum focuses on the misuse of process: how litigation, regulatory procedure, and institutional policy are used to conceal wrongdoing and suppress dissent. The articles in this issue trace the contours of procedural violence, but also explore the tactical spaces within which truth may still be documented, preserved, and eventually heard. Together, these articles form an indictment of how systems designed for justice are repurposed to protect power. These articles also offer counter-possibilities: that occupation of the system, with documentation, narration, and resistance within formal processes, has the potential to crack illusions of neutrality. Our motto, nulli di, nulli domini, declares “no gods, no masters.” We believe systems of power are not inevitable. These systems are constructed — and anything constructed can be deconstructed. Welcome to The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance. Read the first Issue of the Journal: “The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance." Read the individual articles:
First published: May 26 2025. | Additional Links: OSF. Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.15524514. 5/23/25 - Motion To Bifurcate Apple's "Omnibus" Emergency Motion to strike, Seal, Sanction, & Oppose5/23/2025 Procedural Tactics as Strategy: Apple's Litigation Conduct Across Forums Since 2021, I have been engaged in legal proceedings involving Apple Inc., arising from whistleblower disclosures and subsequent retaliation claims. These matters have spanned administrative investigations, district court litigation, and now an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Across these venues, Apple has adopted a consistent procedural strategy that warrants scrutiny. While Apple has not engaged the substance of the claims in any meaningful fashion, it has aggressively pursued procedural containment: leveraging motion practice, filing irregularities, and calendar compression to avoid merits-based adjudication. On May 23, 2025, I filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit seeking relief from the most recent iteration of this approach — an omnibus filing designed to obscure dispositive requests within administrative procedure. That motion, however, was not filed in response to a single incident; it was necessitated by a sustained litigation posture aimed at frustrating judicial review through procedural distortion. Prior Proceedings and Established Pattern The procedural tactics now presented before the Ninth Circuit are not novel. In 2022-2024, during a formal investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor into Apple’s alleged violations of federal whistleblower protections, the company employed a strategy focused on early procedural dismissal. It avoided substantive engagement with the facts or statutory obligations under investigation, and instead sought to terminate proceedings on jurisdictional and administrative grounds. That approach continued in related proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. There, Apple repeatedly filed early motions to dismiss — often framed as jurisdictional challenges or premature finality arguments — which were accompanied by informal and inconsistent positions across parallel dockets. Notably, Apple’s conduct in that forum included efforts to undermine briefing schedules, preempt discovery, and moot critical issues before they were heard. Now, before the Court of Appeals, that same approach has escalated into overt procedural entanglement. Litigation Tactics in the Current Appeal In the present case (No. 25-2028), Apple’s procedural tactics have included:
The cumulative effect of these tactics is procedural destabilization. The briefing schedule has been clouded; deadlines have been rendered ambiguous; and multiple dispositive and evidentiary motions have been layered into the record in ways that frustrate effective response. Motion Filed to Enforce Procedural Clarity On May 23, I filed a motion seeking to restore procedural integrity to this appellate proceeding. Specifically, I requested that the Court:
This motion is a direct response to conduct that undermines the orderly administration of justice. The Ninth Circuit's rules exist to preserve fairness and clarity in an environment where legal complexity is already high. Where one party repeatedly ignores those rules — and uses that noncompliance to gain strategic advantage — judicial intervention becomes necessary. Broader Implications What is at stake is not just docket discipline in a single case. Apple’s procedural strategy in this appeal — as in the prior administrative and district court proceedings — reflects a broader model of litigation risk containment. This model does not engage with the underlying allegations. It does not seek judicial guidance. It seeks, instead, to control the process — by constraining access to review, weaponizing timing, and burying the substance of the dispute beneath procedural complexity. When large institutional litigants are permitted to embed dispositive motions inside administrative filings, to compress adversarial response windows, and to exploit rules-based ambiguity to their advantage, the result is not zealous advocacy — it is procedural asymmetry. The Courts should not become a forum where procedural tactics displace substantive law. My motion seeks only that this appeal proceed under the rules the Court has established, with clarity, separation of issues, and fair response timelines. APPELLANT'S NOTICE AND REQUEST REGARDING DOCKET MANAGEMENT
Today, I filed two significant documents with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, marking critical steps in my ongoing fight for accountability, justice, and transparency against Apple Inc. Request for Judicial Notice In response to Apple's recent Opposition filings filled with factual inaccuracies, I submitted a detailed Request for Judicial Notice. This filing requests the Court officially acknowledge public documents, government agency records, third-party media reports, and formal complaints that indisputably validate my claims of whistleblower retaliation, unlawful surveillance, environmental violations, and systemic procedural abuse. These materials—including extensive reporting by the Financial Times, investigative findings by EPA, and international inquiries from data protection agencies—are not merely evidence; they fundamentally rebuke Apple's attempts to deny the legitimacy of my disclosures and retaliatory experiences. Judicial notice ensures the court recognizes the reality of my situation, countering Apple's misleading narratives. Reply in Support of Emergency Injunctive Relief Simultaneously, I filed my Reply in Support of Emergency Injunctive Relief. This filing underscores the urgency of immediate judicial intervention to halt Apple's retaliatory litigation tactics. Apple's repeated procedural abuses—including threats of contempt, unjust gag orders, and suppression of evidence—have turned litigation into a mechanism of coercion, threatening not only my rights but the broader public interest in transparency and accountability. In my reply, I outlined specific, targeted relief measures, asking the Court to:
The stakes here extend beyond my individual case. Apple's tactics threaten all whistleblowers and crime victims who rely on courts as a refuge from retaliation, obstruction, and procedural manipulation. Why This Matters These filings are not just procedural steps. They're about reclaiming the integrity of legal processes, protecting whistleblower rights, and ensuring corporate accountability. Every motion, every reply, every document I submit is a step toward transparency, justice, and systemic change. Thank you for your continued support as I fight not only for my rights but for the rights of all who dare to speak truth to power View the docket here. Gjovik's Reply in Support of Motion for Injunction & Stay:
Gjovik's Motion for Judicial Notice:
5/19/2025 -Federal Court Grants My Motion Against Apple’s Evasive Answer — A Rare Procedural Win5/19/2025 Federal Court Grants My Motion Against Apple’s Evasive Answer — A Rare Procedural Win for Workers, Whistleblowers, and the Public On May 19 2025, a federal judge granted part of my motion to strike legally invalid defenses from Apple’s answer to my lawsuit — including claims that I caused my own injuries, that I had "unclean hands," or that they might find new dirt on me later. These defenses were not only baseless, they were harassment and procedural distractions — and now, they're gone. It’s a small but rare and significant win — especially for someone representing themselves, without a law firm, in a case involving retaliation, environmental exposure, civil rights, and RICO violations. After 17 months of litigation, Apple finally filed an Answer to my Fifth Amended Complaint. It was a wall of vague denials, evasive “we lack knowledge” statements (even about their own executives’ actions), and 16 generic affirmative defenses — most of which had no legal basis at all. In response, I filed:
On May 19, 2025, the court granted my motion to strike in part. The judge removed several of Apple’s most questionable defenses, including:
(Note: The court denied the 12(e) motion but openly criticized Apple’s lack of clarity, calling parts of their Answer vague and unnecessary.) These types of motions are rarely granted — especially when filed by plaintiffs, and especially when you’re doing it without a lawyer against one of the most powerful companies on Earth. By granting this motion:
This ruling isn’t flashy. But it cuts the noise, forces Apple to engage honestly, and strengthens the foundation for what’s coming next. What makes this win especially unusual:
The order struck over half of Apple’s affirmative defenses as “conclusory,” “unsupported,” or “improper under Rule 8(c).” The court didn’t issue sanctions against me (despite Apple’s demands) and acknowledged the need for clearer positions from Apple moving forward. These motions often lose. Mine didn’t. That alone should tell you something. Apple tried to argue:
The judge threw those defenses out. This ruling matters because these defenses aren’t just legal moves — they’re weapons companies use to intimidate and discredit workers who speak up. By forcing Apple to drop these arguments, the court helped make sure the focus returns to the real issues: Retaliation. Harassment. Toxic exposure. Misuse of legal systems to cover up misconduct. That’s not just a win in court. It’s a step toward fairness — for me, and for anyone who’s ever been told their story didn’t matter because the company said so. Apple now has 14 days to refile their Answer. We’ll see what they do with it. Meanwhile:
This was just one step. But it was a step in the right direction. To the workers, whistleblowers, legal nerds, journalists, and fellow survivors following this case: Thank you. I fight harder because I know you’re watching, learning, and sometimes fighting, too. Hang in there. Keep watching. The truth is coming out. -Ashley Dockets: May 19 2025 Decision & Order:
Narrative Is My Legal Training: How I Fought Back Against Apple’s Procedural Blitz — And Why That Filing Was Never Just About the Rules On May 14, 2025, Apple filed a late-night (May 15 2025 12:29 AM EST) omnibus motion in the Ninth Circuit — a procedural grenade wrapped in the language of urgency. They moved to strike my appellate brief. They moved to strike my declarations. They moved to compel sealed materials I hadn’t even had a chance to discuss with the Court. And they asked the Court to rule on all of it within 24 to 48 hours. This wasn’t about formatting. It wasn’t about rules. It was about erasing the record, neutralizing the whistleblower, and turning the Court into a gatekeeper of silence. I’m a pro se litigant. I’m disabled. I’m a whistleblower, witness, and victim. And I did what I’ve always done: I responded — not with power, but with clarity. I filed a 35-page omnibus response supported by law, fact, and my own legal training — the kind that’s based not in courtroom warfare, but in narrative, justice, and survival. What They Tried to Do In a single motion, Apple asked the Court to:
What they didn’t say in that motion — but what matters deeply — is that they refused to confer with me days earlier. When I offered to discuss the declarations, they informed me nothing was due and there was no appeal. When I offered to stipulate, they refused to engage. And then they filed a midnight three-party motion claiming that because the declarations were filed seven days after my Motion, that they need a thirty day extension. They also claimed that my previously-not-due declarations for the non-existent appeal are actually late and should be stricken. They also claimed I filed hundreds of pages of new exhibits that are overwhelming and delaying them. What I Filed in Response I didn’t file three motions. I filed one. I responded to all three of Apple’s demands — overnight — in a single, consolidated brief. I explained:
What I Was Actually Trained to Do Apple wants the Court to see me as a stealth attorney — someone with a J.D. who's “gaming the system.” That’s not just false. It’s upside down. I hold a law degree, but I have never practiced litigation. I’ve never worked in a courtroom. I’ve never taken a deposition. My lowest grades in law school were in civil procedure, evidence, and legal writing — because those courses were designed for adversarial systems I was never drawn to. What did I study?
That is the law I was trained in. Not litigation. Not striking. Not silencing. Telling the truth in a way that survives. They Tried to Gag Me — Then Made me Bleed This week, in the district court, Apple asked for a protective order to silence me — to restrict my ability to speak publicly about their conduct. Then, in the Ninth Circuit, they asked the Court to force me to disclose sealed materials — including:
I redacted what I could. I served what I had to. I filed a public declaration because I had no choice. And then I went online and deleted references from my own LinkedIn — because their demand for disclosure had real-world consequences. They tried to gag me. Then they tried to make me bleed in public. And all of it was framed as “procedure.” There was no team of lawyers behind this filing. No paralegal. No funding. Just me. I worked nonstop all night. I broke it into sections. I backed it with law. I disclosed my law school transcript. I cited trauma research. I admitted mistakes. I told the truth — in the format they demanded, but in the language I was trained to speak. They wanted to control the narrative. I reclaimed it. Final Thoughts Apple views me as a threat — to their reputation, to their procedures, to their control over the facts. But the truth is simpler:
- Ashley The full appellate docket is here. Read Apple's Motion here. Read my response here & below:
A Procedural Gag: Court Declines to Review Allegations of Surveillance, Retaliation, and Obstruction in Whistleblower Case In August 2021, Apple terminated my employment following a series of formal complaints I submitted to federal and state agencies. Those complaints alleged violations including related to:
Many of these complaints were substantiated by regulatory inspections, internal records, and public findings. The termination occurred shortly after Apple became aware of my intent to pursue formal disclosures, and documentary evidence later revealed internal plans to remove me that were initiated well before the stated termination date. Apple claims that, in 2017, I signed an “informed consent agreement” that gave them permission to conduct 24/7 biometric surveillance of me — including photographing me in the nude, recording video of me using the toilet, and tracking my GPS and body data at all times. When I filed complaints about this surveillance and lots of other misconduct by Apple, Apple fired me. That firing led to multiple federal investigations — many with complaints and notices of violation, some still ongoing. It also led to this federal lawsuit, I haven't seen the "informed consent" document, if it exists, for at least eight years - and I was never provided a copy. Currently, Apple won’t produce it to me. But they say they intend to use it as evidence that I “consented” and argue that even if I consented prior, I somehow waived my right to withdraw or challenge that consent. For over a year, Apple has tried to impose a protective order in this litigation that would use to designate as “confidential”:
Last week, Apple told the court it intends to:
Apple’s position is that the protective order presents no constitutional problem because it includes a mechanism for challenging confidentiality after the fact. However, the order requires all such materials to be treated as confidential for a minimum of 21 days pending challenge — thereby operating as a temporary prior restraint on speech related to matters of significant public concern. Apple has also stated that it intends to rely on this deposition testimony, taken under protective seal, in dispositive motion practice — such as summary judgment — while maintaining restrictions that would bar me from disclosing or rebutting the evidence in any public forum. If the court were to grant the order for Summary Judgement based on the sealed documents and testimony, the public would never know why my litigation was dismissed, only that a US Court decided I did not have valid claims against Apple. On May 13, 2025, I submitted a formal Motion to Quash to the U.S. District Court concerning these actions, identifying potential violations of federal witness protection, obstruction of justice, and retaliation statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512 and 1513. On May 14, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order declining to stay a discovery dispute in my pending whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against Apple Inc. The ruling was issued:
Instead, the Court characterized the allegations as a “discovery dispute” and found that the protective order presented no immediate harm, describing the gag provisions as “temporary” and “litigation strategy.” The Court also vacated the hearing I had scheduled and held that the motion “clearly lacks merit.” As a result, the dispute now returns to the magistrate judge — who previously stated she is “inclined to grant” the protective order and who restricts objections to 1.5-page joint letters. Apple has made clear that the protective order will apply not only to the document in question, but also to my responses to questions about it; internal company practices involving anatomical imaging; and potentially other categories of whistleblower-related evidence. The law prohibits this. Protective orders cannot be used to shield evidence of possible criminal conduct; silence litigants from participating in regulatory or public interest reporting; preemptively restrict access to materials never disclosed in discovery. Nonetheless, the Court declined to address those questions. Today, May 14 2025, I filed a notice with the Ninth Circuit and submitted an emergency motion to stay the Court’s order. I have also notified the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Labor, and other agencies with overlapping jurisdiction. If permitted to stand, this approach will convert a standard civil discovery tool into a mechanism for preemptive suppression of whistleblower testimony — with no judicial review of the underlying facts. The Court’s preemptive denial of the Motion to Quash — without full briefing or hearing, and while an appeal on related issues is pending — raises questions under basic procedural fairness doctrines. It also conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s directive in Foltz v. State Farm, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003), which cautions against reflexively sealing or designating materials without adequate judicial scrutiny and a compelling factual record. Protective orders are not meant to create an asymmetric evidentiary environment. In this case, the party seeking confidentiality:
Under controlling precedent — including Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, Foltz v. State Farm, and Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu — courts are required to:
The order Apple seeks would operate as a gag on testimony concerning:
If courts allow discovery protective orders to gag parties from discussing those same facts with regulators, the result is a chilling effect on protected speech — especially where the designations are made preemptively, without access to the documents in question. Moreover, the timing of the ruling — issued without briefing or hearing, and while serious allegations of obstruction are pending — raises policy questions about whether protective orders are being used inappropriately to shield conduct from regulatory oversight. Protective orders serve an important function in modern litigation. But they must not be used — deliberately or by omission — to suppress evidence of public concern, to insulate corporate actors from regulatory scrutiny, or to impair the ability of whistleblowers to defend themselves in court. The May 14 ruling, entered without hearing, briefing, or direct engagement with the legal issues presented, illustrates how process can be used not to protect rights — but to avoid reviewing them altogether. Stakeholders in the legal community should be concerned when procedural expediency supplants meaningful adjudication, especially where speech, surveillance, and public accountability intersect. When procedural mechanisms are used to suppress evidence without review, courts risk not merely denying justice, but disabling the very processes meant to ensure it. -Ashley -- Ashley M. Gjovik is a former senior engineering program manager at Apple and a federally recognized whistleblower with matters pending before multiple federal agencies and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. May 13 2025 Motion to Quash
May 14 2025 Order
May 14 2025 Motion to Stay Order
On May 13, 2025, I filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The motion was necessary because Apple once again attempted to use the court system to suppress whistleblower disclosures, obstruct testimony, and weaponize procedure to retaliate against me for participating in federal agency proceedings.
But this time, I didn’t just oppose what they filed — I filed it for them. As evidence. Apple's Discovery Tactics: Litigation as Retaliation Apple has pursued a confidentiality protective order against me for over a year — a mechanism it hopes will retroactively validate the company’s unlawful policies and restrict my ability to speak about:
On May 13, Apple’s litigation counsel demanded I authorize a finalized joint discovery letter and exhibit packet. I did — explicitly under protest, with preserved objections. Then something changed. Obstruction Risk, Criminal Exposure, and Procedural Reversal After I invoked 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512 and 1513 — federal criminal statutes governing witness tampering and retaliation — counsel for Apple abruptly refused to file the very document she had demanded all day. She instead insisted I file it, despite its origin and framing as Apple’s submission. That reversal came after weeks of threats that Apple would file it unilaterally and blame me for delay. But once counsel realized that filing a document designed to suppress protected testimony could carry legal and ethical consequences, she tried to pass the responsibility to me — the whistleblower and pro se litigant — to file a document that could help facilitate my own silencing. So I Filed It — as an Exhibit to my Motion to Quash I did not file the joint discovery letter with the magistrate. I filed it as "Exhibit D" to my Motion to Quash and Request to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 112), submitted directly to the federal Judge in the U.S. District Court. In the motion, I request that the district court:
What Apple intended as a procedural offensive — a protective order to limit speech — is now preserved as evidence of retaliation, obstruction, and overreach. Notified the Ninth Circuit That same day, I filed a Notice of Supplemental Filing with the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 25-2028. The notice informs the Court of the retaliatory litigation tactics and includes:
This filing supports my pending Motion for Injunction and Stay Pending Appeal (Rule 8) and demonstrates the live, ongoing risk of procedural retaliation. Filed a New NLRB Charge Separately, I filed a new NLRB unfair labor practice charge citing:
Apple’s litigation conduct — including efforts to impose prior restraints on testimony, designate whistleblower disclosures as confidential, and suppress public references to NLRB settlements — forms the factual basis for this new charge. When Procedure Becomes Proof This isn’t just a story about filings — it’s a case study in how corporations attempt to use process as punishment. Apple tried to:
They didn’t expect that I’d file everything — including their own words — as evidence. Now it’s all in the record:
-Ashley On May 7, 2025, I filed a motion for injunction pending appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Gjovik v. Apple. The motion seeks immediate protection from further discovery and litigation conduct by Apple Inc. while my appeal is pending, particularly in light of serious issues involving crime victims' rights, retaliation, and ongoing constitutional and statutory violations. This motion follows the district court’s dismissal of claims involving racketeering (RICO), toxic exposure, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). My appeal challenges, among other things, the court’s denial of injunctive relief sought under the CVRA and UCL. Pending that appeal, I am now seeking interim protection under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), which allow courts to preserve the status quo during an interlocutory appeal. I have also invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), which expressly provides victims of federal crimes the right to seek immediate relief from a court when their rights are being denied. The motion outlines how Apple’s current conduct—particularly discovery demands seeking trauma-related medical records, witness information, and other invasive inquiries—poses an immediate risk of irreparable harm, including retraumatization and unlawful retaliation against a federally protected whistleblower and crime victim. The legal grounds for the injunction include:
The relief requested is narrow: to temporarily stay discovery and related retaliation until the Ninth Circuit rules on the underlying appeal, which directly raises these protective issues. This case raises significant questions regarding the intersection of corporate retaliation, discovery abuse, and statutory rights afforded to crime victims and whistleblowers. Allowing discovery to proceed in this context—while the lawfulness of that discovery is on direct review—would not only risk further harm to the Appellant, but also contravene the statutory mandates of the CVRA and undermine the integrity of the appellate process. This motion is not about delay; it is about ensuring that litigation does not become a tool of continued intimidation or retaliation. It is also about enforcing clear and enforceable rights guaranteed to victims under federal and state law. The Ninth Circuit docket is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69805803/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ A copy of the motion is directly available here: 05/06/2025 - Appellant’s Opening Brief Filed in Gjovik v. Apple, Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-20285/6/2025 On May 6, 2025, I filed my Opening Brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 25-2028. The brief challenges the district court’s dismissal of multiple federal and state claims involving post-employment retaliation, environmental exposure, civil rights violations, and corporate racketeering activity. The appeal challenges both the district court’s denial of injunctive relief and its dismissal with prejudice of claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), California’s Bane and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, common law torts, and state and federal toxic tort theories. The complaint arises from Apple’s retaliatory conduct following my protected disclosures to government agencies, including federal environmental authorities and law enforcement. This appeal arises from a complex action concerning Apple’s alleged pattern of unlawful conduct following my termination, including threats, harassment, reputational interference, and concealment of toxic exposures at one of its semiconductor sites. The central legal issues on appeal involve both procedural and substantive errors committed at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, as well as the district court’s refusal to grant leave to amend or to issue injunctive relief protecting crime victim rights under federal and state law. The brief seeks reversal and remand on several grounds, including:
This appeal implicates important legal and policy questions regarding:
This appeal presents issues of first impression in the Ninth Circuit concerning the application of crime victim rights in civil proceedings, the scope of post-employment retaliation as a basis for RICO liability, and the limits of judicial discretion in denying leave to amend complex statutory claims involving concealed harm. It also raises critical questions about the use of discovery and protective orders in cases involving active retaliation, surveillance, and obstruction of protected disclosures. The case implicates ongoing public policy concerns at the intersection of corporate accountability, environmental compliance, and whistleblower protection. The factual allegations are supported by contemporaneous disclosures to multiple government agencies and are consistent with broader federal enforcement actions in related contexts. Procedural Status and Next Steps The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1292(a)(1). In parallel with this appeal, Appellant has filed a Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal seeking to stay discovery and other retaliatory litigation conduct pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). That motion remains pending before the Court. Apple’s responsive brief is due in accordance with the scheduling order, after which Appellant will submit a reply brief. All filings, including the Opening Brief and Injunction Motion, are available at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69805803/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ This appeal seeks to vindicate the rights of whistleblowers, ensure accountability for environmental and retaliatory misconduct, and affirm that procedural doctrines must not be used to shield unlawful corporate behavior from judicial scrutiny. - Ashley The Ninth Circuit docket is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69805803/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ A copy of the brief is directly available here: 📁 NLRB Case No. 32-CA-284428 | 📁 Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Today, I formally notified Apple’s NLRB and civil litigation attorneys that I object to their latest stunt: attempting to unilaterally modify my employment contract — specifically, my Confidentiality & IP Agreement — under the guise of "compliance" with a labor law settlement. Let me be very clear: in the United States, contract revisions require mutual agreement. That’s black-letter law. In California, under state contract law (see Secrest v. Security Nat’l Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2, 167 Cal. App. 4th 544), any modification to a written agreement must be supported by new consideration — and in many cases, must be memorialized in writing and signed by both parties. Even under federal common law, courts have held that unilateral post-termination modifications to employment contracts are invalid unless voluntarily agreed upon by the former employee (Roth v. Mims, 92 F.3d 1108 (11th Cir. 1996)). As readers know, I recently prevailed in a major case before the National Labor Relations Board, which forced Apple to rescind dozens of policies that violated the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 157). The company was ordered to revise internal rules, clarify employee rights, and submit formal proof of compliance — including in my own case. However, instead of correcting their prior illegal behavior and moving forward in good faith, on Friday April 25 2025, Apple sent me a late-night letter with newly reworded contract terms — including brand-new confidentiality obligations, post-termination disclosure duties, and even compelled notification clauses that didn't exist in the original agreement.
Why This Matters for Workers Everywhere This isn’t just about me. This is a textbook corporate tactic: "We were forced to stop breaking the law… so now we’re going to sneak new language into old agreements and hope no one notices." If your employer settles a labor case and then sends you a “policy update,” read it carefully. Look for changes that expand your obligations, especially after termination. Check for:
The Law Is Clear
What I Filed Today I submitted a formal legal memorandum rejecting Apple’s proposed changes, citing contract law, labor law, and constitutional doctrine. I also demanded that Apple comply with its remaining NLRB settlement obligations — including providing a full explanation of rights, assurances of non-retaliation, and a good faith opportunity to negotiate. You can read the Memorandum here: 📄 gjovik_v_apple_-_nlrb_contract_amendment_request_-_final_certified.pdf ⚠️ Worker Alert If you’ve been offered a “revised” contract or policy following a labor dispute or settlement:
This isn’t just about legal theory — it’s about power. Companies will always try to recover what they were forced to give up. Stay vigilant, & stay organized. -Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D. Note: This is not legal advice. Please consult a licensed attorney for legal advice on your specific situation. -- 📨 Contact: [email protected] 📚 More resources: ashleygjovik.com/blog 2025-04-18 | I Just Filed Two Critical Motions Against Apple’s Answer — Here’s Why It Matters4/18/2025 Update: I Just Filed Two Critical Motions Against Apple’s Answer — Here’s Why It Matters
📝 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC After 18 months of stonewalling with five failed motions to dismiss, Apple finally answered my Fifth Amended Complaint. But instead of providing substantive responses, their Answer relied on boilerplate legal jargon, evasive denials, and outright refusals to acknowledge basic, documented facts — including public government records and Apple’s own prior statements. In response, I filed two powerful motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
A fair legal process requires both parties to admit what’s true, deny what’s not, and say “I don’t know” only when that’s really the case. In complex litigation, the clarity of the pleadings isn’t optional — it’s foundational. Without it:
These motions aren’t aggressive — they’re protective. They safeguard judicial resources, prevent litigation from devolving into gamesmanship, and force Apple to engage in the legal process in good faith. Docket Update
Litigation isn’t just about fighting — it’s about clarity, precision, and accountability. Apple’s Answer was none of those. These motions aim to fix that. I’ll share updates as the court rules. In the meantime, thank you to everyone following and supporting this journey toward corporate accountability and environmental justice. — Ashley M. Gjovik [email protected] ashleygjovik.com 04/15/2025 - New Filing: Notice of Pendency – National Labor Relations Board Settlement with Apple4/15/2025 Today I filed a Notice of Pendency in my federal case against Apple, informing the court that Apple recently entered into a final, enforceable settlement agreement with the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a case arising from some of the same facts at issue in my lawsuit — including Apple’s confidentiality policies, surveillance practices, and treatment of employee speech.
The agreement was signed by Apple on March 25, 2025, and formally approved by the NLRB on April 4, 2025. The settlement includes:
In my case, Apple continues to defend the same policies and practices that the federal government just forced it to revise. It also continues to insist that these policies are lawful — while simultaneously complying with a settlement that says otherwise. The overlap between these two proceedings is more than procedural. It's a matter of credibility, transparency, and accountability — especially given that Apple didn’t disclose the settlement in its most recent filings, despite being under a legal obligation to comply with its terms. What This Means for Apple Workers — and Their Lawyers Apple's federal settlement with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) doesn’t just check a box for compliance — it fundamentally shifts the ground beneath every retaliation case involving Apple’s internal policies. Here's how it works:
TL;DR: Apple can’t fire someone for breaking a rule it was just forced to withdraw — and now, that’s on the federal record. This notice places the NLRB settlement on the record, along with supporting exhibits, including:
I filed the notice under Local Rule 3-13, which allows parties to notify the court of related proceedings that may impact the case. I’m not asking the court to rule on the NLRB settlement at this point — only to take notice of it. But the relevance is clear. Apple is trying to defend its actions in this case while revising them under federal order in another. This kind of contradiction matters — not just for me, but for anyone watching how corporations respond when accountability is no longer optional. -- 📚 Filed: U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. – Dkt. 203 in Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 3:23-cv-04597-EMC 📄 Read the full court filing (Dkt. 203) 💬 Questions or media inquiries? Reach me at [email protected] 4/14/2025 - Apple Must Now Comply: NLRB Settlement Activates Nationwide Labor Rights Posting4/14/2025 Final compliance served. Notice must be posted. Employees now hold the enforcement power.
On April 14, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board formally served Apple Inc. with the finalized compliance documents in the matter of Gjovik v. Apple Inc., NLRB Case No. 32-CA-284428. This includes the conformed bilateral settlement agreement, the compliance instructions, and the official Notice to Employees. This means Apple’s legal obligations under the settlement formally begin today — including the requirement to post the Notice of Rights publicly for 60 consecutive days, both:
The NLRB has set a firm deadline of April 28, 2025 for Apple to post the Notice and submit proof of compliance, including:
The Notice to Employees, approved by the NLRB and signed by Apple’s legal representatives, confirms that Apple:
This settlement marks the first time Apple has agreed to a nationwide NLRB posting of this kind. It was obtained after years of litigation, appeals, and public disclosures of Apple’s unlawful policies targeting whistleblowing, organizing, and transparency. The Notice applies to all U.S.-based Apple employees — corporate, retail, hardware, software, operations, and contractors. However, despite the agreement being signed on April 4, 2025, the final materials were not transmitted to Apple until April 14, after I filed a formal compliance challenge earlier that morning. You are not required to wait passively for Apple to comply. In my personal opinion, I think all Apple workers (including managers!) are entitled to:
These are federally protected rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Apple cannot lawfully prevent you from doing so. If Apple fails to comply by April 28, or engages in retaliatory conduct, I have reserved the right to:
This is a win — but only if enforced. Apple workers now hold a tool that can protect their speech, organizing, and dignity. Use it wisely. Download the Official Notice (PDF): gjovik_v_apple_nlrb_caseno_32ca284428_notice_to_employees.pdf Compliance Instructions from NLRB: gjovik_v_apple_-_nlrb_compliance_materials_combined.pdf Today, I’m reporting on Apple’s latest procedural maneuvering in my ongoing appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unsurprisingly, Apple has filed a flurry of motions attempting to stall or dismiss my appeal, despite the Court already setting a briefing schedule and my case moving forward.
Apple filed:
However, in my Omnibus Opposition filed today, I exposed Apple’s contradictory litigation strategy — and I want to share the highlights with you. What Apple Is Arguing Apple claims that:
This, of course, directly conflicts with their earlier arguments in the district court, where they insisted the dismissed claims were irrelevant and closed — to avoid discovery obligations and responding to my evidence requests. My Response In my Omnibus Opposition, I detailed how Apple is:
I even included a diagram illustrating Apple’s self-contradictory litigation posture, highlighting how their argument logically collapses — or as I aptly put it, Apple’s litigation position is "like Schrödinger’s cat: simultaneously alive and dead." What Happens Next Despite Apple’s attempt to derail the process, the Ninth Circuit already issued a briefing schedule:
Apple’s motion to stay or dismiss the appeal will be decided by the Court, but meanwhile, I will continue preparing my Opening Brief. Stay tuned — I will keep fighting for accountability, and I will not allow procedural gamesmanship to derail the truth. You can read the filings here:
Follow the full case docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (9th Circuit Docket) For real-time updates, follow along on Twitter, Mastodon, or BlueSky. Today marks a monumental moment in my legal battles for accountability and worker rights: the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has finalized a settlement with Apple Inc., requiring the company to rescind its unlawful workplace policies on a nationwide basis. (NLRB Case No. 32-CA-284428). After nearly three years of fighting, the company that once claimed its policies were above scrutiny has now been forced to roll back key provisions that suppressed employees’ rights to:
This is the first time Apple has entered into a public labor settlement of this scope, and it confirms what I’ve argued from the start: Apple’s internal policies were illegal under federal labor law. What the Settlement Requires The signed settlement agreement mandates that Apple:
My Joinder Brief: Calling Out Apple’s Lies & Preserving All Rights I filed a Statement of Joinder alongside the settlement to both support its approval and reserve all my rights for ongoing litigation. My brief highlights several critical truths:
Why This Matters This isn’t just a personal victory — it’s a precedent-setting moment for tech workers and whistleblowers nationwide.
Important Note for Apple Employees If you believe Apple is violating this settlement or the National Labor Relations Act again:
Additionally, Apple employees can include copies of this settlement agreement in their own legal filings — whether employment lawsuits or agency complaints. This agreement is not specific to me. It applies to all Apple employees, and you have every right to use it to defend your rights. This fight is not over, but this victory sends a clear message: no corporation, not even Apple, is above the law. attachmentsRead the Settlement Agreement here:
Read my Memorandum and Joinder here:
This March, I officially opened an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to challenge the dismissal of critical claims in my lawsuit against Apple Inc. — claims that include environmental violations, whistleblower retaliation, and toxic tort injuries. This marks a significant next chapter in my fight for accountability.
The appellate case is docketed under Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Nos. 24-6058 & 25-2028. After Apple's attempts to have portions of my case dismissed on procedural grounds, I’m now taking these issues to the federal appellate court for review. In my filings, I emphasized several key points:
Additionally, in my motion, I highlighted that many of the dismissed claims — including those under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Dodd-Frank Act, and California civil rights statutes — were fully and finally resolved at the district level. Therefore, they are ripe for appellate review. Apple, in its arguments, had even acknowledged these dismissed claims as legally and factually distinct from other ongoing issues, which reinforces my position that appellate review at this stage is both appropriate and necessary. The goal is clear: to prevent fragmented litigation, avoid conflicting rulings, and make sure these vital public interest issues are fully and fairly heard at the appellate level. You can read the filings here:
You can follow the full docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (9th Circuit Docket) Upcoming dates to watch:
03/27/2025 - Apple Finally Filed an Answer to My Lawsuit — And I Moved to Strike Everything3/27/2025 After dragging their feet for over a year (I filed my lawsuit in September 2023, and Apple finally answered on March 13, 2025), Apple finally filed their formal response to my Fifth Amended Complaint. But rather than substantively engage with my allegations, Apple’s answer was, frankly, nonsense.
Their filing was loaded with generic, boilerplate defenses like:
Worse, Apple denied knowing or having information about facts squarely in their possession — like their own decision to fire me, their own employee records, and even public regulatory findings about their toxic worksite. So, I fought back. What I Filed Using a rarely invoked but fully authorized rule of federal procedure, I filed:
In my motion, I called out Apple directly: "Apple’s Answer is a textbook example of bad faith pleading — marked by evasive denials, boilerplate recitations of legal conclusions, strategic obfuscation, and attempts to rewrite the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by fiat." I emphasized that courts routinely grant Rule 12(f) and 12(e) motions when defendants abuse the pleading process with unsupported legal theories or refuse to admit indisputable facts. I also noted that Apple's refusal to provide substantive answers obstructs fair discovery and wastes judicial resources. For example: Apple denied knowledge of whether they attempted to delete my Twitter posts — even though Apple's own federal legal filings from their own legal team claimed exactly that. What This Means This motion puts Apple on the defensive, forces them to either clean up their pleading or face court-ordered consequences, and positions me to keep Apple accountable as discovery and trial prep continue. More importantly:
If granted, this motion could knock out every one of Apple's affirmative defenses, dramatically narrowing the scope of the litigation in my favor. Read the Filings:
Follow the full docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (District Court Docket) 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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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. |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
June 2025
Categories
All
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed