Ashley Gjovik
  • Home
  • Apple Legal Battle
    • Ashley's Apple Story
    • Interviews & Press
    • TRW Microwave Superfund
    • Ashley v Apple Evidence Timeline
    • Termination Transcript
    • Justice at Apple
    • iWhistleblower
    • Reading Room
    • Apple History
  • Apple's Secret Fab
  • The Farallon Situation
  • Updates (RSS)
  • Support
  • Contact

Fighting Back: Why I Filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the Ninth Circuit

6/4/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  1. May 2024: Ruled I had standing to seek injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law
  2. June 2024: I amended my complaint to seek only the relief the court said was viable
  3. August 2024: Court struck my legal arguments without reading them
  4. October 2024: Court dismissed the same claim, claiming I "waived" the exact arguments they refused to consider
  5. January 2025: I filed a motion to fix the new problems the court identified
  6. February 2025: Court denied the motion, saying they wanted to "move the case along"

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
  • The AI Whistleblower Protection Act (introduced May 2025): Senator Grassley specifically called out tech companies using "illegally restrictive NDAs" to silence AI safety whistleblowers—exactly what I experienced at Apple.
  • The TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 2025): Made it a federal crime to non-consensually share intimate images, which Apple did when they distributed my private photos as "evidence" for my termination.

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:
  • Combining biometric collection with employment contracts
  • Sharing intimate biometric data without security protections
  • Using workplace coercion to obtain "consent" for data collection

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:
  • Protecting AI safety whistleblowers who risk everything to warn the public about dangerous practices
  • Establishing that tech companies can't use illegal NDAs to silence employees about safety concerns
  • Ensuring courts follow basic due process and don't create procedural traps for pro se litigants
  • Recognizing that biometric privacy violations require immediate injunctive relief, not just money damages

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:
  • OpenAI executives admitted using "illegally restrictive NDAs" to silence safety concerns
  • Congress found that AI companies systematically suppress employee warnings about risks
  • California recognized that without whistleblower protection, companies face "fewer checks on irresponsible development practices until after harm has occurred"

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
  • Full Docket: Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 25-2028
  • Motion for Reconsideration: Filed June 3, 2025

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 
gjovik_v_apple_motion_for_reconsideration_9th-cir._25-2028_33_0.pdf
File Size: 4194 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

2025-06-02 | Apple Files an Amended Answer that Still Does Not Explain Why It Fired Me

6/3/2025

0 Comments

 

Apple's "ANswer" to My Complaint it Illegally Fired Me

On 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:
  • What rule or policy was violated,
  • What conduct allegedly violated that rule,
  • ​How that violation occurred, and
  • How it justifies the employer’s actions under the law.

The Court struck a number of Apple’s defenses, including:
  • Failure to mitigate damages – suggesting I didn’t try hard enough to reduce the harm they caused;
  • Unclean hands – claiming I acted improperly and thus deserve no relief;
  • After-acquired evidence – implying Apple could have fired me for different reasons if only it had known sooner;
  • Workers’ compensation exclusivity – attempting to block my claims by pointing to prior filings;
  • Business necessity/privilege – implying Apple is simply entitled to take whatever action it deems fit;
  • Reservation of future defenses – a placeholder tactic rejected by courts as improper.

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:
  • “Apple should still provide some concrete allegations… to support the defense.”
  • “The Court strikes the defenses only because Apple has not provided concrete facts.”
  • “This information is, at least in part, within its possession, custody, or control.”
  • “Concrete allegations are needed.”

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:
  • Continues to allege misconduct without citing any underlying facts;
  • Vaguely accuses me of providing “inaccurate and/or incomplete information to government entities and the public” — a veiled claim of perjury, with no support;
  • Asserts that I “requested” paid leave — again, with no citation — despite my contemporaneous public statements of the factual basis for the scenario, and federal findings indicating the leave was an unlawful suspension.
​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 Apple

If the Court strikes these defenses again:
  • Apple loses its "failure to mitigate" defense — meaning they can’t argue I should’ve just “got another job.”
  • It loses the “offset” argument — no deduction for imaginary earnings.
  • It loses the “unclean hands” and “after-acquired evidence” defenses — no smears, no post hoc justifications.
  • And it loses its final procedural weapon — the threat of dragging this out endlessly with vague innuendo.

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 Scenes

This 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:
  • Makes no reference to new findings;
  • Omits mention of any material public facts central to its asserted defenses;
  • Affirms no facts it is already on record as knowing; and
  • Introduces vague, recycled allegations — while leveling a new, unsubstantiated claim that I “misled government entities and the public.”

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:
gjovik_v_apple_apple_amended_answer_diff_first_answer_20250602.pdf
File Size: 1178 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

The full Gjovik v Apple case Docket is here: 
​www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc/
0 Comments

2025/05/26 - New Publication: Exposing Procedural Obstruction and Retaliation Through Legal Resistance

5/26/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • The Operational Logic of Normative Violence: Whistleblowing and Corporate Retaliation [PDF].
  • ​The Dark Theater: Retaliation Litigation as Institutional Obstruction and Legalized Harassment [PDF].
  • Offensive Counter-Control: Tactical Frameworks for Asymmetric Legal Resistance Against Corporate Power [PDF].
  • ​Panic in the Boardroom: Mask-Off Moments, Corporate Fear, Retaliation, and the Pattern of Escalatory Delegitimization [PDF].
  • The Bureaucratic Shield: How U.S. Legal Institutions Enable Retaliation, Obscure Criminality, and Undermine Whistleblower Protection [PDF].
  • ​Beyond Zealous Advocacy: Strategic Misrepresentation in Litigation [PDF].

First published: May 26 2025. | Additional Links: OSF. Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.15524514.
0 Comments

5/23/25 - Motion To Bifurcate Apple's "Omnibus" Emergency Motion to strike, Seal, Sanction, & Oppose

5/23/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • Filing motions that embed dispositive relief within unrelated administrative requests, including embedding a motion to dismiss within a motion to stay. This tactic triggered an automatic stay of the briefing schedule under Ninth Circuit Rule 27-11, without disclosure or proper captioning, and without notice to opposing counsel.
  • Submitting omnibus filings that combine motions to strike, motions to compel, requests for sanctions, and extension requests — compressing timelines and depriving the opposing party of fair and orderly notice.
  • Using the timing of filings to manipulate procedural posture, including late-night submissions just ahead of deadlines, effectively shortening the window to respond to substantive motions by more than a week.
  • Filing duplicative or procedurally improper “reply” briefs on previously mooted or procedurally closed motions, further clouding the docket and injecting argument outside the authorized briefing structure.

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:
  1. Order Apple to refile all pending motions separately, in accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 27-1 and the express instructions of the Court’s ACMS e-filing system.
  2. Disregard duplicative or improper submissions, including Apple’s May 22 “reply” in further support of a mooted administrative motion. (Apple asked for an extension, a couple days before its deadline, claiming it was delayed by seven days, then requesting thirty additional days; and then, with no response from the Court, proceeded to file on time - then filed a detailed "reply" to its prior mooted request for an extension).
  3. Restore briefing discipline, ensuring that all motions — particularly those seeking to strike evidence or compel disclosure — proceed on a standard notice-and-response schedule.
  4. Preserve the right to file a corrected Opening Brief, given the confusion created by the improperly triggered stay and Apple’s subsequent requests to strike the already-filed brief.

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
9th-cir._25-2028_31_0.pdf
File Size: 6190 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

5/20/25 - REsponse in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief

5/20/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • Stay further oppressive discovery until the appeal resolves.
  • Bar Apple from enforcing retaliatory contempt threats related to protected disclosures.
  • Accelerate adjudication, urging the district court to proceed swiftly to a summary judgment or trial to promptly resolve key claims of retaliation.

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: 
9th-cir._25-2028_26_0.pdf
File Size: 6466 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Gjovik's Motion for Judicial Notice:
9th-cir._25-2028_27_1.pdf
File Size: 403 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

5/19/2025 -Federal Court Grants My Motion Against Apple’s Evasive Answer — A Rare Procedural Win

5/19/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • A Rule 12(f) motion to strike, asking the court to remove defenses that were irrelevant or improperly pled.
  • A Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, asking the court to require Apple to clarify evasive or vague denials.

​On May 19, 2025, the court granted my motion to strike in part. The judge removed several of Apple’s most questionable defenses, including:
  • That I failed to state a claim (not a valid defense),
    • "The Court grants the motion to strike...To the extent the Court has already rejected arguments that Ms. Gjovik failed to state a claim for relief for any cause of action, Apple may not relitigate the issue absent leave of the Court." (pages 3-4)
  • That I was responsible for my own injuries,
    • "The sixth affirmative defense is “failure to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate any damages ... The seventh affirmative defense is... Apple is entitled to an offset for any monies Plaintiff received from any source after Plaintiff ceased to be employed by Apple... The Court grants the motion to strike... Apple... should still provide some concrete allegations along the lines of the above to support the defenses." (pages 4-5)
    • "Apple asserts that 'no conduct by or attributable to it was the cause in fact or legal cause of the damages, if any, suffered by Plaintiff,” and “[s]hould it be determined that Plaintiff was damaged, then said damages were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own conduct.'... The Court grants the motion to strike, but with leave to amend...Apple should still provide some concrete allegations to that effect to support the defense." (page 7)
  • That I had “unclean hands,” 
    • "In the eighth affirmative defense, Apple asserts: Plaintiff’s recovery is barred in whole or in part by her own unclean hands and by the doctrines of unclean hands, in pari delicto and/or after-acquired evidence, or in the alternative, these doctrines cut off or reduce her alleged damages.... The Court grants the motion to strike, but with leave to amend.... Apple should still provide some concrete allegations along the lines of the above to support the defense, particularly because this information is, at least in part, within its possession, custody, or control." (page 5)
  • That Apple could later discover “after-acquired evidence” to justify what they already did,
    • "Apple asserts 'assuming arguendo that discriminatory or retaliatory reasons had been a motivating factor in any employment decision toward Plaintiff (which they were not), Apple would have made the same decisions toward Plaintiff in any case for legitimate, non-discriminatory and/or nonretaliatory business reasons'... The motion to strike is granted, but with leave to amend... The Court strikes the defenses only because Apple has not provided concrete facts to support the defenses.." (pages 7-8)
  • ​That workers' compensation blocks my civil claims, 
    • "The motion to strike is granted. Apple has suggested that workers’ compensation exclusivity applies because Ms. Gjovik has asserted not just statutory claims but also a common law claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. But courts have held that a claim for wrongful termination (as opposed to, e.g., intentional infliction of emotional distress) is not subject to workers’ compensation exclusivity... As for Apple’s alternative position – i.e., any workers’ compensation could still be used as a set-off to damages, if awarded – the Court agrees with Ms. Gjovik that some concrete allegations are needed. For example, is Apple aware of any workers’ compensation awarded to Ms. Gjovik during the time she was employed with Apple? The motion to strike is therefore granted, but with leave to amend (i.e., to the extent Apple asserts that workers’ compensation may be used as a set-off)." (pages 6-7)​
  • That Apple had a right to fire me for any reason, and even if it didn't, it thought it did and that should be enough,
    • "Apple asserts as follows.. 'Plaintiff was an at-will employee with no entitlement to continued employment pursuant to Labor Code section 2922....any alleged action that [Apple] took with respect to Plaintiff was privileged and justified and protected by the doctrine of business necessity.... Apple at all times acted without malice, in good faith, and with reasonable grounds for believing its actions did not violate the law... Apple was fully justified, and exercised reasonable care, prudence, skill and business judgment with respect to Plaintiff, and any decisions with respect to Plaintiff were made without regard to Plaintiff’s alleged disability, national origin, age or other protected basis.'  The motion to strike is granted, but with leave to amend. The Court strikes the defenses only because Apple has not provided concrete facts to support the defenses." (pages 7-8)
  • And that Apple can make up more defenses later. 
    • "​The sixteenth affirmative defense is as follows: 'Apple reserves the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates it would be appropriate to do so.... The Court grants the motion. “The mere reservation of affirmative defenses is not an affirmative defense.’” (pages 8-9).


(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:
  • The judge forced Apple to remove legally unsupported attacks from their Answer.
  • Apple now has to re-write their legal defenses, and can’t rely on vague excuses or future fishing expeditions.
  • ​The court even reminded Apple that if they want to seek sanctions, they need to do it formally — not through threats in footnotes.
​
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:
  • Courts rarely grant 12(f) motions, especially to strike defenses, especially from a plaintiff; 
  • Judges almost never grant them in cases already this complex, with dozens of underlying claims;
  • And courts almost never grant them when the plaintiff is pro se — and has been under repeated threat of sanctions from the Defendent.

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:
  • That I somehow “deserved” what happened to me,
  • That my claims were procedurally defective even after five rounds of amendment,
  • That they might someday find new facts to justify what they did,
  • And that my case should just be shut down entirely.

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:
  • I’m hopeful for a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit in my appeal — challenging dismissals of my RICO, toxic tort, civil rights, and IIED claims.
  • I’m still pushing for fairness, accountability, and clarity — inside and outside the courtroom.

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:
  • US District Court
  • US Court of Appeals

May 19 2025 Decision & Order:
court_decision_and_order_gov.uscourts.cand.417952.215.0.pdf
File Size: 188 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

05/15/2025 - Opposition filed to Apple's Midnight Motion for Extension, Motion to Strike, & Motion to Compel

5/15/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • Strike my entire appellate brief because the formatting may have exceeded the word count;
  • Strike my declarations in support of my motion for injunction, claiming they were “late”;
  • Compel me to disclose sealed, confidential materials, including communications with federal law enforcement and documentation of medical and financial hardship;
  • and fast-track all of this before their opposition deadline, giving me just hours to respond.

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:
  • That there is no rule requiring declarations to be filed the same day as a brief;
  • That the materials they called “new” were in fact mostly already on the district court docket — and many were written by Apple itself (ie, Apple complained to the court about having to read its own privilege log and OSHA filings);
  • That the brief they called overlength was filed in good faith, on time, under pressure, and with clear offers to cure;
  • That the sealed materials had been redacted and served, and protected by law.
I laid out what Apple never wanted the Court to see: the pattern. The control. The contradictions.

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?
  • Transitional Justice at Oxford — with former international war crime tribunal staff.
  • Restorative Justice, Human Rights Law, Public Health Law, Labor Law, and Administrative Law.
  • A 300+ page independent research project on Hawaiian sovereignty and land return, supervised by my Property Law professor.
  • A semester as a refugee caseworker, building asylum narratives for people fleeing torture and persecution.

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:
  • My credit report and financial statements,
  • And details about federal criminal investigations into Apple and another institution. 

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:
  • I’m a whistleblower. I’m disabled. I’m alone. And I’m telling the truth.
  • I wasn’t trained to win. I was trained to bear witness.
  • And I’m still here.

​- Ashley 

The full appellate docket is here.
Read Apple's Motion here. 
Read my response here & below: 
gjovik_v_apple_-_motion_response.pdf
File Size: 11534 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

5/14/2025 - Apple wants a Protective Order to Gag Whistleblower Testimony — And the Court Just ok'd their Plan

5/14/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • Toxic chemical exposure and mishandling in Apple-owned facilities;
  • Unlawful biometric surveillance and anatomical imaging via a company-deployed application;
  • Environmental and labor law noncompliance;
  • Criminal law violations; 
  • Retaliation for internal reporting and protected disclosures under numerous statutes, common law, and public policy.

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”:
  • an “Informed Consent Agreement” it claims authorizes the aforementioned surveillance;
  • their surveillance photos of me naked, in the bathroom, doing private things at home;
  • my testimony concerning that document (which I have not seen);
  • and other categories of information that may implicate Apple’s practices with respect to anatomical imaging, AI development based on nonconsensual private data; voyeurism, and surveillance of employees and third parties.

Last week, Apple told the court it intends to:
  • Depose me about this alleged “consent” agreement;
  • Designate the document and my testimony as confidential under a protective order;
  • Prevent me from discussing either one — publicly, or with federal regulators;
  • Use the resulting testimony in a dispositive motion, likely for summary judgment.

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:
  • without briefing;
  • without oral argument;
  • less than 24 hours after I filed the motion;
  • without engaging the potential First Amendment implications of a confidentiality order applied to whistleblower testimony;
  • the public policy consequences of designating biometric surveillance materials as confidential;
  • the discovery asymmetry created by sealing testimony while relying on it in dispositive motions;
  • the legal relevance of an active obstruction complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice just one day earlier.

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:
  • Plans to use materials under seal in dispositive motion practice,
  • While denying access to the same materials by the opposing party,
  • While also pursuing a motion for summary judgment.
This approach may improperly deprive the nonmoving party of the ability to review, respond to, or rebut the very materials being used to terminate her claims.

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:
  • Review protective orders carefully when they implicate speech on matters of public concern;
  • Avoid issuing gag orders that function as prior restraints without narrowly tailored justification;
  • Ensure that civil discovery does not become a mechanism to suppress protected disclosures.

The order Apple seeks would operate as a gag on testimony concerning:
  • Potential violations of biometric and privacy laws;
  • Collection and use of nude anatomical images without consent;
  • Corporate practices that raise significant public health, labor, and ethical concerns.

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
motion_to_quash_gov.uscourts.cand.417952.211.0.pdf
File Size: 6757 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

May 14 2025 Order 
order_may_14.pdf
File Size: 134 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

May 14 2025 Motion to Stay Order
motion_to_stay_lower_court_decision_-_may_14_2025.pdf
File Size: 3145 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

5/13/2025 - A new NLRB Charge &  Motion to Quash Apple's Demand for a Gag Order

5/13/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • The termination rationale already at issue in an NLRB complaint,
  • Internal “Informed Consent” and data-use policies flagged in whistleblower filings,
  • and Apple’s broader attempts to muzzle employees under the guise of IP and confidentiality enforcement.

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:
  • Quash the meet-and-confer order related to the proposed protective order,
  • Stay discovery in light of the appellate posture and NLRB proceedings,
  • and acknowledge the retaliatory nature of Apple’s litigation conduct.

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:
  • A copy of the district court motion (Exhibit A),
  • A contemporaneous record of Apple’s demand for sealed treatment of law enforcement and whistleblower submissions (Exhibit B).

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:
  • Retaliation under Section 8(a)(4) for participation in protected agency proceedings,
  • Interference with protected activity under Section 8(a)(1),
  • And violations of a national settlement agreement entered in Case 32-CA-284428.

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:
  • Create the appearance of consent where none existed,
  • Leverage court procedure to gag a federal complainant,
  • and shift risk by coercing the whistleblower to file a document designed to suppress her own speech.

They didn’t expect that I’d file everything — including their own words — as evidence.

Now it’s all in the record:
  • Before the district court,
  • In front of the Ninth Circuit, and
  • On file with the National Labor Relations Board.

-Ashley 
0 Comments

05/07/2025 - Motion for Injunctive Relief Filed in the Ninth Circuit in Gjovik v. Apple

5/7/2025

0 Comments

 
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 CVRA, which provides crime victims the right to be reasonably protected from the accused and to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect;
  • Marsy’s Law, under Article I, § 28 of the California Constitution, which mirrors those protections at the state level;
  • 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512, 1513, 1514, and related provisions prohibiting witness tampering and retaliation;
  • Established Ninth Circuit precedent confirming that injunctions are appropriate to prevent coercion or procedural abuse.

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:
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

05/06/2025 - Appellant’s Opening Brief Filed in Gjovik v. Apple, Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-2028

5/6/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • Denial of Injunctive Relief Under § 17200 and the CVRA:: The district court erred in denying interim and permanent injunctive relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law and the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, despite Gjovik’s allegations of ongoing retaliation, intimidation, and witness interference—all in violation of clear statutory rights afforded to whistleblowers and crime victims. The complaint included substantial documentation of physical harm, economic injury, and retaliatory acts directed at silencing the plaintiff, including threats of litigation, exposure of private materials, and SWATing.
  • ​Improper Dismissal of RICO Claims Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), (c), (d): Gjovik alleged a pattern of racketeering activity supported by predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, witness tampering (§ 1512), retaliation (§ 1513), and obstruction of justice—all in service of Apple’s ongoing scheme to conceal toxic exposures and retaliate against whistleblowers. The brief challenges the district court’s failure to analyze the predicate acts in detail and its legally erroneous conclusion that these acts could not form the basis of a viable civil RICO claim at the pleading stage.
  • Rejection of California Statutory Claims (Bane Act, Ralph Act): The lower court summarily dismissed California civil rights claims despite evidence of coercive, retaliatory conduct explicitly aimed at suppressing protected disclosures and deterring participation in state and federal proceedings. The district court improperly applied heightened pleading standards and disregarded factual allegations consistent with established precedent under both the Bane and Ralph Acts.
  • Dismissal of Toxic Tort Claims Based on Statute of Limitations. The court dismissed Gjovik’s environmental exposure claims by misapplying the statute of limitations and rejecting the discovery rule, despite clear allegations that Apple concealed the presence of hazardous materials and the plaintiff only became aware of the cause of her injuries in 2023. The brief argues that the limitations period was tolled due to fraudulent concealment, and that the underlying factual record supports application of the discovery rule as a matter of law. ​
  • Abuse of Discretion in Denying Leave to Amend: The district court dismissed multiple claims with prejudice and without allowing amendment—contrary to Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), and Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) —despite Plaintiff never having amended her complaint and providing detailed proffers of additional facts.
  • The brief underscores that courts in the Ninth Circuit must apply “extreme liberality” in favor of amendment, particularly where allegations involve evolving discovery, systemic concealment, and complex statutory claims. The factual record includes documented retaliation, reputational interference, attempted sextortion, and concealment of hazardous industrial emissions at Apple facilities, including toxic byproducts from semiconductor fabrication. These allegations are supported by federal complaints, internal communications, and related investigative disclosures.

This appeal implicates important legal and policy questions regarding:
  • The scope of protection afforded to whistleblowers and federal crime victims under the CVRA and Marsy’s Law; The use of discovery and litigation procedure as tools of retaliation;
  • The limits of corporate immunity where there is evidence of ongoing fraud, harassment, and environmental concealment;
  • And the procedural safeguards required when a plaintiff alleges ongoing harm arising from unlawful enterprise conduct.

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:
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

2025-04-28 Apple Just Tried to Rewrite My Employment Contract. Here's Why That Matters.

4/28/2025

0 Comments

 
📁 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.
  • They cc’d the NLRB.
  • They didn’t cc their civil litigation team.
  • They didn’t include any explanation of my rights.
  • They didn’t offer to meet or confer.
  • They didn’t even address me directly.

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:
  • New language about confidentiality, loyalty, or disclosure;
  • Changes that apply retroactively or indefinitely;
  • Clauses that conflict with your statutory rights under the NLRA, state whistleblower laws, or First Amendment protections.

The Law Is Clear
  • The NLRA does not authorize companies to impose new obligations on employees or former employees as part of a settlement. It allows for rescission of illegal policies — not rewriting history.
  • California employees generally retain full rights under state law, including California Labor Code §§ 232, 1102.5, and 1197.5, even after termination.
  • Companies cannot bypass whistleblower laws, anti-retaliation protections, or constitutional limits by rebranding old contract terms as “revisions.”

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:
  • Don’t sign or accept anything without review.
  • Ask what changed, why, and whether the changes apply to you.
  • Talk to a lawyer about your situation, at least a free consultation.
  • Assert your right to negotiate — especially if you’re no longer employed.

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
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

2025-04-18 | I Just Filed Two Critical Motions Against Apple’s Answer — Here’s Why It Matters

4/18/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • Motion to Strike (Rule 12(f))
    • I moved to strike all of Apple’s legally insufficient and unsupported affirmative defenses. Many of these “defenses” weren’t defenses at all — just vague, scattershot legal terms like “waiver” or “after-acquired evidence” dropped in without context. In federal court, that's not how this works.
    • Courts require affirmative defenses to meet Twombly/Iqbal standards — that means real facts, real law, and real relevance. Apple’s didn’t come close.
  • Motion for a More Definite Statement (Rule 12(e))
    • I also asked the Court to order Apple to clarify its noncommittal denials. In dozens of paragraphs, Apple used phrases like “no response required,” “the document speaks for itself,” or simply pretended not to know things the Court already discussed in orders or which are part of the public record — including:
      • NLRB merit findings,
      • EPA letters about toxic exposure,
      • Published articles quoting Apple reps.

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:
  • I can’t plan and manage discovery efficiently;
  • The court can’t focus on real issues;
  • Apple gets unlimited freedom to shift explanations at will,
  • And the public — especially in cases with whistleblower and environmental claims — can’t see what’s truly at stake.

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
  • Dkt. 205: Motion for More Definite Statement – Reply
  • Dkt. 206: Motion to Strike – Reply
  • Dkt. 207: Reply re Judicial Notice
  • Full docket: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. – NDCA

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
0 Comments

04/15/2025 - New Filing: Notice of Pendency – National Labor Relations Board Settlement with Apple

4/15/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • Rescission and revision of Apple’s internal confidentiality agreements and employment policies;
  • A federal notice posting requirement — on both its internal systems and a public site — acknowledging that Apple previously maintained unlawful rules;
  • Compliance certification directly involving me as the charging party.
All of these terms are now subject to federal oversight and compliance enforcement.

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:
  • Apple’s Playbook for Firing Workers
    • When Apple fires an employee who engages in protected activity — like reporting misconduct, speaking out about safety, or discussing working conditions — it usually claims the employee violated some internal rule or breached a confidentiality agreement.
    • This lets Apple avoid saying it fired someone for whistleblowing. Instead, they say: “We didn’t retaliate. They violated the IPA, or confidentiality policy, or NDA, etc.”
  • The Legal Standard in Retaliation Cases
    • In court, Apple doesn’t have to prove its policies were lawful under every law on the books. It only has to convince a judge or jury that it fired the worker for a legitimate reason — not for retaliation.
    • So even if a policy violated labor law (like the National Labor Relations Act, which protects employee speech), a court handling a separate claim (like an EEOC or ADA claim) might not care — unless that violation is directly tied to the claim at hand.
  • Now Comes the Game-Changer
    • Under this new NLRB settlement, Apple has been required to:
      • Rescind dozens of specific rules and policies,
      • Withdraw the language they relied on,
      • Notify all employees,
      • And certify compliance under federal oversight.
    • The result? Apple can’t legally rely on any of the withdrawn policies in any litigation — including civil suits.
  • Why That Changes Everything
    • This means that going forward:
      • Apple cannot argue that it fired someone for violating a policy that no longer exists or has been officially disavowed.
      • Plaintiffs can now point to the NLRB settlement as binding proof that the policy Apple cited was not legitimate.
      • Apple’s standard defense — “We had a policy, and they broke it” — is now substantially weaker in a wide array of retaliation, wrongful termination, and whistleblower cases.
  • This Isn’t Just Procedural — It’s Strategic
    • If you’re an attorney handling employment litigation against Apple, this settlement isn’t just background noise. It’s Exhibit A. It puts you in a position to:
      • Challenge Apple’s justifications at summary judgment;
      • Undermine their credibility in depositions and cross-examination;
      • And demonstrate that their “legitimate business reasons” are no longer legally sustainable.

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:
  • The full settlement agreement,
  • The Notice to Employees Apple is required to distribute,
  • And the federal compliance instructions detailing Apple’s obligations.

​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]
0 Comments

4/14/2025 - Apple Must Now Comply: NLRB Settlement Activates Nationwide Labor Rights Posting

4/14/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • Internally, on Apple’s People intranet
  • Externally, on Apple’s public-facing legal notices page

The NLRB has set a firm deadline of April 28, 2025 for Apple to post the Notice and submit proof of compliance, including:
  • A signed copy of the Notice
  • Screenshots showing the Notice on the intranet
  • Screenshots of the revised Confidential Information definitions
  • A completed Certification of Posting form​

The Notice to Employees, approved by the NLRB and signed by Apple’s legal representatives, confirms that Apple:
  • Rescinded unlawful employment policies that previously defined “confidential information” so broadly that employees were effectively barred from discussing wages, hours, and working conditions
  • Acknowledged employees’ rights to organize, speak to the press, publish, or engage in protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act
  • Affirmed revisions to its Confidentiality & IP Agreement, Social Media Policy, Business Conduct Policy, and more, to comply with federal labor law
  • Cannot discipline employees for lawful conduct under Section 7 of the NLRA, including discussing pay, recording evidence of misconduct, or participating in NLRB investigations​​​​

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:
  • Print and share this Notice
  • Post it in neutral workplace locations
  • Upload it to internal systems under your control (e.g., Confluence profiles, team folders, Slack pins)
  • Discuss its content freely with coworkers

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:
  • Petition the NLRB for a supplemental complaint
  • Request reissuance of the original complaint and default judgment
  • File parallel complaints under Section 8(a)(4) of the Act
  • Submit evidence to other federal bodies (e.g., Department of Labor, SEC).


Employees witnessing continued enforcement of voided policies, or experiencing retaliation for engaging in protected activity, should consider contacting the NLRB or legal counsel. You can also file a charge against Apple Inc online at any time at NLRB.gov

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
0 Comments

04/08/2025 - Apple Launches Latest Legal Shenanigans to Delay Ninth Circuit Appeal

4/8/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • A Motion to Stay or Dismiss the Appeal, arguing that my appeal is "premature" because the district court has not yet ruled on Rule 54(b) certification​.
  • Oppositions to my motions seeking clarification on the briefing schedule​.
  • Opposition to my motion to consolidate my related appeals for efficiency​.

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:
  • The Ninth Circuit does not yet have jurisdiction over my case because not all district court claims were finalized.
  • They want the appellate court to either pause (stay) the case or throw it out entirely​.

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:
  • Contradicting itself across courts: In district court, Apple argued my dismissed claims were final and irrelevant to avoid producing discovery. In the appellate court, they now claim those same claims are "not final" to block my appeal.
  • Engaging in procedural harassment: Apple flooded the court with over 1,500 pages of duplicative attachments — much of which was already in the record — violating Ninth Circuit rules that prohibit excessive and unnecessary filings​.
  • Creating a procedural paradox: Apple wants the claims to be both final (to dodge discovery) and not final (to avoid appeal). In my filing, I described this as Apple creating a “logical loop” that collapses under scrutiny. As I wrote: “Apple’s argument requires claims to exist in mutually exclusive states — an infinite loop of contradictory conditions with no resolution.”​

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:
  • May 6, 2025: My Opening Brief due
  • June 5, 2025: Apple’s Response due

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:
  • Apple’s Motion to Stay or Dismiss Appeal
  • Apple’s Response to Motion to Consolidate
  • Apple’s Response to Motion for Clarification
  • My Omnibus Opposition to Apple’s Motions

Follow the full case docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (9th Circuit Docket)

For real-time updates, follow along on Twitter, Mastodon, or BlueSky.

0 Comments

04/08/2025 - NLRB Win: Apple Compelled to Rescind Unlawful Policies Nationwide

4/8/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • Discuss their wages, hours, and working conditions;
  • Speak to the press;
  • Share personal contact information with coworkers;
  • Engage in union activity and protected concerted action​.

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:
  • Publicly post a notice and the revised policies on their employee intranet (for at least 60 days) and on a public-facing website indefinitely.
  • Rescind or revise definitions of "confidential" and "proprietary information" in their employment agreements and policies. Clarify that employees can talk about their pay, working conditions, and union organizing without retaliation.
  • ​Stop surveillance practices and enforcement of surveillance policies that violated employee rights by monitoring protected activity. (!!!)
  • Submit compliance proof, including screenshots, to the NLRB and to me to confirm implementation.
This agreement covers all Apple employees in the United States.

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:
  • Apple’s Retaliation: Apple fired me citing the very policies they now admit were unlawful. As I wrote in my statement: “If these policies were unlawful, then terminating me for violating them was also unlawful retaliation.”​
  • Apple’s Pattern of Deception: Even while negotiating this settlement, Apple told the courts and the public they never maintained these unlawful policies. I exposed these falsehoods in detail, including Apple’s misleading representations to:
    • The federal courts;
    • The SEC and its own shareholders;
    • The public through deceptive press statements​.
  • Policy Loopholes Remain: While Apple has revised its policies, they failed to incorporate these changes directly into binding employment contracts, leaving room for future abuse. I flagged this legal ambiguity for the NLRB’s attention​.
  • Apple Silenced Me for Asserting My Rights: Apple previously cited my request for protections during NLRB questioning as grounds for termination. Ironically, Apple’s revised policies now incorporate exactly the protections I originally demanded​.
  • I Preserved All Rights: Crucially, I made it clear this settlement does not waive my claims in federal court, at the U.S. Department of Labor, or in any other forum. I continue to pursue full accountability across multiple venues​.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just a personal victory — it’s a precedent-setting moment for tech workers and whistleblowers nationwide.
  • Pro-worker Precedent: The settlement confirms that broad, sweeping corporate confidentiality policies violate labor law when they chill protected employee speech.
  • Transparency: Apple is required to post compliance documentation publicly.
  • Future Enforcement: Apple faces ongoing monitoring and can be charged again if they violate the agreement.
As I wrote in my statement to fellow Apple employees: “You now have confirmation that your right to discuss wages, conditions, or organize is protected by law. If you are told otherwise: they are wrong and you can file an NLRB charge reporting their failure to comply with this agreement.”

Important Note for Apple Employees

If you believe Apple is violating this settlement or the National Labor Relations Act again:
  • You can file an NLRB charge directly here: https://www.nlrb.gov
  • If you prefer not to file under your own name, you can contact me at [email protected].
    • I am not your lawyer, but I am your ex-coworker — and depending on the situation, I may be able to file a charge on your behalf. If you have a copy of an email or statement made by Apple after entering this agreement, that you believe facially violates this agreement, that should be a slam dunk.

​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.

attachments

Read the Settlement Agreement here:
set.32-ca-284428.apple_set_ag_signed_certified.pdf
File Size: 399 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

​Read my Memorandum and Joinder here:
set.32-ca-284428.apple_-_charging_party_letter_and_joinder.pdf
File Size: 10582 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

03/27/2025 - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case Opened

3/27/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • I filed a Motion to Consolidate Cases to ensure both active appeals are considered together. Since they arise from the same facts and legal questions, consolidation avoids "fragmented litigation of essentially identical issues," which undermines uniformity and judicial efficiency​.
  • Recognizing a pending Rule 54(b) motion in the district court, I filed a Motion for Clarification. I urged the court to confirm its authority to review finality independently and sought guidance on scheduling to avoid unnecessary litigation delays​.
  • The Court issued a schedule with my Opening Brief due May 6, 2025, and Apple’s response due June 5, 2025. Optional replies are due within 21 days after Apple's brief​.

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:
  • Motion to Consolidate Cases
  • Motion for Clarification of Briefing Schedule
  • Court’s Docketing Notice & Time Schedule Order

You can follow the full docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (9th Circuit Docket)

Upcoming dates to watch:
  • May 6, 2025: Opening Appellate Brief due
  • June 5, 2025: Apple’s Response Brief due
  • June 12, 2025: District Court hearing on Rule 54(b) motion (which may affect the appellate posture)
0 Comments

03/27/2025 - Apple Finally Filed an Answer to My Lawsuit — And I Moved to Strike Everything

3/27/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  • “Failure to mitigate damages”
  • “After-acquired evidence”
  • "Waiver, estoppel, and consent"
  • “Statute of limitations”
  • “Workers’ compensation exclusivity”
  • And even the catch-all: “Reservation of rights” — which isn’t even a defense.

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:
  • A Motion to Strike Apple’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses
    Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), I asked the court to strike every legally insufficient, unsupported, or frivolous defense Apple raised.
  • A Motion for a More Definite Statement
    Under Rule 12(e), I demanded that Apple clarify its evasive, vague, and self-contradictory denials — especially where they claim not to know basic facts about their own actions.

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:
  • Apple’s evasions are part of a larger pattern of bad faith litigation, and this motion forces them to stop dodging.
  • Courts generally disfavor boilerplate defenses, and my motion is designed to strip away Apple’s legal noise and expose the substance (or lack thereof) of their case.

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:
  • Apple’s Answer to the Fifth Amended Complaint
  • My Motion to Strike Apple’s Affirmative Defenses
  • My Motion for a More Definite Statement

Follow the full docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (District Court Docket)
0 Comments

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

3/11/2025

0 Comments

 
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.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Updates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    June 2023
    January 2023
    July 2022
    January 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021

    Categories

    All
    Appeals
    Apple Inc
    CERCLA
    Civil Lawsuit
    Clean Air Act
    Complaint
    Decision
    Discovery
    Inspection Report
    Labor
    NDAs
    NLRB
    Notice Of Hearing
    Publication
    RCRA
    Sanctions
    Santa Clara
    Semiconductor Fab
    Sunnyvale
    Superfund Sites
    Surveillance
    Triple Site
    TSCA
    U.S. Courts
    US Dept. Of Labor
    US EPA
    Video
    Whistleblower

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © Ashley M. Gjovik

[Contact]    [Consulting]   [Privacy Policy]   [Disclaimer]
  • Home
  • Apple Legal Battle
    • Ashley's Apple Story
    • Interviews & Press
    • TRW Microwave Superfund
    • Ashley v Apple Evidence Timeline
    • Termination Transcript
    • Justice at Apple
    • iWhistleblower
    • Reading Room
    • Apple History
  • Apple's Secret Fab
  • The Farallon Situation
  • Updates (RSS)
  • Support
  • Contact