2016 CALIFORNIA DTSC CONSENT AGREEMENT 

In 2016, Apple entered a hazardous waste Consent Agreement with the California EPA over hazardous waste violations at two different Apple facilities in Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The agreement was for at least five years and covered all Apple hazardous waste activities in California. The agreement similarly found that Apple was violating hazardous waste laws under both federal and state laws including many of the same issues at 3250 Scott Blvd including operating without required permits, failing to properly label and mark hazardous waste, and unlawfully transporting hazardous waste without required manifests or records (including unlawfully exporting hazardous waste to other countries). DTSC fined Apple $450,000. 

View the 2016 Complaint, Settlement Agreement, and Announcement. In 2016, Apple's environmental team told Reuters that "This matter involves an oversight in filing paperwork... We've worked... to ensure that going forward we have the proper permits for our current site. As we do with all our facilities, we followed our stringent set of health and safety standards, which go well beyond legal requirements." (See, California EPA says settled with Apple on hazardous waste claims). The Consent Agreement could only be terminated if Apple demonstrated compliance with hazardous waste laws at all of its facilities. At the time Apple was able to obtain a termination of the agreement in 2020, Apple was admittedly in violation of federal hazardous waste laws at 3250 Scott Blvd. If the 2017-2025 RCRA violations had been identified and reported, those violations likely would have prevented the termination of the 2016-2020 California EPA Consent Agreement. 

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or requests for information.

​-Ashley ​

In Santa Clara County in the 1970s and 1980s, the County (including City of Santa Clara) became ground zero for semiconductor manufacturing disasters. Reckless industrial practices led to toxic waste dumps, groundwater contamination, chemical spills, deaths, evacuations, and toxic clouds. The result: Santa Clara County ended up with the most Superfund cleanup sites in the nation.

Congress looked at what happened in Santa Clara County and enacted the federal environmental laws at issue in this case. RCRA, CERCLA, CAA, CWA, and EPCRA exist largely because of what happened here. Local regulations created in response to Santa Clara County disasters—like the Toxic Gas Ordinance and silane-specific safety regulations—were later adopted nationally in the International Fire Code.

The semiconductor fabrication facility at 3250 Scott Boulevard uses some of the most dangerous chemicals in industrial manufacturing including arsine, phosphine, mercury, silane, and extensive industrial solvents while sitting extraordinarily close to residential housing. The facility is also adjacent to two city-owned parks: Meadow Park and Creekside Park. Both parks are advertised on the city's website and feature playgrounds, BBQ facilities, and fitness equipment. The city invites the public to use these parks.

The city knows these specific chemicals have caused deaths and mass casualties. The city knows the community has fought for decades against locating these facilities near homes. The city cannot claim ignorance or good faith.

In 2023 and 2024, the EPA conducted inspections and found RCRA violations at the facility. According to EPA records, the facility reported releasing 16,083 pounds of air pollutants annually and its currently facing multiple air pollution violations from the Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt District. Beginning in at least 2020, multiple residents filed complaints with the city about chemical exposure. The city did nothing.

The City of Santa Clara voluntarily became a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). This means the city demanded exclusive control over enforcement of federal hazardous waste laws at the local level. Only three cities in Santa Clara County chose to take on this responsibility. The city positioned itself as the local enforcer of RCRA, CAA, CWA, and EPCRA.

According to the city's own 2025 Operating Budget, Santa Clara employs just 3.95 full-time equivalent employees for CUPA administration and enforcement for the entire city. The budget reveals the city's enforcement priorities:

• CUPA enforcement penalties issued: $9,087 (FY23-24)
• Other environmental penalties: $6,590 (FY23-24)
• Bingo enforcement fines: $25,984 (FY23-24)

The city's total annual fines for violations of federal environmental laws amount to roughly 35% of what the city collects from Bingo gaming violations.

Between 2015 and 2017, the city approved the development of over 2,000 residential units at the Santa Clara Square Apartments location. During this approval process, the city kept the semiconductor facility's operations out of the Environmental Impact Report. The city never disclosed to future residents what was next door. This violated the city's own General Plan, which requires restricting "the use and storage of hazardous materials for industrial uses within 500 feet of existing residential uses."

When residents began experiencing chemical exposure, the city concealed information. In 2020 and 2021, I and other residents filed complaints with the city. I spoke directly with the Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Gary Welling, the Water and Sewer Director, about the chemical exposure. Other victims of chemical exposure also contacted both of them. The city did nothing, disclosed nothing, and stopped nothing.

Instead, the city concealed ongoing violations rather than reporting them to CalOES or EPA as required. The city refused Public Records Act requests. The city may have even tipped off the facility about an unannounced EPA inspection—which would constitute a federal crime. In response to my Public Records Act request, the city stated it has no documentation of ever enforcing the Toxic Gas Ordinance—an ordinance created specifically to prevent catastrophic disasters at facilities exactly like 3250 Scott Boulevard.

Legal update! ⚖️

We now have an Environmental Citizen Suit filed in federal court against Apple, city of Santa Clara, & the property owner over their stupid skunkworks fab!

​It's time to shut that deathtrap down. 🛢️ ☠️ ⚗️

The Complaint is is available on CourtListener here and available below.

​NBC Bay Area nightly news covered our rally & press conference at Apple's skunkworks semiconductor fab next to thousands of apartments, public parks, & a children's playground. 

Watch the local news coverage at 3250 Scott Blvd today (Aug. 16 2025):

Today we launched a Change.org Petition asking politicians and the EPA to shut down Apple's illegal chip fab at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa Clara, California.

Sign the Petition!

We're also holding a rally & press conference at the public sidewalks next to the facility on August 16 2025 at 12pm - 2pm PT. If you're in the SF Bay Area come show the government & Apple that people don't want Apple dumping toxic waste on playgrounds! ​

On June 30 2025, I served Apple, City of Santa, EPA, and the property owner notice of an incoming EPA Citizen Suit under RCRA, CAA, CWA, TSCA, and EPCRA -- as well as a public nuisance claim -- about Apple's illegal semiconductor fabrication plant at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa Clara, California. 

Read the Notice here. 

On June 26 2025, US EPA served Apple with a notice of RCRA enforcement action re: Apple's fab at 3250 Scott Blvd, in Santa Clara, California.

Read the notice here.

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 

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).

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.

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.

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:

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

Recent federal judicial decisions in Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (3:23-cv-04597, Northern District of California) represent a systematic judicial assault on federal environmental enforcement authority and constitutional due process protections. Through procedural manipulation disguised as case management, the defendant (Apple) and District Judge (Judge Edward Chen) created a framework that effectively immunizes corporate polluters from toxic tort liability while denying citizens fundamental constitutional rights. These decisions threaten to undermine decades of environmental protection law and federal enforcement capabilities. The implications of these decisions extend far beyond a single case, establishing precedent that could effectively eliminate private enforcement of environmental violations while creating procedural mechanisms for corporate defendants to escape liability through systematic rule manipulation.

​The timeline also reveals the decision's direct conflict with federal enforcement priorities. After plaintiff's investigation revealed potential violations at Apple's semiconductor facility, her June 2023 EPA complaint triggered federal enforcement investigation at the site. The EPA's response validates that plaintiff's concerns warranted regulatory attention (precisely the type of citizen enforcement mechanism Congress intended to encourage through environmental statutes). Chen's decision penalizes the thorough investigation that led to federal enforcement action, essentially ruling that plaintiff should have filed suit before conducting the due diligence that revealed actionable violations and prompted EPA intervention.

On May 20 2024, Chen ruled on a Motion to Dismiss and decided to allow Gjovik's environmental claims to move forward. Then, despite previously approving the claims, on October 1 2024, Chen dismissed the same environmental claims with leave to amend, specifically instructing Gjovik to plead "inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence." Then, on February 27 2025, after Gjovik amended as instructed, Chen dismissed the same claims with prejudice using an entirely different legal standard based on judicial notice of public documents.

In response to Apple's fifth 12(b)(6) motion, Chen took judicial notice of Apple's own regulatory documents and then made factual determinations about what "reasonable inquiry" would have reveal and what that inquiry would have consisted of. Chen then also resolved disputed questions about reasonable diligence without testimony or discovery, and concluded any factual conflict in pleadings with deference to the defendant's unsubstantial claims. Chen also denied the plaintiff the right to develop factual records on questions traditionally reserved for juries. 

Chen's use of judicial notice transforms regulatory filings from compliance documentation into litigation weapons. Corporate defendants can now attach their own permits and emission reports to motions to dismiss, arguing these documents establish liability notice regardless of content or interpretation complexity.  Chen's reasoning would also eliminate discovery rule protection for anyone living near industrial facilities.

​This circumvents normal discovery processes where federal agencies could provide context about regulatory compliance, violations, and enforcement priorities. The procedure denies federal prosecutors potential cooperation from private litigants who might develop evidence useful in criminal enforcement actions. By cutting off civil discovery, Chen's approach limits the factual development that often supports federal prosecutions. Worse, he made this decision while knowing the US EPA was investigating Apple's activities at this site and he also refused to take notice of the plaintiff's request for Judicial Notice with those federal public records. 

​Chen identified that CERCLA § 9658 preempts state discovery rules for toxic exposure cases. However, his application fundamentally misinterprets federal policy. The provision exists to ensure adequate time for complex environmental investigations; not to accelerate dismissals based on industrial permit availability. Chen's reasoning converts federal preemption from a plaintiff protection into a corporate shield, inverting Congressional intent to provide adequate investigation time for environmental claims.

Chen's implicit reasoning also creates discriminatory limitation periods based on technical knowledge. This is a particularly problematic precedent for environmental enforcement. This professional expertise penalty would deter environmental professionals from residing near industrial areas and discourage the technical knowledge crucial for environmental enforcement. Under this framework:

• EPA employees living near industrial facilities face shortened limitation periods
• Environmental consultants must proactively investigate nearby operations
• Engineers and scientists bear investigation duties beyond those of other citizens

These standards make environmental protection impossible by requiring either universal technical expertise or prophylactic litigation based on the mere existence of permitted industrial activity.

​Chen also applied the 2-year toxic exposure statute (§ 340.8) while completely ignoring the 3-year property damage statute (§ 338(b)) that would have protected Gjovik's property damage claims. This selective statute application demonstrates systematic bias toward the shortest possible limitations period and is not supported by existing law or public policy.

Further, Chen entertained Apple's successive motion based on speculative "judicial economy" concerns arising out of the expectation that Apple would engage in Rambo litigation. Chen even acknowledged that Rule 12(g)(2) "does lend support to Ms. Gjovik's position,"  but proceeded anyways. This reasoning nullifies Rule 12(g)(2) entirely by allowing defendants to always claim future filing opportunities, and to reward them for litigation misconduct. He further justified his actions post hoc by claiming he was able to find more claims he could dismiss at his discretion (not on the merits), which is not the legal standard. 

The plaintiff objected to these issues, and catastrophic legal implications, in her filings and during oral arguments. Apple's legal counsel consisted exclusively of Big Law employment litigation defense counsel, including multiple partners specialized in defending large corporations from retaliation and discrimination claims, and did not include any environmental attorneys. Apple's counsel also affirmatively told the court that Apple was not under investigation for environmental issues at the site, when Apple was under active US EPA investigation and enforcement. 

The impact of Chen's decision specifically eliminates the discovery rule for private tort remedies and incentivizes defendants to engage in criminal obstruction until the statute of limitations expires. This also creates a bifurcated enforcement system where, upon successful concealment by the defendant, environmental violations can only be addressed through federal citizen suit mechanisms with limited injunctive relief, not through state tort law with damages liability. This bifurcation reduces deterrent effects by eliminating corporate financial liability while preserving only prospective equitable remedies, and requiring uncompensated labor by victims to enforce and obtain financial penalties to be charged against wrong-doers, but only paid to the U.S. Treasury. 

Judge Chen also dismissed the plaintiff's environmental tort claims as time-barred while simultaneously allowing her crime victim retaliation claims to proceed, while both are based on the overlapping and related misconduct by Apple Inc. The same judge who created multiple unconstitutional loopholes to shield Apple from tort liability also found that Apple's conduct appeared to present a strong enough case for criminal charges, as to support Labor Code protections for crime victims arising out of the same facts.

At the same time, Chen also refused to acknowledge plaintiff's arguments that during the same time period that Apple claims she should have discovered their activities, Apple was actively retaliating against her, engaged in criminal witness intimidation and tampering, attempted to coerce her into an undervalued settlement of all claims while concealing what they did to her and prior to firing her, Apple made false and misleading statements to her and the government about their activities at the facility, and that she has inherent claims to crime victim restitution regardless of the form of the cause of action.

​Chen did not even address these arguments and his decision implies that even if an employee is a victim of criminal environmental conduct by their employer, that employer can avoid claims about the underlying harms through otherwise criminal retaliation, harassment, and obstruction in order to conceal their misconduct until the expiration of the statute of limitations.
​
The Ninth Circuit's repeated refusal to review final judgments on these dismissed environmental claims also violates established appellate jurisdiction principles while creating complete procedural blockade for pro se crime victims. Constitutional violations become unreviewable while precedent harmful to private environmental rights becomes entrenched. This appellate denial particularly harms federal enforcement interests by preventing correction of decisions that undermine private environmental rights that complement federal enforcement capabilities.

Chen's framework provides corporate defendants with a replicable strategy for escaping environmental liability, even if they did not engage in the same earlier criminal conduct and cover-up that Apple did:

1. File successive motions to dismiss despite procedural waivers
2. Attach own regulatory compliance documents and seek judicial notice
3. Argue document availability equals liability notice regardless of content
4. Force impossible pleading standards on complex liability theories
5. Secure dismissal with prejudice and fight any attempt to appeal 

This framework threatens to eliminate any statute of limitations tolling for private environmental tort liability from any industrial facility with public regulatory filings. It also invites corporate defendants to undertake the same witness intimidation and obstruction that Apple did, in order to prevent victims from filing claims prior to the expiration of statute of limitations.

Federal agencies should clarify that regulatory filing availability does not create immunity from private tort liability for environmental violations. EPA should issue guidance clarifying that citizen investigation and complaint processes support federal enforcement authority, and that the federal discovery rule preempts Chen's rogue decision. Federal prosecutors should also prioritize cases involving facilities where citizen complaints have been dismissed under similar reasoning to demonstrate federal commitment to environmental protection. ENRD should consider amicus briefing in any future cases or appeals under Chen's theories, in order to clarify federal enforcement priorities and preemption scope.

Gjovik v. Apple Inc. represents systematic judicial nullification of private environmental rights through Apple's procedural manipulation. Chen's framework threatens to eliminate tolling for private tort liability and serves as a warning that a well-resourced defendant's sophisticated and malicious case management strategy can sabotage entire statutes. Federal intervention is necessary to prevent this precedent from destroying private environmental remedies that support broader enforcement goals, to provide essential deterrent effects against corporate environmental violations, and to hold Apple and their counsel accountable for making these bad faith arguments and obstructing an appeal that could have corrected this untenable and catastrophic outcome.

​-Ashley 

Published: August 24 2025

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.

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.

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.

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:

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: 

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

May 14 2025 Order 

May 14 2025 Motion to Stay Order

On May 13, 2025, I filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The motion was necessary because Apple once again attempted to use the court system to suppress whistleblower disclosures, obstruct testimony, and weaponize procedure to retaliate against me for participating in federal agency proceedings.

But this time, I didn’t just oppose what they filed — I filed it for them. As evidence.

Apple's Discovery Tactics: Litigation as Retaliation

Apple has pursued a confidentiality protective order against me for over a year — a mechanism it hopes will retroactively validate the company’s unlawful policies and restrict my ability to speak about:

• 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 

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:

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:

📁 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