02/12/2025 - Civil Discovery Dispute Escalation

In early February 2025, I filed a series of formal discovery dispute letters in my ongoing litigation against Apple Inc., demanding court intervention over Apple’s blatant obstruction tactics during discovery. These filings were necessary because Apple has refused to comply with even the most basic legal obligations in this case.

For those following the battle closely: discovery is the legal process where both parties are supposed to exchange information. Apple, however, chose to play games instead of play fair.

The Filings: What I Took to the Court

On February 11, 2025, I filed four discovery-related motions, addressing Apple’s abusive tactics on multiple fronts:

1. Request for a Court-Supervised Discovery Conference
   I requested a telephonic conference with the magistrate judge because Apple outright refused to meet and confer in good faith. Apple refused to engage productively in discovery planning, refused to explain what materials they needed, and then falsely accused me of misconduct while withholding their own disclosures​.
2. Discovery Dispute Letter #1: Apple’s Document Production Failures
   I highlighted how Apple has refused to produce core documents — including records about my termination, internal investigations, and whistleblowing concerns. They simultaneously claim discovery is both "completed" and "has not yet begun," depending on which argument is more convenient​.
3. Discovery Dispute Letter #2: Apple’s Refusal to Provide Disclosures
   Apple failed to comply with basic disclosure rules, like identifying who made the decision to fire me and producing related records. Shockingly, Apple’s key defense witness has now submitted three sworn declarations claiming she has never met me, directly contradicting Apple’s litigation position and raising serious questions of perjury and credibility​.
4. Discovery Dispute Letter #3: Apple’s Abusive Privilege & Confidentiality Claims
   Apple declared almost every document as "confidential" by default and refused to provide a privilege log. They even demanded a protective order that would prevent me from sharing evidence with regulators — a tactic designed to suppress whistleblowing and evade accountability​.

What I’m Asking the Court to Do

In my letters, I asked the Court to:

• Compel Apple to produce missing documents and provide proper disclosures.
• Invalidate Apple’s overbroad confidentiality designations.
• Require Apple to produce a legitimate privilege log.
• Order Apple to negotiate a reasonable discovery plan in good faith.
• Consider sanctions for Apple’s obstructionist behavior under Rule 37.

My goal is simple: transparency, accountability, and compliance with the law. Apple's behavior isn’t just frustrating — it reveals a deliberate strategy to delay justice and obstruct the truth.

As I wrote in my filings: “Apple’s actions constitute an intentional and coordinated effort to obstruct discovery. Their refusal to engage in good faith negotiations, contradictory positions, and outright defiance of Court-ordered obligations demand judicial intervention.”​

What Happens Next

The Court has not yet ruled on these motions, but I remain committed to pushing for accountability. Whether Apple likes it or not, I will continue to expose their bad-faith tactics and fight for a fair process.

You can read the filings here:

• Request for Court-Supervised Conference
• Discovery Dispute Letter #1 (Production Failures)
• Discovery Dispute Letter #2 (Disclosures)
• Discovery Dispute Letter #3 (Privilege & Confidentiality Abuse)

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