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

After dragging their feet for over a year (I filed my lawsuit in September 2023, and Apple finally answered on March 13, 2025), Apple finally filed their formal response to my Fifth Amended Complaint. But rather than substantively engage with my allegations, Apple’s answer was, frankly, nonsense.
​
Their filing was loaded with generic, boilerplate defenses like:

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

Worse, Apple denied knowing or having information about facts squarely in their possession — like their own decision to fire me, their own employee records, and even public regulatory findings about their toxic worksite​​.

So, I fought back.

What I Filed

Using a rarely invoked but fully authorized rule of federal procedure, I filed:

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

In my motion, I called out Apple directly: "Apple’s Answer is a textbook example of bad faith pleading — marked by evasive denials, boilerplate recitations of legal conclusions, strategic obfuscation, and attempts to rewrite the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by fiat."
​
I emphasized that courts routinely grant Rule 12(f) and 12(e) motions when defendants abuse the pleading process with unsupported legal theories or refuse to admit indisputable facts.

I also noted that Apple's refusal to provide substantive answers obstructs fair discovery and wastes judicial resources. For example: Apple denied knowledge of whether they attempted to delete my Twitter posts — even though Apple's own federal legal filings from their own legal team claimed exactly that​.

What This Means

This motion puts Apple on the defensive, forces them to either clean up their pleading or face court-ordered consequences, and positions me to keep Apple accountable as discovery and trial prep continue.

More importantly:

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

If granted, this motion could knock out every one of Apple's affirmative defenses, dramatically narrowing the scope of the litigation in my favor.

Read the Filings:

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

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