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

Update: I Just Filed Two Critical Motions Against Apple’s Answer — Here’s Why It Matters
📝 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC

After 18 months of stonewalling with five failed motions to dismiss, Apple finally answered my Fifth Amended Complaint. But instead of providing substantive responses, their Answer relied on boilerplate legal jargon, evasive denials, and outright refusals to acknowledge basic, documented facts — including public government records and Apple’s own prior statements.

In response, I filed two powerful motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

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

A fair legal process requires both parties to admit what’s true, deny what’s not, and say “I don’t know” only when that’s really the case.

In complex litigation, the clarity of the pleadings isn’t optional — it’s foundational. Without it:

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

These motions aren’t aggressive — they’re protective. They safeguard judicial resources, prevent litigation from devolving into gamesmanship, and force Apple to engage in the legal process in good faith.

Docket Update

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

Litigation isn’t just about fighting — it’s about clarity, precision, and accountability. Apple’s Answer was none of those. These motions aim to fix that. I’ll share updates as the court rules. In the meantime, thank you to everyone following and supporting this journey toward corporate accountability and environmental justice.

— Ashley M. Gjovik
[email protected]
ashleygjovik.com