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