|
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:
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”:
Last week, Apple told the court it intends to:
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:
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:
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:
The order Apple seeks would operate as a gag on testimony concerning:
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
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
June 2025
Categories
All
|
||||||
RSS Feed