This March, I officially opened an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to challenge the dismissal of critical claims in my lawsuit against Apple Inc. — claims that include environmental violations, whistleblower retaliation, and toxic tort injuries. This marks a significant next chapter in my fight for accountability.

The appellate case is docketed under Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Nos. 24-6058 & 25-2028. After Apple's attempts to have portions of my case dismissed on procedural grounds, I’m now taking these issues to the federal appellate court for review.
​
In my filings, I emphasized several key points:

• I filed a Motion to Consolidate Cases to ensure both active appeals are considered together. Since they arise from the same facts and legal questions, consolidation avoids "fragmented litigation of essentially identical issues," which undermines uniformity and judicial efficiency​.
• Recognizing a pending Rule 54(b) motion in the district court, I filed a Motion for Clarification. I urged the court to confirm its authority to review finality independently and sought guidance on scheduling to avoid unnecessary litigation delays​.
• The Court issued a schedule with my Opening Brief due May 6, 2025, and Apple’s response due June 5, 2025. Optional replies are due within 21 days after Apple's brief​.

Additionally, in my motion, I highlighted that many of the dismissed claims — including those under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Dodd-Frank Act, and California civil rights statutes — were fully and finally resolved at the district level. Therefore, they are ripe for appellate review.  Apple, in its arguments, had even acknowledged these dismissed claims as legally and factually distinct from other ongoing issues, which reinforces my position that appellate review at this stage is both appropriate and necessary​.

The goal is clear: to prevent fragmented litigation, avoid conflicting rulings, and make sure these vital public interest issues are fully and fairly heard at the appellate level.

You can read the filings here:

• Motion to Consolidate Cases
• Motion for Clarification of Briefing Schedule
• Court’s Docketing Notice & Time Schedule Order

You can follow the full docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (9th Circuit Docket)

Upcoming dates to watch:

• May 6, 2025: Opening Appellate Brief due
• June 5, 2025: Apple’s Response Brief due
• June 12, 2025: District Court hearing on Rule 54(b) motion (which may affect the appellate posture)

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)

In a significant — and frankly, monumental — development in my litigation against Apple, the federal court issued an order granting me the right to record all future discovery meet-and-confer sessions with Apple’s attorneys.

This is especially important because, under normal circumstances, California's strict "two-party consent" recording law generally would have required Apple’s permission to record these meetings as proof of misconduct in civil litigation. Apple, predictably, had repeatedly refused to consent — leaving me vulnerable to exactly the kind of coercion and misrepresentation I’ve been documenting for years.

But now, the Court stepped in.
​
The Order, issued on March 11, 2025, states: “If Plaintiff is concerned about the possibility of Defendant making ‘unlawful threats and coercive statements’ during the meet and confer or the potential that the discussions will be misrepresented, the parties can meet via video conference and record the meet and confer session.”
​
This means:

• I am no longer dependent on Apple's consent to record our discovery meetings.
• I can create an accurate, verifiable record of all interactions with Apple's lawyers.
• This recording authorization neutralizes Apple's past tactics of making threats and then falsely claiming misconduct on my part.

How We Got Here

Leading up to this order, I filed multiple discovery dispute letters with the Court documenting Apple’s refusal to engage in good faith discovery discussions. I detailed:

• Apple’s pattern of ignoring my meet-and-confer requests.
• Apple’s history of making coercive and misleading statements, which I previously reported to the NLRB, FBI, and referenced in my filings​​.
• Apple's abusive use of California’s recording laws to prevent transparency during discussions​.

When I sought reconsideration of an earlier order dismissing my discovery letters, I reminded the Court of Apple's prior unlawful threats, coercion, and false accusations. I made clear that without the ability to record these discussions, Apple would continue its pattern of misconduct unchecked​.

The Court recognized the seriousness of my concerns and proactively granted me this recording right.

Read the Court’s Order and Filings:

• Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (but authorizing recordings)
• Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
• Plaintiff’s Exhibits: Prior Court Transcript and NLRB Filings
• Plaintiff’s Objections to Apple’s Opposition

Full district court docket: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (District Court Docket)

What This Means Moving Forward

This is a critical safeguard as discovery proceedings intensify. With the Court’s authorization:

• Apple can no longer use secrecy to their advantage.
• Any attempts by Apple to coerce, threaten, or misrepresent discussions will now be captured in a clear, undeniable record.
• This also strengthens my position should Apple attempt further gamesmanship, as recordings provide undeniable evidence for court oversight or even potential future sanctions.

But more importantly, this order undermines Apple’s original justification for firing me. One of Apple’s supposed reasons for my termination was that I wanted to create a record of our conversations — specifically because I feared unlawful threats and misrepresentations. This federal court order now implicitly confirms that my concern was not only reasonable but legally justified. In fact, the Court itself recognized that the risks of Apple making unlawful threats and misrepresenting discussions are significant enough to warrant preemptive permission for me to record the meetings. That directly invalidates Apple's prior position and highlights the retaliatory nature of their actions.

This is bigger than my case alone.

The Court’s order also sets a pro-worker precedent, especially valuable for:

• Pro se plaintiffs, who often face corporate law firms' aggressive tactics without institutional support.
• Labor rights and whistleblower cases, where power imbalances and coercion are rampant.
• Workers in states like California, where two-party consent laws have historically been weaponized to intimidate employees from documenting abuse.

​
This Court decision implicitly affirms that workers — especially whistleblowers and pro se litigants — have the right to protect themselves from bad faith litigation tactics and coercive behavior, including by creating their own record of interactions.

This is not just a procedural step forward; it’s a statement of legal principle.

As I continue to push forward in this fight for accountability, transparency remains my shield — and now, the Court has ensured I can maintain it.