Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Full Docket Discovery Ca9 F3138983 8df4 4361. Docket 25-2028 — Doc 19-3 — Gjovik v. Apple Inc.

Court filing

Docket 25-2028 — Doc 19-3 — Gjovik v. Apple Inc.

Filed May 12, 2025 in Discovery Ca9 F3138983 8df4 4361 97d4 4aafb99aa85c Gjovik v. Apple Inc., the only filing from this case in the archive.

Record facts

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed2025-05-12

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC · Doc. 155-2 · 2025-05-12 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case No. 25-2028 
In the United States Court of Appeals 
For the Ninth Circuit 
Ashley M. Gjøvik, an individual, 
Plaintiff-Appellant 
v. 
Apple Inc., a corporation, 
Defendant-Appellee. 
On Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Northern District of California 
No. 3:23-CV-04597 
The Honorable Judge Edward M. Chen 
Appellant’s Declaration I-II: 
Exhibits  
Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD 
In Propria Persona   
2108 N. St. Ste. 4553 
Sacramento, CA, 95816 
(408) 883-4428
legal@ashleygjovik.com
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 1 of 713
(1 of 713), Page 1 of 713

3 
EXHIBIT A: PRIVILEGE LOG 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 2 of 713
(2 of 713), Page 2 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
001
2021-03-17 to 2021-03-18
Jain, Antone; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Said, Deena; Gies Timos
Rubenstein, Debra; Steiger, Michael; 
Jain, Antone; Said, Deena; Gies Timos
Email
7
Re: Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
002
2021-03-19
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Steiger, Michael; Jain, 
Antone
Document
4
DRAFT Talking Points SD01 comms 2 with djr & mts 
comments.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected documents sent between 
legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal 
counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries 
and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the 
direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to 
Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
003
2021-03-19
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Jain, Antone
Document
4
DRAFT Talking Points SD01 comms 2 with djr comments.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected documents sent between 
legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal 
counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries 
and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the 
direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to 
Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
004
2021-03-19
Steiger, Michael
Rubenstein, Debra; Baylosis, Ed; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Steiger, Michael; 
Sidlow, Scott; Creighton, Sue
Calendar File
2
SD01 - Vapor Intrusion comms plan
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
005
2021-03-19
Steiger, Michael 
Rubenstein, Debra; Baylosis, Ed; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Steiger, Michael; 
Sidlow, Scott; Creighton, Sue
Calendar File
2
SD01 - Vapor Intrusion comms plan
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
006
2021-03-17 to 2021-03-19
Steiger, Michael; Jain, 
Antone; DeBaene, Austin
Jain, Antone; DeBaene, Austin; Huynh, 
Tom; Rubenstein, Debra; Steiger, 
Michael
Email
6
Re: Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
007
2021-03-17 to 2021-03-19
Steiger, Michael; 
Baylosis, Ed; Creighton, 
Sue; Jain, Antone
Baylosis, Ed; Schmidt, Elizabeth; 
Creighton, Sue; Sidlow, Scott; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Steiger, Michael; 
DeBaene, Austin; Huynh, Tom; Jain, 
Antone
Email with 
attachments
16
Re: Privileged and confidential: Re: [Important] Action Needed- 
SD01 EHS Request; DRAFT Talking Points SD01 comms 2 with djr 
comments.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
008
2021-03-18 to 2021-03-19
Steiger, Michael; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Jain, Antone
Rubenstein, Debra; Jain, Antone; 
Steiger, Michael
Email with 
attachments
15
Re: Review - Draft talking points; DRAFT Talking Points SD01 
comms 2 with djr & mts comments.docx; DRAFT Talking Points 
SD01 comms 2 with djr comments.docx; DRAFT Talking Points 
SD01 comms 2.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
009
2021-03-26
Rubenstein, Debra 
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna; Steiger, Michael
Calendar File
1
Preparation for meeting in follow up to questions re SD01
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
010
2021-03-18 to 2021-03-26
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Jain, Antone; Souza, 
Emily; Polkes, Helen; 
Steiger, Michael; Waibel, 
Jenna 
Polkes, Helen; Jain, Antone; Shifman, 
Moshe (Mo); Matarrese, Kyle; Perez, 
Isela; Souza, Emily; Waibel, Jenna; 
Steiger, Michael; DeBaene, Austin; 
Huynh, Tom
Email
26
Re: Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request - PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
011
2021-03-29
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Steiger, Michael
Steiger, Michael; Rubenstein, Debra
Email
2
Re: SD01 EHS Request
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
012
2021-03-18 to 2021-03-29
Waibel, Jenna; Steiger, 
Michael; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Polkes, Helen; 
Souza, Emily
Steiger, Michael; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, Helen; 
Matarrese, Kyle; Perez, Isela; Jain. 
Antone; Shifman, Moshe
Email
15
Re: Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request - PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
013
2021-03-31
Steiger, Michael 
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Souza, Emily; Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Matarrese, Kyle; 
Steiger, Michael; Shifman, Moshe'
Calendar File
1
SD01
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
014
2021-04-02
Steiger, Michael; Jain, 
Antone
Document
5
SD01 Talking Points - mts edits.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected documents sent between 
legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal 
counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries 
and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the 
direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to 
Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
1
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 3 of 713
(3 of 713), Page 3 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
015
2021-03-17 to 2021-04-02
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Matarrese, Kyle; Perez, 
Isela; Souza, Emily; 
Steiger, Michael
Matarrese, Kyle; Perez, Isela; Souza, 
Emily; Shifman, Moshe (Mo); Steiger, 
Michael; Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, 
Debra
Email with 
attachments
20
Re: Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request - PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT; SD01 Talking 
Points.docx; SD01 Talking Points - mts edits.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
016
2021-03-18 to 2021-04-03
Waibel, Jenna; Steiger, 
Michael; Polkes, Helen; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Souza, Emily
Steiger, Michael; Polkes, Helen; Jain, 
Antone; Shifman, Moshe (Mo); 
Matarrese, Kyle; Perez, Isela; Souza, 
Emily; Rubenstein, Debra; Waibel, 
Jenna
Email
16
Re: Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request - PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
017
2021-03-18 to 2021-04-05
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Steiger, Michael; Waibel, 
Jenna; Polkes, Helen; 
Souza, Emily
Waibel, Jenna; Steiger, Michael; Polkes, 
Helen; Jain, Antone; Shifman, Moshe 
(Mo); Matarrese, Kyle; Perez, Isela; 
Souza, Emily; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth
Email
18
Re: Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request - PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
018
2021-04-08 to 2021-04-09
Perez, Isela; Polkes, 
Helen
Polkes, Helen; Waibel, Jenna; Perez, 
Isela
Email
2
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
019
2021-04-09
Steiger, Michael 
Waibel, Jenna; Jain, Antone; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Polkes, Helen; 
Perez, Isela; Matarrese, Kyle; Shifman, 
Moshe (Mo); Souza, Emily 
Email
8
Fwd: SD01 EHS Request - 4/2 Notes
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
020
2021-04-09
Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, 
Helen 
Email
2
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
021
2021-04-10
Steiger, Michael 
Rubenstein, Debra; Jain, Antone 
Email
8
Fwd: SD01 EHS Request - 4/2 Notes
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
022
APL-
GAELG_00001248
2021-04-09 to 2021-04-10
Polkes, Helen 
Waibel, Jenna 
Email
5
Re: Escalated to Dan West—Fwd: SD01 EHS Request - ER Note
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant.
023
2021-03-18 to 2021-04-11
Steiger, Michael; Waibel, 
Jenna; Polkes, Helen; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Souza, Emily
Polkes, Helen; Jain, Antone; Souza, 
Emily; Perez, Isela; Matarrese, Kyle; 
Shifman, Moshe (Mo); Waibel, Jenna; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Steiger, Michael
Email with 
attachments
281
Re: Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request - PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT; SD01 Talking 
Points.docx; 2016-0211-Microwave-VI Evaluation 
Report_FINAL.pdf
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
024
2021-04-11
Steiger, Michael 
Rubenstein, Debra; Jain, Antone 
Email
26
Fwd: SD01 EHS Request - 4/2 Notes
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
025
APL-
GAELG_00001254
2021-04-12
Waibel, Jenna
Polkes, Helen
Messages  
4
Message_JennaWaibel_2021-04-12_18-11-48.pdf
Attorney Client Privilege 
Message with redacted text reflecting communication of legal advice from 
counsel (Perez, Isela) from employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of counsel related to the investigation, response and handling of 
Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues.
026
2021-03-18 to 2021-04-13
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Waibel, Jenna; Steiger, 
Michael; Polkes, Helen; 
Souza, Emily
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, Helen; Steiger, 
Michael; Jain, Antone; Souza, Emily; 
Perez, Isela; Matarrese, Kyle; Shifman, 
Moshe (Mo); Rubenstein, Debra
Email
20
Re: Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request - PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
027
2021-04-11 to 2021-04-13
Jain, Antone; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Steiger, Michael
Rubenstein, Debra; Steiger, Michael; 
Jain, Antone
Email with 
attachments
42
Re: SD01 EHS Request - 4/2 Notes -- PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT; draft SD01 
talking points 2nd meeting.pages; Draft Response to Ashley - 4-11-
21 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK 
PRODUCT with djr comments.docx; Draft Response to Ashley - 4-
11-21 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK 
PRODUCT.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
028
2021-04-26
Steiger, Michael 
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Polkes, Helen; 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Steiger, 
Michael; Shifman, Moshe'
Calendar File
1
EPA - Ashley - SD01
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
Bold = Attorney
2
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 4 of 713
(4 of 713), Page 4 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
029
2021-04-26
Steiger, Michael; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna
Rubenstein, Debra; Perez, Isela; 
Waibel, Jenna; Shifman, Moshe; Souza, 
Emily; Polkes, Helen; Matarrese, Kyle; 
Jain, Antone; Schmidt, Elizabeth; 
Steiger, Michael
Email
7
Re: Employee Concerns: TRW Microwave Site
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
030
2021-04-24 to 2021-04-27
Polkes, Helen; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Steiger, Michael
Steiger, Michael; Perez, Isela; Shifman, 
Moshe; Waibel, Jenna; Jain, Antone; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Polkes, Helen
Email with 
attachments
2
Privileged and confidential; 3-%2B14087837834-1619213246000-1 Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
031
2021-04-27
Steiger, Michael 
Rubenstein, Debra; Perez, Isela; Jain, 
Antone; Waibel, Jenna; Shifman, 
Moshe; Matarrese, Kyle; Schmidt, 
Elizabeth 
Email
3
Fwd: Questions about speech related to Apple's buildings on 
chemical release sites
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
032
2021-04-27
Polkes, Helen 
Bertolus, Yannick; Bowman, Megan; 
Waibel, Jenna; Perez, Isela 
Email
1
Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
033
2021-04-26 to 2021-04-27
Bertolus, Yannick; 
Polkes, Helen; Bowman, 
Megan; Waibel, Jenna
Perez, Isela; Bowman, Megan; John 
Ternus; Polkes, Helen; Waibel, Jenna
Email
3
Fwd: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
034
2021-04-27
Waibel, Jenna; Steiger, 
Michael
Shifman, Moshe; Perez, Isela; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Jain, Antone; 
Waibel, Jenna; Matarrese, Kyle; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth
Email
5
Privileged & Confidential---Fwd: Questions about speech related to 
Apple's buildings on chemical release sites
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
035
2021-04-24 to 2021-04-27
Steiger, Michael; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Polkes, Helen
Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela; Shifman, 
Moshe; Waibel, Jenna; Jain, Antone; 
Rubenstein, Debra 
Email
2
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
036
2021-04-26 to 2021-04-28
Polkes, Helen; Lagares, 
Antonio; Waibel, Jenna; 
Bowman, Megan; 
Bertolus, Yannick
Bertolus, Yannick; Bowman, Megan; 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, 
Helen
Email
3
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
037
2021-04-30
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, 
Helen
Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna
Email
4
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
038
2021-05-01 to 2021-05-03
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie
Rice, Debbie; Warner, Adelmise
Email
3
Re: HR legal weekly update 4.30.21
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
039
2021-04-27 to 2021-05-06
Jain, Antone; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Steiger, Michael
Rubenstein, Debra; Steiger, Michael; 
Jain, Antone
Email with 
attachments
29
Re: SD01 EHS Request - 4/2 Notes; Draft Response to Ashley - 4-
30-21 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK 
PRODUCT with djr comments .docx; Draft Response to Ashley - 4-
30-21 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK 
PRODUCT .docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
040
2021-05-11
Steiger, Michael
Document
9
Talking Points for Ashley - 5-11-21 PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT-3.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected documents sent between 
legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal 
counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries 
and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the 
direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to 
Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
041
2021-05-10 to 2021-05-12
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, 
Helen; Perez, Isela
Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna
Email
7
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
3
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 5 of 713
(5 of 713), Page 5 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
042
2021-04-30 to 2021-05-12
Jain, Antone; Waibel, 
Jenna; Steiger, Michael
Waibel, Jenna; Steiger, Michael; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Jain, Antone
Email
4
Re: Names for additional conversations - Privileged and 
Confidential - Attorney work product
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
043
2021-05-11 to 2021-05-12
Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna; Polkes, Helen 
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela
Email
3
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
044
2021-05-11 to 2021-05-12
Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna; Polkes, Helen
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela
Email
2
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
045
2021-04-30 to 2021-05-13
Jain, Antone; Waibel, 
Jenna; Steiger, Michael
Waibel, Jenna; Steiger, Michael; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Jain, Antone
Email
5
Re: Names for additional conversations - Privileged and 
Confidential - Attorney work product
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
046
2021-05-11 to 2021-05-13
Matareese, Kyle; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Steiger, Michael
Rubenstein, Debra; Steiger, Michael; 
Waibel, Jenna; Jain, Antone; Schmidt, 
Elizabeth; Perez, Isela; Polkes, Helen; 
Shifman, Moshe; Matareese, Kyle
Email with 
attachments
4
Re: EHS Talking Points for Follow-Up with Ashley; PRIVILEGED 
AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT; IAL+-
+ATTORNEY+WORK+PRODUCT+with+djr+comments.docx; 
Talking+Points+for+Ashley+-+5-11-
21+PRIVILEGED+AND+CONFIDENTIAL+-
+ATTORNEY+WORK+PRODUCT-3.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
047
2021-04-27 to 2021-05-17
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Matarrese, Kyle; 
Waibel, Jenna; Steiger, 
Michael
Matarrese, Kyle; Waibel, Jenna; 
Steiger, Michael; Perez, Isela; Jain, 
Antone; Shifman, Moshe; Schmidt, 
Elizabeth; Rubenstein, Debra
Email
15
Re: Questions about speech related to Apple's buildings on 
chemical release sites
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
048
2021-05-17
Polkes, Helen 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna 
Email
5
Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
049
2021-05-17 to 2021-05-18
Waibel, Jenna; Schiesl, 
Dallas
Schiesl, Dallas; Perez, Isela; Shifman, 
Moshe; Waibel, Jenna
Email
2
Re: Privileged & Confidential--Additional WC case
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the evaluation and response to plaintiffs 
workers compensation claims and accommodation requests, reflecting legal 
advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
050
2021-05-17 to 2021-05-18
Schiesl, Dallas; Waibel, 
Jenna
Waibel, Jenna; Perez, Isela; Shifman, 
Moshe; Schiesl, Dallas
Email
2
Re: Privileged & Confidential--Additional WC case
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
051
2021-05-21
Polkes, Helen; Waibel, 
Jenna
Waibel, Jenna; Perez, Isela; Polkes, 
Helen  
Email
4
Re: Privileged & confidential—Fwd: Ashley Gjovik/Dan - 4/29 
Meeting Notes
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
052
2021-05-22
Waibel, Jenna 
Perez, Isela; Polkes, Helen 
Email with 
attachments
7
Privileged & Confidential—Fwd: Request for Denial Authorization on 
Environmental/Chemical Exposure Claim - Ashley Gjovik, Claim 
30217483107-0001; image001.jpg
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the evaluation and 
response to plaintiffs workers compensation claims and accommodation 
requests, reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
053
2021-04-27 to 2021-05-26
Waibel, Jenna; Sidlow, 
Scott; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Steiger, Michael; 
Jain, Antone; Perez, 
Isela
Rubenstein, Debra; Perez, Isela; 
Steiger, Michael; Matarrese, Kyle; Jain, 
Antone; Shifman, Moshe; Schmidt, 
Elizabeth; Sidlow, Scott; Waibel, Jenna
Email
12
Re: Privileged & Confidential--- Re: Questions about speech related 
to Apple's buildings on chemical release sites
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
054
2021-06-03 to 2021-06-04
Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela; Waibel, Jenna
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, 
Helen
Email
4
Re: Privileged & Confidential— Fwd: Wrap up call today
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
055
2021-06-03 to 2021-06-04
Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela
Email
3
Re: Privileged & Confidential— Fwd: Wrap up call today
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
4
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 6 of 713
(6 of 713), Page 6 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
056
2021-05-20 to 2021-06-08
Sidlow, Scott; Waibel, 
Jenna; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Steiger, Michael; 
Jain, Antone; Perez, 
Isela
Waibel, Jenna; Jain, Antone; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Perez, Isela; 
Steiger, Michael; Matarrese, Kyle; 
Shifman, Moshe; Schmidt, Elizabeth; 
Sidlow, Scott
Email
2
Re: SD01 additional EHS communications - privileged and 
confidential - attorney work product
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
057
2021-06-10
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Waibel, Jenna 
Waibel, Jenna; Perez, Isela; Polkes, 
Helen; Shifman, Moshe; Steiger, 
Michael; Jain, Antone; Sidlow, Scott; 
Matarrese, Kyle; Schmidt, Elizabeth; 
Rubebstein, Debra
Email
2
Re: Privileged & Confidential- additional meeting needed on VI
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
058
2021-06-11
Waibel, Jenna
Document
5
AMR_Investigation_Summary_D. Powers_Jun2021.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
059
2021-06-11
Waibel, Jenna
Document
11
A. Gjovik Interview Notes.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
060
2021-06-12
Waibel, Jenna
Document
6
D. Powers Interview Notes .pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
061
2021-06-12
Waibel, Jenna
Document
2
N. Balamurugan Interview Notes.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
062
2021-06-12
Waibel, Jenna
Document
2
J. Markham Interview Notes.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
063
2021-06-12
Waibel, Jenna
Document
1
I&D Interview Notes.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
064
2021-06-12
Waibel, Jenna
Document
2
M. Ertell Interview Notes .pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
065
2021-06-12
Waibel, Jenna
Document
2
M. Mathur Interview Notes.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
066
2021-06-12
Waibel, Jenna
Document
4
D. West Interview Notes.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
067
2021-06-12
Waibel, Jenna
Document
2
J. Ivan Interview Notes.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
068
2021-06-04 to 2021-06-16
Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela
Email
8
Re: Privileged & Confidential-- DRAFTED notes for call with AG
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
069
2021-05-20 to 2021-06-21
Waibel, Jenna; Jain, 
Antone; Sidlow, Scott
Jain, Antone; Sidlow, Scott; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Perez, Isela; Steiger, Michael; 
Matarrese, Kyle; Shifman, Moshe; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Waibel, Jenna
Email
3
Re: SD01 additional EHS communications - privileged and 
confidential - attorney work product
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
070
2021-06-23
Waibel, Jenna
Document
5
AMR_Investigation_Summary_D. Powers_Jun2021.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
071
2021-06-10 to 2021-06-23
Jain, Antone; Polkes, 
Helen; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Waibel, Jenna
Polkes, Helen; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Matarrese, Kyle; 
Sidlow, Scott; Steiger, Michael; Waibel, 
Jenna; Shifman, Moshe; Perez, Isela; 
Jain, Antone
Email with 
attachments
5
Re: Privileged & Confidential- additional meeting needed on VI; 
PastedGraphic-1.png; 
Re_+Follow+up+to+your+People+Support+reach+out+.eml
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
5
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 7 of 713
(7 of 713), Page 7 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
072
2021-06-22 to 2021-06-23
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, 
Helen; Shifman, Moshe; Rubenstein, 
Debra
Email
3
Re: Discussion re contaminated sites on SLACK
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
073
2021-06-29
Waibel, Jenna 
Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela 
Email
5
Privileged & Confidential—Fwd: Follow up call today (need info 
before doctor appt tomorrow)
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
074
2021-07-06
Jain, Antone 
Rubenstein, Debra; Perez, Isela; 
Polkes, Helen; Steiger, Michael; Waibel, 
Jenna 
Email
2
Fwd: Follow up call next week
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
075
2021-07-02 to 2021-07-09
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, 
Helen
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela; Steiger, 
Michael; Waibel, Jenna
Email
3
Re: Privileged and Confidential -- Attorney work product Fwd: 
Discuss any questions about indoor air management at SD01, floor 
penetration survey and vapor intrusion mitigation
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
076
2021-07-15
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
3
Ashley Gjovik (Prep meetings pre initial contact).pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations, 
and the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and 
allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues, performed at the 
direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to 
Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
077
2021-07-18
Polkes, Helen 
Perez, Isela; Lagares, Antonio; Waibel, 
Jenna; Bowman, Megan 
Email
4
Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
078
2021-07-19
Lagares, Antonio 
Lagares, Antonio; Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna
Calendar File
1
Privileged and Confidential - Gjovik
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
079
2021-07-19
Waibel, Jenna 
Jain, Antone; Lagares, Antonio; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Polkes, Helen; 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna
Calendar File
1
EHS/ AG Sync
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
080
2021-07-19
Perez, Isela; Polkes, 
Helen
Polkes, Helen; Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Waibel, Jenna; Lagares, Antonio; Perez, 
Isela
Email
9
Re: privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
081
2021-07-19
Polkes, Helen 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Lagares, Antonio 
Email with 
attachments
5
Privileged and confidential; PastedGraphic-3.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
082
2021-07-16 to 2021-07-21
Souza, Emily; Bowman, 
Megan; Shifman, Moshe; 
Polkes, Helen
Bowman, Megan; Shifman, Moshe (Mo); 
Polkes, Helen; Lagares, Antonio; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; 
Souza, Emily
Email
3
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the evaluation and response to plaintiffs workers compensation claims and 
accommodation requests, reflecting legal advice and strategy.
083
2021-07-16 to 2021-07-21
Bowman, Megan; Perez, 
Isela; Souza, Emily; 
Shifman, Moshe; Polkes, 
Helen
Perez, Isela; Souza, Emily; Shifman, 
Moshe (Mo); Polkes, Helen; Lagares, 
Antonio; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Waibel, 
Jenna; Bowman, Megan
Email
3
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the evaluation and response to plaintiffs workers compensation claims and 
accommodation requests, reflecting legal advice and strategy.
084
2021-07-23
Waibel, Jenna
Document
4
Privileged & Confidential- A. Gjovik Concerns Matrix.numbers
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
085
2021-07-22 to 2021-07-23
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, 
Helen; Perez, Isela
Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela; Tony Lagares; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Email
2
Re: Privileged and Confidential - A.G. Sync
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
086
2021-07-26
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Kim, Kwang; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email
4
Re: Privileged and Confidential - A.G. Women in SWE
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
6
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 8 of 713
(8 of 713), Page 8 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
087
2021-07-20 to 2021-07-27
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Jain, Antone; Waibel, 
Jenna
Jain, Antone; Waibel, Jenna; Perez, 
Isela; Polkes, Helen; Rubenstein, 
Debra
Email
4
Re: Privileged & Confidential- Meeting notes from 7/7/21
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
088
2021-07-28
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
3
Employment History AG (Working Draft).pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
089
2021-07-27 to 2021-07-28
Reicher, Joni; Souza, 
Emily
Souza, Emily; Rice, Debbie; Perez, 
Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Warner, 
Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Shifman, 
Moshe
Email
4
Re: Attorney client privilege: Gjovik's request for accommodation
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the evaluation and response to plaintiffs workers compensation claims and 
accommodation requests, reflecting legal advice and strategy.
090
APL-
GAELG_00001040
2021-07-28
Document
1
2020 Powers Feedback.pdf
Attorney Client Privilege 
Documents reflecting privileged and confidential internal projects, assignments 
and tasks associated with Apple's legal operations.
091
APL-
GAELG_00001033
2021-07-28
Document
1
2020 Powers Feedback.pages
Attorney Client Privilege 
Documents reflecting privileged and confidential internal projects, assignments 
and tasks associated with Apple's legal operations.
092
APL-
GAELG_00001026
2021-07-28
Document
1
2020 Powers Feedback.pdf
Attorney Client Privilege 
Documents reflecting privileged and confidential internal projects, assignments 
and tasks associated with Apple's legal operations.
093
2021-07-29
Jain, Antone 
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Thomas, Robert
Calendar File
1
SD01 & Ashley
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
094
2021-07-29
Reicher, Joni 
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Souza, 
Emily; Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni
Calendar File
1
Attorney Client privilege AG Accommodation
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the evaluation and response to plaintiffs workers compensation claims and 
accommodation requests, reflecting legal advice and strategy.
095
2021-07-27 to 2021-07-29
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Lagares, Antonio; 
Waibel, Jenna; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Waibel, Jenna; 
Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela; Lagares, 
Antonio; Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, 
Debra
Email
3
Re: [ Privileged and Confidential] Questions about TRW Microwave Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
096
2021-07-29
Perez, Isela; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Waibel, 
Jenna
Waibel, Jenna; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Tony 
Lagares; Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela
Email
3
Re: Privileged and Confidential - A.G. Keynote
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
097
2021-07-29
Waibel, Jenna; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Jain, Antone
Rubenstein, Debra; Lagares, Antonio; 
Jain, Antone; Thomas, Robert; Waibel, 
Jenna
Email
3
Re: SD01 Ashley Timeline - [Privileged & Confidential]
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
098
7/29/2021 Rubenstein, Debra; 
Steiger, Michael
Thomas, Robert; Jain, Antone; Steiger, 
Michael; Schmidt, Elizabeth; Sidlow, 
Scott; Baylosis, Ed; Rubenstein, Debra
Email
5
Fwd: [Important] Action Needed- SD01 EHS Request
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
099
2021-07-29
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Reicher, Joni
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Email with 
attachments 
3
Re: ACP - AG post today; Screen Shot 2021-07-29 at 10.38.43 
AM.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
100
2021-07-29
Reicher, Joni 
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie 
Email with 
attachments
2
ACP - AG post today; Screen Shot 2021-07-29 at 10.38.43 AM.png Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
101
2021-07-29
Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Perez, Isela; Rice, Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni
Email
2
Re: ACP - AG post today
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
102
2021-07-30
Jain, Antone 
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Thomas, Robert
Calendar File
1
SD01 & Ashley
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
103
2021-07-30
Reicher, Joni 
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Waldo, Jen; Reicher, Joni; 
Rosenstock, Josh; Qualye, Kristin 
Huguet
Calendar File
1
Attorney Client privileged Next steps AG
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
7
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 9 of 713
(9 of 713), Page 9 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
104
2021-07-30
Reicher, Joni 
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Reicher, Joni
Calendar File
1
ACP follow up AG
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
105
2021-07-30
Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela
Perez, Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Lagares, Antonio; Waibel, Jenna; 
Polkes, Helen
Email
9
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
106
2021-07-30
Perez, Isela; Lagares, 
Antonio; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Lagares, Antonio; Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Perez, Isela
Email
9
Re: Notes from our Friday call
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
107
2021-07-30
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie
Email with 
attachments
4
Re: ACP  AG timeline and next steps; ACP Timeline AG as of 
7.30.21.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
108
2021-07-29 to 2021-07-31
Reicher, Joni; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni
Email with 
attachments
4
Re: ACP - AG post today; Screen Shot 2021-07-29 at 10.38.43 
AM.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
109
2021-07-31
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
6
ACP Timeline AG as of 7.30.21.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
110
2021-07-30 to 2021-07-31
Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela
Email
2
Re: ACP  AG timeline and next steps
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
111
2021-07-30 to 2021-07-31
Rice, Debbie; Perez, 
Isela; Reicher, Joni
Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie
Email
2
Re: ACP  AG timeline and next steps
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
112
2021-07-30 to 2021-08-01
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Email with 
attachments
5
Re: ACP: AG Slack activity 7/30; Screen Shot 2021-07-30 at 
7.43.39 PM.png; Screen Shot 2021-07-30 at 7.43.14 PM.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
113
2021-08-01
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni; Adams, 
Kate; O'Brien, Deirdre
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Adams, Kate; O'Brien, 
Deirdre; Perez, Isela; Waldo, Jen; 
Huguet, Kristin; Rosenstock, Josh
Email
4
Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED - Urgent Employee Matter
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations, and the investigation, response and 
handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues, performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
114
2021-07-30 to 2021-08-02
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Reicher, Joni; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Email with 
attachments
3
Re: ACP Timeline; ACP Timeline AG as of 7.30.21.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
115
2021-08-02
Okpo, Ekelemchi 
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Reicher, Joni
Calendar File
1
ACP: AG Debrief
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
116
2021-07-27 to 2021-08-02
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Perez, Isela; Jain, 
Antone
Perez, Isela; Jain, Antone; Schmidt, 
Elizabeth; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Lagares, 
Antonio; Polkes, Helen; Waibel, Jenna; 
Rubenstein, Debra
Email
26
Re: [Privileged and Confidential]  Fwd: Questions about TRW 
Microwave
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
117
2021-07-29 to 2021-08-02
Rice, Debbie; Perez, 
Isela; Reicher, Joni; 
Richardson, Meagan; 
Souza, Emily
Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni; Richardson, 
Meg; Souza, Emily; Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Rice, Debbie
Email
10
Re: Draft for Accommodation Support of Ashley Gjovik
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the evaluation and response to plaintiffs 
workers compensation claims and accommodation requests, reflecting legal 
advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
118
2021-08-02
Rice, Debbie; Perez, 
Isela; Reicher, Joni
Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie
Email
2
Re: ACP - AG EHS claims
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
8
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 10 of 713
(10 of 713), Page 10 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
119
2021-06-10 to 2021-08-02
Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna; Lagares, Antonio
Waibel, Jenna; Lagares, Antonio; Perez, 
Isela
Email with 
attachments
15
Re: Privileged & Confidential-- Drafted Investigation summaries for 
review; AMR_Investigation_Summary_D. Powers_Jun2021.pages; 
AMR_Investigation_Brief_R. Yepez_Jun2021.pages; 
AMR_Investigation_Summary_D. Powers_Jun2021.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
120
2021-08-03
Steiger, Michael
Document
9
Talking Points for Ashley - 5-11-21 PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT-3.pdf
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected documents sent between 
legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal 
counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries 
and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the 
direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to 
Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
121
2021-08-03
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
4
Meeting Notes for A. Gjovik EHS calls.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
122
2021-08-03
Okpo, Ekelemchi 
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Reicher, Joni
Calendar File
1
ACP - AG Debrief
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
123
2021-07-27 to 2021-08-03
Reicher, Joni; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; Reicher, 
Joni
Email
2
Re: Attorney client privileged
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
124
2021-08-02 to 2021-08-03
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Waibel, Jenna
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Email
2
Re: Privileged and Confidential - EHS Notes
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
125
2021-08-02 to 2021-08-03
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Waibel, Jenna
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Email
3
Re: Privileged and Confidential - EHS Notes
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
126
2021-08-02 to 2021-08-03
Perez, Isela; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Waibel, 
Jenna
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Waibel, Jenna; 
Perez, Isela
Email
3
Re: Privileged and Confidential - EHS Notes
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
127
2021-08-03
Reicher, Joni ; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Reicher, Joni
Email
2
Re: ACP: DRAFT Response to AG's 8/2 email
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
128
2021-08-02 to 2021-08-03
Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Perez, Isela; Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni
Email
3
Re: ACP - AG EHS claims
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
129
2021-08-02 to 2021-08-03
Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni; Rice, Debbie
Reicher, Joni; Rice, Debbie; Perez, 
Isela
Email
3
Re: ACP - AG EHS claims
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
130
2021-08-03
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Email
3
Re: ACP: DRAFT Response to AG's 8/2 email
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
131
2021-08-02 to 2021-08-03
Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni
Reicher, Joni; Rice, Debbie; Perez, 
Isela
Email
3
Re: ACP - AG EHS claims
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
132
2021-08-03
Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Reicher, Joni
Email
3
Re: ACP: DRAFT Response to AG's 8/2 email
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
9
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 11 of 713
(11 of 713), Page 11 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
133
2021-08-03 to 2021-08-04
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Perez, Isela
Perez, Isela; Jain, Antone; Schmidt, 
Elizabeth; Waibel, Jenna; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Rubenstein, Debra
Email with 
attachments
3
Re: (Time sensitive) Privileged and Confidential; 
SD01+Raised+items+and+EHS+Response.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
134
2021-08-04
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice, Debbie; 
Warner, Adelmise
Email
3
Re: Draft language for AG/misrepresentation privileged and 
confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
135
2021-08-04
Okpo, Ekelemchi 
Rice, Debbie; Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni 
Email
2
*ACP* Fwd: Apple Confidential: Next Steps
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
136
2021-08-03 to 2021-08-04
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Perez, Isela
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Rice, Debbie
Email
2
Re: Privileged and Confidential - DRAFT Confirmatory email to AG
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
137
2021-08-03 to 2021-08-04
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; 
Perez. Isela
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, Debbie
Email
4
Re: Privileged and Confidential - DRAFT Confirmatory email to AG
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
138
2021-08-03 to 2021-08-04
Reicher, Joni; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Perez, Isela; 
Rice, Debbie
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni
Email
3
Re: Privileged and Confidential - DRAFT Confirmatory email to AG
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
139
2021-08-05
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela; Rice, Debbie
Email
3
Re: *ACP* Fwd: Apple Confidential: Next Steps
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
140
2021-08-03 to 2021-08-05
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Perez, Isela
Perez, Isela; Schmidt, Elizabeth; 
Waibel, Jenna; Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Reicher, Joni; Rice, Debbie; Kim, 
Kwang; Rubenstein, Debra
Email with 
attachments
4
Re: (Time sensitive) Privileged and Confidential; image2.jpeg.jpeg
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications and 
documents sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response 
and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & 
Safety issues performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
141
2021-08-05
Reicher, Joni; Rice 
Debbie
Reicher, Joni; O'Brien, Deirdre; Adams, 
Kate; Warner, Adelmise
Email
2
JR Notes Fwd: ACP Agenda for this morning
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
142
2021-08-03 to 2021-08-05
Adams, Kate; Huguet, 
Kristin; Reicher, Joni; 
O'Brien, Deirdre; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Low, Stella
Low, Stella; Waldo, Jen; Reicher, Joni; 
Perez, Isela; Rosenstock, Josh; 
Adams, Kate; O'Brien, Deirdre; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; Huguet, 
Kristin
Email
7
Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED - Ashley tweet - Verge story 
in 30 minutes; Screen Shot 2021-08-04 at 1.58.44 PM.png; Screen 
Shot 2021-08-04 at 1.59.22 PM.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
143
2021-07-31 to 2021-08-05
Reicher, Joni ; O'Brien, 
Deirdre
Adams, Kate; Rice, Debbie; Waldo, 
Jen; Warner, Adelmise Roseme; 
Reicher, Joni; O'Brien, Deirdre
Email with 
attachments
7
Re: Background for tomorrow Fwd: ATTORNEY CLIENT 
PRIVILEGED - Urgent Employee Matter; Privileged & Confidential- 
A. Gjovik Concerns Matrix copy.numbers; Screen Shot 2021-07-31 
at 6.05.16 AM.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations, and the investigation, 
response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental 
Health & Safety issues, performed at the direction of legal counsel for the 
purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
144
2021-08-04 to 2021-08-05
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni; O'Brien, 
Deirdre
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; 
Warner,Adelmise; O'Brien, Deirdre
Email with 
attachments
11
Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED Re: Background for 
tomorrow; AMR_Investigation_Summary_D. 
Powers_Jun2021.pages; Privileged & Confidential- A. Gjovik 
Concerns Matrix.numbers
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
145
2021-08-04 to 2021-08-05
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; O'Brien, Deirdre; 
Adams, Kate; 
Rosenstock, Josh
Reicher, Joni; Adams, Kate; O'Brien, 
Deirdre; Waldo, Jen; Huguet, Kristin; 
Rice, Debbie; Low, Stella; Warner, 
Adelmise; Perez, Isela
Email
10
[Revised email] Re: Proposed email to AG Fwd: Privileged and 
Confidential; Re: For review-draft language from EO/AG privileged 
and confidential; Privileged and Confidential - Fwd: Apple places 
female engineering program manager on administrative leave after 
tweeting about sexism in the office - The Verge
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations, performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
146
2021-08-03 to 2021-08-06
Richardson, Meagan; 
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Souza, Emily; 
Shifman, Moshe; Waibel, 
Jenna; Warner, Adelmise
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Souza, 
Emily; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, Isela; 
Shifman, Moshe (Mo); Richardson, Meg; 
Warner, Adelmise
Email with 
attachments
19
Re: ADA Medical Request for Full Remote Work - Accommodation 
Certificate Form Attached (PII)-Privileged and confidential; utf-
8''Fwd%3A%20Ashley%20Gjovik%5F293492%20%E2%80%93%2
0Action%20Required%3A%20Review%20Accommodation%20Req
uest.eml
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the evaluation and 
response to plaintiffs workers compensation claims and accommodation 
requests, reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
10
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 12 of 713
(12 of 713), Page 12 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
147
2021-07-20 to 2021-08-07
Perez, Isela; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Waibel, Jenna; Jain, 
Antone
Rubenstein, Debra; Waibel, Jenna; 
Jain, Antone; Polkes, Helen; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Perez, Isela
Email
13
Re: Privileged & Confidential- Meeting notes from 7/7/21
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
148
2021-08-07 to 2021-08-08
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela
Rice, Debbie; Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Email
2
Re: Privileged and Confidential - AG Twitter Posts 
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
149
2021-08-05 to 2021-08-09
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Perez, Isela; 
Rice, Debbie
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Okpo, Ekelemchi Email
3
Re: ACP - draft issue confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
150
2021-08-10
Jain, Antone 
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Polkes, Helen; Perez, Isela; Waibel, 
Jenna; Thomas, Robert
Calendar File
2
SD01 check in
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
151
2021-07-20 to 2021-08-10
Waibel, Jenna; Jain, 
Antone; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Perez, Isela
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Perez, Isela; Polkes, Helen; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Waibel, Jenna
Email
15
Re: Privileged & Confidential- Meeting notes from 7/7/21
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
152
2021-08-09 to 2021-08-10
Polkes, Helen; Jain, 
Antone; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Perez, Isela
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Polkes, 
Helen
Email
3
Re: Privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
153
2021-08-09 to 2021-08-10
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Perez, Isela; 
Rubenstein, Debra
Perez, Isela; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Reicher, Joni; Rice, Debbie
Email
3
Re: AG/EPA on site visit 8/19 privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
154
2021-08-12
Rice, Debbie
Rice, Debbie; Waldo, Jen; Reicher, Joni Calendar File
1
External investigator/AG
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
155
2021-08-12
Reicher, Joni 
Rice, Debbie; Waldo, Jen; Reicher, Joni Calendar File
1
External Investigstor/AG
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
156
2021-08-10 to 2021-08-14
Reicher, Joni; Low, Stella Low, Stella; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni
Email
2
Re: Attorney client privileged - timing of Issue confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
157
2021-08-13 to 2021-08-14
Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise
Rice, Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni
Email with 
attachments
3
Re: Confidential and Privileged: AG; IMG_6329.PNG
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
158
2021-08-13 to 2021-08-14
Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, 
ADelmise
Rice, Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni
Email with 
attachments
3
Re: Confidential and Privileged: AG; image0.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
159
2021-08-14 to 2021-08-15
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni
Reicher, Joni; Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email
2
Re: Employees/witnesses
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
160
2021-08-14 to 2021-08-15
Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Adams, Kate; 
Rosenstock, Josh
Adams, Kate; O'Brien, Deirdre; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; Waldo, Jen; 
Reicher, Joni; Low, Stella; Huguet, 
Kristin; Perez, Isela; Tulley, Rachel; 
Holter, Heidi
Email
3
Re: ER update-privileged and confidential (AG)
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
161
2021-08-15
O'Brien, Deirdre; 
Reicher, Joni
Reicher, Joni; Adams, Kate; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; Perez, 
Isela; O'Brien, Deirdre
Email with 
attachments
6
Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED: Issue Confirmation; 
DRAFT talking points - AG EE_Witnesses .pages; Confirmation of 
Issues copy v2 8.9.21.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
11
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 13 of 713
(13 of 713), Page 13 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
162
2021-08-15
Reicher, Joni; Adams, 
Kate; O'Brien, Deirdre
Adams, Kate; O'Brien, Deirdre; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; Perez, 
Isela; Reicher, Joni
Email
2
Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED: Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
163
2021-08-16
Reicher, Joni 
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; 
Waldo, Jen; Reicher, Joni
Calendar File
1
ACP AG sync
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
164
2021-08-16
Rice, Debbie
Adams, Kate; O'Brien, Deirdre; Waldo, 
Jen; Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmose; 
Huguet, Kristin; Perez, Isela
Email
1
AG issue confirmation/ready to send
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
165
2021-08-17
Warner, Adelmise
Document
2
Talking Points - PBPs and ER (8.16.21).pdf
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations, 
and the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
166
2021-08-17
Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela ; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email
3
Re: APPLE CONFIDENTIAL: Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
167
2021-08-17
Reicher, Joni; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Warner, Adelmise; 
Rice, Debbie; Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni
Email
3
Re: APPLE CONFIDENTIAL: Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
168
2021-08-17
Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Perry, Jessica 
R.; Warner, Adelmise
Email
4
Re: ACP: Fwd: Employee Relations Investigation: Ashley Gjovik's 
Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
169
2021-08-16 to 2021-08-17
Reicher, Joni; Waibel, 
Jenna
Waibel, Jenna; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Reicher, Joni
Email
5
Re: Privileged & Confidential-- meeting notes with AG from 
7/7/2021
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
170
2021-08-16 to 2021-08-17
Waibel, Jenna; Warner, 
Adelmise; Reicher, Joni
Warner, Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Waibel, Jenna
Email
5
Re: Privileged & Confidential-- meeting notes with AG from 
7/7/2021
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
171
2021-08-16 to 2021-08-17
Waibel, Jenna; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Reicher, Joni
Rubenstein, Debra; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; Reicher, 
Joni; Waibel, Jenna; Johnson, Carl; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Jain, Antone; 
Waibel, Jenna
Email
7
Re: Privileged & Confidential-- meeting notes with AG from 
7/7/2021
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
172
2021-08-16 to 2021-08-17
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Waibel, Jenna; 
Reicher, Joni
Waibel, Jenna; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Warner, Adelmise
Email
5
Re: Privileged & Confidential-- meeting notes with AG from 
7/7/2021
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
173
2021-08-16 to 2021-08-17
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Waibel, Jenna; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Reicher, Joni
Waibel, Jenna; Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; 
Rubenstein, Debra
Email
6
Re: Privileged & Confidential-- meeting notes with AG from 
7/7/2021
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
174
2021-08-16
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni; Waibel, 
Jenna
Reicher, Joni; Waibel, Jenna; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Warner, Adelmise
Email
4
Re: Privileged & Confidential-- meeting notes with AG from 
7/7/2021
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
175
2021-08-17
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Email
4
Re: APPLE CONFIDENTIAL: Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 14 of 713
(14 of 713), Page 14 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
176
2021-08-17
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni; 
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email
3
Re: APPLE CONFIDENTIAL: Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
177
2021-08-17
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Warner, Adelmise; 
Perry, Jessica
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Warner, 
Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; Perry, Jessica 
R.; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Email
5
Re: ACP: Response to AG's 8/16 email
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
178
2021-08-18
Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise Email
5
Re: APPLE CONFIDENTIAL: Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
179
2021-08-18
Waibel, Jenna 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Rubenstein, Debra Email
4
Meeting notes for 7/7/21 meeting with Ashley Gjovik
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
180
2021-08-18 to 2021-08-19
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice, 
Debbie
Rice, Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, 
Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Email
2
Re: ACP Data Request
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
181
2021-08-19 to  2021-08-20 Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise Email
4
Re: ACP - Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
182
2021-08-20
Okpo, Ekelemchi 
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, Debbie 
Email with 
attachments
3
ACP: APPROVAL REQUEST:  Backup Collection and 
Email/Communications Preservation; Backup preserve.numbers
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
183
2021-08-19 to 2021-08-20
Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise
Email
4
Re: ACP - Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
184
2021-08-20
Okpo, Ekelemchi 
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela 
Email
4
ACP Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
185
2021-08-20
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Warner, Adelmise
Email
4
Re: ;DRAFT REPLY....Fwd: ACP: Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | 
AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
186
2021-08-20
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Warner, Adelmise
Email
5
Re: ACP: Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
187
2021-08-20
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Email
4
Re: ACP: Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
188
2021-08-14 to 2021-08-20
Reicher, Joni; Tulley, 
Rachel; Warner, 
Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; 
Low, Stella; O'Brien, 
Deirdre; Rosenstock, 
Josh
Rice, Debbie; O'Brien, Deirdre; Adams, 
Kate; Warner, Adelmise; Low, Stella; 
Rosenstock, Josh; Huguet Quayle, 
Kristin; Waldo, Jen; Perez, Isela; Tulley, 
Rachel; Reicher, Joni
Email with 
attachments
7
Fwd: ER update-privileged and confidential (AG issue 
confirmation/next steps); PastedGraphic-46.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
189
2021-08-14 to 2021-08-20
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Tulley, Rachel; 
Warner, Adelmise; Low, 
Stella; O'Brien, Deirdre; 
Rosenstock, Josh
Reicher, Joni; O'Brien, Deirdre; Adams, 
Kate; Warner, Adelmise; Low, Stella; 
Rosenstock, Josh; Huguet Quayle, 
Kristin; Waldo, Jen; Perez, Isela; Tulley, 
Rachel; Rice, Debbie
Email
6
Re: ER update-privileged and confidential (AG issue 
confirmation/next steps)
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
190
2021-08-19 to 2021-08-20
Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; 
Rice, Debbie; Farah, 
Dori
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; 
Reicher, Joni; Waldo, Jen; Perez, Isela
Email
3
Re: Privileged and Confidential - AG - PSQ Employee
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
13
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 15 of 713
(15 of 713), Page 15 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
191
2021-08-20 to 2021-08-21
Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Warner, Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Email
5
Re: ;DRAFT REPLY....Fwd: ACP: Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | 
AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
192
2021-08-20 to 2021-08-21
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni
Reicher, Joni; Rice, Debbie; Perez, 
Isela; Warner Adelmise; Reicher, Joni
Email
5
Re: ;DRAFT REPLY....Fwd: ACP: Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | 
AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
193
2021-08-20 to 2021-08-21
Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Rice, Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni
Email
5
Re: ;DRAFT REPLY....Fwd: ACP: Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | 
AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
194
2021-08-21
Rice, Debbie 
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; 
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela 
Email
1
Response to AG-privileged and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
195
2021-08-14 to 2021-08-22
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Tulley, Rachel; 
Warner, Adelmise; Low, 
Stella; O'Brien, Deirdre; 
Rosenstock, Josh
Reicher, Joni; O'Brien, Deirdre; Adams, 
Kate; Warner, Adelmise; Low, Stella; 
Rosenstock, Josh; Huguet Quayle, 
Kristin; Waldo, Jen; Perez, Isela; Tulley, 
Rachel; Rice, Debbie
Email
8
Re: ER update-privileged and confidential (AG issue 
confirmation/next steps)
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
196
2021-08-14 to 2021-08-22
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Tulley, Rachel; 
Warner, Adelmise; Low, 
Stella; O'Brien, Deirdre; 
Rosenstock, Josh
Reicher, Joni; O'Brien, Deirdre; Adams, 
Kate; Warner, Adelmise; Low, Stella; 
Rosenstock, Josh; Huguet Quayle, 
Kristin; Waldo, Jen; Perez, Isela; Tulley, 
Rachel; Rice, Debbie
Email
7
Re: ER update-privileged and confidential (AG issue 
confirmation/next steps)
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
197
2021-08-23
Waibel, Jenna
Document
11
A. Gjovik Interview Notes.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
198
2021-08-23
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
6
Helen Polkes - 8:23:21 Interview .pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
199
2021-08-23
Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Rice, Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni
Email
5
Re: ACP - Fwd: Employee Relations Investigation: Ashley Gjovik's 
Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
200
2021-08-23
Warner, Adelmise; 
Waibel, Jenna
Waibel, Jenna; Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise
Email with 
attachments
23
Re: Privileged & Confidential--Fwd: Ashley Gjovik/Dan - 4/29 
Meeting Notes; A. Gjovik Interview Notes.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
201
2021-08-23
Okpo, Ekelemchi 
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela 
Email
4
ACP - Fwd: Welcome and Prep Work | AU Race & Justice
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
202
2021-08-23
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Reicher, Joni; Rice, Debbie; Perez, 
Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email
5
Re: ACP - Fwd: Employee Relations Investigation: Ashley Gjovik's 
Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
203
2021-08-23
Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, Adelmise
Email
6
Re: ACP JR Follow up questions Fwd: ACP - Fwd: Employee 
Relations Investigation: Ashley Gjovik's Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
204
2021-08-23
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Reicher, Joni
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi Email
1
Re: ACP AG Timeline
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
205
2021-08-24
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Spreadsheet
1
AG_INC080053657_Peer_Feedback.xlsx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
14
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 16 of 713
(16 of 713), Page 16 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
206
2021-08-23 to 2021-08-24
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; 
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Email
7
Re: Employee Relations Investigation: Ashley Gjovik's Issue 
Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
207
2021-08-24
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekeelmchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; 
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie
Email
6
Re: ACP - Fwd: Employee Relations Investigation: Ashley Gjovik's 
Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
208
2021-08-24
Okpo, Ekelemchi 
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela 
Email with 
attachments
13
Fwd: APPLE CONFIDENTIAL: Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
209
2021-08-23 to 2021-08-24
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Rice, Debbie; Warner, Adelmise
Email
7
Re: Employee Relations Investigation: Ashley Gjovik's Issue 
Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
210
2021-08-24 to 2021-08-25
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Waldo, 
Jen; Warner, Adelmise
Email
5
Re: AG Historical Peer feedback for legal matter-privileged and 
confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
211
2021-08-23 to 2021-08-25
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perry, Jessica
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; 
Perez, Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Graham, Lara
Email
2
Re: Gjovik - Chart of Witnesses and Claims
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
212
2021-08-26
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
10
Dan West - 8:26:21 Interview .pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
213
2021-08-14 to 2021-08-26
Huguet, Kristin; Waldo, 
Jen; Tulley, Rachel; 
Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; 
Low, Stella; Rosenstock, 
Josh; O'Brien, Deirdre
O'Brien, Deirdre; Adams, Kate; Waldo, 
Jen; Marker-Ok, Kym; Warner, 
Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; Low, Stella; 
Rosenstock, Josh; Perez, Isela; Tulley, 
Rachel; Reicher, Joni; Raspe, Kristina; 
Huguet, Kristin
Email with 
attachments
13
Re: ER update-privileged and confidential (AG issue 
confirmation/next steps); PastedGraphic-2.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
214
2021-08-26
Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Huguet, Kristin
DeMario, Tony; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Waldo, Jen; Reicher, Joni; Low, 
Stella; Whye, Barbara; Loewe, Dylan; 
Rubin, Isaac
Email
5
Fwd: The Information - Apple Was the Most Secretive Company in 
Tech. Then it Developed a Slack Habit.
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
215
2021-08-26
Waldo, Jen
O’Brien, Deirdre; Adams, Kate; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Marker-Ok, Kym; Quayle, 
Kristin Huguet; Holter, Heidi; Waldo, Jen
Email
5
ACP Slack Updates | 08.26.21
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
media coverage responses to inquiries and articles reflecting legal advice and 
strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
216
2021-08-25 to 2021-08-26
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice, 
Debbie; Perry, Jessica
Rice, Debbie; Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Graham, Lara
Email with 
attachments
4
Re: Gjovik - Chart of Witnesses and Claims With Gjovik Revisions; 
Chart of Witnesses and Claims 4154-1082-1425 3.xlsx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
217
2021-08-25 to 2021-08-26
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Perez, Isela; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Email
5
Re: ACP - Draft Revised Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
218
2021-08-26
Reicher, Joni 
Rice, Debbie 
Email with 
attachments
3
Draft ACP; Draft Exit Outcomes ACP.key
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
219
2021-08-27
Okpo, Ekelemchi 
Perez, Isela; Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email
3
ACP - Search Request
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
220
2021-08-27
Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise Email
6
Re: APPLE CONFIDENTIAL: Issue Confirmation
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
15
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 17 of 713
(17 of 713), Page 17 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
221
2021-08-26 to 2021-08-27
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Perez, Isela; Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Email
4
Re: ACP - Search Request
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
222
2021-08-16 to 2021-08-27
Perez, Isela; Warner, 
Adelmise; Rice, Debbie
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; 
Perez, Isela
Email with 
attachments
8
Re: Privileged and Confidential - AG Open Items (accommodations 
request); Privileged and Confidential Gjovik Accommodation 
Letter.docx
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the evaluation and 
response to plaintiffs workers compensation claims and accommodation 
requests, reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
223
2021-08-27 to 2021-08-28
Polinsky, Melissa 
Marrus; Rice, Debbie
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Polinsky, 
Melissa
Email
4
Re: [TIME SENSITIVE] Request for comment from The Verge
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
224
2021-08-28
Polinsky, Melissa 
Marrus
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni 
Email
3
Fwd: [TIME SENSITIVE] Request for comment from The Verge
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
225
2021-08-14 to 2021-08-29
Rice, Debbie; Huguet, 
Kristin; Waldo, Jen; 
Tulley, Rachel; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; 
Low, Stella; O'Brien, 
Deirdre; Rosenstock, 
Josh
Perry, Jessica; Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela; Huguet, Kristin; O'Brien, 
Deirdre; Adams, Kate; Waldo, Jen; 
Marker-ok, Kym; Warner, Adelmise; 
Rice, Debbie; Low, Stella; Rosenstock, 
Josh; Tulley, Rachel; Reicher, Joni; 
Raspe, Kristina
Email with 
attachments
42
Re: Coverage Summary - employee issues on social and in media; 
Social Media and Online Communications | People.pdf
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications 
prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
226
2021-08-30
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
3
Mike Ertell - 8:30:21 Interview .pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
227
2021-08-30
Waibel, Jenna 
Jain, Antone; Johnson, Carl; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Polkes, Helen; 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Thomas, 
Robert
Calendar File
1
EHS/ AG Follow up sync
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
228
2021-08-14 to 2021-08-30
Waldo, Jen; Huguet, 
Kristin; Tulley, Rachel; 
Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; 
Low, Stella; O'Brien, 
Deirdre; Rosenstock, 
Josh
Quayle, Kristin Huguet; Waldo, Jen; 
O’Brien, Deirdre; Adams, Kate; Marker-
Ok, Kym; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Low, Stella; Rosenstock, Josh; 
Perez, Isela; Tulley, Rachel; Reicher, 
Joni; Whye, Barbara
Email with 
attachments
16
Re: Coverage Summary - employee issues on social and in media; 
PastedGraphic-73.png; 552c159b-b0c5-46fd-800e-
8d8918926efc.png; PastedGraphic-6.png; PastedGraphic-76.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
229
2021-08-30
Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie
Rice, Debbie; Quayle, Kristin Huguet; 
Sainz, Fred; Reicher, Joni
Email
6
Re: Additional info re iCloud@Apple
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
230
2021-08-26 to 2021-08-30
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, Ekelemchi
Email
5
Re: ACP - Search Request
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
231
2021-08-30 to 2021-08-31
Waldo, Jen; O'Brien; 
Deirdre; McLeod, Eddie
O’Brien, Deirdre; Waldo, Jen; Adams, 
Kate; Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; 
Quayle, Kristin Huguet; Marker-Ok, 
Kym; Warner, Adelmise; Waldo, Jen
Email
8
Re: ACP Slack Updates | 08.30.21
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
232
2021-08-30 to 2021-08-31
Adams, Kate; O'Brien, 
Deirdre; Waldo, Jen; 
McLeod, Eddie
O'Brien, Deirdre; Waldo, Jen; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Quayle, Kristin 
Huguet; Marker-Ok, Kym; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email
8
Re: ACP Slack Updates | 08.30.21
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
233
2021-08-20 to 2021-08-31
Polkes, Helen; Perez, 
Isela; Johnson, Carl; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Waibel, Jenna; Jain, 
Antone
Perez, Isela; Johnson, Carl; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Waibel, Jenna; 
Jain, Antone; Thomas, Robert; Polkes, 
Helen
Email
6
Re: SD01 - upcoming EHS meeting w employee - [Privileged & 
Confidential- attorney work product]
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
234
2021-08-20 to 2021-08-31
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Polkes, Helen; Jain, 
Antone; Waibel, Jenna; 
Perez, Isela 
Polkes, Helen; Johnson, Carl; Thomas, 
Robert; Jain, Antone; Perez, Isela; 
Waibel, Jenna; Rubenstein, Debra
Email
5
Re: SD01 - upcoming EHS meeting w employee - [Privileged & 
Confidential- attorney work product]
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
235
2021-08-20 to 2021-08-31
Polkes, Helen; Waibel, 
Jenna; Rubenstein, 
Debra; Jain, Antone; 
Perez, Isela 
Waibel, Jenna; Perez, Isela; Jain, 
Antone; Thomas, Robert; Johnson, Carl; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Polkes, Helen
Email
6
Re: SD01 - upcoming EHS meeting w employee - [Privileged & 
Confidential- attorney work product]
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation, response and handling 
of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations into Environmental Health & Safety issues 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
16
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 18 of 713
(18 of 713), Page 18 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
236
2021-08-31 to 2021-09-01
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Emery, 
Kathleen
Rice, Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, 
Adelmise  
Email
2
Re: Ashley Gjovik. Case HRC000019497 (complaint re ear scan 
invitation)
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications 
prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
237
2021-08-31 to 2021-09-01
Rice, Debbie; Emery, 
Kathleen
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie
Email
3
Fwd: Ashley Gjovik. Case HRC000019497 (complaint re ear scan 
invitation)
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications 
prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
238
2021-08-31 to 2021-09-01
Rice, Debbie; Emery, 
Kathleen
Emery, Kathleen; Warner. Adelmise; 
Rice, Debbie
Email
1
Re: Ashley Gjovik. Case HRC000019497
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications 
prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
239
2021-09-02
Polkes, Helen 
Jain, Antone; Johnson, Carl; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Polkes, Helen; 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Thomas, 
Robert
Calendar File
1
EHS/ AG Follow up sync
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
240
2021-07-20 to 2021-09-02
Jain, Antone; Waibel, 
Jenna; Perez, Isela; 
Polkes, Helen; 
Rubenstein, Debra
Waibel, Jenna; Perez, Isela; 
Rubenstein, Debra; Polkes, Helen; 
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Jain, Antone; Johnson 
Carl; Thomas, Robert
Email
16
Re: Privileged & Confidential- Meeting notes from 7/7/21
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
241
2021-09-01 to 2021-09-02
Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie
Perez, Isela; Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email
3
Re: Wiping of Device Qs related to A.G.
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
242
2021-09-01 to 2021-09-02
Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Perez, Isela; 
Reicher, Joni; Ternus, 
John
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; 
Reicher, Joni; Rice, Debbie
Email
3
Re: Internal application
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications 
prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
243
2021-09-03
Waldo, Jen
O’Brien, Deirdre; Adams, Kate; Quayle, 
Kristin Huguet; Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Marker-Ok, 
Kym; Whye, Barbara; Holter, Heidi
Email
12
ACP Slack Updates | 09.03.21
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
media coverage responses to inquiries and articles reflecting legal advice and 
strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
244
2021-09-03
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Warner, AdelmiseHuguet, Kristin; 
Waldo, Jen
Email with 
attachments
8
Re: ACP - Fwd: Meeting Request; PastedGraphic-1.png; 
Screenshot 2021-09-03 at 2.58.06 PM.png; image.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
245
2021-09-03
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela
Email with 
attachments
5
ACP - Fwd: Meeting Request; PastedGraphic-1.png
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged documents and communications sent between legal 
counsel and employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal 
counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple 
Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose 
of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
246
2021-09-02 to 2021-09-03
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise Email
3
Re: ACP: Prep for AG Follow up
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
247
2021-09-02 to 2021-09-03
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni
Warner, Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi Email
2
Re: ACP: Prep for AG Follow up
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
248
2021-09-02 to 2021-09-03
Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Perez, Isela; 
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Okpo, Ekelemchi Email
3
Re: ACP: Prep for AG Follow up
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
249
2021-09-02 to 2021-09-03
Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie; 
Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Perez, Isela; Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Email
2
Re: ACP: Prep for AG Follow up
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
250
2021-09-02 to 2021-09-03
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Perez, 
Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice Debbie
Email
3
Re: ACP: Prep for AG Follow up
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
17
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 19 of 713
(19 of 713), Page 19 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
251
2021-09-02 to 2021-09-03
Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; 
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Warner, Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice, Debbie
Email
2
Re: ACP: Prep for AG Follow up
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
252
2021-09-07
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
4
ACP AG Investigation summary key issues  .numbers
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
253
2021-096-03 to 2021-09-07
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Reicher, Joni; Rice, Debbie; Perez, 
Isela; Warner, Adelmise
Email
5
Re: ACP - Fwd: Meeting Request
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
254
2021-09-07
Adams, Kate; 
Rosenstock, Josh
Rosenstock, Josh; Rice, Debbie; 
O'Brien, Deirdre; Whye, Barbara; Low, 
Stella; Reicher, Joni; Quayle, Kristin 
Huguet; Waldo, Jen; Marker-Ok, Kym; 
Holter, Heidi; Acevedo, Diego; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email
2
Re: CNBC segment and additional tweets
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding media coverage responses to inquiries 
and articles reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
255
2021-09-01 to 2021-09-07
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Polinsky, 
Melissa; Perez, Isela; 
Ternus, John
Rice, Debbie; Ferguson, James; 
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Warner, 
Adelmise; Bowman, Megan; Ternus, 
John; Polinsky, Melissa; DeMario, Tony
Email
5
Re: (AG) Fwd: Internal application (Glimmer/Gobbler) privileged 
and confidential
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications 
prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
256
2021-09-07 to 2021-09-08
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice, 
Debbie; Perry, Jessica
Rice, Debbie; Jessica Perry; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; 
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Email
4
Re: Draft - Response to AG
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
257
2021-09-07 to 2021-09-08
Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise Email
4
Re: ACP - Fwd: Meeting Request
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
258
2021-09-07 to 2021-09-08
Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise Email
5
Re: Meeting Request
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
259
2021-09-08
Rice, Debbie; Warner, 
Adelmise
Emery, Kathleen; Warner, Adelmise; 
Rice Debbie
Email
1
Re: Ashley Gjovik Case HRC000045789
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications prepared by legal counsel and/or 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs unauthorized disclosure of 
confidential information performed at the direction of legal counsel for the 
purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
260
2021-09-09
Warner, Adelmise
O'Brien, Deirdre; Adams, Kate; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Waldo, Jen; 
Perez, Isela
Email
1
Confidential and Privileged: AG
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications prepared by legal counsel and/or 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs unauthorized disclosure of 
confidential information performed at the direction of legal counsel for the 
purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
261
2021-09-09
Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise, 
Kagramanov, Aleks, Reicher, Joni
Messages with 
attachments
8
Direct message Adelmise Rosemé Warner, Aleks Kagramanov 
and 2 others - 2021-09-09 (UTC).pdf
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations, performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and the termination of Plaintiff’s 
employment, reflecting legal advice and strategy.
262
2021-09-09
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
3
ACP - Investigation Summary A. Gjovik.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
263
2021-09-09
Bowman, Megan
Document
2
Privileged and Confidnetial - AG Term Letter DRAFT.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents prepared at 
the direction of legal counsel and reflecting attorney edits and mental 
impressions regarding the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
264
2021-09-09
Reicher, Joni 
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; 
O'Brien, Deirdre; Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Perez, Isela; Waldo, Jen; Reicher, Joni; 
Adams, Kate; Quayle, Kristin Huguet; 
Polinsky, Melissa; Jacobs, Sophi
Calendar File
2
Attorney client privileged - AG
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications prepared by legal counsel and/or 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs unauthorized disclosure of 
confidential information performed at the direction of legal counsel for the 
purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
265
2021-07-20 to 2021-09-09
Waibel, Jenna; 
Rubenstein, Debra; 
Perez, Isela; Jain, 
Antone
Rubenstein, Debra; Perez, Isela; Jain, 
Antone; Polkes, Helen; Waibel, Jenna
Email
19
Re: Privileged & Confidential- Meeting notes from 7/7/21
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
266
2021-09-08 to 2021-09-09
Okpo, Ekelemchi; 
Warner, Adelmise
Warner, Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Okpo, Ekelemcih Email
2
Re: ACP - 9/8/21 draft response
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
18
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 20 of 713
(20 of 713), Page 20 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
267
2021-09-08 to 2021-09-09
Warner, Adelmise; 
Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie; 
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Warner, Adelmise
Email
4
Re: ACP - 9/8/21 draft response
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
268
2021-09-09
Reicher, Joni 
O'Brien, Deirdre; Adams, Kate; 
Warner, Adelmise; Waldo, Jen; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie 
Email with 
attachments
2
ACP Investigation findings; ACP AG Executive Summary Keynote 
(9.9.21 Debrief).key
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
269
2021-09-09
Kagramanov, Aleks
O'Brien, Deirdre; Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; Perez, Isela;
Email with 
attachments
6
Re: AG Emails; Screen Shot 2021-09-09 at 3.56.31 PM.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
270
2021-09-09
Warner, Adelmise; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Reicher, Joni; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise Email
6
Re: Meeting Request
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
271
2021-09-09
Perez, Isela; Bertolus, 
Yannick; Waldo, Jen
Bertolus, Yannick; Bowman, Megan; 
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; 
Waldo, Jen; Perez, Isela
Email with 
attachments
5
Re: Attorney Client Privileged | Term Letter; Privileged and 
Confidnetial - AG Term Letter DRAFT.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the termination of Plaintiff’s 
employment reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
272
2021-09-09
Kagramanov, Aleks
DeMario, Tony; Jacobs, Sophi
Email with 
attachments
2
AG Intro Email Draft; AG Intro Email.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
273
2021-09-07 to 2021-09-09
Kagramanov, Aleks; 
Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; 
Polinsky, Melissa Marrus; Rice, 
Debbie; Jacobs, Sophi; Kagramanov, 
Aleks
Email with 
attachments
20
Re: (AG) Fwd: Internal application (Glimmer/Gobbler) privileged 
and confidential; AG Talking Points.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and 
handling of Plaintiffs unauthorized disclosure of confidential information 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
274
2021-09-09
Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Perez, Isela
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Waldo, Jen; Reicher, Joni 
Email
2
Re: ACP AG Security reach out
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications 
prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
275
2021-09-08 to 2021-09-09
Reicher, Joni 
Jacobs, Sophi; Perez, Isela; Warner, 
Adelmise; Rice, Debbie 
Email
1
Re: ACP meeting tomorrow
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications 
prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
276
2021-09-09
Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; 
Perez, Isela 
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Perez, 
Isela; Waldo, Jen; Rice, Debbie
Email
2
Re: ACP AG Security reach out
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications 
prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
277
2021-09-09
Warner, Adelmise; 
Jacobs, Sophi
Jacobs, Sophi; Kagramanov, Aleks; 
Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise
Email with 
attachments
3
Re: Confidential and Privileged; utf-8''Ashley%20Gj%C3%B8vik.vcf Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and 
handling of Plaintiffs unauthorized disclosure of confidential information 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
278
2021-09-09
Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni; Bertolus, Yannick; 
Waldo, Jen
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Perez, 
Isela; Bertolus, Yannick; Waldo, Jen
Email
2
Re: Attorney Client Privileged | Term Letter
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the termination of Plaintiff’s employment 
reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
279
2021-09-08 to 2021-09-09
Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; 
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice, 
Debbie
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi Email
4
Re: ACP - 9/8/21 draft response
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
280
2021-09-08 to 2021-09-09
Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; 
Rice, Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi Email
4
Re: ACP - 9/8/21 draft response
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
281
2021-09-09
Melissa Polinsky
Reicher, Joni 
Email
1
AG call
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
19
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 21 of 713
(21 of 713), Page 21 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
282
2021-09-10
Rosenstock, Josh
O'Brien, Deirdre; Adams, Kate; Low, 
Stella; Quayle, Kristin Huguet; Rice, 
Debbie; Waldo, Jen; Marker-Ok, Kym; 
Reicher, Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Perez, 
Isela; Whye, Barbara; Tulley, Rachel 
Wolf
Email with 
attachments
3
Coverage Summary - Fri Sept 10 - employee issues; 
PastedGraphic-3.png
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
media coverage responses to inquiries and articles reflecting legal advice and 
strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
283
2021-09-09 to 2021-09-10
Jenkinson, Christoph; 
Reicher, Joni; Ford, 
Donna
Reicher, Joni; Perez, Isela; Warner, 
Adelmise; Jenkinson, Christoph
Email
4
Re: ACP Final pay request
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the termination of Plaintiff’s employment 
reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
284
2021-09-09
Reicher, Joni; 
Warner, Adelmise; Waldo, Jen; Perez, 
Isela; Rice, Debbie
Email with 
attachments
6
ACP Action items DRAFT working document; ACP AG Actions 
9.9.21.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counselregarding the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs 
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information performed at the direction of 
legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
285
2021-09-10
Waldo, Jen
O’Brien, Deirdre; Adams, Kate; Quayle, 
Kristin Huguet; Rice, Debbie; Reicher, 
Joni; Warner, Adelmise; Marker-Ok, 
Kym; Whye, Barbara; Waldo, Jen
Email
9
ACP Slack & Twitter Updates | 09.10.21 - 3 pm
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
media coverage responses to inquiries and articles reflecting legal advice and 
strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
286
2021-09-10
Waldo, Jen
Adams, Kate; O’Brien, Deirdre; Quayle, 
Kristin Huguet; Reicher, Joni; Warner, 
Adelmise; Marker-Ok, Kym; Whye, 
Barbara; Rice, Debbie; Waldo, Jen
Email
4
ACP Slack & Twitter Updates | @ 8AM PST 09.10.21
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
media coverage responses to inquiries and articles reflecting legal advice and 
strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
287
2021-09-10
Warner, Adelmise; 
Bowman, Megan; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni; 
Waldo, Jen; Bertolus, 
Yannick
Bowman, Megan; Rice, Debbie; 
Reicher, Joni; Waldo, Jen; Perez, Isela
Email
3
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED Re: Employment Status
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the termination of Plaintiff’s employment reflecting legal advice and strategy, 
and in anticipation of litigation.
288
2021-09-10
Warner, Adelmise
Waldo, Jen; Perez, Isela; Reicher, Joni
Email with 
attachments
3
Confidential and Privileged: AG; IMG_7033.PNG; image0.png
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney-client privileged communications prepared by employees acting under 
the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and 
handling of Plaintiffs unauthorized disclosure of confidential information 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant.
289
2021-09-10
Perez, Isela; Reicher, 
Joni
Reicher, Joni; Bowman, Megan; 
Warner, Adelmise; Waldo, Jen; Rice, 
Debbie; Perez, Isela
Email with 
attachments
3
Re: ACP - Summary and final termination letter and attachments; 
GS ER AG Summary to Yannick 9.9.21 Final.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the termination of Plaintiff’s 
employment reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
290
2021-09-10
Reicher, Joni 
Perez, Isela; Warner, Adelmise
Email with 
attachments
1
Final termination letter pdf and pages and Enclosures with the 
termination letter
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the termination of Plaintiff’s 
employment reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
291
2021-09-09 to 2021-09-10
Jacobs, Sophi; Warner, 
Adelmise; Perez, Isela; 
Rice, Debbie; Carroll, 
Sue
Warner, Adelmise; Perez, Isela; Rice, 
Debbie; Reicher, Joni; Jacobs, Sophi; 
Carroll, Sue
Email with 
attachments
5
Re: Twitter TOUs [CD035452]  Privileged & Confidential; Image 
from iOS.png
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications prepared by legal counsel and/or employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation and 
handling of Plaintiffs unauthorized disclosure of confidential information 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purposes of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
292
2021-09-09 to 2021-09-10
Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela; Jacobs, Sophi
Perez, Isela; Bowman, Megan; Reicher, 
Joni; Rice, Debbie; DeMario, Tony
Email
1
Re: Privileged -- AG System Access
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the termination of Plaintiff’s employment 
reflecting legal advice and strategy, and in anticipation of litigation.
293
2021-09-12
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
13
Summary of Allegations & Coaching .key
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
294
2021-09-12
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
5
ACP AG Executive Summary Keynote (9.9.21 Debrief) HW shared 
copy.key
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
295
2021-09-12
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
12
ACP Software Engineering Summary Keynote (9.10.21 Debrief)  
shared copy.key
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
296
2021-09-13
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
25
ACP HWE and SWE Summary 9.14.21.key
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
297
2021-09-14
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
24
ACP HWE and SWE Summary 9.14.21 Version 7:30AMTUES.key
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
298
2021-09-16
Jain, Antone 
Jain, Antone; Rubenstein, Debra; 
Schmidt, Elizabeth; Polkes, Helen; 
Perez, Isela; Waibel, Jenna; Matarrese, 
Kyle; Thomas, Robert
Calendar File
1
SD01 EHS comms
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation, response and handling of Plaintiffs inquiries and allegations 
into Environmental Health & Safety issues performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purposes of informing legal advice to Defendant.
Bold = Attorney
20
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 22 of 713
(22 of 713), Page 22 of 713

Gjovik v. Apple
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Apple, Inc. Privilege Log
Privilege Log No.
Bates No. or Range
Date(s) Represented
Author(s) or Sender(s)
Recipient(s) / Participant(s)
File Category
Pages
Description (e.g. Titles/Subjects Represented)
Protection Asserted
Subject Matter / Basis for Protection
299
2021-09-17
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
23
ACP - Investigation Summary A. Gjovik - Draft.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
300
2021-09-24
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
1
Closeout plan.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
301
2021-09-27
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
15
ACP - Investigation Summary A. Gjovik - Draft copy.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
302
2021-09-27
Rice, Debbie 
Warner, Adelmise; Rice, Debbie; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Perez, Isela; Perry, Jessica Calendar File
1
AG final investigation report discussion
Attorney Client Privilege 
Attorney-client privileged communications sent between legal counsel and 
employees acting under the direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding 
the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee 
Relations performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of 
informing legal advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
303
2021-09-29
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
1
SWE Witness List.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
304
2021-09-29
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
15
ACP - Investigation Summary A. Gjovik - Draft copy 2.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
305
2021-10-01
Warner, Adelmise
Perry, Jessica R.; Rice, Debbie; 
Perez, Isela; Okpo, Ekelemchi 
Email with 
attachments
17
Confidential and Attorney-Client Privileged: Draft Investigation 
Summary (AG); ACP - Investigation Summary A. Gjovik - Draft 
copy 2.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents and 
communications sent between legal counsel and employees acting under the 
direction and supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs 
claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction 
of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
306
2021-10-05
Perry, Jessica
Document
16
Gjovik - Redlined Investigation Summary A. Gjovik - Draft copy 
2.docx (JP Edits).pdf
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
307
2021-10-08
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
15
ACP - Investigation Summary A. Gjovik - Draft copy 3.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
308
2021-10-10
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
22
Investigation Summary Exhibits.key
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
309
2021-10-10
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
15
ACP - Investigation Summary A. Gjovik_September 2021 
W:Comments.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
310
2021-10-10
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
15
ACP - Investigation Summary A. Gjovik_September 2021 .pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
311
2021-10-11
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
15
ACP - Investigation Summary A. Gjovik_September 2021 .pdf
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
312
2021-10-12
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
11
Powers - 8:25:21 Interview  copy.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
313
2021-09-29 to 2021-10-12
Perez, Isela; Okpo, 
Ekelemchi; Warner, 
Adelmise
Okpo, Ekelemchi; Rice, Debbie; 
Warner, Adelmise; Reicher, Joni; Perez, 
Isela
Email
5
Re: ACP: Investigation Summary
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected communications sent 
between legal counsel and employees acting under the direction and 
supervision of legal counsel regarding the investigation of Plaintiffs claims and 
allegations by Apple Employee Relations performed at the direction of legal 
counsel for the purpose of informing legal advice to Defendant, and in 
anticipation of litigation.
314
2021-10-27
Okpo, Ekelemchi
Document
1
ACP AG Investigation Timeline 9.1.21.pages
Attorney Client Privilege ; 
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-client privileged and work-product protected documents reflecting the 
investigation of Plaintiffs claims and allegations by Apple Employee Relations 
performed at the direction of legal counsel for the purpose of informing legal 
advice to Defendant, and in anticipation of litigation.
Bold = Attorney
21
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 23 of 713
(23 of 713), Page 23 of 713

After a reasonable inquiry based on the documents and information available, we affirm that the 
documents and communications represented by this privilege log were intended to be handled 
with strict confidentiality, in compliance with section 20(f) of the Standing Order for Magistrate 
Judge Kandis A. Westmore. This includes storing documents in restricted locations accessible 
only to authorized personnel and disclosing communications solely to individuals authorized by 
legal counsel or acting under their direction. 
Included Names: 
Job Title 
Business Group 
Acevedo, Diego 
Corporate Attorney Manager
Legal - HR 
Adams, Kate 
Sr.VP
Legal  
Baylosis, Ed 
Environ Hlth/Sfty Manager
Facilities
Bertolus, Yannick 
SW QE Eng VP
Hardware
Bowman, Megan 
HR Business Partner Director
BHR Hardware (R&D)
Carroll, Sue 
Project/Prgm Manager
Trademark & Copyright
Creighton, Sue 
Environ Hlth/Sfty Manager
Environ. Health & Safety US
DeBaene, Austin 
Environ Hlth/Sfty Eng 
Environ. Health & Safety US
DeMario, Tony 
Global Security Manager
Investigations & Child Safety
Farah, Dori 
HR Business Partner Manager
Hardware 
Ferguson, James 
Employee Relations Director
Employee Relations - US
Ford, Donna 
Payroll Analyst
GBS GBL H2R
Gies, Timos 
Project Manager
Compliance & Business Conduct
Graham, Lara 
Associate 
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 
Holter, Heidi 
Compensation Sr Director
Compensation
Huynh, Tom 
Environ Hlth/Sfty Manager
Environ. Health & Safety US
Jacobs, Sophi 
Corporate Attorney Manager
Investigations & Child Safety
Jain, Antone 
Environ Hlth/Sfty Eng
Environ. Health & Safety US
Jenkinson, 
Christoph
Financial Director
GBS GBL H2R
Johnson, Carl 
Project/Program Manager
Environ. Health & Safety US
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 24 of 713
(24 of 713), Page 24 of 713

Kagramanov, Aleks 
ER Business Partner 
Employee Relations - US
Kim, Kwang 
Corporate Attorney Director
Legal - HR 
Lagares, Antonio 
ER Business Partner Manager
Employee Relations - US
Loewe, Dylan 
Public Relations Director
PR 
Low, Stella 
Public Relations Director
PR 
Marker-Ok, Kym 
HR Business Partner VP
Retail - People
Matarrese, Kyle 
Corporate Attorney  
Legal - HR 
O’Brien, Deirdre 
SVP
People and Retail
McLeod, Eddie 
HR Director
Talent Mobility - US
Okpo, Ekelemchi 
ER Business Partner 
Employee Relations - US
Perez, Isela 
Corporate Attorney Manager
Legal - HR 
Perry, Jessica R. 
Counsel 
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 
Polinsky, Melissa 
Marrus 
Corporate Attorney Director
Investigations & Child Safety
Polkes, Helen 
HR Business Partner Manager
BHR Hardware (R&D)
Huguet Quayle, 
Kristin / Huguet, 
Kristin 
Public Relations VP
PR
Raspe, Kristina 
Facilities VP
Real Estate & Development
Reicher, Joni 
Employee Relations Sr Director
People Support Ops and Privacy
Rice, Debbie 
Sr. Director
Legal - HR 
Richardson, 
Meagan (or Meg) 
ER Business Partner 
Employee Relations - US
Rosenstock, Josh 
Public Relations Sr Director
PR
Rubenstein, Debra 
Legal Counsel
Legal - Real Estate
Rubin, Isaac 
Writer
PR
Said, Deena 
Corporate Attorney Manager
Compliance & Business Conduct
Sainz, Fred 
Public Relations Sr Director
PR
Schiesl, Dallas 
Benefits Analyst
Benefits - US
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 25 of 713
(25 of 713), Page 25 of 713

Schmidt, Elizabeth 
Environ Hlth/Sfty Director
Environ. Health & Safety US
Shifman, Moshe 
(Mo)
ER Business Partner Manager
Employee Relations - US
Sidlow, Scott 
Environ Hlth/Sfty Manager
Environ. Health & Safety US
Souza, Emily 
ER Business Partner Manager
Employee Relations - US
Steiger, Michael 
Environ Hlth/Sfty Manager
Environ. Health & Safety US
Ternus, John 
SVP
Hardware
Thomas, Robert 
Environ Hlth/Sfty Manager
Environ. Health & Safety US
Tulley, Rachel Wolf Sr PR Manager
PR 
Waibel, Jenna 
ER Business Partner Manager
Employee Relations - US 
Waldo, Jen 
HR Business Partner VP
People
Warner, Adelmise 
Employee Relations Sr Director
People
Whye, Barbara 
HR VP
People
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 26 of 713
(26 of 713), Page 26 of 713

4 
EXHIBIT B: ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 27 of 713
(27 of 713), Page 27 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 1 of 34 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. 
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS ................................................................................................................................. 2 
2. 
SOFTWARE ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................................ 4 
A. iOS Release Management Team (2015-2016) ................................................................................................... 4 
i. 
Brad Reigel ................................................................................................................................................ 4 
ii. 
Rob Marini ................................................................................................................................................ 4 
iii. 
Rob Marini, Aron Talburt, & Brad Reigel (aka “RAB”) .......................................................................... 5 
iv. 
Linda Keshishoglou ................................................................................................................................... 5 
v. 
Venkat Memula ......................................................................................................................................... 6 
vi. 
Bodhi Gerfen ............................................................................................................................................. 6 
vii. 
Bill Stevenson ....................................................................................................................................... 7 
B. Spring 2016 Transfer (Component EPM; EFFA EPM) .................................................................................... 7 
viii. 
Stacey Lysik .......................................................................................................................................... 9 
ix. 
Brad Reigel ................................................................................................................................................ 9 
C. SWE Failure Analysis Team (2016) .................................................................................................................. 9 
x. 
Shandra Rica & Evan Buyze ................................................................................................................... 10 
3. 
HARDWARE ENGINEERING ............................................................................................................................ 12 
D. Mac Systems Quality (2017-Current) .............................................................................................................. 12 
xi. 
David Powers .......................................................................................................................................... 12 
xii. 
Jason Ivan ............................................................................................................................................ 17 
E. Product Systems Quality (2017-Current) ......................................................................................................... 18 
xiii. 
Dan West ............................................................................................................................................. 19 
xiv. 
John Basanese ..................................................................................................................................... 22 
xv. 
Reed Johnson ...................................................................................................................................... 23 
4. 
ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................................................................. 23 
F. Human Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 23 
xvi. 
Helen Polkes ....................................................................................................................................... 23 
G. Employee Relations ......................................................................................................................................... 24 
xvii. 
Overall ................................................................................................................................................. 24 
xviii. 
Jenna Waibel ....................................................................................................................................... 25 
xix. 
Ekelemchi Okpo .................................................................................................................................. 28 
H. Apple Real Estate Environment, Health, & Safety ......................................................................................... 29 
xx. 
Overall ................................................................................................................................................. 29 
xxi. 
Michael Steiger ................................................................................................................................... 31 
5. 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ..................................................................................................................................... 33 
I. Finance & Audit Committee ............................................................................................................................. 33 
xxii. 
Ronald Sugar ....................................................................................................................................... 33 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 28 of 713
(28 of 713), Page 28 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 2 of 34 
 
 
1. Summary of Concerns 
 
Concerns  
- Date range of incidents: 2015 to Current  
- Individuals to be investigated, by organization:  
§ Software Engineering: Venkat Memula; Brad Reigel; Rob Marini; Aron Talburt; Shandra Rica; 
Evan Buyze; Stacey Lysik; Bodhi Gerfen 
§ Hardware Engineering: Dan West; David Powers; John Basansese; Jason Ivan; Reed Johnson 
§ Human Resources / People Team: Kristen Michalak; Helen Polkes 
§ Employee Relations: Jenna Waibel; Ekelemchi Okpo  
§ Environment Health & Safety: Michael Steiger; Antone Jain 
§ Legal: Deborah Goldsmith  
§ Board of Directors: Ronald Sugar  
- Concerns Raised (DRAFT):  
§ Hostile work env based on sex (2015-current) 
§ Hostile work env based on disability (2020-current) 
§ Failure to resolve hostile work environment (2015-current) 
§ Sexual harassment (2015, 2018, 2019) 
§ Civil assault & battery (2015) 
§ False imprisonment (2015-6) 
§ Negligence & battery (2017-2020) 
§ Civil assault (2021) 
§ Quid pro quo / bribe (2015) 
§ Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (2015, 2021) 
§ Bullying (2015-2016, 2021) 
§ ADA & FMLA violations (2020-2021) 
§ Unsafe work conditions (2017-current) 
§ Toxic tort, occupational exposure (2017-current) 
§ Violation of OSHA laws & Right to Know statute (2017-current) 
§ Failure to report workplace injuries (2017, 2019)  
§ Failure to seek medical attention for life threatening injury (2017)  
§ Retaliation for whistleblowing (2016, 2020, 2021)  
§ Retaliation for protected concerted activities (2020-2021) 
§ Retaliatory constructive termination (2015, 2016, 2016, 2021) 
§ RICO (Unknown-current) Misrepresentation & fraud; Racketeering; Organized witness 
tampering; Organized intimidation; Corporate corruption; Cronyism & nepotism  
 
Workers Compensation Claims:  
- Chemical Exposure (# 302174831070001) 
§ Filed: 4/26/2021; Dated: 12/4/2019 
- Peanut Allergy, Anaphylaxis, & Failure to Provide Medical Treatment (# 302179876420001) 
§ Filed: 8/20/2021; Dated: 10/6/2017 
- Severe Pertussis due to above Anaphylaxis (# 3021 7987 5030 001) 
§ Filed: 8/20/2021; Dated: 10/3/2017 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 29 of 713
(29 of 713), Page 29 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 3 of 34 
 
Disability Claim 
-  Chemical Exposure (# 302048282250-0001) 
§ 2020 
 
Protected Activities & Whistleblowing: 
- Aug 5, 2021: Planned for weeks to go to the office this day to get my computer with more evidence. I 
told ER several times. Was then “removed from the workplace” by ER on 8/4.  
- Aug 3-4, 2021: working with colleagues to collect evidence of building floor cracks and EHS activities 
in order to understand safety risk. Notified ER of this. 
- Aug 3, 2021: posted in Remote Work Adv reminder that nothing in Apple’s policies “should be 
interpreted as restricting your right to speak freely bout your wages, hours, or working conditions.” 
Added angel & microphone emoji and said “Friendly reminder” while citing Apple’s own 
polices/quotes. 
- July 2021: escalated concerns one of our PSQ employees was bragging about smuggling iPods into 
Syria and running a side business transporting people across the Syria/Lebanon border. Complained 
about general lawlessness in my org. 
- July 26, 2021: post in Women in SWE slack about employment relations concerns – asking if anyone 
else had issues with ER’s handling of complaints, or if they even feel comfortable reporting issues? 
Lots of responses. 
- July 30, 2021: Tweeted me too about EAP & medical leave in response to hostile work env, and ADA 
accommodations in response to unsafe work conditions 
- July 23-34, 2021: Quoted in NYT with concerns about safety risk in Apple bringing us back on stie 
with COVID, next date was sleected as quote of the day. 
- July 19, 2021: raise concerns in Apple Slack Language-Matters about Dave & Dan saying “open 
kimono” all the time and never stopping when I ask them to. Let ER know. 
- July 16, 2021: My Sedgwick/Apple accommodation follow up question form is shared on Twitter in 
protest of how invasive it is. I told Cher she could share it publicly after expressing my own frustration 
and the responding eruption on Slack about it. I also shared the ER Medical Release form I had concerns 
about on Slack earlier this week and it appears that form or one like it was referenced in The Verge 
article about Apple’s poor behavior around disabilities yesterday. The Verge writer also retweeted my 
chemical exposure follow up question form too. I told ER, “I’m glad public pressure might influence 
Apple to correct & improve its employee policies.” 
- June 14, 2021, I email Tim & Deirdre about Remote Work Advocacy and share a letter, video, survey 
results, and letter signatures.  
- May 20-21 2021, I sent email to Dave, Dan, HR, & ER about concerns Apple not speaking up in 
support of Palestinians and Muslims; Helen replies not really addressing my concerns. I reply to 
Helen, Dave, & Dan and re-iterate my concerns and further elaborate my concerns around Muslim 
inclusion with the recent news of Uyghur forced labor; Helen replies actually addressing this time and 
lets me know I&D is looking into the whole situation and I’m welcome to talk to them. 
- In April 2021, Jenna Waibel investigated David Powers for a creating a hostile work env based on 
gender and disability & Rob Yepez for sexual harassment. 
- April 2021, field workers comp complaint for chemical exposure and notified managers, HR, ER, & 
EHS. 
- April 2021, notified Federal EPA of my concerns about my office building & Apple’s oversight of it. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 30 of 713
(30 of 713), Page 30 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 4 of 34 
 
- Starting in March 2021 and continuing to present day, raised safety concerns around my building and 
workplace to my engineering leadership, Environmental Health and Safety (EHS), employee 
relations, Apple University, HR, and I&D. 
- Dec 2020/Jan 2021: Raised concerns about Apple entering into a private contract to obtain expediated 
access to COVID-19 vaccines for employees & their families, per Dan Riccio All Hands comments 
(recorded on video). My interpretation was confirmed, but was told Apple will not do that, although 
an exec mentioned there were still some ethical concerns about smaller Apple activities around 
COVID testing & treatments. Dan Riccio was demoted ~1 month after my concerns were rasied, 
escalated, and confirmed. 
- Summer 2019: Intern in Apple Legal.  Main project was organizing and leading discussions 
with internal, cross-functional Artificial Intelligence engineering leaders around AI ethics and social 
responsibility. Synthesized research and discussion findings and distilled best practices for ongoing 
policy discussions with Legal, Government Affairs, Engineering, and other internal groups. Also 
researched several software legal topics, synthesized findings, and drove discussions with partner 
teams — which led to new process and strategy. Drafted, reviewed, revised, and/or analyzed several 
contracts including software license agreements and third-party asset licenses.  
- In June 2021, you assisted the Remote Work Advocacy (RWA) Slack channel with drafting a letter 
and creating a video addressed and sent to Tim Cook and Deirdre O’Brien in response to Apple’s 
Hybrid Working Pilot.  
 
2. Software Engineering 
 
A. iOS Release Management Team (2015-2016) 
 
Software Engineering: 
 
i. Brad Reigel 
 
- Concerns: Hostile work env based on sex; bullying; intimidation; retaliation; drinking at work; 
possession of weapons at work; constructive termination; IIED; assault; battery  
- Examples:  
§ Bullets, knives, gunpowder weapons, threats of violence (I’m going to smack you), locking me 
in conf rooms to yell at me, calling me names (fat, idiot, stupid).  
§ Escalated to Venkat Memula on going. When Linda was leaving, Rob said I was going to get re-
orged under Brad but that he was going to report to Venkat because he also didn’t want to work 
for Brad, but laughed that I would have to. Venkat did force me to work for Brad even when I 
told him I’d have to quit if he did that. Venkat told me it was my job to help Brad become a better 
manager & person. 
§ Flipped me off a lot & told me to fuck off 
§ Rob & Venkat told me Brad was awful to me because I reminded him of an ex-wife he hates. 
§ Brad closed the “Make Ashley’s Life a Living Hell” Radar after I was re-orged under him. 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; HR personnel file 
- Witnesses: Chris Markham, Serita McPherson, Garth Corral  
 
ii. Rob Marini  
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 31 of 713
(31 of 713), Page 31 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 5 of 34 
 
- Concerns: Hostile work env based on sex; bullying; intimidation; retaliation; drinking at work; IIED; 
assault; battery  
- Examples:  
§ Marini created a Radar called “Make Ashley’s Life a Living Hell,” and assigned it to Brad. 
§ Marini told you that it was his mission to make you quit 
§ Within the first month of joining the team, Marini told you that you should have been aborted. 
§ Marini told me Neela said the team shouldn’t hire me because I’m a “tattooed floozy and the 
boys just want to flirt with me.” Venkat confirmed and said he “lost her feedback” on purpose. 
She apologized later.  
- Evidence:  
§ Box folder including emails & photos; HR personnel file  
§ Marini reached out 7/27 for first time in months/years to “check in” after I posed in Women-of-
SWE slack channel about extensive ER investigation. 
- Witnesses: Chris Markham, Serita McPherson, Garth Corral  
 
iii. Rob Marini, Aron Talburt, & Brad Reigel (aka “RAB”) 
 
- Concerns: Hostile work env based on sex; bullying; intimidation; retaliation; drinking at work; 
IIED; assault; battery  
- Examples:  
§ Constant drinking in the office, during work hours.  
§ Attacking me with dodgeballs & nerf guns even though I told them I have PTSD. At one point, 
surprise attacked me to make me scream, recorded my scream, re-mixed it and sent it to the 
entire team while I cried. 
§  You stated that you reported this behavior to your skip level manager, Venkat Memula, and 
you said that his advice was for you to replace their alcohol with food color and water (you 
informed me that Reigel, Marini and Talburt kept alcohol in their workspaces). 
§ Aron looking at rifle specs (pic) 
§ Memula, Reigel, Marini & Talburt came up with nicknames for you, and wrote them down on a 
white board at work including: stupid millennial, professor fun sucker, master of the universe of 
suck, etc.  
§ Frequent late night texts bullying me calling me names, calling other people names, talking about 
violence & death  
§ Forced to drink tequila at a work offsite (Giants game) purchased by and pressured by Marini 
and Memula. Got sick and threw up and had to leave early. Had said I didn’t want to drink 
numerous times. Vorrath and Michallik were present with us (see photos).   
§ Someone created a fake Linkedln profile of you to harass you. 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; HR personnel file 
- Witnesses: Chris Markham, Serita McPherson, Garth Corral 
 
 
iv. Linda Keshishoglou 
 
- Concerns: Hostile work env based on sex; quid pro quo; bribe; failure to resolve hostile work 
environment  
- Examples:  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 32 of 713
(32 of 713), Page 32 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 6 of 34 
 
§ You mentioned that Keshishoglou did not include you in emails, group text, and strategy 
meetings, but she included your male colleagues (Marini, Talburt, Reigel). 
§ You stated that Keshishoglou provided no explanation as to why she excluded you from strategy 
meetings, group text, emails, etc. 
§ You mentioned that you made Michallik, Memula, Reigel, Talburt and Marini aware of your 
concerns that Keshishoglou excluded you from strategy meetings, group text, emails, etc. In 
September 2015, you received your first performance review at Apple (6 months in role) as an 
ICT3. You told me that Keshishoglou gave you $100K in Restricted Stock Unit (RSU) grants 
when the max guideline for your role was $60K. You also believe that you should have been 
rated as “too new to rate”.   
§ You shared that during the same performance review conversation, Keshishoglou asked you to 
tell Memula that she was a good manager.  
§ You believe that Keshishoglou asked you to do this in exchange for the compensation you 
received. 
§ You shared that you reported this concern with Keshishoglou to Michallik on September 25, 
2015 and to Memula on September 29, 2015. 
- Evidence:  Box folder including emails & photos; HR personnel file 
- Witnesses: Chris Markham, Serita McPherson, Garth Corral  
 
v. Venkat Memula  
 
- Concerns: Hostile work env based on sex; failure to resolve hostile work environment; constructive 
termination, intimidation; bullying; forced drinking  
- Examples:  
§ You mentioned that Memula was often drunk at work, and you heard that his leader, Kim 
Vorrath, told him that he was not allowed to have alcohol in his office. 
§ You mentioned that Memula would snuggle up on you while drunk, whisper to you, and say 
things that made no sense. (Evidence: see photograph of during one instance with documentation 
of his “phases” of drunkness on whiteboard including these behaviors, then following photo of 
him “crucifying” himself upon said whiteboard writing.) 
§ You mentioned that at the end of your interviews for the role on Haley’s team, you were not 
offered the position due to Stacey & Brad’s feedback. Venkat confirm in email that it was not 
fair. You stated that Vorrath offered you a different role as Engineering Program Manager (EPM) 
for Early Field Failure Analysis (EFFA), and you informed Venkat that you didn’t want the role.  
You shared that if you didn’t accept the EFFA role, then you had no other option but quit or stay 
in the hostile work env. 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; HR personnel file 
- Witnesses: Chris Markham, Serita McPherson, Garth Corral  
 
 
vi. Bodhi Gerfen 
 
- Concerns: Sexual Harassment  
- Examples:  
§ You mentioned that after you joined Apple, you heard that during your on-site interview, Bodhi 
Gerfen saw you and said something about your ass, and things he wanted to do to your ass. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 33 of 713
(33 of 713), Page 33 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 7 of 34 
 
§ You stated that in 2015, Gerfen texted you in the middle of the night talking about your body, 
your Tinder profile, etc. (see Box folders). You told him to stop and he would not. 
§ You told me that you reported this text incident to Andie Andragna, your manager, Linda 
Keshishoglou , Reigel, Marini, and Memula. 
§ You mentioned that you did not report this text incident to the People team because you believe 
that based on an unrelated matter that you shared with me, reporting concerns to the People team 
was frowned upon. 
- Evidence: Box folder including photos; HR personnel file 
- Witnesses: Rob Marini, Brad Reigel  
 
 
vii. Bill Stevenson  
 
- Concerns: Sexual Harassment  
- Examples:  
§ You told me that Bill Stevenson was notorious for sexually harassing people, and it was well 
known that Stevenson was inappropriate with you. 
§ You weren’t able to provide specific examples when Stevenson sexually harassed you, but you 
asked that I speak with Debbie McDaniel who you said witnessed Stevenson’s behavior towards 
you. 
§ You stated that Memula and Keshishoglou were aware of Bill’s behavior. 
§ Bill sent photo of him building massive amounts of fireworks in the desert. “the sky doesn’t know 
what’s coming” he said 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails; HR personnel file 
- Witnesses: Debbie McDaniel; Rob Marini, Brad Reigel, Aron Talburt, Venkat Memula  
 
 
B. Spring 2016 Transfer (Component EPM; EFFA EPM) 
 
Component EPM Interviewing Time Line (as documented to ER and Venkat, and Venakt confirmed) 
-  Mid-January 2016: Several people reach out to me noticing I seem unhappy doing build EPM work 
and suggest considering other options, one of which is Haley’s team. Based on my previous PM 
experience and the work I’ve done at Apple, the person pushes that I set up an informational with 
Haley to think about the future, even though she doesn’t have any open reqs 
- Friday 1/29: I set up an informational with Haley and it goes really well. The team seems right up my 
alley. She also mentions she has a new req opening up. I tell her I’m interested. She says if I tell Brad 
- she’ll set up interviews. I tell her I will, and that I’ll have to discuss with Stacey too. Brad complains 
he’s going to set up a new req. I told him I don’t even have the job yet. He said “whatever, of course 
you do”. 
- Tuesday 2/2: I find time with Stacey to ask her opinion of the opportunity (since she’s previously 
given me career advice / mentorship) and she tells me it would be a great fit, that she loves Haley, 
and I’d do well in that role. She tells me to tell Brad and go for it. I find Brad and tell him - he’s very 
supportive and gives his blessing. He also says I’d do well in that role. I let Haley know and she says 
she’ll get the interviews set up. 
- Tuesday 2/9: First round of interviews for Haley’s team. Carina, Josh R, Jury. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 34 of 713
(34 of 713), Page 34 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 8 of 34 
 
- Wednesday 2/10: Stacey runs into me at the VG6 cafeteria and tells me she wants to talk to me about 
interviewing for her team. Later at our 1:1 she tells me even though the role with Haley is a good fit, 
she’d love to keep me in the watch program. If it’s a Component EPM I want to be, then I should be 
on her team to keep the program together. She tells me it would be under a new manager (to be 
promoted) and she’d like to set up interviews before she goes on vacation. I tell her I’m still very 
excited about the opportunity on Haley’s team, but that I’m happy to interview for her team too if 
that’s what she wants. She tells me she’ll set up interviews with the manager, Kevin, and maybe 
someone else the next week and then she’ll make her decision when she’s back from vacation. I let 
Brad know that day. He gives his blessing again. 
- Thursdays 2/11 Second (maybe final) round of interviews for Haley’s team. Ramsey T, Olivier 
Bonnet, Andre Boule, Haley, Bethany. I’m told by Haley that per Stacey I’m not going to be given a 
“yes” or “no” on the role in Haley’s team until Stacey makes her decision about me joining the watch 
team. I proactively reach out to the new manager on Stacey’s team (Kelsey) to learn more about the 
role to help in my decision making. We casually discuss for ~15min. It doesn’t seem like a good fit 
for me. 
- Monday 2/15-2/19: Stacey’s on vacation. No interview are set up. No word from Stacey. I meet with 
Carina to learn more about the iOS teams, the tools, things to start studying up if it’s “yes”. 
- Monday 2/22: Watch doesn’t feel right. I decide to tell Stacey so I don’t waste her or Kevin’s time. 
Per Bethany & Haley’s offer, I set up 1:1s with them to ask more questions about the role and org. It 
really feels right. Haley says we should sync up end of the week, and that she’s going to reach out to 
Brad for feedback as part of the potential transition. She mentions Stacey gave her feedback that I 
saw no sometimes when I should always say yes (no additional detail). Haley tells me all of the 
interview feedback was positive. 
- Tuesday 2/23: I find 5min to talk to Stacey and let her know I'm going to pass on her role. I thank her 
for the interest but tell her I think Haley’s team is a better fit for me and I don’t think she should set 
up interviews for me to join watch. She tells me she agrees that Haley’s team is a better fit and I’ll do 
well there. She tells me she’ll tell Haley so I can proceed with the process in iOS. She seems fine. I 
text Haley and give her a head’s up on the outcome and that Stacey will be reaching out  I find Brad 
and warn him Halie will be coming his way. He says he already talked to her and told her I’m great 
but also provided some feedback. He tells me what the feedback was: 
§ 1) I don’t have experience speaking in front of execs (although he has no evidence for this other 
than not physically witnessing it himself) 
§ 2) I don't have the experience to troubleshoot complicated issues (although he has no examples, 
and claims later it’s only something I can improve on, not an issue) 
- I warn Brad those items sound very negative. He claims they weren't and Halie was fine and I’ll still 
get the job. I asked him to follow up to make sure, and he tells me I’m over reacting and it’s a done 
deal. 
- Wednesday 2/24:  Brad tells me he’s starting talking transition timing with Haley and Venkat. Venkat 
wants to keep me on the build team to WWDC, but they’re working through the details. 
- Friday 2/25  I email Haley seeing if she has an update. She says she’s meeting with Stacey at 4:30 
and will have an update after. - There was no update. I assume the worst. 
- Wednesday 3/2 I meet with Venkat at 4:30 and he share's the news I didn’t get the job on Haley’s 
team because: - 1) I don't have experience speaking in front of execs 
§ 1) I don’t have enough experience to deep dive, understand, drive resolutions 
§ 2) I say no sometimes 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 35 of 713
(35 of 713), Page 35 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 9 of 34 
 
Note: Brad & Shandra both expected I’d still get the job. Shandra said about the feedback “Its not 
terrible feedback though so I’d just wait and see if it comes up, don’t force any issues. Have to have 
faith that Haley has also made her own assessment of you.”  
 
viii. Stacey Lysik  
 
- Concerns: Retaliation, Intimidation  
- Examples:  
§ See timeline above  
- Evidence:  
§ Box folder including emails; HR personnel file 
§ 8/4 email from Aaron Morris (previous Apple EPM, now ARM director) saying “Stacey was 
working against you as long as 4 years ago while I was on the team. She took steps to harm your 
advancement. She did the same to Tara.” & also “You were wonderful to work with, and I hope 
that you see great successes in the future.” 
§ Box folder including emails & photos 
- Witnesses: Haley Samale, Kristin Mcalik 
 
ix. Brad Reigel  
 
- Concerns: Retaliation 
- Examples:  
§ See timeline above  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; HR personnel file 
- Witnesses: Haley Samale, Kristin Michallik 
 
 
 
C. SWE Failure Analysis Team (2016) 
  
Role:  
- Managed the Software Engineering failure analysis program for products in the field (“EFFA” & 
“QIF” for iPhone, iPad, iPod, Mac, and Apple TV) and launch planning for New Product Introduction 
(N69, J127/J128, D1x, & J79/J80g).  
- Drove field issue triage and root cause analysis to resolution for customer software quality issues. 
Partnered with hardware teams when software or firmware updates were needed to mitigate silicon 
or component issues.  
- Helped engineering teams understand customer facing issues. Presented engineering root cause and 
corrective actions to executives. Facilitated failure analysis communication between the Software 
Engineering organization and all other Apple organizations (i.e. Marketing, AppleCare, Hardware 
Engineering, Supply Chain/Operations, etc.)  
 
 
Projects:  
- iPhone Throttling: (battery failures)  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 36 of 713
(36 of 713), Page 36 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 10 of 34 
 
§ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/11/18/apple-settles-batterygate-lawsuit-for-
113-million/? sh=d65802958f51  
§ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/15/apple-throttling-lawsuit-preliminary-approval/  
§ https://www.ksla.com/2020/11/18/la-receive-m-apple-iphone-performance-throttling-lawsuit/  
§ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-sorry-iphone-battery-slowdown-ios-update-official/  
§ https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/10/17/apple-hit-with-new-iphone-throttling-class-action-in-
california  
- iPhone 7 No Service: (silicon failure) 
§ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-fix-the-iphone-7-no-service-status-flaw/ - 
§ https://support.apple.com/iphone-7-no-service  
- iPad 2 Error 56: (silicon failure) 
§ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ios-9-3-3-bricked-ipad-air-2-with-error-56.1983418/ 
§ https://www.macrumors.com/2016/05/16/ios-9-3-2-bricking-some-9-7-ipad-pros/ 
§ https://www.theregister.com/2016/03/23/ios_93_update_bricks_ipad_2s 
§ https://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/05/17/ipad-pro-error-56  
- MacBookPro Graphics Corruption: (numerous software issues) 
§ https://www.macrumors.com/2016/12/02/new-macbook-pro-graphics-issues/  
§ https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7771375  
§ https://9to5mac.com/2016/12/07/apple-believes-2016-macbook-pro-graphics-issues-are-
addressed-in- macos-10-12-2-update-according-to-craig-federighi-email/  
 
x. Shandra Rica & Evan Buyze  
 
- Concerns: Retaliation; Intimidation; Constructive Termination 
- Examples:  
§ EO: In 2016, Apple allegedly had products in the field (iPhones) with bad batteries. You shared 
that you gave Jeff Williams an update on field issues and the meeting went well. After your 
meeting with Williams, you felt that you were thrown under the bus by your skip level manager, 
Shandra Rica, and your manager, Evan Buyze, because they failed to update the leadership team 
on field issues. You told me that you didn’t have work assignments for 3 months after this 
incident, and your responsibilities were taken away. As a result, you believe that this was 
constructive discharge and you raised your concerns to Michallik on December 7, 2016. 
§ Ashley Dec 7 2016 write up to HR:  
§ 12/5/16: I get back from vacation and Evan texts me not to talk to anyone or do any work 
until I meet with them at 2pm. Meeting with Shandra & Evan starts. They ask me how 
my vacation was. Then Shandra says before they start with “feedback”, she wanted to ask 
me if I still wanted to be in this role. She says my answer will change the direction of the 
rest of the conversation. I tell her I’m always considering other options and thinking 
about my long term goals, and have been wondering if it might be time to start exploring 
other options - but I haven’t been actively looking. She says something like “great, so 
you are ready to move on, this make the rest of this conversation easier”. Then she says 
“let’s get into the feedback”. She tells me “it’s not working”. She says while all the other 
orgs (AppleCare, Product Quality, etc) love me, the image of the EFFA program within 
SW is not good. She says our house is a mess, and we’re in a lot of trouble. They tell me I 
was overcommunicating and working too hard, it and set an unrealistic expectation 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 37 of 713
(37 of 713), Page 37 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 11 of 34 
 
because they couldn’t cover for me while I was out because “everyone was mad at them.” 
They frequently referenced the Jeff Williams prez.  
§ I asked what next steps were. Shandra said she and Evan will now be the DRIs so they 
can repair the SWE relationships and build the role for sustainability. She told me since I 
was ready to move on, I can focus on informationals and looking for a new role. I asked 
if I should still be attending meetings or supporting them, and they said I shouldn’t attend 
meetings or provide updates outside of SWE. They said we’d follow up later this week 
(meeting 2pm 12/8) to discuss next steps. I told them the feedback during the meeting 
seemed overwhelmingly negative and I wanted to gauge what kind of summary they 
planned to provide hiring managers about my time in the role. Evan exclaimed “you need 
to be able to take feedback.” I told him, I am listening to the feedback - I’m just trying to 
understand what message they’re planning to provide. Evan said “it will be fair and 
balanced”. Then Shandra suggested that it would be best if I volunteer this role “didn’t 
work out for me” so we can all agree on that. I told her I’d take that suggestion into 
consideration, but was hesitant to say that when I feel like I accomplished a lot of 
positive things in the last eight months. She told me she thought saying “it didn’t work 
out” would be best. I said that again this feels like a very negative meeting, and I was 
wondering if there’s a timeline on this transition because this feels like a development 
plan/HR type conversation. Shandra told me there was no timeline and it’s not an HR 
conversation yet, because I’m agreeing “to leave the role” they “won’t have to start that 
conversation”. 
§ The meeting ended with Shandra advising me not to complain to people about having to 
move on, because she doesn’t like “shit talking”. I’m instructed to forward any open 
asks/questions to them, and to not answer them myself - and to re-direct any new asks to 
them instead of me. 
§ I ask HR: If Shandra & Evan didn't know what issues were important, why didn't they ask 
me? If Shandra & Evan wanted to gate certain decisions, why didn't they ever say that? 
If info needed to be shared internally, why didn't they agree do that when it was prompted 
by me? If info shouldn't be shared externally, why didn't we ever discuss those 
limitations? If timely issue resolution and communication was creating “unrealistic 
expectations of SW support”, why was that never brought up previously? And why do 
Shandra and Evan feel that resolving major customer software issues and helping 
AppleCare support those customers isn’t something software should be an active partner 
on? If I hadn’t said I was open to moving on, if Shandra would have tried to (or 
threatened to) put me on a development plan with HR like she insinuated.  
§ 2/5/16 5pm: following the Mac EFFA exec review, Shandra tells the EFFA teams (AppleCare, 
Ops, etc) that I no longer work on EFFA and she will now be the DRI  
§ Met with HR (Kristin) numerous times about this  
§ Evan announced new role under David & Dan at 7:04pm on the Friday of my last day, many 
people comment on how that was seen as a final bullying of me 
§ Evan tried to put negative unfounded comments on my review. He tried to say I had teamwork 
issues when the only issue was with Brad Reigel (see all the above) and I had 13 “outstanding / 
exceeds contribution” out of 15 in my peer feedback that year. HR made him fix the review 
feedback & remove the negativity as she saw it as retaliation (this was during the constructive 
term).  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 38 of 713
(38 of 713), Page 38 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 12 of 34 
 
§ Evan kept one thing I didn’t agree with and I added a comment stating that but then Evan 
demanded I remove my comment. I protested. HR texted me “if he doesn’t agree with your 
comments he should discuss this with you. If the concern is different of opinion, at the end of 
the day he should accept them.” 
§ They also apparently constructively terminated Paula Leuzzi & John Perry  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; HR personnel files  
- Witnesses: Jeff Laberge, Jack Horan, Priya Balasubramanian,  
 
 
3. Hardware Engineering 
 
D. Mac Systems Quality (2017-Current) 
 
xi. David Powers 
 
- Concerns: Hostile work env based on sex; harassment; bullying  
- Examples:  
§ Aggressive & does not take feedback well. From 2020 feedback:  
§ “Dave still struggles to receive feedback, even though he says he wants it, he often snaps 
back or only hears the parts where he feels he’s in the right, and then ignores the rest. As 
part of the EPM role conversation, we talked in depth about his propensity to change his 
mind, not communicate in a timely fashion, etc. and he told me it was on me to call him 
out when he does that. I told him I’ve had mixed luck with that in the past, and sometimes 
he just snaps and shuts me down. He said if he does that, I should call him out on that too. 
I believed he meant it, but didn’t see that working out well. And indeed, even a week after 
that conversation it happened again... he was asking me why I wasn’t at a MSQ automation 
meeting series and I explained I didn’t think I was required since I had been focusing on 
PSQ communications & employee engagement and I have such limited time in the office, 
that I thought I could just focus on that. And he snapped something at me like “any meeting 
I invite you do, you need to consider yourself mandatory.” And I tried reasoning with him 
again that the meeting didn’t seem to have anything to do with me, and he said something 
akin to “I’m your manager, do what I say.” But then after I attended that meeting the next 
week and told him again that nothing about it was relevant to what I was working on it, he 
was like, yeah you’re right, you can be optional. So he got there eventually... but he was 
quite snappish at the beginning. If he puts the responsibility on me to call him out, he needs 
to temper his snapping. It’s not fair for me to have to talk him down while also taking a 
lashing from him. Additionally, when he does react ok to feedback initially, it’s common 
for him to later turn that feedback against me and make it feedback for me, not for him.” 
§ Thanks men for my work, frequently. They rarely correct him. See 2020 feedback:  
§ “I’ve called him out on not giving me credit (and worse, giving the men credit for my 
work) numerous times, and as recently as last week. For my first project back from leave 
last week he asked me to prepare a MSQ roadshow deck for the SEG VP in just a few 
days. I was only working two days to start, but because he really wanted to be able to 
present the next Monday, I focused nearly entirely on that to make it happen for him. I put 
together the overall format and structure, a dozen slides introducing the org and showing 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 39 of 713
(39 of 713), Page 39 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 13 of 34 
 
photos of labs & automation, and I also incorporated some content from Jason, & got the 
managers to input data for their teams. During Staff, Dave introduced the slides they were 
all working on as “Jason’s” slides — despite me having spent my first two days back in 
the office after four months off, working heads down on this critical slide deck for him. 
When I called him out on it after the meeting, and he had no real explanation why he did 
it, and said he’d think about it. “ 
§ Hand Me Down Hardware project (see 2020 feedback to Dan about Dave) 
§ One of the biggest drivers for me looking for my next role, probably equal to the lack of 
role definition & focus, is how quickly he throws me under the bus with the MSQ managers 
& his PSQ peers. Last year, I briefly mentioned an incident with Reed and Dave’s poor 
handling of it — but this event, despite me being disrespected by Reed & Dave, somehow 
ended up being a piece of feedback for *me* to improve on, including formally 
documented in my last annual review. Dave’s handling of this issue was so backwards, I 
knew it wasn’t good for my mental health to continue in this role any longer. I didn’t want 
to have to go in depth on this, even when I was so mad last year, but I think I have to now...  
§ 1 -Background: I created a brand new program, on my own initiative, to address feedback 
identified in the Mac QA gaps slide deck we created for the VPs a while back. One of the 
biggest gaps causing field issues was that SW wasn’t getting their HW allocations in a 
timely fashion and there was 1-2month gap after ship where they didn’t have devices to 
test, while on the flip side MSQ was done testing and was actively scrapping the devices 
that SW needed. So I worked with these SW directors & senior directors and created a way 
for us to transfer the HW we’d otherwise be scrapping to the teams who need it the most 
(those teams specifically identified in that gap exercise — (Sarcone, McCracken, etc.) I 
shared the idea with Yuan, John, & Reed to see if they had extra HW they were scrapping 
that they could also share. Reed immediately took issue with the program for the sole 
reason that he wanted to upgrade his teams admin machines and thought he should take 
precedence over SW. I explained the catalyst for the program (real world field issues 
caused by lack of HW to test on), but he persisted that his team was more important (he 
admitted he was being selfish, but said he didn’t care). We talked about this several times 
and I made it clear that my program wasn’t for admin machines, it was to address QA gaps.  
§ 2- The Conflict: A couple weeks later, I’m sitting in MSQ Staff and hear Pete ask Dave 
something about this program and the “pass down from extended staff” and Dave tells him 
to send an email with the “new process.” I’m like, hello, that’s my program, what are you 
talking  
§ about? Dave informs me that at extended staff it was decided to prioritize PSQ admin 
machines before SW. I ask him point blank if Reed initiated that, and he said: yes. I was 
furious and I wanted to let Dave know. He’s not great with interpersonal interactions or 
conflict— so I wanted to ensure he understood how upset I was about the situation, so it 
stuck with him. I check my facts first.... I asked another person to confirm that Dave did 
say it was Reed, and they confirmed. I asked another person, sharing the whole story, if I 
should be so mad at Reed & Dave, and they’re like omg yes. So I talked to Dave. I told 
him Reed purposely undermined me and he supported him in doing so. I told him he should 
have handled Reed’s request by saying something like “Well that’s Ashley’s project and 
she’s not here, so let’s talk to her after the meeting.” At the VERY LEAST, I told Dave he 
should have directly informed me of what happened instead of having a passing 
conversation with Pete in front of me. During this first conversation, Dave took all this 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 40 of 713
(40 of 713), Page 40 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 14 of 34 
 
feedback and apologized. I also texted Reed and let him know I just heard what happened, 
and asked him to please not go behind my back and if he wants to provide input on my 
projects, to please work with me directly or at least wait until I’m in the room. Reed just 
claimed to be updating the SW on his phone and turned off his iMessage with me for like 
2 weeks (I think he blocked me?)  
§ 3- The Aftermath: The next week, Dave told me Reed complained to him that I confronted 
Reed on what Reed did. At this point, Dave went into protective mode and completely 
threw me under the bus. He told me I should never confront his peers, and that I didn’t 
even have the data and Reed wasn’t the one who said anything at that meeting. I told Dave 
that he told me directly Reed was the one, and at least one other person heard him say that 
— but then he snapped at me and told me he never said that. Then he started (mis-)quoting 
a Women of PSQ speaker at me and told me that if I had slept on it and woke up the next 
morning before acting, that I wouldn’t be upset anymore. He said I was being too 
emotional, and if I has stopped to think I wouldn’t have been aggressive towards Reed. I 
told him that 1) it was offensive he’s using loaded gender terminology on me (emotional, 
aggressive) 2) if he was trying to appeal to me as a woman by quoting a woman giving 
advice, he missed it by misrepresenting her message 3) he’s getting the situation backwards 
— the only reason we were talking about this was because I was so deeply offended and 
felt so dis-respected by him & Reed, but now somehow this is turning into feedback on 
me.  
§ 4- Beating a Dead Horse: My “inability to control my emotions” & my “attack on Reed” 
became continuous feedback points during my mid-year reviews and a few other convos. 
The first few times I became so upset (because I felt even more unseen and unheard, since 
Dave completely ignored my initial feedback and then turned it against me) that I would 
start to getting really sad when he brought it up. One of these times, I had just gotten back 
from the doctor and my feet were actively bleeding after a surgery and I had to prop them 
up on a chair while we were talking to control the bleeding (and he knew that)— and he 
still decided to dig into this again... and I lost it, and started crying. Then he started saying 
that I can’t take feedback (based solely on this pt). So the next few times I’d just stare at a 
spot on a wall behind him and try to zone out and not respond at all in hopes he’d drop it, 
but then he started saying I wasn’t listening and I still can’t take feedback. He also decided 
to use these convos to stress to me that if any of his peers in PSQ or other orgs disrespect 
me, that I should never stand up for myself and I should only bring it to him to decide if I 
should be upset and if so he’ll decide what we should do to address it, and he’ll be the one 
to address  it. Like, I don’t know how to underline how offensive this was. I hope it’s clear 
by the plain meaning of the text and doesn’t even need an explanation. And again, this 
becomes even more atrocious when you consider I’m the only women in MSQ mgmt, and 
one of the only women in the PSQ “managers.” Being told you’re not allowed to stand up 
for yourself if the men do or say anything disrespectful to you, seems like its probably on 
one of those “things not to do” trainings HR does on gender discrimination. And this issue 
wasn’t a one time thing.... John did something quite offensive & manipulative last January, 
and Dave told me I wasn’t even allowed to tell anyone what he did (let alone talk to him 
about it).  
§ Told me I’m not allowed to tell anyone about Jason making Koka quit, or any of the male leader 
being mean to me. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 41 of 713
(41 of 713), Page 41 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 15 of 34 
 
§ Dave continually uses the term “open kimono” and refused to stop whenever I protested. Also 
made me explain why its inappropriate each time. 
§ Frequently attacking me whenever I try to get him to follow NPS procedures & rules. See 2020 
feedback:  
§ “Dave still struggles with security and confidentiality rules and procedure. Not only does 
he outright resist &/or forget it exists, but he still gives me criticism when I try to ensure 
we follow the rules provided from NPS, etc. This came up again last year with the issue I 
raised to you about Jane/ Megan & the very secret project. I thought I got him back on the 
rails, but looking at my emails from when I was gone, he went back and did it again, despite 
explicit instructions from NPS to not do what he did. I’ve explained to him that EPMs are 
expected to always be the adults in the room, and that I will be held accountable for his 
actions around secrecy if I’m aware of what he’s doing. He still pushes back on me and 
appears angry when I bring it up.” 
§ 4/8 - After telling Dave numerous times I’ve suffering from severe PTSD from getting sick last 
year and “barely hanging on” he texts me and asks me to lead a huge project for a completely 
different org, dotted-line reporting to a SWE director who sexually harassed me in 2019 (which 
Dave knows about).  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; 
- Witnesses: Jane Markham, Mike Ertell, Simon Moen, Megan Gaates  
 
- Concerns: Hostile work env based on disability  
- Examples:  
§ 4/8 - After telling Dave numerous times I’ve suffering from severe PTSD from getting sick last 
year and “barely hanging on” he texts me and asks me to lead a huge project for a completely 
different org, dotted-line reporting to a SWE director who sexually harassed me in 2019 (which 
Dave knows about).  
§ 4/13 - I notify Jenna of Dave violating my 2020 “return to work” medical accommodations and 
also giving him feedback about thanking men publicly for my work  
§ 5/10 - I notify Dave I need to take sick time for a heart issue and for side effects from chemical 
exposure treatment  
§ 6/28 - 1:1 with Dave where he makes the inappropriate I&D comments & acts hostile towards 
me  
§ 6/28 - I express concern to Helen about Dave making inappropriate and possibly sexist comments 
about an I&D project I’m working on  
§ You stated that around August 2020, Powers told you that it was hard to write your review 
because you were “sick so much”. 
§ You stated that when you inquired about working remotely, Powers told you that remote work is 
“not a thing”, and that you must return on-site if EHS says that the building is safe. 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos 
- Witnesses: Helen Polkes, Jane Markam, Megan Gates  
 
- Concerns: Failure to resolve hostile work env  
- Examples:  
§ You mentioned that you shared your concerns with Powers about how Ivan treats you, but you 
don’t believe Powers has done anything about it. Powers told you to smile, stay calm and keep a 
straight face when men treat you bad at work.  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 42 of 713
(42 of 713), Page 42 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 16 of 34 
 
§ You shared that you told Powers and West about Ivan's behavior, and they laughed and 
mentioned that Ivan made another woman quit (Koka), and that you shouldn’t tell anyone about 
it.  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; 
- Witnesses: Dan West; Bhavna  
 
- Concerns: Intimidation to not speak about unsafe work conditions  
- Examples:  
§ 3/22- 1:1 with my manager, Dave Powers. Dave told me I’m not allowed talk to anyone other 
than him, EH&S, and Jenna about my safety concerns about Stewart or even tell anyone it’s a 
Superfund site. He said he didn’t want his team to “know” because they’d be “upset." He also 
gave me feedback about an I&D training I was hosting, that “I was being too hard on the white 
man.” He also told me this all as employee feedback and said it’s only a “warning" because of 
my “mental health.”  
§ Continually asked him to help with EHS due to my concerns about safety & he refused  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos 
- Witnesses: Mike Ertell, Jane Markham  
 
- Concerns: Retaliation & Constructive Termination    
- Examples:  
§ 6/10 - My first 1:1 back with Dave after leave & the investigation. He makes it clear he doesn’t 
think he did anything wrong and it was just me overreacting / misinterpreting. “You mentioned 
that after Waibel completed her investigation on June 10, 2021, Powers told you that there was 
no reason for him to receive coaching, and the focus was now on you to change yourself.” 
§ 6/10 - I notify Jenna what Dave said during that 1:1  
§ 6/10 - I then meet with Jenna and she tells me the only other steps are to “complain about her to 
her manager, but I’m not allowed to discuss any details of the investigation” and to “escalate 
safety concerns to EHS.” 
§ 6/10 me to Jenna, Heads up in case you want to follow up on this at all before we talk — I just 
had my first 1:1 with Dave after being out. Dave made it clear he doesn’t think he did anything 
wrong at all, related to managing me or his interactions with me. He also said he didn’t get any 
coaching.  He definitely steering the conversation to insinuate that I was making baseless claims. 
He did encourage me to escalate issues to ER whenever I think I need too — but then again, 
mentioned that the focus is now just on me changing myself so I can continue to do my job. I 
was clear with him that the concerns raised were about gender discrimination, sexism, and hostile 
work env — and that I think he and Dan have perpetrated those things. I also told him I expected, 
based on my convo with you last week, there would be changes to his behavior based on the 
“coaching” you mentioned, but he said none of that happened. I told him I’m very concerned.  I 
also asked him about Stewart 1 & safety (that I don’t feel it’s safe to return to that building) — 
but he said if EHS said it’s safe, I have to come back. I told him again my concerns about EHS 
and the history of the building, and the lack of testing. After asking him numerous times, he 
finally agreed to ask Helen if there’s another building I can work in. I asked him if we can request 
that I fully work remotely and he said “that’s not a thing.” I told him it is, it’s even on the remote 
FAQs, and that I might meet the rare exception because my job doesn’t actually require me to be 
on site at all. He fought it a bunch but then after I asked a bunch of times he said he’d ask Helen 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 43 of 713
(43 of 713), Page 43 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 17 of 34 
 
about that too. He seemed very unhappy about the last two weeks and our call today. I’m 
expecting my work relations with him to now get even more unpleasant. 
§ 6/21 - 1:1 with Dave and I ask to work remotely and he tells me its not a thing. Finally he agrees 
to ask Helen, but then says Helen said no. Later Helen said he never asked her and he needs to 
ask Dan instead. (He lied to me) 
§ You also believe that Powers is retaliating against you by assigning you work that is a substantial 
increase from your previous responsibilities, and five new large assignments are deeply 
unfavorable. 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos 
- Witnesses: Mike Ertell, Jane Markham, Monu Mathur  
 
xii. Jason Ivan  
 
- Concerns: Hostile work env based on sex; bullying  
- Examples:  
§ 2018 review feedback,  
§ “At times, Jason can come across as aggressive, and brash. I've had experiences with him 
the last few months where my work related requests or questions have been met with 
negative emotional responses that either are dismissive of my request or show frustration 
that I'm even asking, and often lack any data or real reasoning why. Jason has also 
"attacked" some of my ideas, even during meetings with the larger team - without 
concrete reasons on why he feels things aren't working, and refuses to provide proposals 
for solutions, and often is hesitant to take such conversations "offline" when in front of a 
large group. (Example: two weeks ago during Weekly Status when he started 
complaining that the color status key is "broken", and thus the whole "process is broken" 
- but refused to offer any other data or any solutions).  
§ Jason has mentioned things to me that make it appear he doesn't see me as a peer to him. 
When I've asked him about his goals for the MSQ EPM role (me), he has expressed a 
desire that my focus be a type of "Tier 2" lead in his org (essentially dotted line reporting 
under his managers, Matt & Jeremy), and helping with tasks his leads (Eric, Chris, Philip, 
etc.) cannot complete or that he doesn't feel they're skilled/networked enough to 
complete. He has also expressed dismay whenever I pass down information from Dave, 
and has told me it makes "his job harder" to not get information from Dave directly - but 
couldn't give me any data beyond that on why his "job is harder". He also is often 
reluctant (even to a confrontational point) to take any guidance from me about hw project 
mgmt strategy or even general process/program strategy. It is very difficult for me to be 
able to provide guidance, feedback, and strategy when Jason doesn't appear to view me as 
in a role where I should be giving it (or that it not meaningful guidance, feedback, or 
strategy). If I'm going to continue to support the HW projects from even a high level/ 
program standpoint, I really need to have Jason take me seriously.  
§ Jason often shows reluctance to changing processes or approaches, even if the 
technology/situation is changing in a way that it's required to take a different approach. 
Jason also sometimes immediately declines requests for new projects/work from his 
team, without taking a moment to consider if the request is warranted. (Examples: Jason 
was reluctant to adjust the J137 test plan, even though this project is "big & new" enough 
to warrant a new approach - and he probably should have known that pro-actively 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 44 of 713
(44 of 713), Page 44 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 18 of 34 
 
considering his experience here. Jason has been reluctant to provide weekly PSQ Exec 
J137 quality updates "this early", even though the project is high risk enough to warrant 
providing regular exec updates.  
§ Jason can come across as very controlling and negative at times, especially if he feels 
something I'm working on is "under his jurisdiction." He will try to order me to do things 
or not do things. (Example: a few weeks ago I wanted to change the wording in some of 
the headers on the email, and mentioned it to him, and he ordered me not to change 
anything but wouldn't give me any reasoning why other than "we've changed enough". I 
believe even though the "Best Status at Apple" is my project, because the status is for 
HW projects he was trying to exert some control over me/the process).  
§ Jason has recently been very dismissive of my accomplishments. He's made seemingly 
bizarre statements about new projects I'm start, claiming none of them are new and he's 
done some version of them himself at some point in the past (even when no one else 
agrees thats the case). He also gets extremely defensive if anyone suggests I'm "helping 
him" in any way. (Example: while working on the Compatibility Module project, Jason 
was extremely persistent that the requirements he had provided Brian were all that Brian 
needed to build the tool, and the project meetings were only to ensure Brian follows 
through - when in reality Jason had provided incomplete project requirements that had 
also changed several time with unclear communication to the tools team.) (Example: 
when I kicked off the J160 strategy meetings, if anyone mentioned that this was a "new 
thing" I was doing, Jason quickly jumped in that it was not new and he's always done 
this).  
§ Bahvana Koka previously worked for Dan West and had very very similar concerns with Ivan. 
She asked West to resolve the hostile work env and West did not. West also told her, like me, 
it’s her fault and relationship issue, and she shouldn’t stand up for herself.  
§ I expressed concern over months that Jason wasn’t interviewing / hiring enough women for his 
open reqs and the reasons he provided sounded sexist & vague. David Powers refused to 
intervene. Latest concern was moving to offer for Rajesh Kartha despite Jason saying Lauren as 
a great fit but would try to get her to take a lead role instead of manager. When I looked them 
up, Rajesh is currently an IC and Lauren is currently a manger. Powers said he’d talk to Ivan 
but I don’t think he ever did, it looks like Ivan is still offering to Kartha, and stopped publishing 
hiring status after I rasied concerns.  
§ Expressed concerns when Nirupa Balamurugan was hired on Ivan’s team that I wasn’t on 
interview panel and neither was Monu. Also Nirupa was never told she was the first female 
manager in MSQ in a decade and she was upset when she learned that upon joining.  
§ You mentioned that Ivan has attacked some of your ideas during meetings without concrete 
reasons as to why he disagrees with you. You also told me that Ivan refuses to provide proposals 
or solutions for his concerns. 
§ You believe that Ivan does not talk to or treat men the same way he treated you and Koka.  
§ Ivan said he does not see you as a peer. 
§ Frequently attacking me whenever I try to get him to follow NPS procedures & rules.  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos 
- Witnesses: Bhavana Koka, David Powers, Dan West 
 
 
E. Product Systems Quality (2017-Current) 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 45 of 713
(45 of 713), Page 45 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 19 of 34 
 
 
xiii. Dan West 
 
- DW Concern 1: Hostile work env based on sex 
- Examples:  
§ You told me that at an all hands meeting in 2017, West talked about diversity, and said that we 
didn’t have a lot of women leaders in the organization because women don’t want to be leaders 
and they are not ready to be leaders. You told me that West went on to state that the business will 
bring in female interns, and have males mentor them to become leaders. 
§ You mentioned that you complained to West about naming team social events “beer bash”. You 
shared that West’s leadership team is all male and the term “beer bash" is masculine. ◦ You told 
me that male Indian coworkers and women mentioned that they felt excluded by the term “beer 
bash”. 
§ You stated that in 2019, West shared a screenshot of his text messages with Steve Rozmus with 
you.You told me that the screenshot shows a picture Rozmus took of you in the “confidential” 
bin. Rozmus forwarded the picture to West, and West’s response to Rozmus was “she is not 
confidential, she should be in the blue bin.” 
§ You stated that in October 2020, Nordine Kadri’s “How I Got Here” article included a logo about 
gender equality, and the woman on the logo looked naked. You escalated to West, and he told 
you to “assume good intent”.   
§ You mentioned that you were never invited to West’s extended staff meetings even though he 
assigns most of your work directly to you. 
§ 5/8/2018 Dan told a story when he was supposed to present on something but Yannick switched 
him out and had Dan’s direct present instead — and Dan said he was mad until Yannick told him 
that Apple will probably get sued about whatever it was and that the direct can take the fall instead 
of Dan. Dan asked to delete this video. 
§ On more note on Dan and I need to find documentation of it — he on several occasions responded 
to me giving him feedback that upset him with, “I guess sometimes when you invite dogs on the 
couch you get fleas.”  
§ Frequently attacking me whenever I try to get him to follow NPS procedures & rules.  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos 
- Witnesses:  
 
- DW Concern 2: Negligence, failure to report work place injuries, failure to seek medical attention, 
obstruction of justice  
- Examples:  
§ When I was at the final Apple party at the Grace Hopper Convention in 2017, Dan West 
approached me and gave me a desert and told me to eat it. I asked him what was in it and he just 
said to eat it. I asked again, and again he said, just eat it. I took a bite and said “is there peanut in 
this??!” And he smiled and said proudly, “yes!” I yelled at him that I have a peanut allergy (I 
was fairly certain I told him that previously too). He just stared at me. I told him I need allergy 
medicine ASAP and I spit the peanut gelato back into the cup. He said he’d get some and 
disappeared. I started having symptoms of anaphylaxis and hadn’t heard from him for about 
15min so I tracked him down and he said he was drunk and forgot he was supposed to get me 
medicine. He said he’d go get it and be back. About maybe 45min after the peanut intake he 
finally showed up with a single Allegra-type allergy pill. I took it but it was too late and I told 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 46 of 713
(46 of 713), Page 46 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 20 of 34 
 
him I was having severe symptoms. He disappeared and I never saw him again that night. Another 
EPM looked after me at the party for a little bit but I felt so sick I wanted to go back to my room 
and lay down. I got lost walking through the hotel alone, circling for maybe an hour, and when I 
finally got to my room I puked my guts out in the bathroom and fell asleep on the marble floor 
there. Dan never followed up or reported it. I told Dave when I got back and Dave said he just 
sent a joking text to Dan complaining he was trying to “kill his EPM.” I saw him text it, so if 
they both have their iMessage records from that time, it should still be there. Further, I contracted 
Pertussis/whooping cough during the flight to that conference and ended up getting a full-blown 
case for the full 100 days despite being fully vaccinated. The theory from the doctors was that I 
got so sick because while the Pertussis was taking hold, I also got so sick from the peanut allergy 
via Dan. In addition to standard Pertussis symptoms like coughing so hard I’d vomit every 20 
min or so for months — I also bruised my ribs coughing and got bronchitis. 
§ May 2018 Fireside Chat video, Kai feedback (and recorded): At some point, when Dan was 
sharing a story where he felt excluded that Yannick asked Dan’s direct instead of Dan to present 
at a meeting. Later on, Dan found out that Yannick did it partially due to protecting Dan as that 
meeting was involved with possibility of Apple being sued. This implicitly implies that it is OK 
to expense Dan’s direct, even Yannick out of good intention wanted to protect Dan.   
- Evidence: Box; emails; Workers Comp claim 
§ Peanut Allergy, Anaphylaxis, & Failure to Provide Medical Treatment (# 302179876420001), 
Filed: 8/20/2021; Dated: 10/6/2017 
§ Severe Pertussis due to above Anaphylaxis (# 3021 7987 5030 001), Filed: 8/20/2021; Dated: 
10/3/2017 
- Witnesses: Shikha Pandey, Heidi Zhang, and Marina Sadini 
 
- DW Concern 3: Failure to resolve hostile work env  
- Examples:  
§ 4/9 - I met with Dan West and told him that Dave prohibited me from speaking about safety 
concerns at work and told Jenna I talked to Dan as well — I ask him to talk to Jenna about Stewart 
1. I also tell Dave that I can’t work for Dave any more and document my ask to him to “think about 
solutions for DP situation.”  
§ 4/14 - I email Dan and tell him I want to report to him or John, and go to a 4-work day schedule — 
otherwise I’ll quit his org. I mentioned again specifically my 2020 review feedback about Dave I 
sent him and working for Dave “is TERRIBLE for my mental health.”  
§ 4/29 - I talked to Dan West and notify him of the ER investigation into Dave, the workers comp 
claim, and the discussions I’m having with EH&S about Stewart 1. I also tell him about Jenna 
pressuring me not to speak openly about workplace safety concerns and ask him to help. I also ask 
him to follow up with Dave about the “no equal outcomes” comment because Dave refuses to 
follow up with his team on it. I expressed concerns again that Dave was creating a hostile work env 
that was severely detrimental to my mental health and asked him what can be done. I asked if he 
reviewed my review feedback about Dave from 2020 (Helen send you that document) and he said 
he did but “it wasn’t actionable” and I’m just “hot & cold about Dave.” I asked him if he had 
thought more about my request to report to him or another one of his directs (not Dave) and he said 
I can’t report to him. I asked why, he said “no more re-orgs.” I said, but my role is already more 
than half supporting you directly. He said no. I said, what about another direct, he said no. He 
wouldn’t give me an explanation. I told him I will likely have to leave PSQ or Apple if he doesn’t 
response the issue, and he said that’s fine. I asked what he will do with my role if I leave and he 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 47 of 713
(47 of 713), Page 47 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 21 of 34 
 
said he’d cancel the EPM role, that “its an experiment that didn’t work out,” and convert it to 
engineering headcount. Dan did say that Dave needed to follow up on the “no equal outcomes” 
dogwhistle-type comment and that he’d talk to him about it. 
§ You told me that Kai Yun left West’s organization because of how she was treated, and West did 
nothing about it.Yun’s team was responsible for high quality Macs with high tech monitors. You 
believe that Yun’s responsibilities were reassigned to a white male outside of West’s 
organization.You believe that West, Basanese and Powers made the decision to reassign the work. 
§ You shared that on April 29, 2021, you told West that you could no longer work for Powers, and to 
reorganize your role so that you can report directly to him. You mentioned that West told you that 
from an organizational structure standpoint, it made no sense for you to report to him. You also told 
me that during the same conversation, West told you to quit Apple. You shared that West has since 
stopped meeting with you, and has reassigned your job responsibilities to others. 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos 
- Witnesses:  
 
- DW Concern 4: Sexual harassment; pimping & pandering with receipt of indirect benefits  
- Examples:  
§ 5/8/2018  You shared that during a meeting, West made a “spanking” gesture with his hand to 
describe how you “keep him in line”. Dan asked to delete this video. 
§ I was eating out at a Michelin star restaurant in Mt View in winter of 2017. It was a restaurant Dan 
insisted I try several times, so when I sat down I texted him that I looked forward to the meal. I 
didn’t realize before that Dan West and Yannick Bertolus (Dan’s boss, our VP) are very very good 
friends with the head Chef of the restaurant. As soon as I texted Dan, he replied right away and 
within maybe 10min the Chef came out to greet me personally as a friend of Dan and was bringing 
out special dishes I didn’t ask for. He also came out to talk to me mid-way and was telling me very 
personal stuff about Yannick. About 1/2 way through the dinner the Chef and Dan both told me 
they were trying to set me up with the Sous Chef at the restaurant, Andrew. Apparently they told 
Andrew the same thing. Andrew was 24, ten years my junior. I expressed no interest in Andrew or 
dating him — but they persisted. Dan also told the head Chef he would pay my entire bill, and he 
did. I protested strongly to both the Chef and Dan and told the Chef to reject Dan’s payment and I 
would pay myself, but they wouldn’t let me. They both also continued to send the Sous Chef out to 
wait on me instead of the waiter and pressured both of us to exchange numbers. It’s was humiliating. 
I’ve met Dan’s wife & daughter a couple times and they were/are both aware of this night and say 
it’s is a running topic in the household of how weird and inappropriate it was of Dan to do that.  
§ Ashley texted Dan in Dec after the dinner and told him she’s dating a professor now and need sto 
turn down the sous chef and Dan said “I’m not even a little concerned. Regarding Andrew – to bad 
it didn’t work out, but there was absolutely no pressure from me. I don’t know him too well. Just 
learn and move on.”  
§ Ashley was supposed to go to her office on Aug 5 to retrieve the laptop with the texts send during 
that night at the restaurant, but ER put me on leave and removed me from the “workplace” on 8/4 
before I could & they knew I was planning on it. 
§ You told me that in March 2021, West’s daughter gave you a ride to Stanford, and during the car 
ride she told you that they still talk at home about how bizarre the restaurant incident was.  
§ You mentioned that in 2020, West made a comment in Slack that Powers will unbutton the top 3 
buttons of his shirt during the next all hands meeting. You told me that when you addressed West 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 48 of 713
(48 of 713), Page 48 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 22 of 34 
 
about his comment, he said he didn't want to sleep with Powers so it wasn’t a problem. He then 
inferred you were only offended because he thought you wanted to sleep with Powers.  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos 
- Witnesses:  
 
- DW Concern 5: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) 
- Examples:  
§ You told me that while you were out on leave due to exposure to chemicals at your apartment, a 
lawyer emailed you and warned you about potential physical violence from the Irvine company 
because they are known for retaliation. You forwarded the email to West, and he told you to send 
it to his personal email address because his work email account is routinely scanned for lawsuits. 
You told me that West was aware of your mental state at that time, including your fear of physical 
violence from the Irvine company. 
§ 5/21 - I notify Dan West that EH&S said they won’t answer anymore of my questions about VI.  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos 
- Witnesses: David Powers  
 
- DW Concern 6: Retaliation & Constructive Termination  
- Examples:  
§ 5/6 - I notify Jenna that in MSQ staff meeting they mention Helen & Dan are worried about attrition 
and that managers need to be mindful with communication and if someone is thinking about leaving 
to recommend other options to retain them and say that directly conflicts with Dan telling me he 
doesn’t care if I quit apple because of the hostile work env with Dave.  
§ 5/6 — Dan offers to Daniel that he can work on / take over my roles for How I Got Here & From 
the Desk of Articles  
§ 5/18 - Dan staff meeting where he apparently reduced my ownership of the How I Got Here articles 
to only PSQ and appears to have given Daniel the overall project  
§ 7/8 - I find out from Yuan that Dan appears to have re-assigned one of my projects without telling 
me. You own the "How Did I Get Here” articles for West’s org, and Daniel Carr is now involved 
with this assignment. You told me that West is no longer involving you in projects such as the 
“Listening Session” project. 
§ When I reported the reassignment of work to David Powers he said he had no idea and would look 
into it ASAP and let me know but never did. 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; emails  
- Witnesses: Megan Gates, Jane Markam, Daniel Carr, Helen Polkes; Scott Lilly; David Powers 
 
 
xiv. John Basanese 
 
- Concern: Hostile work env based on sex  
- Examples:  
§ You mentioned that after a 2018 Fireside Chat event for Women of PSQ, Basanese received 
written feedback for talking about someone’s body size and posture in a way that sounded like it 
was a disadvantage.  
§ Suggesting that people should hug co-workers who are honest with them. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 49 of 713
(49 of 713), Page 49 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 23 of 34 
 
§ John told Dave I told him (john) that Dave didn’t like David Taylor in order to get a response 
from Dave Powers. Dave Powers asked me if I actually said it and I said no and David Powers 
said he believed me but forbid me from telling anyone John said that or confronting John. 
§ You stated that in 2017/2018, Basanese told you that at your age, you needed to be married with 
children. You told me that at holiday functions, Basenese made comments like “where is your 
partner?, don’t you have a boyfriend?, settle down and have kids.” You mentioned that you told 
Bassanese to stop, but he wouldn’t, so you escalated to West. You stated that Basanese once 
made this comment at the Caffe at work while West was present.  
§ When talking about  
- Evidence: Box including Fireside Chat Video 
- Witnesses: Dan West, Monu Mathur 
 
xv. Reed Johnson  
 
- Concerns: Intimidation, Undermining  
- Examples: See the Hand Me Down HW feedback to Dan about Dave in my 2020 feedback. Reed did 
apologize 10/12/18: “Hey, no worries. I just wanted to make sure Dave didn’t think I was sabotaging 
the HW reuse program. To be honest, the whole conversation in Dan’s staff meeting was quick and 
didn’t seem to have any negative impact. Hope more people use the list in the future.” 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; emails 
- Witnesses: Monu Mathur, Kai Yun, Pete Richardson, Bhava Avula  
 
 
4. Administration  
 
F. Human Resources 
 
xvi. Helen Polkes 
 
- Concern: Hostile work env based on disability; retaliation; intimidation to not speak about unsafe work 
conditions  
- Examples:  
§ 4/13 - I notify Helen about the ER investigation into Dave and my concerns about Stewart 1 
§ 4/20 - Helen Polkes urged me to file a workers comp claim for my 2019 fainting spell in Stewart 1 
that I now believe to be likely caused by vapor intrusion in the building (she basically insisted — 
she pushed me at least three times to file it). 
§ 4/21 - I noticed Jenna, Dan, Dave, & Helen of the workers comp claim being filed  
§ You believe that Polkes may be retaliating against you because of the work you’ve done in support 
of the RWA Slack channel. You mentioned that on June 30, 2021, you asked Polkes about working 
remotely, and she said “oh, did you see Deirdre’s video?”. Polkes was referring to a video in which 
O’Brien clarified Apple’s Hybrid Working Pilot You told me that when you asked Polkes about 
accommodations for remote work, she said “it sounds like you believe you have a disability and we 
would need to review it.” Finally, you believe that your involvement with the RWA Slack channel 
may have influenced how Polkes is treating you because she has not been supportive or helpful 
with your request for remote work. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 50 of 713
(50 of 713), Page 50 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 24 of 34 
 
§ 6/28 - I express concern to Helen about Dave making inappropriate and possibly sexist comments 
about an I&D project I’m working on  
§ 6/20 - 1:1 with Helen where she makes the aggressive comments about remote work and role 
definition 
§ 7/7 – “Helen said the previous “telecommuting” request process doesn’t exist anymore in HWE 
after Deirdre’s video last month” 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; emails 
- Witnesses: You know what y’all did 
 
 
G. Employee Relations  
 
xvii. 
Overall 
 
- Concerns: RICO; Organized Intimidation; Organized Witness Tampering; Retaliation  
- Examples:  
§ 7/28 me to ER: The Slack chain we talked about yesterday & today: 
https://a1391194.slack.com/archives/CK1KDPQCF/p1627328464228400 Not even including 
DMs.... I don’t seem to be the only employee subject to sexism, hostile work environment, 
harassment, and retaliation — who has received no real help from HR or ER in resolving the 
issue. (Yes I know you’re looking into things now — but Jenna made things worse for me, and 
so far y’all have done nothing to mitigate the harm I’m experiencing ongoing). There seems to 
be a growing group of us with very horrific stories to tell , who have tried to tell these stories, 
and have gotten no where at Apple. As mentioned before, this is incredibly disappointing and 
unacceptable to me. Not just for my own situation — but also that women are being treated like 
this by their coworkers and ignored by HR/ER at a company that likes to pretend it cares about 
human rights, inclusion, diversity, and respect. Pretends seems to be the important word there. 
§ Me to ER/HR 7/30: This ADA Remote Work request was suggested by Apple ER in response 
to me raising concerns about the safety of my workplace. My office is an active EPA 
Superfund site with a long history of indoor air vapor intrusion with industrial chemicals above 
max industrial limits for human safety — and also a long history of Apple not actually 
testing/monitoring the air quality to ensure employee safety. I filed a workers comp claim for a 
fainting spell in 2019 that I believe was due to the chemicals in the air there. EH&S refused to 
answer many of my questions about the building and their procedures, and now has refused to 
answer any more of my questions about it all. However, before shutting me down, EH&S 
recently noted there’s cracks in the floor of the building (which is exactly how vapor intrusion 
can get into the indoor air) but is refusing to test the air before the fix the cracks. Due to my 
whistleblowing, the Federal EPA is now involved and sounds like met with them this week. My 
doctor is working on the paper work you mentioned but we’re both struggling to mentally 
process the fact that I have to fill out such invasive and intimidating paperwork to literally just 
not get poisoned. I’ve shared these concerns with ER as well — Antonio Lagares is overseeing 
my sexism & hostile work environment investigation, and his team was also playing PR agent 
for EH&S Also, FYI, these Sedgwick forms for this accommodation were Tweeted out by a 
coworker, who is a disability rights advocate, a couple weeks ago — and I also talking to NYT 
about this whole debacle ongoing. NYT quoted me last week about my concerns about another 
workplace safety issue — what I feel is inadequate safety protocols & policies around COVID 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 51 of 713
(51 of 713), Page 51 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 25 of 34 
 
exposure for employees being forced back into the office this fall in the midst of a global 
pandemic. 
§ 8/2 me to ER/HR: My doctor faxed his response to Sedgwick’s follow up questions to them 
today. Attaching for you below since I assume you’ll ask them for it anyway. Note: the 
questions about whether an air purifier could mitigate Superfund vapor intrusion (so severe that 
a land use covenant with the government prohibits elder care and day care on site) was 
particularly offensive, but so is the fact itself that you’re forcing me to release medical info & 
fill out forms to not be poisoned. 
§ 8/4: First ever lunch w/ Dan announced for Women of PSQ group on 8/16 & 9/13, shortly after 
my articles come out, with HR present. During 8/16, Dan bemoans how he now sympathizes 
with  other “metoo accused” men 
§ ~8/6: PSQ managers start bringing up “Ashley Issue” in staff meetings and route anyone with 
concerns to HR. Mention that Dan plans to disucs the “Ashley Issue” during his Oct all hands.  
§ 8/12: First ever NPS Secrecy & Awareness Training announced for all of PSQ 
- Witnesses: You know what y’all did 
 
xviii. 
Jenna Waibel  
 
- 1st Concern: Conflict of Interest  
- Examples: 
§ 3/29 - Inexplicitly playing public relations for EH&S while concurrently preforming an 
“independent & unbiased sexism investigation”  
§ 4/3 - I email Jenna notifying her of Dave prohibiting me from speaking about workplace safety 
concerns and ask her to talk to him or send me an email I can forward with my rights  
§ 4/3-9 - Jenna doesn’t respond  
§ 4/9 - Jenna then offers to launch a formal investigation into Dave  
§ 4/9 - I tell Jenna no on the formal investigation but ask her to talk with him  
§ 4/12 - Jenna says she’ll talk to Dave  
§ 4/12 - I reiterate my safety concerns about Stewart 1 to Jenna  
§ 7/2 - Jenna tells me EH&S will actually test the air in Stewart 1 now and notifies me of cracks in 
the floor there and the need for “floor sealing” and that they’ll test the air after the floor is fixed  
§ 7/2 - I ask EH&S and Jenna if they can test the air before the floor is fixed, to see if those cracks 
were causing vapor intrusion  
§ 7/2 - I submit ADA Medical Request for remote work due to needing to avoid industrial chemical 
exposure 
§ 7/7 - I meet with EH&S and Jenna and they tell me they won’t test the air before the cracks are 
fixed, they refuse to give me any details about what fixing the cracks entail, and again tell me they 
now won’t answer anymore of my questions. I reiterate I don’t feel safe in that building and I’m 
worried about vapor intrusion and I feel they’re trying to misrepresent the situation internally  
§ 7/7 - I send additional / updated concerns about the safety of Stewart 1 / TRW Microwave to the 
federal EPA  
§ 7/8: meeting notes from me to Jenna & ER: Antone & Michael kept saying this is routine 
maintenance but said this year is also the first time this routine maintenance process is being kicked 
off for Apple buildings on chemical clean-up sites with risks of vapor intrusion. I asked if Apple 
has done this floor-sealing work in other buildings with employees currently working in them and 
I was told “they have done it for two or three buildings." I said I was concerned they were 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 52 of 713
(52 of 713), Page 52 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 26 of 34 
 
misrepresenting the “routine-ness” of this work this year & I asked which buildings they did the 
“routine floor sealing” in previously and Jenna told me “they won’t discuss buildings I’m not in,” 
“won’t answer that question,” and “that level of detail is not appropriate for this call.” EH&S refuses 
to test the indoor air before they seal the vapor intrusion pathways, saying the 2015 results show 
the mitigation was working. I asked if the change of building circumstances (i.e. cracks, holes) 
don’t then need an evaluation to see if there was VI and then confirm the new fixes actually fix it 
— they said no. When the indoor air is eventually tested at some unknown point it will be with 
passive samplers with HVAC on & running as normal, and employees inside working as normal. I 
expressed concerns that HVAC brings in outdoor air and will dilute the air inside — and employees 
working inside can cause their own chemicals releases which can can disturb / comprise the results. 
I also mentioned if the results come back high, then EH&S can then say it was the employees 
causing the chemicals (like they did in 2015 with the unconfirmed "construction” chemicals). 
Michael and Atone say their testing plan is “protocol” and “over and beyond” 
Antone/Michael/Jenna will not answer any of my additional questions, or provide additional 
questions, or provide any guidance around risk & exposure other than “they feel it is safe.” 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; emails 
- Witnesses: You know what y’all did 
 
- 2nd Concern: Intimidation; Retaliation; Misuse of ADA policies  
- Examples:  
§ Me having to fill out the ADA accommodation remote work request to not be poisoned 
§ 4/27 - I have a phone call with Jenna, after asking for another time if she’s talked to Dave about 
telling me I can’t talk openly about workplace safety concerns, and she is extremely hostile and 
essentially also tells me I can’t talk openly about workplace safety concerns. I document our call 
and send clarifying questions to her and Michael. She then says she never said what she said upon 
seeing it documented. During that call I also started crying and pleaded with her to stop the 
investigation because the way it’s going it seems like she’s going to side with my manager and Dan 
and only get me in trouble. She says she can’t cancel and investigation after it begins.  
§ 4/27: me to Jenna, I’d like to state that the original reason I reached out to ER was because of 
comments Dave made to me in my 1:1 with him several weeks ago related to the TRW Microwave 
EPA Superfund site (aka our office building Stewart 1). I’ve captured my concerns in separate 
emails. I know you already talked to him — but I’d like the formal list of concerns to reflect that 
was the original and primary concern. I also let Dan know that was my primary concern on 4/9 and 
he also said he would talk to you about it. 
§ 4/29, me to Jenna, Talked to Dan West today (my bosses boss). He will not move me out from 
under Dave. He will not move me under him (Dan), or John, or anyone else. He says he doesn’t 
want anymore re-orgs. My choices are either I stay under Dave (I told him I cannot do this) or I 
leave the organization or Apple completely. He says he understood this likely means I will leave 
Apple. Dan said when I leave, the role will likely be recycled into a standard Engineer or Manager 
role, and the PSQ EPM role will be dissolved. No timeline was set.  
§ 5/20 - Jenna tells me she will talk to Rob Yepez about my sexual harassment claim and tell him I 
was the one who reported it. I ask her not to and that I dont’ want him to know it was me and ask 
her not to look in to it and she says she will anyways and I can’t stop her. She pressures me to give 
the witnesses name to her despite me raising concerns about her being on an H1B and worried about 
retaliation.  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 53 of 713
(53 of 713), Page 53 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 27 of 34 
 
§ 5/21- Jenna offers me Paid Administrative Leave for two weeks starting 5/24 and I say yes. She 
then tells me I’m not allowed to work at all during that time.  
§ 6/3 - “wrap up call” with Jenna — she says she found no policy violations and the only next steps 
are for me “to process this” and work with Helen on “my path forward.” I send notes after 
documenting all of my ongoing concerns that weren’t addressed — including that it sounds like she 
never reviewed my 2020 feedback about Dave to Dan (she said she had no recollection about one 
of the events)  
§ 6/3 jenna to me email: Thank you for raising your concerns and for your cooperation in this 
investigation. As we discussed, Apple takes employee concerns seriously and I have completed a 
thorough investigation. As part of my process, I reviewed the information and documentation you 
provided me. I also spoke to others who had information relevant to the investigation. Though I 
could not confirm that violation of Apple policies occurred, Apple has taken appropriate action to 
address the findings of the investigation. If, in the future, you have any new concerns and/or 
experience behavior you feel is retaliatory, please contact your Helen or myself immediately. 
§ 6/3 me to Jenna, It was good to hear that based on the concerns I raised and the evidence I provided, 
that there was employee coaching provided to Dan West, David Powers, and some of the men on 
the MSQ Mgmt team (you didn’t provide names). It was also good to hear that employee coaching 
will be provided ongoing for Dave and Dan related to my concerns. I also appreciate you offering 
to look into any future issues related to this that rise to retaliation against me or violations of 
company policy. As mentioned on the phone call today, and documenting here, I do disagree with 
some of the findings. I do feel like some of the issues should have been considered violations of 
policy. I also feel like some issues were not properly investigated (including my 2020 feedback 
about Dave that I sent to Dan, of which you had no memory today of one of the most egregious 
statements). I also feel like the investigation into Rob Yepez’s behavior towards me was closed 
prematurely — as he told me some very specific things that would have been independently 
verifiable (i.e. he told me he chartered a private plane in Santorini to fly out himself and a women 
he was cheating on his wife with after missing their planned flight, etc. — how else would I know 
that if he wasn’t talking to me about how he cheats on his wife). However, I understand that you 
said the investigation is closed and you will not talk to me about any of these specific issues going 
forward. Similarly, I don’t feel like my concerns about workplace safety in Stewart 1 (aka the TRW 
Microwave Superfund site) were adequately investigated (no testing) or resolved (EHS & y’all also 
said you wouldn’t answer any more of my questions about that either). As you directed, I’ll plan to 
return to work virtually on Monday with the status quo of my role and reporting structure, and no 
changes to my role, responsibilities, relationship with Dave or Dan, or anything else. As you 
directed, I’ll reach out to Helen once “I’ve had time to process this” and work with her to help me 
figure out a “path forward.” As mentioned, I’m not sure what Helen would do or what that means. I 
raised my ongoing concerns about workplace safety with Dave and Dan before this two weeks off 
and I’ll continue to work with them to identify a way I can “return to work” in September without 
having to put my health at risk. I also hope EHS will go forward with testing the indoor air in my 
office, despite their last statement that they might not now (despite years of indoor air vapor 
intrusion above max EPA industrial limits, and the latest tests showing Ethylbenzene and Tolulene 
above max EPA industrial limits), and no explanation provided by EHS why they’d decide not to 
do the testing after previously saying they would do it — other than me pointing out gaps and open 
questions about the history of the building and Apple’s oversight of it). I’m also talking to the 
Federal EPA about this concurrently.   
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 54 of 713
(54 of 713), Page 54 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 28 of 34 
 
§ 6/8 - I have to present the I&D training I did to Dan staff even though I asked Dave to do it while I 
was out and asked Jenna if Dave could do it because I don’t feel comfortable marketing our I&D 
training while I’m reporting Dave and a manager (likely Jason) for being sexist 
§ 6/10 - I then meet with Jenna and she tells me the only other steps are to “complain about her to her 
manager, but I’m not allowed to discuss any details of the investigation” and to “escalate safety 
concerns to EHS.” She also suggests I request ADA accommodations for remote work so I don’t 
have to go back to Stewart 1. She tells me “I don’t need a diagnosis, I just need a doctor signature.” 
§ 6/10: “You said you were concerned that Dave was not coached on gender discrimination: as the 
investigation did not find any policy violations, the ongoing support for you and Dave to work 
effectively moving forward is to improve communication between the two of you.”-Jenna  
§ 6/10: “I committed to share your continued concerns with EHS about workplace safety, specifically 
vapor intrusion in Stewart 1, since they are the appropriate parties to respond. Finally, we talked 
about the Accommodation process, in response to your concern about the safety of your building 
with the expectation of returning in September. I advised that now is the right time to begin that 
process to discuss your accommodation request to continue to work remotely, and pursue 
documentation from your physician to support that request. Please see the below form to meet with 
your doctor and begin this process. Since this process can take a while, I recommend we start it 
now to ensure we have plenty of time in the interactive discussion. “ -Jenna  
§ 7/13: Me: When I talked to Tony last week he told me confidently that no medical staff from 
Sedgwick would be getting involved in the request, and Sedgwick would simply contact my doctor 
to confirm he his a doctor and he did sign the paper before approving the request. You might want 
to sync with Tony before you have the Nurse reach out.This was in line with what you originally 
told me at the beginning of this process, when you offered the form — that there doesn’t need to be 
a diagnosis and I only need a doctor signature.I can talk to the nurse if I need to, and I do actually 
have a diagnosis, but it sounds like there’s a disconnect on your approach for this. 
§ 7/13: I refuse to sign that medical release form until it’s revised to say I’m only releasing to 
Sedgwick, not to Apple Inc. 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; emails 
- Witnesses: You know what y’all did. 
 
xix. Ekelemchi Okpo  
 
- 
Concerns: Use of Paid Administrative Leave as a Neg Employment Action; Intimidation; Retaliation   
- 
Examples:  
§ 5/21: Jenna to me: Hi Ashley, Thanks for our call this morning. I’m glad to hear you are feeling 
well supported in this offer of time off. We agreed that you would take administrative leave, 
with full pay and benefits, starting Monday for two weeks, beginning Monday May 24, 2021 
while I look into the concerns you have raised. You will return to work on Monday, June 7, 
2021. We agreed this time will not be formally submitted in a time off system, and will not 
decrease your sick time or paid time off balance. For the next two weeks, we agreed you will 
not do any work. You will post an away message that lets folks know you will be out, but I left 
it to your judgement on what else you say about your time out. During this time off, I 
committed to you that I would continue my review and hope to have findings to share by the 
end of the two week period. We agreed that the best way to reach you is to send you a text 
message on your work number. Other than that, we agreed you would not do any work or 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 55 of 713
(55 of 713), Page 55 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 29 of 34 
 
respond to work emails during this time. You can continue to contact me with additional 
information or questions about my investigation at any time.  
§ 7/27: me to EO & AL: Also as mentioned, I’m still looking for a short-term response to mitigate 
the current hostile work environment I'm experiencing reporting to Dave and Dan and Helen. 
I’ve asked several times now, including today, that all 1:1s with them be in writing only, during 
the duration of this investigation. I also asked that there not be any new projects added to my 
workload during the duration of this investigation, and this is especially important now that my 
manager decided to substantially increase the amount of work I need to do beyond what a single 
role is capable of, and all unfavorable work. I would like for him not to add any new work beyond 
what I had a month ago. I do see his current actions with this workload as retaliation and a 
negative employment action. Also, as I’ve mentioned, I am actively suffering emotional harm as 
I'm continued to be exposed to their behavior. I look forward to hearing about next steps on this. 
Further, as mentioned previously and on going, I am requesting a long term solution to the hostile 
work environment and unsafe work conditions. At this point it is clear my team will not stop the 
sexism, harassment, discrimination, and retaliation — so I need to be removed from this situation. 
As mentioned, I refuse to quit or to take medical leave as a response to the hostility; this is on 
Apple ER to resolve, not for me to hide from. There are two options we’ve discussed. First, a 
new role at Apple that is not a hostile work environment and not in unsafe work conditions (and 
I mentioned that because I will not be at Apple after Dec 31 2022, I cannot find a new role to 
transfer to for such a short period of time, so I need your assistance with placement). The 2nd 
option is an exit package that will compensate me and provide benefits through that time. As 
mentioned this would only be a payment & exit to mitigate the current hostile work environment 
and unsafe work conditions and would not include any litigation/arbitration waiver agreements 
nor any non-disclosure agreements beyond what I’ve already signed as an employee. Any further 
contractual agreements beyond what I’ve already signed would need to be reviewed by my team 
of lawyers and the compensation for each would need to be negotiated by each new specific 
requirement. 
§ 7/16: Antonio adds EO to the investigation  
§ 7/28: me to EO, text: EO refuses to respond about putting exchanges in writing before my 1:1 w/ 
Dave that day, texting EO up to the minute, then I cancel the meeting myself and cc EO  
§ 8/4: Tells me I’m “being put on leave.” Refuses to give me any time of timeline or ETA for 
updates or conclusion. Says I don’t need to check email or work phone at all, but also refuses to 
contact me on my personal accounts. Says I don’t even need to respond to the issue confirmation. 
I ask to continue to use Slack and he says he wants me “removed from work place interactions.” 
I said I wanted the leave to start 8/5, EO said no, starts today/now. I say this feels like a negative 
employment action, and EO essentially says it’s voluntary but I also don’t have a choice.  
§ 8/20 – I asked to attend an apple university class I was previously invited too (and Dean’s Cohen 
& Stout approved me still attending) and EO told me I couldn’t go “because I was on leave.” 
- 
Evidence: Box folder; emails 
- 
Witnesses: You know what y’all did 
 
H. Apple Real Estate Environment, Health, & Safety  
 
xx. Overall 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 56 of 713
(56 of 713), Page 56 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 30 of 34 
 
- Concerns: RICO; Negligence, Misrepresentation; Fraud; Recklessness; Violations of Env Laws; 
OSHA, & Right to Know; Toxic Torts; Corporate Corruption; Organized Intimidation; Organized 
Witness Tampering  
- Examples: 
§ Worker’s compensation claim was denied on May 22, 2021, right before the announcement that 
the Irvine company and Apple signed a long term lease agreement on May 24, 2021. 
§ Apple has many buildings on chemical clean up sites in Santa Clara County, including 
Superfund sites 
§ Apple doesn’t disclose this to employees because it decided its not “legally required” unless 
they have reason to think the employee safety is at risk (see my email notes)  
§ Apple hasn’t been doing indoor air testing to monitor for vapor intrusion, which is exactly how 
they’d know if employee safety is at risk  (see my email notes)  
§ Apple was sued by the CA government for $450k for hazardous waste violations: 
https://dtsc.ca.gov/2016/12/06/apple-agrees-to-pay-450000-to-settle-hazardous-waste-
violations/  
§ Apple said they always do above what the law requires for hazardous waste: "“This matter 
involves an oversight in filing paperwork to close one of our recycling facilities as part of our 
expansion to a larger site,” Apple spokeswoman Alisha Johnson told Reuters in an emailed 
statement. “We’ve worked closely with [the Department of Toxic Substance Control] to ensure 
that going forward we have the proper permits for our current site. As we do with all our 
facilities, we followed our stringent set of health and safety standards, which go well beyond 
legal requirements.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-waste-violations-
idUSKBN13V2HS. Alisha Johnson reports to Lisa Jackson at Apple. 
https://www.bustle.com/life/alisha-johnson-apple-racial-equity-justice-initiative. Lisa was 
former head fo the federal EPA, Alisha used to be press secretary for the federal EPA: 
https://impactclimate.mit.edu/apple/  
§ Federal EPA only responded after I told them about Ronald Sugar, Michael quitting, the cracks 
in the floor, and the press. 
§ I filed a workers compensation claim for fainting in the office in 2019 due to the chemicals (see 
notes). Sedgwick was going to pursue it but the claim was mysteriously claimed on Saturday 
night with a strange voicemail from the investigator and then on monday morning, it was 
announced Apple signed a mega deal with Irvine Company over the weekend for a massive 
amount of office space on chemical clean up sites in Sunnyvale 
§ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/05/24/apple-mega-deal-iphone-maker-huge-
sunnyvale-expansion-real-estate-tech/  
§ https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/05/24/apple-mega-deal-iphone-maker-huge-
sunnyvale-expansion-real-estate-tech/  
§ Me having to fill out the ADA accommodation remote work request to not be poisoned 
§ 7/2, Jenna says: Antone recently shared an update on SD01 that I am also forwarding on his 
behalf: In May we performed step one of a three step process. We did the floor pathway survey, 
checking for cracks and gaps that can build over time due to natural floor movement. Based on 
that, we developed a floor sealing plan. Right now, we are in step two scheduling the floor crack 
sealing work by a contractor (expected within a month according to verbal from the construction 
management team). Once the floor sealing is complete, we will schedule  step three the indoor 
air testing at a TBD date.  When that is done, we will provide you the data. Please let me know 
if you have any questions. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 57 of 713
(57 of 713), Page 57 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 31 of 34 
 
§ 7/8: me to Jenna & EHS: Good luck on your next adventure, Michael! And congrats on your 
promotion / re-org, Antone! I didn’t realize Apple hired an external manager, Robert Thomas, 
two months ago to lead “Global Environmental Compliance!” Does that mean the vapor intrusion 
due diligence is now formally under Real Estate & Development instead of EH&S? Scott’s not 
doing it anymore?  I remember having a phone call with Elizabeth Schmidt in mid-September 
2020 about my chemical exposure at my apartment and the building uphill that Apple previously 
leased for industrial use (it had a groundwater plume flowing in direction of my apartments). She 
had said she led a Real Estate & Development team — I didn’t realize she also had EH&S under 
her as well. Or was that a recent re-org too? [no reply] 
§ 7/16: me: to Tony, As previously discussed at length, I have serious concerns about work place 
safety of my building, and Apple’s other buildings on chemical release sites. At least for my 
building, from what I’ve seen, Apple appears to have been negligent with properly managing the 
vapor intrusion from the three toxic groundwater plumes under the building. Also, as mentioned, 
I believe I have already been injured by the vapor intrusion in 2019 (the workers comp claim I 
filed). The last time we talked, when I mentioned Jenna offered me remote work to satisfy my 
personal concerns about having to go back to an office on chemical release site after what already 
happened there and what happened last to me last year causing the seven months of disability. 
When you and I talked, you reassured me that medical records wouldn’t be requested and that 
Sedgwick wouldn’t do more than simply confirm a doctor said I need an accommodation and 
then would approve. I also expressed concern that my HR Biz Partner Helen already implied my 
request woul d be denied and was bullying me about even requesting it. You said you would talk 
to her and Jenna. I wanted to let you know, Sedgwick sent me this very long list of follow up 
questions this morning for my doctor to answer. They also required me to sign a medical release 
form. As mentioned, I was extremely uncomfortable signing the form Jenna sent me which 
released all my records to “Apple Inc” but Jenna refused to provide a revised form that only said 
Sedgwick. Sedgwick provided me a better form and I did sign it, because she said if I didn’t my 
request couldn’t be processed. Can you please provide some clarity on all this? Does my doctor 
really need to answer all of these questions Sedgwick is asking for? Or is there a way to reign 
this all in and do what you said the process would / should be, and as long as a doctor says I need 
a medical accommodation of full remote work, then that should be approved? 
§ After EH&S notifies me of cracks in the floor, and misrepresents situation during meeting, I 
notify the press & Federal EPA. EH&S, via ER, refuses to tell me what they’re doing or give any 
updates. Also refuses to test the air before they fix the cracks. Meanwhile, I’m working with 
colleagues to gather evidence (pics, air testing) up to the morning of 8/4, and ER knew.  Team 
said EH&S was onsite in our building starting 8/4.  
§ 8/11: EHS Walkthrough  
§ 8/18: EHS Walkthrough and “Assessment”  
§ 8/19: EHS Walkthrough and “Assessment” 
- Evidence: See Box folder, emails, & links above. 
- Witnesses: You know what y’all did 
 
 
xxi. Michael Steiger 
 
- Concerns: Fraud, Misrepresentation, Negligence, Recklessness 
- Examples:  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 58 of 713
(58 of 713), Page 58 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 32 of 34 
 
§ Development plan approved by city in October 2013:  
§ Apple’s haz waste due diligence leader Michael Steiger joined apple in Dec 2013, after being a 
director at EKI:  
§ EKI did the haz waste clean up for Apple Park 
§ Michael Steiger going on medical leave & quitting, major re-org after 
§ 5/17: me to EHS & Jenna: “I have access to all publicly available information about the site per 
the gov websites. The report Michael previously shared should include all details for both May 
& Dec 2015 testing. Unless VI testing is done in the future, no additional data will be shared. If 
VI testing is done in SD01 in the future, the results will be shared with me. There is no timeframe 
for testing for vapor intrusion in Stewart 1. EHS might not test for vapor intrusion in Stewart 1 
this year, or near future — they are looking over the building evaluation report and then will 
make a decision at an unspecified time whether they do VI testing or not. Michael said that as an 
expert, he and EHS have reviewed the data for SD01 and feel there is no Vapor Intrusion 
occurring there and they’ve done what’s necessary to ensure the safety of the building for the 
people working there. (He said this all really quickly, so trying my best to summarize). As for 
the EthylBenzene & Tolulene, Michael said those are not attributable to vapor intrusion in SD01 
because they are not contaminants of concern. And that there was no evidence they exceeded 
OSHA PEL limits in the building. If I have any non-VI chemical questions, can arrange for a 
workplace evaluation by Austin. Michael said would never turn HVAC off and if it someone said 
they did during wildfires, that must be a miscommunication. Questions about land use restrictions 
are questions for the EPA. Any additional questions I have about the specifics of 
soil/groundwater chemicals & vapor intrusion at the site, including my pending questions from 
April, will not be answered by EHS, since EHS has determined they feel confident there is no 
vapor intrusion in the building based on the historical tests and documents. Jenna said I have a 
right to share concerns and talk to anyone about my concerns about the building. She said Apple 
would never restrict my right to speak about work place safety concerns. She said Apple would 
appreciate if I try to keep information accurate and also route people to EHS with questions, but 
not a requirement. 
§ 7/2 Jenna says: I’m sending an iCal for a follow up call next week with EHS. Michael will be 
leaving Apple shortly after our call, so Antone Jain will be joining our call as well to step into 
the conversation in Michael’s place. As Antone is responsible for scheduling some of the next 
steps in the testing we have discussed, he is very knowledgable about the program. “ 
§ 7/8: meeting notes from me to Jenna & ER: Antone & Michael kept saying this is routine 
maintenance but said this year is also the first time this routine maintenance process is being 
kicked off for Apple buildings on chemical clean-up sites with risks of vapor intrusion. I asked 
if Apple has done this floor-sealing work in other buildings with employees currently working 
in them and I was told “they have done it for two or three buildings." I said I was concerned they 
were misrepresenting the “routine-ness” of this work this year & I asked which buildings they 
did the “routine floor sealing” in previously and Jenna told me “they won’t discuss buildings I’m 
not in,” “won’t answer that question,” and “that level of detail is not appropriate for this call.” 
EH&S refuses to test the indoor air before they seal the vapor intrusion pathways, saying the 
2015 results show the mitigation was working. I asked if the change of building circumstances 
(i.e. cracks, holes) don’t then need an evaluation to see if there was VI and then confirm the new 
fixes actually fix it — they said no. When the indoor air is eventually tested at some unknown 
point it will be with passive samplers with HVAC on & running as normal, and employees inside 
working as normal. I expressed concerns that HVAC brings in outdoor air and will dilute the air 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 59 of 713
(59 of 713), Page 59 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 33 of 34 
 
inside — and employees working inside can cause their own chemicals releases which can can 
disturb / comprise the results. I also mentioned if the results come back high, then EH&S can 
then say it was the employees causing the chemicals (like they did in 2015 with the unconfirmed 
"construction” chemicals). Michael and Atone say their testing plan is “protocol” and “over and 
beyond” Antone/Michael/Jenna will not answer any of my additional questions, or provide 
additional questions, or provide any guidance around risk & exposure other than “they feel it is 
safe.” 
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; emails 
- Witnesses: You know what y’all did 
 
 
5. Board of Directors 
 
I. Finance & Audit Committee   
 
xxii. 
Ronald Sugar  
 
- Concerns: Conflict of Interest, Corruption; Fraud  
- Issues:  
§ Ronald Sugar used to be CEO/President of TRW Microwave then Northrup Grumman. 
§ Mr. Sugar is now on the Board of Directors for Apple as chair of the finance & audit committee.  
The committee appears to oversee the finance and oversight of the due diligence programs for 
chemical clean-up site offices, including the TRW Microwave Superfund, which is the office I 
work in. 
§ His previous companies (TRW & NG) caused the contamination that is now being cleaned up 
under my office. My office is designated as the EPA’s “TRW Microwave” Superfund site. (Part 
of the “Triple Site” of 3x Superfund groundwater plumes in Sunnyvale, CA). 
§ Is Sugar overseeing the due diligence program for clean-up, testing, employee complaints, 
finance for this office that his previous company caused the pollution for & is still responsible to 
clean up?  
§ Did he notify the General Counsel of this conflict of interest? 
§ Has he taken any actions that are favorable to NG/TRW and forsake proper safety & protection 
for Apple employees? 
§ I have been reporting safety concerns in that office since March 2021 and have escalated further 
concerns that EH&S has been negligent, reckless, misrepresented their activities, and have 
intimidated me to not speak out about the safety concerns.  
§ The Federal EPA was notified. of my concerns & notified Apple ER & EHS of my contact with 
the gov at that time..  
- Evidence: Box folder including emails & photos; emails: 
§ The Finance & Audit committee 2020 charter includes responsibilities such as:   
§ The purpose of the Committee is to:  1. Assist the Board in oversight and monitoring of:  
compliance with legal, regulatory and public disclosure requirements; the independent 
auditors, including their qualifications and independence; enterprise risk management  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 60 of 713
(60 of 713), Page 60 of 713

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS – ISSUE CONFIRMATION 
Ashley Gjovik | EO Draft v1, with AG rev v2 | 22 Aug 2021 
Page 34 of 34 
 
§ Review with management and the independent auditors any correspondence with 
regulators or governmental agencies and any employee complaints regarding the 
Corporation’s financial statements or accounting policies.  
§ https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_downloads/2020/20200819-Audit-and-
Finance-Committee-Charter.pdf 
§ Guidelines Regarding Director of Conflicts of Interest says 
§ Directors should take all reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest with the corporation.  
§ Any director who becomes aware of an actual or potential conflict of interest with the 
Corporation at any time shall notify the Corp GC promptly in writing of the material facts 
of the actual or potential conflict of interest. 
§ Corporate Governance Guideline say:  
§ The Board expects its directors, as well as officers and employees, to act ethically. 
Directors are expected to adhere to the Corporation’s Business Conduct Policy and the 
Guidelines Regarding Director Conflicts of Interest.  
§ https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_downloads/2020/20200819-Corporate-
Governance-Guidelines.pdf  
§ https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/1158562.pdf 
§ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2010/11/17Ronald-D-Sugar-Joins-Apples-Board-of-
Directors/ 
§ https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=090
1181#bkground 
§ https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/where-are-they-now#trw 
- Witnesses: Business Conduct? Gov Affairs? You know what y’all did 
- Business Conduct Report: Support Request HRC000017207  
-  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 61 of 713
(61 of 713), Page 61 of 713

5  
 
 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT C: MEDICAL RECORDS 
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 62 of 713
(62 of 713), Page 62 of 713

Name: Ashley Gjovik | DOB: 8/26/1986 | MRN: 
 | PCP: 
, MD | Legal Name: Ashley Gjovik
OUTPATIENT NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
Visit Type: Initial assessment/intake
Name: Ashley Gjovik 
Date of Birth: 8/26/1986 
Date of Evaluation: 12/01/23 
Modality of visit: In-person
Reason for referral: Ashley Gjovik  is a 37 y.o., right-handed, White Female who was referred for a 
neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. Chang of Primary Care due to "concomitant ADHD and PTSD
complicating treatment" in the context of toxic exposure to air contaminants. 
Informed consent: Ashley Gjovik provided written consent to complete a neuropsychological evaluation. She 
was informed of the nature and purpose of the evaluation and limits of confidentiality prior to beginning the
evaluation. She was informed that this evaluation is intended for clinical and treatment planning purposes, and
not for legal/forensic use. 
PRESENTING PROBLEM:
Ms. Gjovik presented for neuropsychological assessment for diagnostic re-evaluation given her previous 
diagnosis of ADHD, assessment of her current cognitive functioning given concurrent PTSD and recent toxic 
exposure to air contaminants (industrial solvents), and recommendations for treatment planning. 
Regarding toxic exposure, she reported that she became very ill when she moved into a new apartment in
California in February 2020, with symptoms not explained by other conditions including bradycardia, fainting,
hallucinations upon awakening, and tremors. She underwent extensive medical work-up in 2020-2021 including
Neurology, Endocrine, Urology, Nephrology, Immunology, and Cardiology. Upon conducting her own blood and
urine tests, she deducted that she (and her whole apartment building) were being exposed to phosphine,
arsine, silane, NMP, and toluene, allegedly due to hidden operations of her employer at the time, Apple.
Many of her symptoms resolved after she moved out of the apartment in October 2020. She reported that
she also discovered that she had additional toxic exposures at her workplace from 2017 to 2021 including
trichloroethylene, vinyl fluoride, toluene, ethyl benzene, PCE, and chloroform. She reported the numerous
safety violations she encountered to the EPA and other authorities. She stated that she was ostracized,
harassed, defamed, and surveilled due to her reporting, and was placed on indefinite administrative leave
by Apple in September 2021 as whistleblower retaliation. In September 2023, she sued Apple and litigation
is ongoing.
Structured assessment of ADHD (BAARS-IV Self Report):
Current symptoms: Ms. Gjovik endorsed 5 out of the 9 symptoms of inattention (difficulty sustaining
attention, difficulty following through on instructions, avoids tasks requiring sustained effort, easily
distracted, forgetful), 7 out of 9 symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity (fidgetiness, restlessness, feeling
driven by a motor, talking excessively, blurting out, difficulty waiting her turn, interrupting/intruding on
others), and 7 out of 9 symptoms of sluggish cognitive tempo (daydreaming, trouble staying alert, easily
bored, spacey, lethargic, low energy, not processing info as quickly or accurately as others)
Childhood symptoms (age 5-12): Ms. Gjovik endorsed 9 out of the 9 symptoms of inattention and 9 
out of 9 symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity. She noted that she struggled academically in elementary 
school and was reprimanded by teachers for talking excessively and leaving her seat in class. She 
recalls receiving comments from teachers that she struggled with "patience and cooperation". 
These symptoms cause ongoing distress and interfere with her work and home functioning.
Ms. Gjovik was evaluated and previously diagnosed with ADHD at age 13, and treated with Adderall. 
She has not had Adderall recently due to relocating to MA, and has noticed a significant decrease in her 
functioning (e.g., increased difficulty and effort to concentrate and complete work tasks). 
Appointment Details
Notes
Monica Ly at 12/1/2023  8:30 AM
Progress Notes
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 63 of 713
(63 of 713), Page 63 of 713

Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 64 of 713
(64 of 713), Page 64 of 713

Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 65 of 713
(65 of 713), Page 65 of 713

1 hour spent on administration and scoring of neuropsychological tests (96136, 96137)
 
Per CMS and APA guidelines, the total cumulative time spent in the neuropsychological evaluation process
will be reported at the completion of the entire episode of care (i.e., when the full evaluation report is
complete). All base and add-on codes with their dates of service will be listed at that time. 
 
MyChart® licensed from Epic Systems Corporation © 1999 - 2023
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 66 of 713
(66 of 713), Page 66 of 713

6 
EXHIBIT D: 7/8/24 MEET & CONFER TRANSCRIPT 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 67 of 713
(67 of 713), Page 67 of 713

Apple Meet and Confer 2024-07-08
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (5:02 - 6:38)
This is Ashley, 4pm June 25th, about to get on the call with Apple's lawyers, let's see if they
cooperate. Hello, how are you? Say again?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (6:39 - 6:40)
I couldn't hear you very well.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (6:40 - 6:41)
Can you hear me now?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (6:42 - 6:58)
A little bit better. How's this? Wow, much better.
Okay. All right. So, I have the standing order for all judges for the Northern District, is that
where you I just grabbed that too, yep.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (7:07 - 7:21)
The facts, I was hoping there might be at least a few that we could stipulate to you just to show
good faith to the judge, like I think we both agree I was fired on September 9th, and the dates
of my employment starting, like some very, very basic stuff.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (7:23 - 7:50)
Yeah, I mean, we could do a joint section and then an Ashley section and an Apple section, I just
don't usually do it that way. We're not at the stage where we need to be stipulating the facts,
but when we get to that stage, which usually is much later in the case, we certainly can stipulate
certain facts. Okay.
This is just to give, and I don't think this judge needs a summary of the facts so much, but the
purpose is to have a half page each time summary of the facts.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (7:51 - 7:59)
Okay, I've seen them merged. I understand that your way may not ever have that, so I just
wanted to offer it. Yeah, that's fine.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (7:59 - 8:11)
I've seen them merged too, but then, and I like to do it merged, but in this case, I think we have
very divergent views of the facts. It's not the type of case where I think we can agree on what all
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 68 of 713
(68 of 713), Page 68 of 713

the facts are.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (8:12 - 8:24)
Yeah, that's what I was like, maybe at least two or three. I mean, even that Banco case, they did
stipulate on his dates of employment, and his salary, and his date of termination, but it's fine if
you don't want to.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (8:24 - 8:30)
I only think it's fine if we just, you do your section, I do my section, and we'll take it from there.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (8:31 - 8:43)
I think, Sarah, we could stick later, like later in the case. We're not saying we won't stipulate to
the date you were terminated, it's just this isn't the forum for those sort of things, necessarily,
especially because we're space concerned.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (8:44 - 8:58)
Okay. Understood. Yeah, there's definitely no dispute about some of those bases that you want
to grapple with, this is where you started, and this is where you're going to end up.
But as I say, this document isn't the place to talk about stipulated facts.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (8:59 - 9:42)
I understand. You probably noticed from me, I'm a project manager, I'm trying to work with
you guys, and partner, even though we're in a very weird situation. So I'm trying to be
professional and all of that, but I understand that myself and the other party are in very
different positions on this case, so up to you guys.
I tend to lean towards if we can show that we can work together, was why I brought it up. I
agree. Yeah.
Okay, so maybe we'll go through the rest of it and then come back to legal issues and motions.
I think those will probably be the bigger discussion. Okay.
The evidence presentation.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (9:45 - 9:45)
Preservation.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (9:47 - 9:47)
Presentation.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 69 of 713
(69 of 713), Page 69 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (9:49 - 9:50)
Preservation.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (9:50 - 10:14)
Oh, thank you. Preservation. So I haven't sent my own preservation notice because the
government had sent a bunch to Apple years ago, and it seems like you guys are unnoticed, but
if you would like for crossing T's and dotting I's, I can send one for the lawsuit.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (10:15 - 10:22)
No, I think what we're saying in the statement is we have complied with our obligations. We've
reviewed the rules and what we've met them.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (10:23 - 10:34)
Oh, I'm just talking to you as a human right now. Humans. Would you like that?
Would that be helpful to you to have from the formal statement, just generally?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (10:35 - 10:42)
No, I just think what would be helpful is for you to fill out your sections of the joint CMC report
so we can get it filed and sent.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (10:46 - 11:33)
And then I have not received anything from Apple, and I have not received anything other than
the very limited allegations they made justifying my termination, so I am not saving like
everything. If Apple has things that they want me to be saving, they should send a notice. I've
just been responding accordingly to the very narrow issues that have been raised thus far, so
we can say we did that.
Disclosures. So it sounds like his timeline, I believe we have two weeks after today to send our
initial disclosures. Is that correct?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (11:33 - 11:39)
Well, we've already done those with the rule of 71, Go 71, and I know you don't think Go 71
applies.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (11:40 - 11:45)
If we can put a pin in that and just try not to argue about that, it's going to be a thing.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (11:48 - 12:02)
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 70 of 713
(70 of 713), Page 70 of 713

We think it's the plan for that, so we're not going to do anything in two weeks because we've
already done what's required, but you're going to do something in two weeks, namely give your
26A1B or whatever it is disclosures, correct? Yes.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (12:02 - 12:40)
So you guys did what was in the scope is General Order 71 applied. You have not done initial
disclosures for nuisance, for ultra hazardous activity, for the IAD, for cancer, for the UCL, but
there's a bunch of other claims that even if that order applied, were not included in. And this is
why it doesn't apply.
When you have a case with stuff beyond employment, the very standard employment cases,
there's more than just that scope. So I would still expect initial disclosures at the very least of
anything that would be outside the scope of 71.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (12:45 - 12:55)
Still have this challenge, right, that the pleadings aren't settled, which is an unusual
circumstance here. But I hear what you're saying about...
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (12:56 - 13:02)
Like at least nuisance. You said you're not challenging nuisance yet. That might be summary
judgment, but you'd have to do disclosures for nuisance.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (13:03 - 13:33)
So we... You didn't... You just...
We're still reviewing your amended complaint. I hear what you're saying about that you fled
non-employment claims. I understand that.
Got it. But, you know, we're still reviewing the complaint that you filed a week ago to figure out
what... You didn't just amend...
You wrote a new complaint, right, in some ways, right? It's not as if only in the causes of action
for which these two men have been granted did you add information. You added other things.
So we're reviewing it holistically.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (13:34 - 13:58)
Yeah, I did because you guys did a huge motion to strike previously also just extracting things.
So I definitely was diligent in trying to refocus it on only what the scope was approved. And I
have not seen any precedent that just rearranging things of an already pleaded allegation or
adding supplementary facts would then make it vulnerable to a new motion after a decision on
a prior motion.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 71 of 713
(71 of 713), Page 71 of 713

But that is up to you guys to decide how you want to proceed.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (14:00 - 14:00)
Understood.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (14:01 - 14:02)
So...
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (14:02 - 14:04)
You'll be seeking initial disclosures in two weeks.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (14:06 - 15:43)
The two weeks or whatever that deadline is. Yes, I need to look that up, what his deadline is. I
think it's in a standing order.
Judge Chen. And I would put that I'd expect that Apple would also, at the very least, this stuff
they have not already done initial disclosures for. Okay.
So that's your... That's my note. And then for discovery, taken to date, if any, the scope of
anticipated discovery, any proposed limitations, modifications, brief report on whether the
parties have considered entering a stipulated e-discovery order, proposed discovery plan, and
any identified discovery disputes.
So it sounds like you guys are going to ask to just stay it while everything's figured out. And I'm
going to say the opposite. But I think there should be things that we could discuss today.
Part of it for the statement, but also just generally planning. I mean, this is a project planning
meeting, right? I got excited about case management planning.
So for discovery, you guys use that tool has been fine. It's nice that it has like the PDF and
image and text version. Thank you.
For like my side, as you know, I'm broke and using just whatever tools I have available to me. So
like if you want me to use something like that, but can give me access, I can do that. Otherwise,
I will try my best, probably via like a Dropbox and try to do a base numbering.
But it won't have all the fancy stuff that you guys have. So like if it would be more convenient
for you, if there's a way for me to upload that gives you the format you want, I'm happy to do
that. But otherwise, it's definitely not going to be as fancy as what you guys do.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (15:44 - 15:51)
I will let you know if there's a tool we think you should put your documents in. And if not, we'll
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 72 of 713
(72 of 713), Page 72 of 713

look at that. Sounds good.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (15:52 - 16:10)
Yeah. I would just say also like to the extent that you produce a document as a PDF, then it's an
email. This isn't necessarily the case where the metadata on every document or every email is
going to be relevant.
But to the extent that it is, we can just process when we come to it about how to access any
metadata that might be important.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (16:10 - 17:37)
Okay, that sounds good. So the protective orders. And there will, I'm sure, be some things that
are in the realm of confidential.
So this is for the statement, but also, again, like planning and to see if we have it as we should
know. Because I think protective orders would be something just Jen would want to know about
if we were going to bring it to him later. So my personal position is a lot of that confidential type
stuff would already be covered in my intellectual property agreement I signed with Apple.
So if I was seeing stuff in it that was within that realm of stuff that I already agreed I wouldn't
share, if I shared it, I'm still breaching that contract. So I wouldn't do it. So to me, that seems
like it already covers a lot of stuff.
But if there's stuff that's extra sensitive or might not be expressly covered, like I was saying, if
the unfair competition law one that goes forward, I'm expecting some pretty sensitive stuff in
there. So I would definitely be willing to compromise on some sort of order. I just want to make
clear that I want to do very targeted ones.
I don't want anything super broad. And I'm going to have to, you know, advocate fiercely for my
rights of being able to admit stuff and not be overly burdened by restrictions. But I do want to
be thoughtful of Apple's concerns of keeping things confidential or kind of need to know if it's
appropriate.
So do you guys have a position on that?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (17:39 - 17:50)
Instead of the email yesterday, we sent you the standard order that the courts use as protective
orders. And if you don't want to use the court's order, then you can create your own order.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (17:54 - 18:03)
Okay. I was just trying to fish from you before I do that of if there's things that are important to
you, things that you think would be an issue. But I can just take a stab at a draft.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 73 of 713
(73 of 713), Page 73 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (18:04 - 18:20)
Yeah. I mean, the whole purpose of the protective order is otherwise we say we don't have to
give you this because it's confidential. The protective order protects us by requiring to keep it
confidential with the threat of a violation.
I understand.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (18:21 - 18:28)
I'm expecting that based on our interactions thus far, one of our biggest points of contention
will be defining what is confidential.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (18:30 - 19:22)
Right. That's separate from having a process to the project planning point, right? The protective
order is the process for designating things confidential and challenging designation.
There's a separate issue about, you know, for any given document, is the designation
appropriate or not? But the document is intended to set out a process for teeing up those
issues. Right.
So it's just helpful. That's how I think of the protective order. It's not an antecedent judgment
that document X is or isn't confidential.
It's a process by which, you know, the producing party can designate confidential and the
receiving party can, you know, you may have some of those things. You only have medical
records, for example, that you end up producing to us that you believe should be confidential
and not in the public record. And, you know, it's a process for you to make that designation and
for us to challenge it if we think it should be challenged.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (19:22 - 20:17)
I understand. I did a lot of reading about this after you guys did that thing to me in December.
And, you know, I'm enlightened that it is standard practice often to have the very broad
protective orders, especially in business cases.
However, especially in employment, human rights cases, things of public interest, safety cases,
especially public safety cases, that it's actually much more common in public policies behind
only requesting orders that are very targeted for a specific type of document or set of
document and only getting them in place when they're actually needed. And otherwise, having
the default be no protective order. And I lean towards that, of course.
And I'm sure you lean the completely opposite direction, which is why I'm trying to bring this up
now. Because, you know, you mentioned I could draft what I would want to have signed. And
my go-to at this point, if Apple doesn't give me much to go on at this point, would just be none.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 74 of 713
(74 of 713), Page 74 of 713

None.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (20:17 - 21:05)
You know, just argue there should be none. And we can argue it should be the Northern
District. Again, it's not about any particular document.
It's about agreeing on a process by which the parties can designate and challenge. Separately,
we would litigate particular documents and their confidentiality. No one's trying to decide ex
ante.
Everything in discovery is confidential, and that's it, and there's no further discussion of it. Or
alternatively, nothing in discovery is confidential, right? It's just to agree on a process by which
the parties can orderly present those issues to the court and get the court to rule on them.
So that's what we're interested in doing, a protective order as a process for addressing
confidentiality issues, not a protective order for an ex ante declaration that document X is or
isn't confidential. Right? So that's all we want.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (21:06 - 21:37)
Oh, I see. Oh, yeah. OK, let me draft that.
I think the reaction I had when there was an attached document defining confidential in
December definitely made me skeptical of how this process would go. But if we are OK getting
a process of how to decide these things, I'm more than happy to draft that. And I definitely
would like to call out things that are legally protected to not be made confidential.
I can cite all the case law I found. OK, so I will work on drafting that.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (21:38 - 22:39)
I think what Katie's saying is the protective order is the process. The Northern District has said,
here's a process to follow. If Apple thinks a certain document is confidential, then they can
stamp it confidential.
If Ashley disagrees, then this is what Ashley does. If Ashley makes the document as confidential
and Apple disagrees, here's the process that we follow. So that's all the protective order does.
It sets out that process. It doesn't say this type of document is confidential or that type of
document, because you can't do that in advance. We have no idea which documents you're
going to want, which ones are going to be confidential or not.
So this just sets out the process. And if you think that there should be a different process, then
you're welcome to disagree with the Northern District and come up with your own process. But
it's likely that the Northern District will agree that the process that it's come up with is the right
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 75 of 713
(75 of 713), Page 75 of 713

process.
And if you have disagreements with a specific document, then there's a process and a
protective order.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (22:39 - 23:21)
I think that protective order is great for business cases, which the Northern District gets a lot.
And this case is kind of the opposite. The majority of it is public safety and human rights.
And that really doesn't apply. I'm feeling now, based on what you're saying, that I also need to
raise up my concerns and my statement that Apple's already tried to claim that legally
protected topics are confidential. So I'm already concerned that if we have a behind-the-scenes
process, it's already going to be problematic mirroring these conflicts we've already had.
So I'm trying to get ahead of that a little bit. What are you referencing? When you said my
performance reviews were confidential and my benefits were confidential.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (23:21 - 23:42)
Just again, to be clear, the idea is that we're not going to publicly file documents that you have
the right to decide whether they're public or not. Those are different issues. One issue is, do we
have the right to make it public over your potential objections?
The other is, do you have the right to make it public? Those are different issues.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (23:43 - 23:58)
So what you get paid, we typically would say that that's confidential. Because we think it's not
our job to file a document publicly in court that says how much you get paid. If you want to
agree that that's not confidential, that's fine with us.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (23:59 - 24:25)
We're not going to tell them what you make, but that's different than saying you're not allowed
to tell people what you make. So just to be clear, I think there was some confusion earlier about
whether we were suggesting that you weren't permitted to talk about things versus whether
we were saying that unless and until the employee chooses to disclose X, we don't see it as our
job to disclose X about that. The employee holds the right to publicize or not, right?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (24:25 - 25:15)
The problem with that was that you guys failed to do any kind of meeting confer about that and
didn't even ask me whether I thought that would be confidential or not, or what things I
thought might be confidential or not, and just kind of made that decision. So, you know, all that
stuff happened prior, which is why I'm trying to open communication about all of this now. So
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 76 of 713
(76 of 713), Page 76 of 713

hopefully we can get more aligned.
I'd like to avoid more discovery disputes wherever possible. So let me, I hear all the things
you're saying, though, so let me think about that and figure out a way to draft this. I am
hearing that the process is really important to you guys versus any kind of restrictions, but as
you've heard from me repeatedly, my rights are very important to me, too, which is why I was
leaning towards having a call out in it.
And this shouldn't be controversial of just the things that, you know, are statutory in case law,
protected that shouldn't be under an order.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (25:17 - 25:43)
If you look at the process of protective order, for example, if we say, Ashley, your pay stubs are
confidential, we mark them confidential under protective order. And then you write to us and
you say, I don't think that my pay stubs are confidential. You can take off that confidentiality
designation.
You say, OK, and then we reproduce them to you without the confidentiality. That's the process
that's described in the protective order.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (25:43 - 26:20)
I understand. And all the things you're saying are rational. But the conduct I've experienced
from Apple's attorneys, not just your firm over the last three years, makes me very want to be
very diligent in outlining expectations and these sort of things.
So, like, I'm not saying what you're saying doesn't sound right normally. But based on all of the
things that have happened leading up to now, is why I'm taking a more aggressive position on
defining this sort of stuff. So I think it's great that you guys are open to starting to try to draft
this and figure out what makes sense for both sides.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (26:22 - 26:31)
So I will say that I think you have an uphill battle if you're going to try to convince the federal
judge that the order that the federal judge came up with is not the right order.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (26:31 - 27:11)
For a public safety case? We're happy to take a look at it. But it's sort of ineliminable that there's
going to be, I mean, the whole point of the order, again, is that it contemplates circumstances
where one party might think something is confidential and the other might not.
And there's just, to the extent that's going to happen in any case, there just has to be a process
to resolve that. And so that's what's important to do, right? The order cannot eliminate the
possibility of dispute in advance, right?
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 77 of 713
(77 of 713), Page 77 of 713

The order is, again, intended to contemplate the prospect of a dispute and set forth the
mechanisms to resolve it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (27:11 - 27:48)
I understand. I'm just saying we've already had disputes, and I'm trying to get ahead of the
main topic of our dispute, of things which are just protected, like by rights, that they shouldn't
have a covenant on them in it. So that part's not up for dispute.
But maybe that's, I'm going to brainstorm how to do this. I'm going to look up other cases that
I feel are similar to this one and see maybe what they've done and how they've filed it, which
will be instructive for me generally. But maybe there's something we can see that worked well
for other folks, where there's a mix of stuff that would be traditionally confidential, but then
also stuff that's not and clearly of the public interest.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (27:52 - 28:11)
I see, yeah. Redline, that's going to be, that's going to facilitate our review, right? If you can take
what we've provided and redline it, as opposed to not being able to see how they differ.
That would be helpful if you don't have the, if the tools you have access to don't allow for that,
or if that's just not feasible, I totally understand.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (28:12 - 28:20)
If it's, I do the, like, document compare and word, those are the ones I've been uploading. Have
those been fine?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (28:21 - 28:21)
Yes.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (28:21 - 28:41)
Okay. Thank you. I was doing the, like, track reversions, but then word kept crashing because
there was too many reversions.
Okay, so that sounds good. Are you guys expecting any other disputes on discovery?
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (28:42 - 28:46)
I think it's a little early to decide. It's early to decide, right?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (28:47 - 28:50)
At this point, for the statement?
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (28:51 - 28:59)
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 78 of 713
(78 of 713), Page 78 of 713

I think we've put forward, at this time, I thought we said none at this time, other than what we,
I think we already said that.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (29:00 - 29:48)
We're in conversation now, so I'm just seeing if anything's changed based on our conversation.
Understood. Okay.
So discovery, that's, I know that as someone who's worked at Apple and Apple Legal, I know
that is the number one contentious topic at Apple, so I just want to make sure that, you know,
anything we can do to smooth that out. Oh, and then I'm very serious about the, like, I can't,
there's, like, a Latin term for it, but, like, going somewhere just to look at the most sensitive
documents versus you giving them to me seems like something that, like, rationally, hopefully,
would calm people down. It sounds like that happens sometimes.
If there's other ways to do that, I'm willing to be flexible. Again, I know how Apple is, and I'd
much rather get the documents some way than never, so I'm willing to compromise. Just let me
know.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (29:50 - 30:10)
Yeah, I don't think this is, like, source code or something like that or the formula for code. I
mean, generally, in my cases, as long as it's protected under the protected order, then we're
happy to give you documents. I'm not yet aware of any documents in this case.
There may be some, but I'm not aware of any, but we wouldn't give you as long as you agree to
keep them confidential.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (30:11 - 30:31)
Better, like, relevant and proportional and all of that, right? It's possible we will have
disagreements about what is proportional to the needs of the case. But, yeah, again, if there's a
protected order in place that also provides, you know, that just means you can review the
document and use it for purposes of litigation, and that's it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (30:31 - 31:06)
So that's where, you know, exceptions where cases like this, if stuff comes out in discovery,
even if it's not admitted, sometimes it is of the public interest if there's public safety issues. So
that's where I'm expecting us to have more fun conversations in the future. So I will, I'm going
to take that original one and draft some of the stuff that I'd suggest, and we can discuss what
that would look like.
I definitely do not want to agree to a protected order that just by default makes everything
confidential and could not be used outside of the litigation. I would want some carve-outs.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 79 of 713
(79 of 713), Page 79 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (31:06 - 31:07)
That's not what it does.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (31:07 - 31:28)
The model doesn't do that. It requires the designating party to only designate things that have
a good faith basis for believing are confidential, and then the receiving party can challenge that
determination if they believe it's not supported. So I don't read the protected order to authorize
or countenance a less confidential in everything process.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (31:28 - 31:36)
Again, as someone who worked at Apple that long and the way they are with confidential,
again, is why I'm just kind of beating a dead horse. That's fine.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (31:37 - 31:40)
That's not what the draft we sent you says, but if you want to propose revisions.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (31:41 - 32:03)
That's how it was interpreted by your other thing. So yes, I'm going to propose some revisions.
I will try to keep it in the spirit of where it was, and I understand all the things you're saying
about the normal operations of this.
So hopefully we can find an in-between space where we can both agree. Is there any way to talk
you guys out of trying to stay all of discovery pending your whatever you're going to file next?
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (32:05 - 32:28)
I mean, I don't think we've stated in the sense that we've provided Go71, right? I mean, we
think that your termination is an issue. The reasons for your termination are an issue.
I think that a lot of the other issues relate to, like, we just need to know what's at issue in the
case, what factual and legal allegations are at issue, and I don't think that's resolved yet.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (32:29 - 32:57)
I mean, there's a ton missing from the termination. There's so many emails from the time, like,
there's stuff through, like, May, but, like, July and August are missing so much stuff. I still
haven't gotten my employee relations investigation files for the two or three different
investigations they supposedly were doing.
I haven't seen the decision to terminate documents other than that final email from HR. Like,
there's a long list of stuff that I would expect to be provided, and I am hesitant just to do, like, a
bolded list of specific things because that's not how discovery is supposed to work.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 80 of 713
(80 of 713), Page 80 of 713

[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (32:58 - 33:31)
But that would be, it would help us to understand the nature of your concerns when you just
say, I don't have everything. I'm sitting here and I don't, you may think, well, I remember a July
20th email. Like, I, Katie Mansfield, don't remember a July 20th email, right?
So, it would be helpful without it being necessarily, like, a boss. It would be helpful for you to
say, I believe that the following information would have been responsive in a sense included in
Go71. Tell us that so we can go look.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (33:33 - 33:59)
I'm not, so I'm not going to engage with the 71 stuff, but I will say if you're saying that you guys
provided everything you feel is relevant to the termination, and I'm saying absolutely not, you
did not. Some of that stuff I called out in the request for production, the Department of Labor
documents. But like, you're, you're, what you're kind of asking me for is the request for
production.
I'm supposed to send you in this case when we start discovery in this case.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (34:01 - 34:22)
No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. Maybe that's, let me try again.
If you think the initial disclosures, whether you want to call them Go71 or whatever you want to
call them, if you think the initial disclosures are incomplete, I'd be happy to hear about why you
believe they're incomplete. I would, you know, please provide, you know, provide that
information.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (34:22 - 35:05)
I mean, I can like, I love, there's no, there's no paper trail of when Apple supposedly discovered
I did these things that it said it decided it was going to terminate me for, when that decision
was made by HR, when an investigation was started. Like, incredibly material to all of the
pretext cover-up allegations would be when that employee relations guy reached out to me on
September 3rd and September 7th, under the premise it was about talking about my concerns,
was Apple already preparing to discipline me? Like, that is absolutely material to this case, and I
don't have any information right now of that decision making process, the timeline for it, who
was involved, any of that stuff.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (35:06 - 35:25)
Right, but we give you the documents that we have. We obviously don't create documents. I
know that sometimes people expect more documents to exist than exist.
But we've done a very exhaustive search of the documents that we believe are the relevant
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 81 of 713
(81 of 713), Page 81 of 713

documents related to a certain injury. And so just because we didn't produce something
doesn't mean we're hiding it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (35:26 - 35:44)
What about the employee relations case file? Apple had that United Nations human rights guy
go in and detail all of your employee relations processes, all of Apple's, which was very helpful
to have that document, and I'm happy to cite it. But there's an employee relations case system
that's supposed to take very detailed notes of every stage of an employee relations
investigation.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (35:44 - 36:17)
So if you, yeah, this would be very helpful. Send us an email detailing the things that you
expected to see and don't, and we can take another look. We believe we've conducted a good
faith and reasonable search, and to Melinda's point, you know, like, sometimes things are
phone calls in employment cases.
Some people are like, where's the document where this was discussed? And it's not a
document. It was a phone call, right?
So, but if there are documents that you expect to see that you didn't see, this is absolutely
normal discovery back and forth.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (36:17 - 36:56)
Oh, wait, wait, wait, sorry. I apologize. I realize just now in this moment that you are reliant on
what Apple gives you.
So you asking me this is kind of right, like, so you saying help, help will help guide your
conversations with Apple, though. So I was like, you're just I was getting annoyed that you kept
bringing that up. But I just want to say, like, it just clicked in my brain a little bit that that you
need to work with your clients.
I'm pro se, so I forget that you guys have that. You're not. Anyhow, yes, I can.
I can summarize areas. I'm not going to do specific documents, but areas and types of content
that I think probably are missing.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (36:57 - 37:04)
Yeah, that's just that's what we would expect in sort of the normal collegial back and forth
about discovery in a case.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (37:07 - 38:30)
Yeah, I would like us to be collegial going forward, please, if we can. So, OK, that's the discovery
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 82 of 713
(82 of 713), Page 82 of 713

class actions is not relevant. The related cases I need to look this up, but I believe the stuff
we're calling out is just stuff that potentially could have collateral estoppel or res judicata issues
or jurisdiction issues, not like everything.
So I'm going to look up whether I even really need to this. We need to disclose the NLRB stuff
because NLRB often doesn't have like res judicata effect because the parties aren't the same. So
like one thing we might want, I think one thing we should probably plan would be planning for,
you know, the applicability of collateral estoppel and res judicata for the cases.
I think the U.S. Department of Labor case potentially would because we have an ALJ and at this,
depending on what the standards are for burden, there definitely could be issues we could
claim collateral estoppel. But I'm even questioning whether the NLRB one would be and there's
tons of case law saying that OSHA initial investigation has no legal effect outside OSHA. So I
don't think that one's relevant at all.
And then other than those, I can't think of anything else that would be relevant if it's supposed
to be material related cases that could impact this one. But that's not what it says.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (38:30 - 39:34)
Yeah. If you want to say, I don't think anything's related, that'd be fine. I think we feel, and
that's why we put it sort of as our position section.
I mean, we think these are, this is information that's helpful to the judge, which is sort of the
point of a joint case management statement is to be helpful to the judge. So there's no, just to
be clear, there's no representation by us including it here that it meets or doesn't meet some
sort of standard of collateral estoppel or res judicata. Those are interesting issues that when
and if we have to argue them, we would.
This is just intended to be informational for the judge. We think it's helpful to include. And so if
you don't want to include anything in the related cases, that's fine.
If you want to delete it from being separate positions and just say, here are other cases
involving the parties without any representation as to whether they do or don't meet any
particular legal definition of relatedness, you know, you could propose something like that. But
we think it's helpful for the judge to know the sort of extent of the interaction in various forms
between these two parties.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:34 - 39:49)
To that point, if we're going to include OSHA, we should include all the EPA investigations and
stuff too. So the reason I was saying with judges is it says cases and proceedings before
another judge of this court or judge before another court or judge before an administrative
body.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 83 of 713
(83 of 713), Page 83 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:49 - 40:06)
So if I'm thinking judges, there's nothing to do with res judicata or collateral estoppel here.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (40:07 - 40:24)
I think the NLRB one that potentially is going in front of an ALJ soon meets that bar for sure.
Probably the pending other ones too. I don't think the OSHA one does.
And that's where I'm like, if we're including just agency stuff that's not in front of an ALJ or
judge, there's a bunch of agency stuff I could include.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:24 - 40:39)
But I don't think we have to go there. You can add whatever ones you want if you think we
missed some out. Yeah, that's the whole point.
If you put the ones you think are related cases, we put the ones we think are related cases, and
then the judge can look at the both. He's not going to make any decisions about whether a case
is related or not.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (40:41 - 40:53)
Okay, I'm just hoping that we could simplify. We could even do a stipulated of just listing the
docket numbers and topics and stuff instead of taking up so much space. But it sounds like we
want separate sections.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:53 - 41:09)
I actually took out all the docket numbers. The original draft had all the docket numbers.
Because I was trying to cut down the space, I took out the docket numbers.
But we're trying to be efficient, and I didn't think it made that much difference to the judge
what the docket numbers were.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (41:12 - 41:35)
Okay, so for related cases, for relief, so I need to do that calculation. I do not have access to the
fancy tools you do for jury verdict amounts, so I'm doing some creative, cheap research trying
to figure out. It's kind of a unique situation to have both a toxic tort and a whistleblower case
together.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (41:36 - 42:04)
Yeah, I think the purpose of this is kind of like the initial disclosure. What damages are you
seeking, and how do you get there? I'm seeking less wages in the amount of $280,000 a year
for the next 10 years.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 84 of 713
(84 of 713), Page 84 of 713

Whatever it is, you can put in whatever you want, but that's supposed to be to tell the judge,
these are the categories of damage I'm seeking, and you don't have to say an amount. Like if
you want to say emotional distress, you don't have to say it should be X amount.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (42:04 - 42:06)
I have to do that in my initial disclosures to you, though.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (42:07 - 42:34)
We don't, but we're not, I'm not familiar, it's not typically what I am familiar with in cases, more
to tell me if you disagree. But it's not as if economic loss calculations come out to a degree of
scientific certainty in the disclosures. People may retain economists later or things like that,
right?
And no one's holding anyone to some initial, it is more intended to be like, I'm claiming
emotional distress or I'm not, right? Because certain things...
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (42:34 - 42:40)
If you guys are fine with that, I would appreciate it, it gives me more time. It did say amount of
in the disclosures.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (42:40 - 43:04)
To the extent you can calculate, like lost wages, you can calculate that amount. Yeah. But for
emotional distress, that's up to the jury to decide.
Yeah, we don't need you to pick a number for that. Okay, cool. But when you have a number
and you have a way to get to that number, then you're supposed to say, okay, this is just helpful
to the judge.
What kind of cases are we talking about? What are the categories of damage? And to the extent
you can state an amount.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:04 - 43:14)
So when you're saying I can be a little more guesstimating, that applies to my initial disclosures
too? Because it seems to want something pretty specific with initial disclosures.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:15 - 43:27)
But we're not going to say, well, you said it was 1.2 million here, and later you claim 1.3 million
and you're stopped from doing that, right? That's not...
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:27 - 43:37)
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 85 of 713
(85 of 713), Page 85 of 713

Well, that's what I'm trying to... Okay, so I guess the big open question is punitive damages, but
I don't know if it's usually required to calculate punitive damages.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:38 - 43:38)
No.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:38 - 43:57)
Okay. At least you need to know if you're claiming emotional distress damages because that
can change the kinds of things that are or aren't relevant in discovery. And so it's helpful for
both us and the judge to know if you're claiming emotional distress and if there's a certain
variety of emotional distress.
So those things.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:57 - 44:15)
And then the toxic towards the physical injury stuff will be a little more complicated, so I will try
to keep that... I'm saying guesstimate. I'm going to try my best, but not, you know, avoid having
to do something with scientific accuracy at this point because there's still a lot of stuff that we
need to sort through before that can be more precisely calculated.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (44:16 - 44:22)
We also only have ten collected pages. Yeah. So we don't have to govern or inform someone.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (44:22 - 44:28)
Oh, again, I'm asking for the initial disclosures too. Like, this was going to be a lot that I was
planning to have to try to do math about.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (44:28 - 44:56)
If you say medical bills, you know, you might give an estimate that we'll find out in discovery
how much medical bills are, things like that, right? Okay. So it's the ultimate proof at trial would
not be your initial disclosure statement.
The ultimate proof at trial would be other things, right? It's just intended to provide a sense and
like Melinda said, the sort of categories of recovery you're seeking because that can change
what the parties do or don't need to explore in discovery.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (44:56 - 47:11)
Got it. Thank you. Okay, that'll save me a bit of time now and give me more time to sort stuff
out for the more complicated stuff later.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 86 of 713
(86 of 713), Page 86 of 713

I will definitely go into the categories and I got a good start on that for the Department of
Labor one. Okay. And then settlement and ADR. My point about the settlement conference is I
have not really heard of a settlement that I think would be in this range occurring as like
piecemeal and not a global settlement of some sort, like withdrawing all claims. And I can't
imagine how that would happen in an orderly way. Which is why if we're going to talk
settlement, which we will probably at some point, 99% of cases, you know, it makes sense to
have all of the cases represented to me. Otherwise, it just seems odd.
So that's why I'm raising it. I am open. So we had talked about if it was settlement, we could do
it through the court.
But it also sounds like if it's going to be a real settlement, it's often usually the private
settlement. I raised that earlier that I can't afford that. But if that's something Apple would
prefer, that's fine.
And then if Apple made it pretty clear what their position is with me. So if they're just going to
drag this out, we can do the early neutral evaluation. I don't want to do a fake settlement
conference.
So if they're not actually willing to discuss settlement, let's do the early neutral evaluation.
That'd be really helpful, I think, in narrowing issues. So when you talk to them, you know, either
of those are good to me.
I don't think mediation would be helpful, though. So probably either settlement or E&E. Okay.
ADR efforts to date. Prospects for settlement, I assume, are still Apple. Okay.
So efforts to date is we've discussed possible options. Do we have a specific ADR plan for the
case?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (47:14 - 47:27)
What we recommend in the statement is we've already said we're willing to do a settlement
conference. And now if you want to know whether it's global or piecemeal, I'm going to take
that back to Apple.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (47:29 - 47:34)
Okay, cool. I didn't know how specific this stuff is.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (47:34 - 47:53)
I mean, is there anything else you can share? I mean, the answer is no, and that's fine. You said,
I don't want to go to a fake mediation or fake settlement conference.
Yeah. Is there anything more you want to share? You know, some people might say, unless the
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 87 of 713
(87 of 713), Page 87 of 713

company is going to agree to pay me $200 million, it's a fake settlement.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (47:53 - 48:04)
I do not want to participate in farcical motions that are only in place in bad faith to extract
information from me to try to use against me later.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (48:05 - 48:15)
All right. Well, settlement conversations and settlement are protected by a privilege under 408,
so that's a separate discussion, right? So the settlement privilege applies.
No, I was warned.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (48:15 - 48:19)
This is how Apple would try to figure out how to lowball me if they didn't actually.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (48:21 - 48:46)
Well, I mean, you're in charge of whether you agree to settle a claim or not, right? Yeah. It has
to be both ways.
But there may be nothing else to talk about. I've had some cases, and I don't know. I
understand.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (48:58 - 49:03)
I understand. I understand. That's not what I intended.
I intended more bad faith predatory behavior, generally.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (49:04 - 49:16)
Well, yeah, 408 is a good... I mean, I take comfort in 408, right? Because it allows the whole
point is that the parties can engage in discussion in the settlement process without prejudice
for their litigation position.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (49:16 - 49:29)
Understood. No, I was warned more outside of that. It was just going to be fishing for details
for me without any intent to actually do anything.
I probably should have said it more professionally, but that was the farcical.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (49:30 - 49:30)
No, no, no.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 88 of 713
(88 of 713), Page 88 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (49:30 - 50:56)
I appreciate that clarification. Thank you. Okay.
Let's see. Other references, whether a case is suitable for reference to binding or... No, that was
no.
Narrowing of issues. We'll probably get to that when we get back to issues. Expedited trial
procedure doesn't apply.
Scheduling trial. The disclosure of non-party interested entities or persons. This one I was
looking into a little bit because I was curious.
I'm pro se, so the first version of this I filed had 30 things on it, which was not accurate. I didn't
know how that worked. But as I was trying to figure out how to narrow that down, to me it
seemed like that list was supposed to be parties who potentially could do interpleader or
intervention, who potentially could be one of those parties you have to do joinder with.
And in this case, you know, Northrop Grumman was on my list, but there might not be enough
with the Superfund office now for that. But, I mean, that's an open question. As far as the toxic
torts go, though, with 3250, it seems like that property owner would definitely be on that list,
the property owner of that building.
There might be others, too. But unless you guys have done this a bit more than me, unless
there's anything that I'm missing, like I would add him to that list.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (50:58 - 51:32)
I mean, it's a financial interest in the outcome. I'm typically accustomed to seeing it when
there's sort of a subsidiary and a parent or it's an LLC and the majority owner of the LLC. It's not
just other potential witnesses or something like that.
So that's just to say we think we can certainly go back and review it after this. But I think we're
comfortable that our certification is accurate. If you feel like yours isn't, feel free to let me know.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (51:32 - 51:58)
Yeah, so this one I would kind of expect to come from Apple and not me. And it's just more of
no surprises later. Like, if I'm playing this out of my head of how toxic torts work, you know,
Apple's position will be if they get in a position where they're going to go to trial on this, they
would want to pull in other people who are not them to have to pay for the damages, which
would be probably maybe the property owner and then an insurance company.
Insurance company for an IRF leader is common.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (51:58 - 52:08)
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 89 of 713
(89 of 713), Page 89 of 713

I don't think we have any such intent to decide to bring in other parties. If we do, obviously, we
will add them to the certification. But there's no present intention to do that.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (52:08 - 52:12)
And when you say toxic tort, are you talking about your apartment?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (52:12 - 52:18)
Yeah, the 3250 stop building with the semiconductor fabrication.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (52:18 - 52:22)
Is that what you're talking about? I'm not sure what you mean when you say toxic tort.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (52:23 - 52:26)
Yeah, the ultra hazardous and the nuisance at 3250.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (52:27 - 52:48)
OK, yeah, yeah. I mean, well, we will amend if and when we think it's appropriate. But, you
know, it's each party's representation of who they understand to have a financial interest.
And if our understanding changes, we will update it. And I'm used to each party speaking for
itself. Like, you wouldn't say who you think has a financial interest in Apple.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (52:48 - 52:51)
That's what I recently realized that I overstepped on that one.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (52:51 - 52:58)
Yeah, I know what I'd say. Actually, Parker has a financial interest or her parents or her children
or whatever.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (52:58 - 53:03)
My dog. I'll put my dog down. He's very interested.
OK, so that's clarifying.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (53:03 - 53:12)
We will update it. We're certainly aware of an ongoing, you know, we will update that if we
believe that we have a different position.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (53:12 - 53:56)
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 90 of 713
(90 of 713), Page 90 of 713

OK, cool. And then mine will probably be empty. I can't think of anything that would actually be
mine.
And not just me project managing Apple still. OK. And then.
So then we have we have the legal issues, motions, narrowing of issues, scheduling and trial. So
scheduling and trial. I know you guys want to hold off on scheduling anything.
You did that with Department of Labor, too. And as I said, with Department of Labor, I'm a
project manager. I want to schedule.
We can move the schedule, but I want to schedule. And it sounded like the judge kind of
wanted one, too. So is there like, you know, it's usually good to get a hearing on a calendar and
have some general dates.
Is there some way that we could estimate stuff to kind of pencil it in that you'd be willing to do?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (53:56 - 54:11)
The judge's calendar, not ours. I've got plenty of time, but usually the judges are booked fairly
far out. So, again, if you want to come to the conference and say, Judge, we want a trial date.
And we'll say we think it's premature. And then the judge will say, I agree. Let's give you a trial
date.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (54:12 - 54:20)
Again, I'm just trying to see if we can agree on anything. I know that we might not. The judge's
calendar is harder than any of our calendars.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (54:20 - 54:21)
No, that's what I'm saying.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (54:21 - 54:25)
If we can ask him now just to get it on the calendar. I know you don't want to ask him.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (54:26 - 55:12)
In my mind, right, the pleadings aren't settled. Once the pleading is settled, you do discovery,
happen by, and tethered to the pleading, et cetera, issues. Then you have summary judgment
motion practice tethered to that specific evidence and those specific claims.
And only at that point do you know what actually would be going to trial and how many days
you would need and all that. So I just can't. I appreciate the interest in sort of project managing
the whole timeline.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 91 of 713
(91 of 713), Page 91 of 713

But as I sit here today, I'm not even sure how I would go about that exercise because I don't
know all of the intermediate antecedent steps. So that's why we think it's premature. And that's
why I think we well, I mean, we'd certainly be open to another conference at some point.
Right. We're further down the road. Right.
OK.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (55:14 - 55:20)
He had the really detailed standing order for scheduling this stuff with the whole whatever. So
he does.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (55:20 - 56:03)
But it's all tethered to sort of like there's like when dispositive motions happen. And then this
many weeks later for this or this many. And I don't know when dispositive motions can happen
right now because they don't know what claims and allegations are or aren't an issue.
And B, I don't know how much there's going to be alignment or lack of alignment as to the
discovery that's necessary and appropriate and proportional to those issues that are left. OK,
so. But yeah, once we have a dispositive, once we feel like we can set up a positive motion
deadline, I agree.
Right. That the trial deadline is more within scope or like I can get my brain around it a little
more. But right now I can't get my brain around that sort of trigger.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (56:03 - 56:26)
I understand and appreciate your position. Thank you for explaining it further. And I think you
can probably assume my my concern is just it going out even further that I've been made very
not whole for a very long time now.
So the sooner I can move it up is definitely in my personal interest. So if we drag it out and then
take the year to schedule, you know, so that's why I'm pushing on it. But we can let him decide.
I'm OK.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (56:26 - 57:00)
The judge will want to know how long the trial is going to be, for example. And I don't know. We
have no idea how long the trial is going to be because it depends on what claims are going to
go forward.
And then the judge is going to want to know, well, how much time do you need for discovery?
And we're going to say, well, it depends on what the claims are, because if there are certain
claims that you take no discovery, then the claims don't exist. So that's why we think it's
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 92 of 713
(92 of 713), Page 92 of 713

premature.
But the judge can disagree with us. You know, he may be setting out 2026 and he may say, I'm
going to give you this many days, 2026. And then he's the judge.
He gets to do whatever he wants.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (57:00 - 57:15)
Understood. OK. And then it sounds like to you.
So I'm learning. They don't teach you litigation in law school, so I'm learning about a lot of it. I
knew nothing about litigation.
Yeah, no, that's weird.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (57:15 - 57:21)
They should teach you a little bit. I would be a law professor and I would teach law students
about the practice of law.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (57:21 - 57:26)
Well, litigation is really interesting. They should actually teach it. There should be another year
of law school or something.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (57:26 - 57:38)
We totally agree on that. But the fact is, law schools need to do that. They're not doing it.
And we all have to struggle with the fact that we too, we had people right out of law school.
They don't know anything about practice.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (57:38 - 57:40)
No, I was judgmental of that statement.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (57:40 - 57:47)
Yes, we all agree. We need to change the way we found something.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (57:48 - 58:08)
So to that point, one thing that I'm working through right now is figuring out which things
would be questions of law, just for the judge versus facts for the jury, ordering those out.
Because if, you know, most of the stuff that we decide would be questions of law that we can do
summary judgment, that would make the trial much shorter. So I think mapping that stuff out
would be helpful.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 93 of 713
(93 of 713), Page 93 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (58:09 - 58:11)
We've got to know what the claims are first.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (58:12 - 58:19)
I know. I feel like we know. We're not agreeing on that one.
But yes, I know that you want to sort it out more.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (58:19 - 59:03)
Yeah. And, you know, we don't know where, you know, in some ways you don't know until the
evidence is out, right? Like what there are factual disputes about or reasonable factual disputes
about or not.
And so I don't think the judge is expecting us to come to this initial conference with a sense of
these are the things that will be summary judgment issues. And these are the things that will be
jury issues. That's not my experience, but that's the expectation.
I mean, obviously, parties have that in mind as they litigate, right? What are their factual
disputes about and what aren't their factual disputes about that are germane to the claims at
issue? But I think it comes down to Melinda's point, like we can disagree about whether
chocolate or vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.
That's not germane to any issue for the case. No, no, no, no, no.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (59:05 - 59:09)
I'm going to go with Melinda on this one. Mention my favorite.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (59:11 - 59:13)
Hey, yeah, yeah, yeah. Fine.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (59:13 - 59:13)
All right.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (59:13 - 59:51)
Fine. I could be right to say, what is a germane factual dispute? Again, framed by one of the
claims here.
But I understand. I do. Yeah.
I mean, I think that there I think there will be in our sort of what are we moving on legal issues?
That's kind of related. I know we said we intend to file a motion to dismiss.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 94 of 713
(94 of 713), Page 94 of 713

I also think, again, we're still evaluating it. It's 75 pages. We got it a week ago.
But, you know, there are places where we may think that the amendments weren't authorized
by, you know, you added a 232 claim, for example.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (59:52 - 59:53)
That was already in there.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (59:55 - 1:00:10)
You called it out as a separate claim instead of nesting it under a different cause of action. So
anyway, that's whether we if that's just to say, I didn't want there to be some I didn't want you
to think that we were trolling me saying I had all these other claims.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:00:10 - 1:00:13)
So I tried to break them out. You know, I think you're going to do what you're going to do.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:00:14 - 1:00:26)
And that's also being there's going to be a pleading motion that's going to happen. Hopefully, I
think it is in everyone's interest to have the two things involved. And we know what's in and
what's out.
Maybe that happens after the fourth round.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:00:26 - 1:00:43)
And then one of the reasons I'm bringing this up is like, if you guys would only file it over two
very specific issues, maybe I'm willing just to waive those issues to prevent you from dragging it
out more. And so I just say, I will surrender those claims. And we put that in the statement.
So that's what I'm trying to figure out from you.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:00:43 - 1:01:24)
Maybe we need to have a conversation again, closer to the, I think it's the ninth filing date for
the eighth. Maybe in a better position to. I think that would be very helpful.
I know you, for example, you didn't you were given leave to amend certain things that you
didn't amend. Right. You didn't reclaim.
So, yep. I appreciate that position. And it certainly are.
I think it's, I mean, I forget if it's a requirement in pro se, but it can be helpful, certainly, to say
we would move to business plans X, Y, and Z on these grounds. And then we can see if there's,
if there's alignment. Spoiler alert, I suspect that we won't be able to agree entirely.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 95 of 713
(95 of 713), Page 95 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:01:25 - 1:01:55)
But if we can limit it, you know, this is, I'm willing, as much as I'm very upset about everything
going on, I'm willing to be polite with you and work through this stuff. And if we can find a
compromise that makes it more efficient for everyone, like, I want to do that. I'm not here to,
like, drag stuff out or cause unnecessary work.
And I know we're going to have to compromise on some of this stuff. So, yeah, if you can raise
them, maybe there's stuff that I will just be like if if you were just going to file over the 232
thing, I probably would just say, OK, I'm going to surrender that one. Please don't file that
motion.
Let's just go ahead. Yeah.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:01:55 - 1:02:19)
OK, that's that's helpful for us to know. And as we're continuing to sort of think through exactly
the scope of this responsive pleading. Yeah.
We appreciate and hear that you would be willing to talk to us about these are our intended
arguments. Are you willing to just forego those claims and those aspects of those claims in light
of these arguments or or even if you don't agree with the arguments, just as you say.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:02:19 - 1:02:47)
Even if I don't agree. So that's it. Let's have that conversation.
And whether or not I agree or not, I'm going to make a practical decision. I'm more interested
in this moving forward. And I was sitting down and doing that again.
Well, I forgot. I didn't take remedies, but I was going in and mapping out the remedies for each
of them. And a lot of them are overlapping.
So that's why I'm like 232. I have like five other ones that would give me the exact same
remedies. So so I'm willing to be practical on that.
And again, so we can definitely talk through it. I think meeting again before we file on the ninth
is a great idea.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:02:48 - 1:03:11)
I think we're I think we have to do that, but we would do it anyway for this conversation. Yeah,
the holidays are a little dicey. I know I'm traveling.
I don't know if Melinda has, but I can't imagine we can't find time for a brief. Sorry, I take
vacation. So but yeah, I'm sure we can find time to talk through that.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 96 of 713
(96 of 713), Page 96 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:03:11 - 1:03:38)
That sounds good. And then maybe that's so let's maybe table the legal issues, narrowing legal
issues, emotion, the remainder of that for that conversation. Because it sounds like once you
have a better idea, we can we can talk about, you know, are there ways that stuff could be
surrendered or moved around, made more efficient.
And then it does want like the disputed points of law, not facts. So that kind of is the like
questions of law for some of this stuff.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:03:38 - 1:03:39)
Right.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:03:39 - 1:03:40)
I know.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:03:40 - 1:03:50)
We originally had pages and pages of statements of law. And then I cut it all down because
trying to get 10 pages and I can't give five pages. We can be succinct.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:03:51 - 1:04:39)
You did spend like still a whole page just harassing me. So you could move some of that like 70
percent or some. OK, so maybe we can have a list of like the top three legal issues we're
expecting.
Now, I think we can come up with that. There's probably like a top category of issues that are
going to be our main point of contention when we're going through this stuff. Like I can
imagine one of them right now, which would be like the gobbler stuff for both the employment
and the UCL stuff.
You know, was the gobbler actually confidential? It's going to be a huge question. Right.
Was it was it legitimate to claim that was confidential? So if we can come up with a list and talk
through it and maybe take a few, I think that would be helpful for us. And probably the judge,
too, just to know what to expect of where the big focus will be.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:04:40 - 1:04:48)
Well, the big focus is whether the information you disclose is confidential. You say it was and
you say it wasn't. That's a factual issue, a legal issue.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:04:49 - 1:05:10)
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 97 of 713
(97 of 713), Page 97 of 713

But I mean, not to put too fine a point on it. Right. But if we believe it was confidential and it
goes to this.
I want this determination was was for a reason that we actually believe it can turn out
sometimes that people are incorrect. And that proves that doesn't necessarily prove that. So I
believe it is confidential.
So it's not going to come up, but just not to put too fine a point on it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:05:10 - 1:05:26)
No, that's that's I mean, there's also another finer point of like even if they claim that they
thought it was, but it's clearly really not. And it's illegal. That's probably another argument.
But I think you're right that it's actually going to be predominantly fact based, even though
there is a legal question. It's going to be more about.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:05:27 - 1:05:32)
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the question is, why?
What was the reason for the termination? Right. There are a lot of people.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:05:33 - 1:05:41)
Well, I mean, there are preponderance of evidence that it was due to protected activities versus
what the reason stated was.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:05:41 - 1:05:58)
Any termination is allowed unless it's not. Right. So the question is going to be, this is all within
the exception of the category of places where it's not.
So I take your point that there are some issues that are not clearly legal issues or sexual issues.
And maybe there are some I don't know that we need to be too.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:05:58 - 1:06:16)
Yeah. If we can think about it. If we have anything that stands out, I'm going to think about it
before our next conversation.
OK, so there's that motion. You guys are going to figure out what you're going to do with that.
And we'll talk more before that's filed.
It sounds like we're both planning on doing summary judgment motions.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:06:17 - 1:06:26)
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 98 of 713
(98 of 713), Page 98 of 713

I don't know. Well, I don't know. I mean, we haven't heard what the evidence is.
So. But if he's asking like. I always anticipate that I'll file a summary judgment motion.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:06:26 - 1:06:27)
I'm not going to file it frivolously.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:06:30 - 1:06:45)
But I guess I'll have to phrase it the right way. It sounds like we're both expecting that there will
probably be a need to file it. And versus us expecting that we would not need to file them.
There might be motions.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:06:45 - 1:06:45)
Right.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:06:45 - 1:06:59)
It needs to be put in the schedule. Yeah. Yes.
That it should be in the schedule. Is there any other motions you're expecting that we should
plan for the motion to dismiss and strike them? Whatever we the evidence motions, probably.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:07:00 - 1:07:13)
I mean, I wouldn't say we anticipate those. We would, you know, in a perfect world, everyone
would collaborate and there wouldn't be any of those. I'm not going to say we anticipate them
because I don't yet have any dispute in front of me.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:07:13 - 1:07:21)
But we think it would be prudent to schedule, to include in the schedule, the potential for
motions related to.
[Kathryn Mantoan (Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:07:21 - 1:07:31)
We should leave time in thinking about the life of the case and the course of discovery that the
parties may have discovery disagreements that they need before.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:07:33 - 1:07:56)
OK, that sounds good. Yeah. The narrowing of issues.
I mean, that's that's really, I think, what our next conversation will be. And, you know, if it was
up to me, I'd just go ahead with everything I have, of course. So kind of getting from you guys
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 99 of 713
(99 of 713), Page 99 of 713

and.
You know, are there things that you really do want to fight still and think the judge might
approve you fighting? Let's talk about it.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:07:57 - 1:08:06)
And we told you what we think the case is about. It's about why you would terminate it,
whether it was a protective activity or not.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:08:06 - 1:08:47)
I mean, I know. But like in between in between what we we both say is our default in between
states. Let's have that conversation of negotiation of narrowing where you think that is
appropriate.
And I'd be open to it. I'm happy to have that conversation. And I think that's probably it for now.
Oh, and then just so you know, I am planning on trying and finding a way to get there in person
for the trial. There's a trial. I'm setting that up.
So everything else I would prefer. I'm going to request that. But I am planning on being there
in person for the actual trial.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:08:49 - 1:08:54)
I think I think the courts require it there.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:08:57 - 1:09:10)
I've heard that they started allowing it, especially for pro se and with covid they had to. So it's
sometimes an option. But I just want to put that out there.
Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about all of this.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:09:10 - 1:09:15)
I appreciate it. I'm glad we can have some more conversations and make progress.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:09:19 - 1:09:29)
It's so good. Why? Like, why?
Have you not had the right one? I got to get on my way.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:09:30 - 1:09:31)
Bye. Have a good day.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 100 of 713
(100 of 713), Page 100 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:09:32 - 1:09:49)
Bye. That was actually OK. All right.
So weird.
TurboScribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 101 of 713
(101 of 713), Page 101 of 713

7 
EXHIBIT E: 3/25/25 MEET AND CONFER TRANSCRIPT 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 102 of 713
(102 of 713), Page 102 of 713

Gjovik v Apple 2025 03 25 Meet & Confer Recording
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (0:00 - 0:06)
I'm going to say a report to the cloud and see what happens. Did it tell you I'm recording it?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (0:06 - 0:10)
It says it's recording, and if it doesn't work, I'll send you a copy of mine.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (0:11 - 0:21)
All right, sounds good. All right, I have looked at all your items yesterday in response to my
items, so let's see what I have here.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (0:23 - 0:31)
And I could just go through, I organized some of my outstanding items by the letters too, so we
could just go checklist item by item.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (0:31 - 0:37)
Let's start with the protective order, because that's one of the things we want to get done. Is
that okay?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (0:38 - 0:51)
So it sounds like she's going to issue the default one anyways. I do not want Apple's modified
one, but the default one, we're just going to have to go, I'm going to have to challenge stuff if
Apple abuses it, and we'll just have to go through that process.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (0:52 - 1:09)
Yeah, there's a process in there if you disagree with the designations, there's a process to be
followed. I don't think that it prevents you from talking to the government, but whatever. If you
want, if you're just ready to go with the model one, I mean the model one, then we'll just go
with the model one.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:10 - 1:52)
Yeah, the model one. So we can stipulate to that, that might make her happy that we actually
agreed to something. So we can do that one.
I do think it would be helpful to proactively define confidentiality, since that is the number one
dispute I'm having with Apple in all of the litigation, is what is confidential. So if there's anything
that, and you might need to talk amongst yourselves, but if there's anything we can do to try to
clarify that, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines it as trade secrets and actually
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 103 of 713
(103 of 713), Page 103 of 713

confidential. So we can go through that organically, but I thought it might be helpful if we can
come to some of that understanding ourselves proactively too.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:53 - 2:05)
Well, I think, I mean, obviously the Protective Order defines it. And if you, and we mark
something as confidential and you disagree that it's confidential, then there's a whole process
in the Protective Order for you to challenge our designation.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (2:06 - 2:14)
Understood. But then the, what is confidential at the end of that challenge is, what does the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in case law say is confidential?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (2:16 - 2:24)
Right. But the Protective Order describes it, right? And if you don't like the one, what we've
done, then I don't think we need to change the Protective Order is what I'm saying.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (2:24 - 3:03)
We're not going to change the Protective Order. The Protective Order does not define
confidential. It defines the process for parties to designate things confidential.
I'm just, as you can probably understand, even if you don't want to say so, concerned about
what Apple's going to try to designate as confidential. So trying to figure out if there's anything
we can do, since we've already had disputes on this topic of what is confidential and what's not,
and a lot of discovery held back under this guise that stuff's confidential that I disagree with. So
we can just go through that whole process organically.
I was hoping there's something we might be able to do. You've done this a lot more than me.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (3:05 - 3:05)
Many years.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (3:06 - 3:10)
So you used to run litigation at Morgan Lewis, right? For employment?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (3:10 - 3:19)
No, I was just one of many, many people. So I don't think we can define it in the abstract, is
what I'm saying.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (3:19 - 3:34)
So if there's just anything that can try to... I know that you guys like to create the friction, but if
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 104 of 713
(104 of 713), Page 104 of 713

there's anything we can do to try to streamline this at all, would be really, really helpful. You can
get back to me on that one.
But yeah, we can stipulate.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (3:34 - 4:04)
No, I just, I don't think... I mean, it says confidential information is what is qualified for
protection under the 2060s. So I think, again, I just go back to, we market as confidential.
You disagree, follow the protective order. And I don't think we can further define it. Okay.
Because it's like, there's so many different versions of confidential and different things that are
confidential that we can't try to say.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (4:04 - 4:26)
We have a bunch of individual little battles then, probably. Or maybe we'll all agree. Who knows
what will happen.
Okay. So that sounds good. We can stipulate to that right away.
And then hopefully that means that Apple's willing to... So I guess that goes to the number one
thing on my list of, has discovery started or not? And if it's not, what is needed to get it started?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (4:27 - 4:31)
Well, I mean, I don't know that we have to fuss about that because let's just go forward.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (4:33 - 4:41)
As I said... I mean, that's the fundamental question of discovery is whether discovery is actually
started or if it stayed or... You know?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (4:41 - 5:03)
So, as you know, we believe that Go71 is not part of discovery. It's a disclosure. And yes, that
started.
And yes, it was required. And the judge also ordered discovery on phase one. And yes, that
started some time ago.
And yes, we served it. And yes, you haven't responded. So...
But we don't have to fuss about that if you're going to respond.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (5:04 - 5:07)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 105 of 713
(105 of 713), Page 105 of 713

You're saying full discovery has not started yet.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (5:07 - 5:30)
Well, I think it might start. You mean beyond phase one? Yeah.
Yeah. I'm fine to do discovery based on the complaint that exists now. I think we can say, even
though the judge's order hasn't changed, we can say...
What he said, I think, was once the pleadings are set, then we can go into full discovery.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (5:33 - 5:38)
If you guys are willing to say we can start it today, I'm just willing to say we're just going to
agree that we're starting it today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (5:38 - 5:44)
No. We started it. We did the case.
Go71 is old. The discovery...
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (5:44 - 5:49)
You just said that's not part of discovery. So you can't have it both ways. If you said that's not
part of discovery...
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (5:49 - 5:53)
It is not part of discovery. And it was due. And...
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (5:53 - 6:13)
Okay, put that aside, though. My question is, outside of that conversation you're having, full
discovery, because pleadings are settled now and all this stuff. Can we say that today you and I
are going to put aside all of our other differences about discovery starting prior, full discovery,
and just say it's going to start today?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (6:14 - 6:25)
No. So phase one discovery already started some time ago. We served phase one discovery.
That is past due. We don't need to fight about it as long as you're willing to answer it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (6:25 - 6:53)
I see what you're doing. You guys are very good at this. I went to law school to get away from
this, by the way.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 106 of 713
(106 of 713), Page 106 of 713

Like, this is like engineering. Okay, so we have... Let's say we have three buckets of discovery.
We have what you're referring to as the general 71 non-discovery, but we'll just call that GO71.
We have the phase one discovery that was in Judge Ten's order. And then we have full federal
rules of civil procedure discovery.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (6:53 - 6:54)
Yes.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (6:54 - 6:57)
This third bucket, can it begin today?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (6:59 - 7:06)
So full discovery, but that doesn't mean that phase one discovery and GO71 discovery didn't
start before and is already past due.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (7:07 - 7:13)
I'm not going to concede to that stuff, but there's still the big open question of, can full
discovery start today?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (7:13 - 7:24)
Yeah, I'm fine with that. You still have to answer the phase one and do the GO71. But if you
want to say, now we can start more discovery, that's fine with me.
But it doesn't change the fact.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (7:24 - 7:36)
On me saying that the other stuff you did was legitimate, if we can just put aside all of our other
stuff and say, you and I are agreeing today that we're just going to start full discovery, period.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (7:38 - 7:43)
Yeah. As long as you answer the discovery we've served and get us the GO71 responses, that's
fine.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (7:43 - 7:47)
I'm not making a decision on that because if we're starting today, that means you need to
reserve your stuff today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (7:48 - 7:52)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 107 of 713
(107 of 713), Page 107 of 713

No, I don't need to reserve them because they were already served.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (7:52 - 8:07)
Very, very clear. Any kind of requests served during a stay are not valid. So if you want to fight
this, this will be our first letter is you saying you think that these things were valid during that
stay.
I say they're not. I say you need to reserve your stuff today. You said, no, that stuff's valid.
I'm late. That'll be our first letter.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (8:08 - 8:10)
But why do we need to fuss over it? Why don't you just answer it?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (8:11 - 8:14)
Because you want me to acquiesce that I was supposed to do something.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (8:14 - 8:22)
No, I just want you to answer the discovery. You don't have to concede anything. You don't
have to agree to anything.
Just answer the discovery. That's all I'm saying.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (8:22 - 8:23)
Just resend it today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (8:23 - 8:40)
Why do I need to do that? I already served it. Because that's the rules.
No, it isn't. I looked it up. Just answer the discovery.
And then we don't have to go to the judge. Don't waste the judge's time about whether there
was discovery started or didn't discovery decided. Just answer the discovery.
That's the easiest answer.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (8:40 - 8:46)
Because you guys have already made public allegations against me about the judge of me
missing deadlines that I was not obligated to meet.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (8:47 - 8:52)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 108 of 713
(108 of 713), Page 108 of 713

Just put it behind you. Put it all behind you. That's what I'm saying to you.
We already served.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (8:52 - 9:03)
You just need to resend. And I sent you a request for production you denied like two months
ago. And I'm saying, I'm not going to fight that one.
I'm going to resend it today. Because we just agreed it's starting. So I'm going to let that go.
Can you just send it today?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (9:03 - 9:20)
I'm happy to meet and confer today on the... You don't need to resend the discovery. Let's meet
and confer on which of the responses you don't like.
That's what we're supposed to do as part of the meet and confer. You go through each one of
the requests. And then you tell us which ones you disagree with and why.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (9:21 - 9:35)
All of them. And I had already outlined that there's very, very broad rejections. That you can't
do that.
You have to be more specific. You can't just say because this generally seems to be... There's
narrow stuff.
I've already outlined all the main...
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (9:36 - 9:49)
We have to go through each request. That's what the magistrates order. And I have the request
in front of me.
I can share it if you want. And then we go through each request. And then you tell us whether
you're okay with the answer.
And if not, why not?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (9:49 - 9:50)
Okay. Yeah. Share, please.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (9:51 - 10:18)
Should we do that? Yeah. Okay.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 109 of 713
(109 of 713), Page 109 of 713

Let's see. Do I not have a share thing here? Pause.
Stop recording. Break room. So share.
There it is. I think this is the right one. Okay.
Request number one. I assume you're okay with that?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (10:20 - 10:37)
Because we will... Hold on. Because Weibull never conducted an investigation into plaintiff into
Joe Bigstar.
Well, no. The discovery documents you showed me showed that Helen and Jenna were talking...
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (10:38 - 10:40)
Can you talk up a little bit?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (10:41 - 10:54)
The discovery documents released so far showed that Helen Pokes and Jenna Weibull were
either investigating or getting consultation about how to handle me as the issue per an
escalation from my boss.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (10:56 - 10:57)
Okay. But we answered the question.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (10:58 - 11:00)
We don't have it because Ms. Weibull never conducted.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (11:01 - 11:01)
Yeah.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (11:03 - 11:11)
So is that like a formal... Okay. So if there's no formal...
You're saying there's no formal investigation opens. There's no case file for that.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (11:12 - 11:18)
Right. There's no investigation. So there was no case file.
So that one's okay.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 110 of 713
(110 of 713), Page 110 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (11:19 - 11:21)
I'll think about... I'm not conceding it.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (11:21 - 11:22)
Yeah. It's fine.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (11:22 - 11:24)
Okay. Case management concern.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (11:25 - 11:29)
So this one has some objections, but we gave the answers. We gave some answers.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (11:30 - 11:45)
Go back. Scroll back up to two, please. I can't see the top part.
The next page above it, please.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (11:45 - 11:46)
You want to go up or down?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (11:53 - 11:58)
Go up a little bit more. Can I see my...
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (11:58 - 12:02)
You can skip through the objections as long as you're okay with the answer.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (12:03 - 12:06)
Well, remind me of what the question is. I can't see it.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (12:06 - 12:07)
Oh, yeah. Sorry.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (12:08 - 12:39)
The case file from the Federal Employee Relations Concerning General Weibull is starting.
Including any comments from people other than Weibull. So, yeah, I definitely would object
when the scope is narrowed to those specific claims when it's a retaliation case.
So anything related to protected activity, complaints, investigations, all of that is relevant under
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 111 of 713
(111 of 713), Page 111 of 713

discovery.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (12:39 - 12:45)
Right. But then we answer the question. Didn't have a case file regarding investigation into
concerns you raised.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (12:52 - 13:09)
We have no documents responsive to this. Because you've done this a million times, and I've
never done this, and I'm sure you're playing some board games. But if I was to resubmit this
and say, documents instead of case file, would there be things?
Do I just need to resend it with fine tuning? I feel like you guys should be interpreting this
liberally.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (13:10 - 13:23)
Well, we interpret them the way the question is asked. You asked for the case file. But we told
you in our part here that we didn't have any documents responsive because she didn't conduct
an investigation.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (13:30 - 13:44)
Okay. So this is where I'm like, if I resubmit it, making it more broad, because I know there are
just more documents. And maybe you're using these terms to not give me these very specific
things.
Then I have to resubmit it more broad. And last time I did that, you said that's too broad.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (13:45 - 13:56)
Yeah. So here you wanted to know if she did an investigation, and we said she didn't. So there's
no point in you asking for anything else about an investigation because she didn't do one.
That's what we've said.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (13:56 - 14:03)
Well, a formal coded designation. Okay. I understand what you're saying, and I will get back to
you on that.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (14:04 - 14:15)
All right. Sounds good. So here's Okpo's investigation, so then you can get to the end.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (14:26 - 14:36)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 112 of 713
(112 of 713), Page 112 of 713

So this one, are you saying that there was never a case file that Okpo had either? Yep. If there
was no case file, why did you have nine other objections?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (14:37 - 14:45)
I don't know. Sometimes people put in objections just to preserve them, but that's why you look
at the answer.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (14:49 - 15:14)
Well, I mean, if you have objections that are not even relevant, that seems like an issue. Your
associates are overly ambitious with their objections. Okay.
So you're saying there is a case file from Okpo, or there's not? There's no case file at all for any
of them?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (15:14 - 15:29)
We did not maintain a case file into your concerns. And if it means an investigation, then we
don't have that either. So we're trying to help you to say there's no case file, there's no
investigation documents.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (15:30 - 15:38)
So I need to find a way to ask you for documents with not too vague, but also enough of a net
to actually get some stuff. Understood. Okay.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (15:38 - 15:42)
I don't know what you're looking for, but we've given you the answers to that one.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (15:42 - 15:53)
Case file from Respondent's Employee Relations Concern. So, okay, you're saying there's no
case files whatsoever in any platforms? And that's into me or about my concerns?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (15:54 - 16:00)
The question was, case file from Respondent's Employee Relations Platform concerning an
investigation into Jovic.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (16:01 - 16:08)
And the other one was an investigation into my concerns. So you're saying there's no case files
about Ashley?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (16:08 - 16:09)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 113 of 713
(113 of 713), Page 113 of 713

Right. Okay.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (16:13 - 16:31)
That's concerning issue confirmation, including drafts, timestamps, objects. Okay. So this one,
there definitely is.
When I saw that thing, it was clear at least five lawyers wrote it. So there had to have been
drafts and conversation. Help me understand the objections on this one.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (16:32 - 16:46)
Okay. So don't worry about that. Get to the answer.
Defendant understands you to seek all documents concerning the August 2021 issue
confirmation sent. And then we're saying we've given you those. So assuming we answered it
the way you meant it, we've given you the documents.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (16:47 - 16:50)
Those are emails I was already on that did not give me any information I did not already have.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (16:54 - 17:00)
We're telling you we've given you all the documents that are responsive to that request that
we've been able to find.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (17:00 - 17:05)
So you're saying that anything you did not give me, you are claiming attorney-client privilege
for?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (17:06 - 17:10)
You'll get a privilege log this week. So if there's anything that's privileged, you'll get it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (17:10 - 17:19)
So if like this is not listed on that, then I should assume it's because you're saying it's not
relevant under the scope of the claims or private.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (17:19 - 17:23)
We're saying we've given you everything that's not privileged. Okay.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (17:24 - 17:44)
So we're going to have to challenge that. I know this is Apple's favorite I've seen. I've looked at
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 114 of 713
(114 of 713), Page 114 of 713

a lot of Apple cases.
We're going to challenge the privilege. So if you can at least just make it clear when the main
claim is privileged, that will help the pipeline of those challenges. Because right now I can see
like nine different challenges and I'm wondering what the main ones are.
Okay.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (17:44 - 17:52)
Well, you have to look at the privilege log. There's a whole process in the magistrate's order
about challenging a privilege log. So if you want to challenge it, follow the process.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (17:52 - 17:53)
I don't have a privilege log yet.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (17:54 - 17:55)
No, I know. You're going to get it this week.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (17:56 - 17:57)
Wonderful. Thank you.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (17:59 - 18:03)
So I don't think you should have any problem with that because we answered it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (18:06 - 18:13)
As long as it's clear that... So I still have a concern of I get the privilege log, you say, okay, the
issue confirmation stuff, we're claiming privilege for...
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (18:15 - 18:21)
Well, I don't know. If it's on the privilege log, then we claim privilege for it. If it's not on the
privilege log, then there's no privilege.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (18:21 - 18:30)
Well, that's what I'm saying. So then I'm wondering if it's... Well, if it's on the log, are you also
claiming all these other objections?
The problem is when it's the junk drawer...
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (18:30 - 18:31)
Privilege log is just for privilege.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 115 of 713
(115 of 713), Page 115 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (18:32 - 18:37)
That's what I'm saying. So if I need to figure out how to challenge this, do I need to challenge
this under the like six different objections?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (18:38 - 18:41)
No, because we're telling you, we've given you all non-privileged documents.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (18:43 - 18:58)
No, what I'm saying is I'm going to fight for those documents. You're saying it's privileged, but
this also says like five other objections. So should I just...
I guess I will... If this is the objection you guys are going with, that when I challenge it, I'm going
to have to challenge all of the objections listed for each of it.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (18:58 - 19:06)
No, because we're telling you, we're giving you the answers. There's no point in challenging
anything if we gave you the answer.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (19:07 - 19:10)
No, there's a point in challenging it if I don't agree with the assessment of its category.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (19:10 - 19:31)
No, because I mean, we're saying, look, it was only phase one discovery and we're not going to
waive any objections to that. But then we also say, notwithstanding the objections, subject to
and without... Sorry, notwithstanding.
Don't worry about the objections. That's my view. We're giving you the documents, all non-
privileged documents about the issue confirmation.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (19:32 - 19:36)
You said, or wait, are you saying you already did or are you going to give me another
production?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (19:37 - 19:55)
I believe... So we have produced, I think all of the ones on this. There's going to be one more
production out this week.
I don't think it relates to the issue confirmation, but you'll get the privilege log and the
remainder of our documents this week. And then you will be able to see that we have produced
everything responsive to the request.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 116 of 713
(116 of 713), Page 116 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (19:58 - 20:08)
Okay, so for sake of time then, it sounds like since this is still kind of pending then. So if you're
going to give me more documents in response to this request, is that what you're saying?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (20:08 - 20:11)
I don't think they're any more responsive to this request.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (20:13 - 20:20)
Okay, okay. So what were you saying about phase one discovery in this then? You're saying that
even in full discovery, this request is complete?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (20:20 - 20:21)
Yes.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (20:21 - 21:00)
Okay. So you're saying my request for production in full discovery, complete. So if I was to
resubmit this to you today, you would say same answers as before?
Yes. Okay. Business conduct system record, does not have any documents because it's
pendant.
Complaint, any notes, updates, resolution. I mean, that one, you're definitely holding some
stuff back. I got some stuff from OSHA that seemed like it fits that category.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (21:02 - 21:20)
The business conduct system record for your business conduct complaint. So I guess we're
saying that's not related to the claims in the fourth amended complaint.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (21:21 - 21:32)
But that is when I submitted the whole issue confirmation to business conduct, which included
tons of stuff in that complaint. And that shows the full knowledge of Apple business conduct of
what my complaints were outside even employee relations.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (21:36 - 21:38)
And how does that relate to your retaliation complaint?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (21:39 - 21:40)
Knowledge is a prima facie problem.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 117 of 713
(117 of 713), Page 117 of 713

[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (21:44 - 21:49)
So you want the answer to that to show that Apple had knowledge of what you were
complaining about?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (21:50 - 21:51)
Apple business conduct.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (21:52 - 21:55)
Okay. I'll get back to you on that one.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (21:59 - 22:35)
Okay. So the office, you know, this is protected activity. This is Nexus.
This is pretext. This is knowledge. If it shows that, you know, Apple is doing all this testing
parallel of my complaints and some of it contradicted things they were telling me.
That shows there was an issue that they had motive to cover up. All of that is extremely basic in
a retaliation case. So I think relevance is not an argument here.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (22:36 - 22:44)
When you have to show you the retaliation cases, I complained and they fired me. So this
doesn't relate to your complaints, right?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (22:44 - 22:46)
That you complained about those things.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (22:47 - 22:51)
Right. But then they would give you documents about your complaints.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (22:52 - 23:40)
And that because there's so much case law, there's buckets of case law of the motive of
whether there was an actual issue is an absolutely key factor in these retaliation cases. It goes
both ways. If it shows that Apple was just doing a super normal thing and they found no issues
and there was nothing weird going on, that hurts my case.
So what I'm asking for is information that I don't know if it's going to help me or hurt me. You
know, I assume it's going to help me, but I don't know because I need to understand for my
lawsuit, what was going on with Apple related to the things I was complaining about, whether
there was a cover-up, you know, retaliation is often a cover-up. So is there stuff they were trying
to cover up?
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 118 of 713
(118 of 713), Page 118 of 713

Was there peculiar behavior? Were they doing things outside of the norm? Did they find
concrete issues?
Are there emails where they say, uh-oh, hope Ashley doesn't find out about this. Like all of that
is super relevant.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (23:42 - 23:46)
And September 11th was the day you were fired? Is that what you're saying, to mid-10th?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (23:47 - 23:49)
September 9th and then effective September 10th.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (23:49 - 24:03)
Okay, all right. I will go back and look at that one. So I'm going to look at five, six, and seven
and see if we disagree with you and whether we're willing to rest on our objection.
Thank you.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (24:08 - 25:01)
Same thing, Ani. I think that is kind of one of the biggest pieces of what I just discussed of that
inspection. Um, so all of that seems material to me.
So in the, the FAB is still in scope for the same thing of motive. I have the Crime Victims Act, the
legislative witness, you know, I have claims that are critical to that. So while the toxic torts are
out for now, I mean, that means there's a lot of stuff that I would have asked for otherwise that
I won't now, especially stuff after, you know, way after I was fired.
But this, again, goes to clearly to motive and knowledge and pretext and all of that.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (25:03 - 25:07)
Okay, I will look at nine again. Seven, eight, nine, ten.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (25:11 - 25:15)
That one, same thing with a real underlying on pretext.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (25:16 - 25:18)
Well, but we've given you a bunch of stuff on that one.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (25:19 - 26:18)
Most of the stuff I already had. You gave me a few things, but if we're in full discovery, I assume
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 119 of 713
(119 of 713), Page 119 of 713

there's a lot more to be given. And so that one specifically is for, you know, impeachment of my
questions, the responses I was getting, me not being happy with those answers, you know, if
there was a really great plan and they were saying, actually, there's no plan, that's suspicious.
If there's no plan at all, and I'm complaining there's no plan, and they say it's fine if there's
emails or something about like, hey, we need to create a plan, like that's also seems material.
Again, it's that was everything they're doing super normal and reasonable and not weird at all,
or was at what they were doing super suspicious and contradictory and deceptive or
somewhere in between. I can't figure that out without this kind of information.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (26:26 - 26:38)
So that's kind of, that's like the other two. You want those documents to show this motive and
you want to know if there's anything else that we're not giving you responsive to the request.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (26:38 - 27:23)
Yeah, like motive or maybe there's not, right? So like if it proves that Apple is actually being
super normal, I think that's something Apple would be happy to send over. You're like, actually,
look, we're being super normal, right?
And then the mid-year performance review, I didn't get one, which was weird. And there was
some of those emails going on with HR and stuff. So if there's anything about what, oh, we
didn't do a mid-year with Ashley, you know, that's- We've said there are no documents, so that's
the end of it.
I mean, he would have, my boss would have got an email saying, hey, you haven't submitted
your mid-year with Ashley or he submitted and said he did in the system and then he would
have lied.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (27:24 - 27:31)
So- Right, but we're saying there are no documents. So that's what I'm saying is if we say there
are no documents, then we have no documents.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (27:32 - 28:02)
So what I'm saying is the Merlin systems and stuff make him like check in and say whether or
not he's done those. Dan would ask for status from them to make sure they say they've done all
their mid-years. So he either expressly said I didn't do Ashley's and here's why.
He gets pressure from Dan and wouldn't do it. Feel like I still work for him four years later. So
he either would have expressly said I didn't do it and here's why and Dan would have had to
accept that or he would have lied and said he did it and both of those same material.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (28:04 - 28:12)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 120 of 713
(120 of 713), Page 120 of 713

Okay. We're saying there are no documents. So I can go back- I know they're saying that, but
they're- I can go back and have them see if there's anything in the Merlin systems.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (28:13 - 29:34)
Merlin or Dan would ask his directs to like confirm that they had done these. This is something
he would ask at his staff. That was one of the things I'd asked for is their staff meeting notes
because Megan Gates or whoever their admin was at that time would have been taking notes
on things like this of him asking did everyone do their mid-years and it would have been in the
notes if it was yes or if someone had said not yet and then Dan would like yell at them and be
like you gotta go do it.
So there should be something. Number 12, annual- Thank you for sending those drafts. That
was helpful.
One thing I was going to ask, some of those documents weren't timestamped. There weren't
dates on them. It would be really helpful for the timeline to piece together the undated stuff if
possible.
I assume there's like metadata on those documents that could be somehow adhered to them
and I just got, you know, the drafts of the documents. I assume there were emails about it too
and is that where you're claiming attorney-client privilege?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (29:35 - 29:36)
It'll be on the Privilege Blog if we are.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (29:37 - 30:06)
Okay, so I'm gonna have to go, for all of that I'll go through and compare and probably have
some follow-up questions. Okay, all the drafts, termination letter. Okay, so we'll wait for the log
on that and you guys are still claiming attorney-client privilege for any of the stuff happening
before the stuff you have given me?
Or outside of it?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (30:07 - 30:11)
If there was a communication with an attorney about it, then it would be privileged.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (30:15 - 30:31)
And that'll be... So the things where you're talking about like the facts of what occurred, not
even like... Like you could at least like redact a document other than dates and people or
something just to give me an idea of what's occurring or are you guys claiming attorney-client
privilege to just like everything?
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 121 of 713
(121 of 713), Page 121 of 713

[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (30:32 - 30:36)
Well, the Privilege Log gives you a log of what we're claiming as privileged.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (30:36 - 30:39)
You previously said it would only be categorical. Are you going to do it by document now?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (30:41 - 30:43)
You'll see it when it comes. It's not by document, no.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (30:43 - 31:09)
Okay, so that... I mean, that's where if it was by document, which it's supposed to be, I'll
probably have to challenge that. That's where I could glean a lot of this information.
So either getting that type of information document by document through a production with
heavy redactions or something or having the document... The groups of documents for
document by document production log would hopefully give me that information. But either
way, that seems like very relevant information.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (31:13 - 31:23)
We'll have a look at the Privilege Log and then we can follow the judge's order on meeting and
conferring about the Privilege Log. Yeah. Okay, 14.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (31:28 - 31:43)
For that though, I mean... I guess if you guys are willing to meet and confer now, we can do
another one on it. Okay.
Whether that they were terminating... I guess we just talked about that one.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (31:45 - 31:45)
Nope.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (31:46 - 31:48)
Any documents agreement is supposedly signed.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (31:49 - 31:52)
Oh, and then this... So this categorical Privilege Log, that's what we're going to give you.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (31:53 - 31:59)
So that's not sufficient. Case law says that's not sufficient. You can do groups of documents...
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 122 of 713
(122 of 713), Page 122 of 713

[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (31:59 - 32:00)
We'll meet and confer on it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (32:00 - 32:01)
But you can't do document by document.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (32:02 - 32:06)
We believe it is, you believe it isn't. Let's meet and confer on it when you see it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (32:07 - 32:25)
Okay. Spend lots of time together, Brenda. Yep.
Any documents, contracts, agreements. So yeah, and I requested this back in December 2023. I
want all contracts I signed with Apple.
You guys had previously said something like maybe you'd release them with a protective order.
So once we agree to the protective order, is that something you'll provide?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (32:26 - 32:27)
Yep. Okay.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (32:28 - 32:32)
And that includes the Gobbler Informed Consent Agreement?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (32:33 - 32:41)
If we have one, it'll include it. Yeah, Gobbler definitely includes... It definitely includes Gobbler.
I've seen the Gobbler one.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (32:42 - 32:49)
So the thing that was included for the OSHA that said it was Gobbler, that wasn't Gobbler. That
was a completely different study. And that was like over a year after.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (32:50 - 32:57)
Okay. Well, the one that I think we produced, but anyway, the one you have or will get with a
protective order is the Gobbler one.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (32:57 - 32:58)
From 2017.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 123 of 713
(123 of 713), Page 123 of 713

[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (32:59 - 33:00)
I don't remember what date it was.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (33:01 - 33:17)
The one sent to OSHA was not Gobbler. It said it was, but it was not. That was like 2018.
That was an overall live on. So for the Gobbler 2017 one, if I'm not getting that, I do need an
explanation why. If it doesn't exist, I need that explanation too.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (33:18 - 33:20)
Oh, you'll get the one for Gobbler.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (33:20 - 33:30)
Okay. Oh yeah, this one's super important.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (33:32 - 33:34)
Are we on 16? Yeah. Okay.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (33:42 - 34:03)
I mean, the decision to terminate me, that's kind of a hand wavy of who made that decision, but
that's also cat's paw. I mean, we need to establish cat's paw. It seems like that definitely
happened with the email that you need.
So then it goes to who knew? And how do I know who knew? Unless you tell me who knew.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (34:07 - 34:08)
We've given you the answer.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (34:13 - 34:34)
Okay. So you guys are sticking to that objection on that one. Yeah.
Okay. So 16. Challenge right away.
Um, 17. Same thing. Is that the same thing?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (34:34 - 34:36)
Oh, that's about the Verge?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (34:36 - 34:37)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 124 of 713
(124 of 713), Page 124 of 713

Yeah.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (34:38 - 34:40)
So Davenda doesn't have any documents responsive to this request.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (34:41 - 35:17)
The reporter had told me, she sent it to them on the Friday before, I think it was published on a
Sunday or Monday. And she said they'd sent it multiple days ahead of time and like reminded
them. She had said that they weren't responding to her at least prior to production, but she had
confirmed to me.
And that's completely like standard procedure. And it says we asked Apple for comment. So it's
hard for me to believe that they got that email from Verge about that article and then no one
saw it or said a word about it.
I don't know what this process is. Like if I need to send you the text that she sent me.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (35:18 - 35:29)
This is Apple writing back. You're asking responses from Apple to the Verge. Not emails to
Apple from the Verge.
And we're saying we didn't respond.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (35:29 - 35:31)
From the Verge to Apple.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (35:31 - 35:45)
Any responses triple transmitted from Apple to the Verge or Shoei or Zoe. Okay. We didn't
transmit anything to the Verge or Zoe.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (35:46 - 36:37)
Okay. And then you said did not. 17 did not transmit to Verge.
Okay. Or Zoe. And then 18 whatever emails that were referred to in their US Department of
Labor response.
So I got those through OSHA, mostly redacted. It would be helpful if you can send me those
emails not redacted. And more emails if there's more emails.
Or if you guys are saying you didn't give me those documents prior because of objections, if
you can add those objections because they're not currently listed, just as you gave me
everything.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 125 of 713
(125 of 713), Page 125 of 713

[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (36:46 - 36:50)
Well, we've said we gave it to you, but I will see if there are any redactions on them.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (37:00 - 37:12)
Oh, I apologize. I was reading that as much as I was. That was just the July 20th email.
Oh, I forgot. This is a very narrow one I sent you. Yes.
You previously said that that didn't exist.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (37:14 - 37:22)
I don't know. We said we've given you something and we've given the numbers, the Bates
numbers. So we've responded to that request.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (37:24 - 37:27)
That was an email where I said I didn't want to be on leave.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (37:28 - 37:40)
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what is there, but I'm just saying we've responded to the
request so there's no reason to meet and confer on it. There's no reason to take it to the
magistrate because we gave you the response.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (37:46 - 38:04)
Um, I'm going to have to look into this because the response was not what you said existed.
And I believe an email you said that thing you said to OSHA is not actually an email that exists,
in which case there's, I guess, nothing for me to ask for. So I will think about it.
I'll drink some coffee about that one.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (38:05 - 38:16)
All right. We've now met and conferred on that. I'm going to get back to you on some things.
You're going to look at some things and hopefully we will get progress on that.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (38:16 - 38:34)
We're going to start our full discovery. Jesus, fonts. Did no one tell him about like the muting,
the darker red and the darker green?
Anyways, so we're going to agree that we're going to start full discovery today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (38:35 - 38:56)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 126 of 713
(126 of 713), Page 126 of 713

No, I'm not agreeing to that. I'm just telling you that you need to respond. You need to give us
the Go71 stuff and you need to respond to the document request that we already sent.
You want to send more discovery on phase two? I'm agreeing that we start full discovery today
because beyond phase one and beyond Go71.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (38:59 - 39:04)
Okay. So we agree we're just separate from everything else. We're starting full discovery today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:05 - 39:10)
Full discovery. But we still have to answer the Go71 and the prior discovery requests we sent.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:11 - 39:17)
And I'm saying you can send me, now that we're starting today, you can send me a request
today and I'm happy to respond to them.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:17 - 39:34)
So we talked about three buckets, the Go71, the phase one and full. Go71 already started, you
owe us the stuff. Phase one already started, you owe us the stuff.
Beyond phase one, we're starting today. Correct. But we still have to do the first two buckets.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:34 - 39:39)
So for the first two buckets, we're in dispute on that. And it sounds like we need a letter. I had
said this like months ago.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:39 - 39:42)
Just answer them. Just answer them. Why do we need a letter?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:43 - 39:48)
You know, I can read Ryan's email about me. Yeah, you're sharing that with me.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:48 - 39:49)
Oh, I'm sorry about that.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:50 - 39:52)
I am not reading it or screenshotting.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:52 - 39:54)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 127 of 713
(127 of 713), Page 127 of 713

Funny, it says, it doesn't say share.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:55 - 39:58)
When you shared your screen for the document, you must have shared your entire desktop.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:01 - 40:05)
I can't explain that because it's not saying it's sharing anything.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (40:06 - 40:08)
I can knock it off.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:13 - 40:16)
You can allow multiple presentations to share.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (40:21 - 40:25)
If you go to the bottom where it says share, if you click it again, you should be able to turn it off.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:28 - 40:29)
It's not showing it's on.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (40:30 - 40:35)
It might not, but if you click it, it will have like a stop sharing, even though it looks like it's...
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:35 - 40:45)
No, I don't have a stop. I could, oh, stop share. There we go.
You're right. I see it on the third screen. I have three screens.
All right. Now we're back in the right place here.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (40:46 - 40:52)
That's why I was like, what is his colors? He's using on his writing. Yes, he's very aggressive
color choices.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:52 - 40:53)
All right.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (40:54 - 40:57)
Okay. So we're going to be in disagreement on the first two. If you guys want to fight that.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 128 of 713
(128 of 713), Page 128 of 713

[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:57 - 41:00)
Yeah, but just answer the discovery.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (41:00 - 41:21)
We don't need to fight about whether it started or whether it didn't start. These laws on my side
here, there's no, absolutely no reason for you to not just resend it now, now that we're
agreeing it starts. If you guys want to hold onto the fact that I am out of compliance with this
thing, you say I'm overdue on because I saw your guys' way.
You want to come after me and try to get sanctions against me for discovery.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (41:21 - 41:24)
No, I just want you to answer it. That's all I ask.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (41:24 - 42:29)
No, I see how you guys do. So I'm not acquiescing to any of that because I was not in the
wrong. So if you guys want to start that fight, we need to start it now.
So you guys can go in and say, she was supposed to do this general order 71 stuff. She won't,
she won't. And I will say, I said, send me my federal rules of civil procedure request right now
and I will do them under federal rules of civil procedure.
And you'll say, no, that's not good enough. We want this special thing that we created because
you're bad. And then we'll, you know, we're going to have to raise that and you guys need to
articulate that now.
I'm not going to let this stuff build and fester for you to create some false case against me later.
I see you guys do that really well, but I'm not going to play that game. So if you want to do that
stuff, do it, we can do the letters.
But if you send me a normal request for production today, I will happily respond within the
federal rules of civil procedure for whatever it is. As far as general order 71, I was working on
that until discovery was stayed. Once discovery was stayed, my understanding is that the first
phase of discovery did not include general order 71.
And now that full discovery is starting, general 71 is just folded into normal discovery. So.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (42:30 - 42:32)
Hey, will you answer general 71?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (42:32 - 42:36)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 129 of 713
(129 of 713), Page 129 of 713

About that, we can, we can have some letters and ask for the judge to clarify.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (42:36 - 42:39)
No, I just want you to answer it. That's all I'm asking.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (42:39 - 42:40)
You can just send it to me today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (42:41 - 42:50)
What, the GO 71, there's nothing to send. So GO 71 is in the order. It tells you what you have to
produce.
And so just produce it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (42:50 - 42:52)
You can send me a request for production today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (42:52 - 43:01)
No, I know you want me to do that, but I'm just talking about GO 71. Will you give us GO 71 by
what does Ryan say here, the 24?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:01 - 43:05)
If you give me a request for production today, asking for it, I will respond.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:05 - 43:12)
I don't have to ask you for GO 71. GO 71 is a court order. I don't ask you for anything.
You have to.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:12 - 43:14)
It was paused and then.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:14 - 43:17)
Whatever. Just give it to me now. That's all I'm asking.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:18 - 43:24)
So this isn't like frivolous either. What you're asking is for me to do all of my discovery
expedited within 30 days.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 130 of 713
(130 of 713), Page 130 of 713

[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:24 - 43:28)
No, I'm asking you to comply with GO 71. That's all I'm asking.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:28 - 43:29)
We're going to write a letter about this.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:30 - 43:35)
So you're saying you're not going to comply with GO 71 by April 24th?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:35 - 43:38)
I'm going to say, I asked you to send me a request for production today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:38 - 43:51)
I understand, but that's separate from GO 71, right? There's a GO 71 and there's a request for
production. But I don't send you a request for production on GO 71.
That's a court order. There's nothing I can say.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:51 - 43:53)
We don't have a court order for it. You're just making it.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:54 - 44:03)
Okay. I thought the judge had already ordered you to produce this. I believe that it's in the
court order, but whether it is or not, just give it to us.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (44:04 - 44:12)
Again, I'm happy to respond to whatever. Good. Federal rules of civil procedure aligned
requests, formal requests you send me starting today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (44:14 - 44:19)
But I can't do anything about GO 71 because that's a court order.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (44:20 - 44:32)
It's not. So, I mean, this is exactly what we should bring to Judge Wismore. You think there's a
court order.
I think there's not. I'm happy to go with just federal rules of civil procedure. You think there's a
court order in addition to it.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 131 of 713
(131 of 713), Page 131 of 713

So let's ask her for clarification.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (44:35 - 44:39)
So are you not going to give us GO 71? Just yes or no.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (44:39 - 44:50)
I will happily give you all the documents within scope under the civil rules of civil procedure for
any formal in procedure requests you send me starting today as discovery starting today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (44:51 - 44:54)
Okay. There's still a question. Will you give me GO 71 or not?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (44:55 - 44:58)
I plan to give you all relevant documents.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (44:58 - 45:03)
No, no, that's not. Will you give me what's required by GO 71? Yes or no?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (45:04 - 45:06)
As part of discovery...
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (45:07 - 45:08)
No, yes or no.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (45:08 - 45:21)
...or the discovery. So yes, but not of responding to your request specifically way before it was...
when discovery was stayed and da, da, da, da, da.
I'm not doing that. But I'm going to give you all relevant discovery documents.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (45:22 - 45:30)
That's what I want to know. Are you going to give me the documents required by GO 71? Yes or
no?
Nothing about discovery requests. Nothing about anything else.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (45:30 - 45:34)
I'm just saying, are you going to get the documents as noted in General Order 71 period?
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 132 of 713
(132 of 713), Page 132 of 713

[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (45:35 - 45:35)
Yes, I'm...
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (45:35 - 45:37)
Yes, you're going to get those.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (45:37 - 45:38)
Will you do that by April 24?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (45:40 - 45:46)
If you want a deadline associated with it, you need to give me a request for production under
federal rules or civil procedure.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (45:46 - 45:49)
We're talking about two different things. GO 71 and request for production.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (45:50 - 45:54)
I know we separated it for our prior thing, but I'm saying...
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (45:54 - 46:03)
It's separated under the rules. GO 71 and Rule 26 and the discovery rules, FRCP discovery rules.
So I'm focusing now just on GO 71.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (46:04 - 46:15)
That is not a requirement. So I'm going to say, here's just a broad thing. Anytime Apple in
discovery wants to create requirements that I don't think are actually requirements, I'm going
to say, we're going to bring that to a judge.
And this can be the first one.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (46:15 - 46:19)
So will not respond to GO 71. Is that fair?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (46:21 - 46:23)
I just said I would.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (46:23 - 46:25)
Oh, you will respond.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 133 of 713
(133 of 713), Page 133 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (46:25 - 46:40)
I will provide all relevant documents as described in General Order 71 as part of the process
and discovery. If you think you need them in 30 days, I'm saying you need to send me a formal
request for production to attach a timeline to that.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (46:40 - 47:09)
All right, so let's keep this separate. GO 71, all communications concerning the factual
allegations or claims at issue in this lawsuit between plaintiff and defendant. That's what GO 71
requires.
Regardless of document requests, you have to give us that. And the question is, will you give us
that? Because that's what GO 71 is telling you.
So I just need to know yes or no. Wrote I wrote no, and now you're saying yes. The answer is
yes.
So is it no or yes?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (47:11 - 48:18)
I hate this. So I think we need to figure out just like what we're saying is discovery started or not
before we can have any other conversations about that discovery. We need to say whether
General Order 71 was actually applied, active, and I do owe things under it.
Because if I don't, we just need to follow the normal procedures under federal rules of civil
procedure. So I'm not going to say yes or no to stuff until we have an answer whether it even
applies or not. Because I can't tell you yes or no if I earnestly think that it does not apply and
we're just following the normal discovery process.
And I'm telling you repeatedly, I am more than happy to provide you all relevant documents
that are non-privileged, non-competent, whatever, through this process, which includes all,
assumably all those documents under General Order 71. So I'm not withholding documents or
information. I'm not saying I won't cooperate in discovery.
What Apple is saying is that they want to say that this rule applies and they want to say that I
have to do all of that discovery within 30 days. And so if Apple wants to argue that, then let's
bring it to Judge Westmore. And I'm not, I don't want you quoting me saying I'm not going to
provide documents.
What I'm saying is I don't think that rule applies. So, you know.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (48:18 - 48:26)
We'll not respond to GO71 because doesn't think GO71 applies in this case will only respond to
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 134 of 713
(134 of 713), Page 134 of 713

document requests. Is that fair?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (48:28 - 48:41)
I don't even think it's fair to say I'm not going to respond to General Order 71 because I am
telling you, I'm going to give you all those documents. What the difference you're asking is you
want me to give you all that stuff within 30 days under the guise of General Order 71.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (48:44 - 48:45)
That's what I want.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (48:45 - 48:52)
And I'm saying I'm not playing that game. I'm going to give you all the relevant documents. I'm
going to participate in discovery.
If you think you need something really urgent, send me a request for production.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (48:53 - 49:04)
I just want you to give me the GO71 stuff. This is an employment case. No doubt it's an
employment case.
GO71 applies to employment cases. The judge has already said GO71 applies to this case.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (49:04 - 49:09)
Was going to, but then Apple demanded you stay discovery. So again, like Apple's creating all
this.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (49:09 - 49:29)
Doesn't matter whether it stayed or not. Now you have to give us the GO71 stuff. Now we've
agreed.
There is no more stay on discovery. I don't think GO71 was discovery. I don't think it was ever
stayed.
But regardless, now we're agreeing. Discovery is open. You got to give us GO71 or you've got to
say, I don't believe GO71 applies and I'm not going to give you GO71.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (49:29 - 49:37)
But this is a straw man because what I'm telling you is I'm going to give you those documents.
Okay, so should I change my answer here?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (49:38 - 49:42)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 135 of 713
(135 of 713), Page 135 of 713

That you are now going to give us the GO71 documents without a document.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (49:42 - 49:52)
Documents described in General Order 71 are documents relevant for this case and you will be
getting them through the discovery process. If you would like them urgently, I'm saying you
need to send me a request for production.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (49:52 - 49:59)
All right. I don't need them urgently. I just need you to give me the GO71 documents by April
24th.
Yes or no.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (49:59 - 50:05)
That's urgently. That's not the full like year of discovery. So you can send me if you, and you
want to justify.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (50:05 - 50:13)
I'm not going to send you a document request on GO71. You either say you're going to give it
or and right now you've said, no, I'm not going to give it to you.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (50:13 - 50:28)
Because what I'm telling you is I am not going to give you those documents by April, whatever,
unless you give me a request for production. And then I will follow the timeline for that request
for production. Otherwise I'm giving you those documents, but I'm not agreeing to the
deadline of April, whatever.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (50:35 - 50:44)
So I think I have an answer. I will confirm it back to you in an email. You don't believe that GO71
applies.
You will give us the GO71 documents, but only if we put them in a document request.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (50:46 - 50:55)
If you want them with a 30 day timeline, only if they're in a document request. If you are okay,
just following the normal cadence of discovery, you will just get them.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (50:57 - 51:00)
I need a deadline by which I'm going to get the GO71 documents.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 136 of 713
(136 of 713), Page 136 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (51:01 - 51:02)
Then request for production.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (51:03 - 51:15)
Got it. So I've got, will not respond because doesn't think GO71 applies to this case. Will only
respond to document requests.
Not going to give them to us by April 24th, only if we put them in document requests.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (51:16 - 51:34)
No, I will give you all those documents. Period. I'm not saying I will not give you those
documents.
It does take a bunch of time though. And for me to expedite it, I need a request for production.
So if you need them expedited, I am requesting a request for production.
Otherwise I'm telling you, you will get all those documents for me through this discovery
process starting today.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (51:39 - 51:45)
Well, I'll try and put all of that in an email to you and you can explain it. And then we can decide
if we need to take it to the judge.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (51:47 - 51:50)
You'll be getting the documents. So like, that should make you happy.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (51:51 - 51:55)
I know, but this case is a year old. We don't have anything yet. This was due years, a long time
ago.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (51:57 - 52:00)
I've asked you repeatedly if there's anything you urgently need and you let me know.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (52:00 - 52:14)
No, I know. We need what we asked for in the document requests. That's what we need.
We need what's, GO71 requires. That's what we need. And it's nothing to do with urgent.
They're long past due. And we just need you to get us those documents.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (52:16 - 52:44)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 137 of 713
(137 of 713), Page 137 of 713

I will work on them as much as I can. I will say though, I am skeptical of that position because
Apple's defense is basically, we fired her for this thing completely separate from everything
else. Therefore, none of these documents would assumably be relevant, but I am happily gonna
provide you all these documents.
Okay, so initial disclosures. I've objected that. I don't think Apple gave me my 26 F disclosures.
Is Apple holding a line at their disclosures? That's their final initial disclosures?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (52:45 - 52:46)
Yeah, what's wrong with them?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (52:48 - 52:53)
It lists like five people who aren't even my bosses. It didn't list the key witnesses.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (52:53 - 53:06)
Those are the, we think of the witnesses. So initial disclosures is, we think these people are the
witnesses. Generally, unless you update them, those are the only witnesses you can call at trial.
So we have an obligation.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (53:08 - 53:19)
They're so bad. There's an ongoing joke, but they're like, we better never get deposed. They're
funny.
Okay, so if that's your final set, I wanna make sure that we're formalizing that, that you guys are
saying that.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (53:19 - 53:32)
Well, it's final for now. And then if we update all through the case, you can update your initial
disclosures. But those are the people that at this time, at the time we sent them, we believed
were the witnesses in this case.
If we think there are more, we'll update it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (53:33 - 53:47)
Am I gonna get any additional information now that there's, we're gonna have a confidential
order of the decision-making process of terminating me? You gave me a few other names. But
it's still a mystery of how all that played out.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (53:47 - 54:01)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 138 of 713
(138 of 713), Page 138 of 713

But once we have the protective order, you will get any documents we were withholding
because there wasn't a protective order. Then you will say, if you decide we've given you
enough and you look at that and you look at the privilege log and that should give you what we
need.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (54:02 - 54:05)
So you are gonna give me more about the termination?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (54:06 - 54:15)
If we withheld them based on not having a protective order, we will give them to you. If we
withheld them based on attorney-client privilege, we will not give them to you.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (54:15 - 54:29)
So I'm asking that right now because if it's attorney-client privilege, we can put that in our
letter. If it's, you're saying, if it ends up not being listed as attorney-client privilege and I think
we have to have another meeting before I can send the letter about the, hey, this is.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (54:36 - 54:46)
So I repeat, if once we get the protective order, we will produce any additional documents. If
there's anything that's privileged, we'll put it on the privilege log and then we can meet and
confer on the privilege log.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (54:48 - 54:51)
Can we create a discovery plan, please?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (54:51 - 55:27)
Yes, I have a discovery plan. So we can find this. All right.
So I'm not sure what you think about a discovery plan is, but we want to take your deposition.
We would like to pick a date in May that we can do that. And, but that assumes you get the
documents by April 25th.
So are you ready for your deposition in May?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (55:28 - 55:31)
Well, I think the question is, when are you ready to take a deposition?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (55:31 - 55:45)
Again, we're ready in May. We'll be, if you get, if we get the documents by April 25th, we would
be ready in May. So let's schedule the deposition for May and then we can always take it off if
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 139 of 713
(139 of 713), Page 139 of 713

we don't have the documents.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (55:46 - 55:53)
Okay. Because when I respond, so wait, are you saying you are going to send me a request for
production today?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (55:54 - 56:09)
Uh, if I need to, I mean, if I think there's more documents I need, or if I decide to reserve the
one I already said, I haven't agreed to do that yet because I don't think I need to. But if I decide
to do that, then, uh, let's see.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (56:09 - 56:24)
I'm doing stuff I don't think I need to either today. So if we can both just compromise a bunch
to try to get stuff unstuck, that would be wonderful. Um, so if you want to put it on the calendar
for May, you know, I don't know if I'm going to be able to get you all that stuff in 30 days.
Part of it's going to have to be responses.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (56:24 - 56:30)
Yeah, but it's been months. So I mean, it's been almost a year. So hopefully you've got it all in
place.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (56:30 - 57:07)
I don't know if you've noticed, but I am pro se and I don't have a team of associates. So I'm
going to have to go through individually all this stuff. I only start doing stuff when it becomes
something right for me to do, because there's a million things that I have to do myself in
addition to living my life.
So I'm going to have to sit down and start taking all this stuff and going through every single
little document. I have it all, but as you know, it's going to take a lot of time to actually, unless I
can borrow some of your associates. Maybe, maybe two or three.
You know, it's going to take a minute. I can't promise right now that I'm going to, I don't know
how long it's going to take.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (57:07 - 57:12)
Well, let's pick a date and then, and then if you can't get us the documents, we can change the
date.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (57:13 - 57:19)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 140 of 713
(140 of 713), Page 140 of 713

And then I have literally no money. I can't even buy groceries. So you need to depose me here.
We need to do it on video.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (57:19 - 57:38)
We just do it by Zoom. So how about 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd? That gives us a little more time to
get the documents.
28th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (57:38 - 58:00)
I wasn't prepared to schedule something today. So I'll put that in my email notes, which ones,
but you said between the 20th and 30th? Yep.
For my depositions, is Apple going to have any objections to me using like audio video
reporting instead of a court reporter?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (58:02 - 58:03)
We'll have a court reporter.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (58:03 - 58:18)
I know you will. But if I want to do a deposition with a like video recording and Apple gets a
copy of the video and all of that, and then if I end up wanting to use it for court, I would
probably have to pay for it, a formal transcription or something. But if that's how I want to do
the deposition, is that something you're going to object to?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (58:18 - 58:26)
We'll have it videoed. We'll have it transcribed. I don't know if the court reporter allows you to
create your own video.
And I don't know if you created it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (58:27 - 58:29)
Oh, I'm talking about me deposing someone like Dan West.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (58:30 - 58:41)
Oh, yeah. Yeah, you can do a video. I mean, I don't know.
I think you have to have a certified video or something or other to be able to use a video. I don't
remember all the rules, but whatever the rules.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 141 of 713
(141 of 713), Page 141 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (58:41 - 58:44)
I'm doing this the MacGyver way, but okay, cool.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (58:53 - 58:55)
All right. So what else do you want to talk about on the discovery plan?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (58:57 - 59:20)
I was hoping we could like outline the scope, but it sounds like we're probably just going to
have to go issue by issue like we are. We've made a ton of progress in this meeting today
compared to emails. So we can do it that way.
You're going to send the privilege log. I do think it would be helpful to have an overall discovery
plan and schedule.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (59:21 - 59:32)
Just tell me what you're thinking. I think it's a little premature to do a cutoff on discovery and
those things, but you tell me what you want to do and I'm happy to talk about it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (59:34 - 1:00:50)
You're saying you'd be premature to have a cutoff, but then you want all the documents in 30
days. This is where I'm like, what's this timeline we're looking at? Yeah.
So I don't know, maybe now that we've made, we've made a lot of progress today. So maybe we
go back and think, I'm going to think more about what it could look like, what it should look
like. I didn't even know if we would be able to start discovery today.
So I'm really happy you agreed to that. Thank you. Let's see.
So it looks like outstanding. The only thing I said that I was ready to like challenge today then
would be that one thing about the verge, which that's, I'm not ready to just challenge that
individually. So I will wait to see what you said this week and get back to you if I have questions
or objections about that.
I am saying I'm not going to send further responses to the stuff you sent me out when I believe
discovery was stayed and I found the case law that supports that because that's just making the
other side do busy work. Apparently that's a thing you guys do. So I don't have to do that.
I was right. But whatever you sent me today, happy to respond.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:00:50 - 1:00:52)
You say you were right. I'm not agreeing you were right.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 142 of 713
(142 of 713), Page 142 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:00:53 - 1:00:53)
I know.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:00:53 - 1:00:55)
Don't try to trick me into agreeing.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:00:56 - 1:01:03)
I'm just, I have to talk to myself as I'm talking. Um, so, but whatever you sent me starting today,
happy to respond.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:01:03 - 1:01:09)
What am I, what did you want me to send you? I wouldn't think I was sending you anything
today unless I decide to resolve the discovery.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:01:10 - 1:01:11)
Whatever you want to send me.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:01:11 - 1:01:37)
Otherwise, and I'm starting it. But I'm not agreeing to that. I'm just telling you.
I can choose to do that if I want. And if I choose not to do that, then I will say that you need to
respond to the ones we've already said. You said you refuse to do that.
And then the magistrate can decide whether you, uh, do that. But it's a silly thing to bring to the
magistrate because- Agreed. Right.
So just answer them. But if you want me to- No, you've got me stuffed today.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:01:37 - 1:02:21)
Otherwise I'm, the case was on my side. You know, I looked it up. Case was on my side.
So I'm not going to do something that I think is not right. And the case law supports me not
having to do it. I'd much rather focus my time.
I'm getting you these documents now, uh, through a normal way and starting discovery. So
regardless if you send me anything or not, we're starting today. So I'm sure I have documents.
I'm sure I have documents. We did agree discovery starts today, right? Though we're going to
hold that- Hold discovery.
Hold discovery starts today. So I'm sure I have, I can send a good faith bunch of them to you by
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 143 of 713
(143 of 713), Page 143 of 713

end of the week. I'm sure, uh, uh, you know, I've sent you a few things.
There was a December 23 one when I sent you stuff. I didn't have to. Send me discovery
requests.
The one to show you- Emails don't count.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:02:22 - 1:02:24)
Don't send me emails. Send me a discovery request.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:02:24 - 1:02:31)
I'll send you, um, since you're targeting to send stuff this week, I will also target to send a first
batch of stuff. Good faith this week.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:02:31 - 1:02:37)
I'm not targeting to send anything this week. Just, just to be clear, I may choose to resubmit
discovery requests.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:02:38 - 1:02:39)
You can use a document production and privilege log.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:02:39 - 1:02:45)
Oh yeah. Yeah. To complete the document production and get you the privilege log.
I agreed to do that this week. I was talking about discovery requests.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:02:46 - 1:03:36)
I know. So, and then I will send you an Ashley Good Faith production of something this week to
get it started. Whether or not you send me anything else, you don't have to say anything.
And I will just, I will be sending you some documents this week. Um, if you send me requests
for production or admissions or interrogatories or whatever, I will happily respond within
federal as a civil procedure following those. But otherwise I will just be proactively sending you
the stuff that I feel I am obligated to send you through.
Captain! Leave it! Captain!
Quiet! It's a very good guard trail walk. Okay.
So there's that. So I, at this point, we'll wait to see what I hear and get from Apple. Um, I don't
have anything urgently to bring to the magistrate now since we've made so much progress
today.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 144 of 713
(144 of 713), Page 144 of 713

Thank you.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:03:46 - 1:04:39)
All right. Well, we will. So the only thing that's pending, so we're going to tell the magistrate
that we agreed to the model protective order and then she can enter that.
And then we're going to decide whether to reserve the prior set of discovery or whether to take
to the magistrate the issue whether you should have responded to it before. Okay. And
otherwise we don't have any.
And then we're going to serve the privilege load this week and the remaining production this
week. And we're going to look at, you're going to give me a date to your deposition between
the 20th and 30th of May. We've gone through the discovery requests.
I'm going to decide if we're going to supplement our answers to some of the requests. Okay.
And I think that's it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:04:40 - 1:04:41)
That was a ton of progress.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:04:41 - 1:04:52)
Thank you so much. And then GOES-71, you're still not going to, you're not going to respond to
GOES-71 because you didn't think it applies. But if we put the GOES-71 documents in a
document request, you would respond.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:04:53 - 1:04:55)
A normal like request for production?
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:04:55 - 1:04:56)
Yes.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:04:56 - 1:05:34)
Today, that you sent today. Then yes, I would. I have to say I'm learning a ton from you guys to
all the stuff I have to jump through with you guys.
It's a very experiential testing, learning experience. It's like a really terrible externship. So thank
you for working through this.
We both made some compromises on here. We'll both think about some more stuff and follow
up. It's on Apple, whether you want to bring stuff to the magistrate judge or not now.
My stuff right now, I'll just wait to see what you send this week.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 145 of 713
(145 of 713), Page 145 of 713

[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:05:35 - 1:05:36)
Sounds good.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:05:37 - 1:05:38)
Sounds great. Thank you, Melinda.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:05:38 - 1:05:40)
Now I got to figure out how to get this recording.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:05:41 - 1:05:43)
I think when you end it, it just automatically ends it.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:05:44 - 1:05:46)
Okay. Yeah, but do I get a copy of it?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:05:47 - 1:05:48)
Oh, you're probably going to talk to your tech people.
[Melinda (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:05:49 - 1:05:52)
You receive an email notification when the cloud recording is ready.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 146 of 713
(146 of 713), Page 146 of 713

8  
 
 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT F: 5/2/25 MEET AND CONFER TRANSCRIPT  
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 147 of 713
(147 of 713), Page 147 of 713

Gjovik v Apple 2025-05-02 Meet and Confer Recording
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (0:03 - 0:11)
Beautiful. And I know we've had some conflicts about having witnesses, but I did bring a
witness today.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (0:12 - 0:31)
I see that. What's your witness? You have to disclose the name of your witness for the record.
I know. Will you allow this one time, this exception? One time exception.
State the name of your witness for the record. This is Captain Jake Ballard. Hello, Captain.
How are you today? Mama being a good girl?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (0:32 - 0:39)
Taking you for lots of walks? All through the night, and he's like, I really don't like this. I want to
play fetch.
I want to go outside. And I'm like, hold on, I know.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (0:40 - 0:57)
All right. Well, we have to take care of our pets. I have a Boston Terrier myself.
You have two dogs or one dog? Just one, a Boston Terrier. My name is Bella, and she's beautiful.
Bella? Yes, Bella the Beautiful. That's pretty.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (0:58 - 1:18)
Dogs are the best. I thought it would be more straightforward. The last thing I said was just the
questions to ask, and then we can just go through them, even if it's something that maybe we
think we've kind of talked about prior.
At least just get a solid yes, no to help us move forward on next steps.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:19 - 2:00)
All right. Well, I just got your email. I haven't had much time to study it.
I haven't eaten yet today, so I can take a bite if you want to skim so I can eat something today.
No, please eat. Absolutely eat.
Very important. I skimmed it. I just don't have answers to all your questions, but I thought we
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 148 of 713
(148 of 713), Page 148 of 713

should start with a protective order because that seems to be the most urgent.
I'm a little surprised because I have both in writing from you and orally during our last meet
and confer that you were fine with the model protective order, and that's why we were going to
submit it. But then it sounds like, and I just asked for your permission to send it in, and then it
doesn't sound like you're fine with it anymore.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (2:01 - 2:34)
That's a very small window of occurrences, disregarding everything that happened for years
prior and everything that's happened in the weeks since. As you know, you found the most
favorable view of your current argument, and I was open to potentially just acquiescing on it
prior to all the most recent threats and aggression. But even then when I said, should we do it,
you guys didn't respond.
We actually expired that window after our last meet and confer, because you guys wouldn't
respond whether you wanted it or not. You wanted to add something about clawbacks for
privilege, and then just didn't respond at all. So I don't think you can put this on me.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (2:35 - 3:00)
Well, it said in writing and orally that you were fine with it, so I have to get your permission to
send it to the judge because you had said you were fine with it, that's what I had asked for. But
whatever. We want the memorial protective order.
You want us to take—and you don't want it. I guess you now want us to take it to the
magistrate with a three-page document.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (3:00 - 4:55)
I would prefer that we don't have to escalate it at all. I feel like there's some very basic
fundamental things that we still have not talked through that might even eliminate the need for
such a drastic remedy like a protective order. Like, for instance, Apple's still not disclosed to me
if they're holding back any docs under that order, if so, what they are, what the justification is of
that privilege.
You know, that's—if there's not even—I think at one point you said you were done producing,
so if that's true, there's no documents, why do you need the order? If you are holding back
stuff, what exactly is the justification? And this goes—this is extremely critical now.
Again, that acquiescence was prior to Apple's national settlement with the NLRB over their
confidentiality policies and then immediately violating it multiple times to me, at least. So, like,
there's a lot, you know, we can't just package up one statement in isolation when you wore me
down after three years. There's a lot of concerns, but again, like, I don't even know if we need
this order.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 149 of 713
(149 of 713), Page 149 of 713

It's my position why I'm so—why I get so confused why Apple is pushing so hard on something
so blunt and broad and severe when we haven't even talked about could we use redactions?
Like, if I know what kind of documents you're saying you don't want to release, which you won't
tell me, but if you were to tell me, here's an example of what that would look like, we could talk
through it potentially of, like, well, I don't need those code names. You can react those code
names unless I need to come back later and ask for more, but we can do it later if we have to do
that.
Like, that seems simple. The very beginning, I even—because I know Apple, I worked in Apple
legal, I know how they are, so I volunteer. I could come to an Oracle office and just look at the
stuff in your office of the most contentious stuff and then ask specifically, like, that is so—me
offering something that is, like, supposed to be my right to get this stuff to begin with.
So I've been, like, trying to find ways to compromise. They'll give Apple some of the stuff it
wants, but I can still get access to the information I need and try to figure out the case strategy
and understand what Apple's case strategy is.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (4:57 - 5:53)
Okay, so first of all, yes, we are withholding documents pursuant to the lack of a protective
order. We've produced the documents that were not subject, that are not confidential, that we
don't think need to be produced pursuant to protective order. So it's not correct that we've
agreed we produced all documents.
We've only agreed to be produced all documents other than those that we intend to produce
under a protective order. Secondly, protective order is standard in all cases. I have never had a
case where we didn't have one.
Third, you wanted an example. For example, one of the documents that we intend to use in this
case is the consent form that you signed for the Gobbler application. You don't believe that the
one that we have is the right one.
I need to show you the entire document so that you can agree that that is the document that
you signed. And so a reduction doesn't help because— I signed.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (5:53 - 5:58)
You won't give me a copy of a contract I signed without a confidentiality order about the
contract.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (5:59 - 6:05)
I will not give you a copy of the consent order, the consent agreement that you signed without
a confidentiality agreement.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (6:05 - 6:43)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 150 of 713
(150 of 713), Page 150 of 713

That's just one example of many— That's exactly why you won't tell me this stuff and why I
want to know it. Because I'm like, yes, we will contest that to a judge because that's also like the
nexus of the case. If you can't say some weird contract that probably has a bunch of illegal
terms that I was coerced into signing with armed guards in a parking lot on a 100-degree day is
somehow confidential and I can't even tell people what's in this agreement I signed and you
won't give me a copy.
I think that violates contract law, employment law, labor law, probably like Dodd-Frank sock
stuff. So each of these are things that I think are ripe issues to bring in front of the court for the
purpose of public policy conversations.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (6:43 - 6:46)
And you're absolutely entitled to do that under the protective order.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (6:46 - 6:54)
But doesn't that give you kind of this blank until it is resolved I can be jailed for talking about
whatever it is?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (6:55 - 7:02)
I don't know if jailed is the right word, but you would be subject to the protective order. Yes,
you could be held in contempt if you violate it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (7:02 - 7:19)
That's prior restraint. And if I know you're going to do prior restraint on stuff that I believe in
my heart of hearts violates public policy and the law, like I would not intentionally enter into
that kind of agreement with Apple again. I did that a few times and now we're here sorting that
out.
I'm not going to do that again.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (7:19 - 7:39)
So we want a protective order. We want the model protective order. If you don't want to enter
into a protective or any protective order or the model one, then feel free to write the
beginnings of the three-page letter.
We'll add our three-page letter, the rest of it to the three-page letter and we'll let the judge
decide.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (7:39 - 7:44)
So we can do that, but I think we haven't addressed like why would redactions not address your
concerns?
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 151 of 713
(151 of 713), Page 151 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (7:44 - 8:12)
Because I need to show you the unredacted document for you to agree that it was the
document you signed. That's just one of them. There are other things in there that are
confidential and we want to produce them to you.
We think you're entitled to them and we'll give them to you, but we can't have you not agreeing
that they remain confidential and that you'll use them pursuant to the protective order. That's
all it is. This is really not a big thing.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (8:12 - 9:28)
So I would feel more comfortable, I think. I can't go into stuff just like, I assume Apple's going
to do the right thing at this point, as you can imagine. So I just need some proof though.
If you could give me a confidentiality privilege law, which maybe you were even required to give
me if you're withholding this stuff, I don't know. But actually detail like you did with the
attorney client one of what the documents are. If I see stuff and I'm like, okay, that's in the
realm of Apple normalcy.
I'm not going to fight that stuff. Maybe I let it go. But if I see stuff, like I saw with the attorney
client privilege law, where I'm like, that's like seven motions coming out of this now.
I need to be able to tell what kind of stuff I need to deal with now, as you know, expert litigator.
So I'm going to be really hard on this stuff because some of this stuff is intentionally you guys
trying to go in and block me from not only my litigation advocacy, but my public policy
advocacy about the cases. And so I see that I'm checking you.
I'm saying no for the joint letter. Yes, I will file a joint letter with you regardless. But I would like
to talk more about like the confidentiality log, the narrow protective order, the redactions, also
the IPA.
Why does my intellectual property agreement, especially for a contract you say I signed under
my employment, if that is actually confidential, why does my IPA not cover that?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (9:28 - 9:39)
Because you'll recall that the whole issue in this case is that you posted documents in violation,
what we believe is in violation of your IPA. That's what the case is about.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (9:39 - 9:42)
So if I actually violated it, you could sue me.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (9:44 - 9:45)
No.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 152 of 713
(152 of 713), Page 152 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (9:45 - 9:55)
A freestanding agreement, right? You can sue me for leaking trade secrets, appropriating trade
secrets, breach of contract. You just have to show damages, actual harm, and that what I did
was actually a violation.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (9:56 - 10:07)
We are trying to protect our private and confidential information, and we want to produce it to
you, and we want to do it through a protective order that is very standard in these types of
litigation.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (10:07 - 11:09)
The way it's being interpreted is not standard and is contrary to every single piece of academic
and litigation writing and judges writing and everything I've seen is this is the exact opposite of
what these orders are supposed to be used for. And so you guys are very cleverly doing this is
normal, this is modeled, but we're going to interpret it as. And so that's why I'm really putting
my foot down of like, I'm not necessarily against it as a process generally.
I'm sure it works fine for cases, even there's probably employment cases where based on the
situation, it might not be abused. But it is right for abuse here. It is already being used for
abuse.
I've already had to file multiple charges to the federal government about this. So, you know,
again, I would like to detail, like, are redactions sufficient to cover confidential information? And
this could be you redacting an entire document as a starting point.
But like, if not, why are redactions not good enough?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (11:10 - 12:20)
We do not believe redactions are sufficient. I've given you one example. I want to show you a
full and complete document and have you authenticate that that is a document that you
signed.
There are many other documents that contain confidential information that you're entitled to
see, that we want to give you, that are about this case, but that are confidential. And we want
you to agree to keep them confidential. If you don't want to sign a protective order, that's fine.
You need to tell the judge why not. But I've been practicing law for over 40 years. I've never had
this issue come up before with anybody subjected to a model protective order.
I'm not trying to interpret it. I just want it to be signed and entered. Then if you think that we,
and then we will give you all the documents.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 153 of 713
(153 of 713), Page 153 of 713

The way it works is you sign the protective order, the court enters it, we send you all the
documents. Then you say to the judge, or you say to us in a meet and confer, this document
should not be marked as confidential. And if we agree, then we'll take it out of the protective
order.
If we disagree, then it goes to the judge, and the judge decides if it's within the protective
order. That's all written in the protective order. There's a whole process for doing that.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (12:20 - 12:26)
I understand, but it gives you guys a lot more arena to harass me and accuse me of stuff and
do all sorts of stuff.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (12:26 - 12:31)
I'm not doing anything. I'm just asking you to sign a protective order, and then we will give you
documents.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (12:31 - 13:54)
I'm not signing another contract. Here's the thing. We can do the letter, you can ask.
If the court grants it, I'm pretty sure I will appeal it. Like, I will intervene because I'm not
allowing Apple to put any other further restriction on me after everything that's happened the
last how many years, and everything in this litigation. It's not fair play.
It's not going to be fair play. There's no reason to think it'd be fair play, and so I'm not allowing
that to be put on me. We'll write the letter, but you said one, a document authorization.
That seems like something you could do with a request for admission. With a targeted, limited,
little protective order, we could just stipulate to ourselves. If you're like, we want you to
authorize this, but we don't want you to share this document, you could appeal that later, but
can you just...
And then I'd probably be like, sure, fine, for the sake of authorizing. And if it is that document
you mentioned prior, that's not even the document, the ones from 2017. So like, okay, it'd be
good to get these conversations going.
I think there's ways to do this in a much more limited, constrained way. If you're saying that
kind of agreement in an order where you could later say she lied and then she leaked it is not
good enough. We need a protective order.
You're just saying we want a protective order because we want an easier way to get her into
court jail. Like, I don't know what that is. And then what are the other examples?
Okay, document odd doesn't make sense with redactions, but then what are the other ones and
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 154 of 713
(154 of 713), Page 154 of 713

why wouldn't they make sense with redactions?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (13:55 - 14:08)
Yeah, I'm not going to go through every document that we believe is subject to the protective
order. That's not what it's about. You get the protective order, we send you the documents, you
disagree, we meet and confer, we take it to the judge.
That's the process.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (14:08 - 14:23)
Assumedly, if you're withholding documents, as you said, pending a protective order, you have
already outlined each of these documents and why they are confidential and why they require a
protective order. I am just asking for at least some summary of that information you would
assumably already have on hand.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (14:24 - 14:25)
That's not the way it works.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (14:26 - 15:02)
It sounds like most of the time lawyers acquiesce to you guys and I understand why. I'm
understanding so much about the economics of litigation that they can't make any money if
they fight you on even 95% of the stuff you guys bring up. But you know, I'm in a different
situation, so I'm going full public policy on all of this.
I'm broke anyway, my life's over anyways, so let's do this the right way. You're saying, and I
want to say for these, you're saying point blank redactions aren't good enough, point blank the
IPA doesn't cover stuff, won't cover this stuff, whatever is in this stuff you're currently holding
back is not protected by the intellectual property agreement, is what you're saying?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (15:03 - 15:17)
No, that's not what I'm saying. I believe it is protected by that. But in this case, I want a
protective order.
In addition to your IPA, in part because you already violated the IPA, but also that that's the way
we handle it in litigation.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (15:18 - 15:48)
I don't want no tradition or consensus or status quo stuff, first principles of litigation. You're
saying, okay, you're saying I breached my IPA according to you guys, and you're saying that's
why you're fired and you sent emails about that. You have taken no action against me related
to that.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 155 of 713
(155 of 713), Page 155 of 713

It's not even a counterclaim, so that's kind of weak. And then also, is there any even like one
example of me so far sharing something that you think was confidential that wasn't confidential
like in the last like year?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (15:48 - 15:54)
I haven't sent you the confidential documents yet. And I have no idea who you shared
documents with, sorry.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (15:55 - 17:50)
Held back all sorts of stuff that I have that I've been tweeting unredacted and sharing stuff and
sharing with the press. So like we're clearly, and so what I'm saying, we're clearly not meeting, I
understand why you want that, but what I'm gonna make clear in my side of this joint letter is
this is Apple unilaterally trying to shut me up publicly. It's trying to get the court to do a prior
restraint on me again with threat of incarceration if I was to violate it again for talking about my
activism and public policy and these cases, and that's not cool.
And I don't know if you saw, but yesterday, this exact same courthouse referred Apple to,
referred Apple's case to the USDOJ for a criminal investigation for obstruction of justice. So like,
I don't think the mood in the courthouse is gonna be as chilled as you're maybe hoping it is
normally. Like I think the situation raises, again, like I'm not just outright saying no, I'm like,
let's talk about redactions.
Let's talk about the IPA. Let's talk about showing the documents you're withholding. Like if the
documents you're saying you're withholding is like five things and it's things I don't even need,
then why would I have that agreement put on me and enter all that stuff and go through all
that drama if I don't even need that stuff?
You're giving me no information about what you're even holding back other than that one
example, which sounds like was a fraudulent statement to the DOL about a document that
wasn't actually the agreement that was signed. Like that's the one example. So I'm hoping we
can like simplify and just talk about like what documents are being held back?
Are there other ways to get them forward? And if some type of protective order is needed, what
are the specific like business requirements that you think that protective order is a solution for?
And are there other solutions we could design for whatever your business requirements are
that are not such a huge ultimate, like the ultimate major response to that type of situation
that's zero to 60?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (17:51 - 18:06)
Okay, we want the protective order. It is the model. We will, once it's entered, we'll give you the
documents.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 156 of 713
(156 of 713), Page 156 of 713

If you disagree, we will submit a three-page brief to the judge. We'll write our page and a half.
You write your page and a half and the judge will make a decision.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (18:08 - 18:18)
So you're refusing outright to talk any further about redactions or IPA coverage or any type of
non-protective order type agreements to protect information.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (18:19 - 18:40)
Right, I believe that that is not sufficient. The IPA is not sufficient and redactions are not
sufficient to deal with the issues that we have. We would give you too many redactions if we
redacted out all the confidential stuff and that's not the purpose.
The purpose is for you to see the documents, not to see big black pages of documents because-
What about when I said the in-camera review thing?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (18:40 - 18:56)
Like I go to an ORC office and you just show me whatever 20 documents. I want to show them
to you in your deposition and that would become- In a deposition without me signing a
confidentiality order, which would then also make the deposition confidential?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (18:57 - 18:57)
Correct.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (18:57 - 19:09)
If a reporter- Oh Melinda, you guys are so good at this. Like this is so exhausting and
frustrating because you guys are like, wrote the playbook on every single part of this.
Absolutely not.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (19:09 - 19:57)
Okay, so it is typical in cases that we handle that there are documents that are subject to a
protective order and testimony that's subject to the protective order and if there are
documents and testimony that's subject to protective order, we mark those documents and
that testimony as subject to the protective order. The protective order deals with all of this. So
that is the way it's handled.
If there is confidential stuff in the deposition or exhibits, then they are marked as confidential
under the protective order. The rest of the deposition is not. The rest of the deposition that's
not confidential is not subject to protective order.
I'm just talking about me in this case.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 157 of 713
(157 of 713), Page 157 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (19:57 - 20:09)
No, I spend a lot of time reflecting just on workers and like the power dynamics of all of this. I
digress. Okay, so you're also saying then if no protective order is granted, that you're going to
cancel the deposition?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (20:11 - 20:17)
If there is no protective order at all, I haven't even contemplated them. But no, I will.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (20:17 - 20:31)
You are planning that some portion of the content of the deposition you want to include
documents that you think are under the protective order. And so if you would not get that
protective order, that content would at least not be part of the planned deposition.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (20:31 - 20:53)
Correct. We would take that issue up with the court and figure out a way for us to use
documents that we need in this case. But I can't believe a court will not enter the model
protective order.
So I have not thought about what might happen if the court doesn't. But if it doesn't, then we'll
deal with it at that time. That's what we deal in litigation.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (20:54 - 21:07)
Yeah. Okay, so for those specific documents of the deposition, is there any other way that you
are willing to deal with them confidentiality-wise other than a blanket protective order?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (21:08 - 21:10)
I hadn't. No, I don't think so.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (21:11 - 21:13)
Can I get a yes or no?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (21:13 - 21:33)
Yeah, no. No, I do not think so. I think that a protective order is needed in this case, and I think
we should use the model protective order of the court.
And I cannot think of any other way to produce documents to you that we consider confidential
other than through a protective order.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (21:34 - 21:47)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 158 of 713
(158 of 713), Page 158 of 713

I understand your position. Okay, so you're saying no for those documents. Are you going to
tell me, I asked for a list of which documents you're withholding until you get a confidentiality
order, and you are saying no, you will not give me a list of documents?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (21:48 - 21:57)
That is correct. I will not give you in advance a list of the documents that we intend to withhold
pursuant to the protective order.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (21:59 - 22:07)
Okay. And that's not by document name, not even by groups of documents, not even general
information of how many documents as of now?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (22:09 - 22:10)
Would that make a difference?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (22:10 - 22:10)
Yes.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (22:11 - 22:15)
Okay. So would you agree to the protective order if I told you the number of documents?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (22:17 - 22:33)
I would incorporate it into my consideration of your request for a protective order, and it may,
depending on the outcome of your answer, cause me to lean towards being more agreeable, or
perhaps the opposite, depending on what the outcome of your answer is.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (22:34 - 22:48)
Okay. So if I, what you're asking for is send me the list of the number of documents you're
withholding pursuant to the protective order, and then you would consider whether you would
enter into the model protective order.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (22:49 - 23:54)
Until we're done meeting and conferring and file our joint letter, I am open to negotiating and
talking through it and meeting and conferring. So if you can give me any additional information
that I don't currently have, like the number is such a bare minimum thing, like more than that
would be great. But if you can appeal to, I'm hyper-logical.
I worked at Apple where everyone's just harassing each other all the time but I got stuff done
because I'm logical. So if you can appeal to me with logic of why something makes sense and is
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 159 of 713
(159 of 713), Page 159 of 713

practical, there's a good chance I might come around to it. But if you just don't tell me any
information, like, and I'm kind of have to assume worst case at this point.
So like, convince me. You know, maybe, maybe I will be willing. So if you're like, we're holding
back three documents.
That's all we plan to hold back. And then we're done. And the documents are just these
agreements we want you to authorize.
I might decide it's a better use of everyone's time to like, maybe acquiesce on that. But if it's
going to be this ongoing thing with a bunch of stuff and a bunch of fighting. So I need more
data input into my database brain, please.
Okay.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (23:57 - 23:59)
All right. Should we move on to discovery plan?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (24:00 - 24:04)
Yeah. So, okay. So for protective order, we're going to keep me in conferring a bit.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (24:05 - 24:18)
I'm going to decide whether I'm going to tell you the number of documents. And then you will
tell me shortly thereafter, because we have got to get this entered. So we can go ahead with
the deposition.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (24:19 - 24:37)
I'm going to file a joint letter by the 9th. And if I don't file it, and you file a unilateral, I'm
planning on filing it with you. I'm just saying until then, as all of the guides and we're entrusted
to say, we should continue to meet and confer and see if we can meet some kind of agreement
or see each other side of things to avoid having to file it.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (24:39 - 24:49)
So I will look into whether I can tell you the number of documents and we agree to file the joint
letter by the 9th. Do you want to start it or do you want us to start it? Or how do you want to
have it?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (24:49 - 25:22)
You can start it. I mentioned some of the stuff I felt, I'm going to have to be just 100% 9th
circuit brief until I file it on the 6th. So once I'm out of that on the 6th, then I'm all you for 7th to
9th on these letters.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 160 of 713
(160 of 713), Page 160 of 713

But I'm so behind on 9th circuit because all this stuff that's been happening the last few weeks
in this, in the NLRB case. So, but yes, I will. So if you want to do a first draft, that would probably
be helpful.
Discovery plan. We need like an actual written, stipulated discovery plan. It's normal.
There's like drafts of them. I attached some from Westlaw, normal.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (25:22 - 25:37)
I know, but look at the rules in the Northern District. So we have done that already. That's what
the joint case management conference statement said.
That is the Northern District version of the discovery plan. It's right there in the joint case.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (25:37 - 25:40)
And it says it twice, even after those, that we still need a plan.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (25:41 - 26:18)
So we have complied with the 9th circuit rule, with the Northern District rules on discovery plan,
we believe, by including that information in our joint case management conference statement.
If you want to prepare, and this is exactly what we discussed last time. If you want to prepare
something else, by all means, prepare it.
I think we've complied with our obligations under rule 26. And so if you think not, then send me
what you're looking for. Send me a document that you want us to sign, because I think we did
all that in our joint case management conference statement.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (26:19 - 26:54)
OK, I sent a bunch of examples in this latest bit. If you want me to draft one of a formal
stipulated to Judge Chen with the stuff that we can just talk about the dates, we can do that. I
also included a stipulated, I want to ask him for our next upcoming hearing to issue a
scheduling order.
We don't have a hearing date still. He was supposed to do that a year ago and then forgot. So I
want to see if you're willing to stipulate to a schedule.
I can incorporate that draft. I emailed into this draft I'm sending for the discovery plan. So it can
be a stipulated discovery plan and hearing schedule and ask him if he can officiate some of
that.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (26:54 - 27:00)
Sure, I'm always happy to that. I'm not sure when he's setting trial dates. I'm not sure.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 161 of 713
(161 of 713), Page 161 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (27:00 - 27:02)
We have someone coming up in June.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (27:02 - 27:10)
Yeah, so that's usually, we have a case management conference and the judge does all of that
at the case management conference. So I don't know that we need anything before that, but.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (27:10 - 27:12)
We didn't schedule one this time. So I thought it would be good.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (27:12 - 27:33)
No, I know, but I, because we didn't have the pleadings. Now the pleadings are done. We can
now move forward to scheduling the trial date.
So that usually would come up at the case management conference. I can't remember if we
have to submit another joint case management conference statement beforehand, but if we do,
we will. And then he will set the trial dates and all the other dates at the conference.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (27:33 - 27:46)
How about this? So we have that upcoming one. We can joint motion to, hey, we want to do a
case management check in also with this, please.
We skipped it over last time. And in that we can include our stipulated schedule order and stuff
and discovery.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (27:46 - 28:01)
That's all is, that's in the joint case management conference statement. That's what I'm saying.
You're calling it something different than the way that we call it and the Northern District calls
it.
So let's see. Is that on the 12th?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (28:02 - 28:23)
I believe they moved it to June 12th. Yeah. So by the 9th, I can have the draft ish for you on that
9th.
When we're finishing all of our stuff, if that looks good, I can just, we'll send it to him and just
say an admin request to add case management update to the hearing and discuss proposed
stipulated schedule.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (28:24 - 28:27)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 162 of 713
(162 of 713), Page 162 of 713

OK, well, why don't we do a joint case management conference statement then?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (28:29 - 28:32)
We can do that. I still want to attach an actual plan, though, discovery plan.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (28:32 - 28:34)
But yeah, like the ones I got from last time.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (28:34 - 28:35)
That's the last lot that I attach.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (28:36 - 28:46)
Right. You're welcome to send that. I've never done it before in the Northern District.
It's not the way we do it, but there's no reason that I can't look at it if you want to send me one.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (28:47 - 29:12)
Thank you. OK, I will. And then we can plan on doing a proactive joint case management
statement for the June 12th-ish hearing.
That sounds great. Is Apple planning at all to update their initial disclosures or voluntarily
update their answer based on all the information in that privilege log that shows people that
were not disclosed?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (29:13 - 29:56)
OK, so there's a number of things in there. Let's talk about the answer. We believe the answer is
adequate.
That, I believe, is the motion on the 12th. Is that correct? Yes.
So the judge will decide on the 12th if the answer is adequate or not. If he thinks it's adequate,
we don't need to amend it. If he thinks it's inadequate, we'll amend it.
OK, so that was one of them. The other thing is on the initial disclosures. We believe the initial
disclosures are adequate.
We supplemented them, I think, once. Each of us can always supplement them as the case goes
on, but right now we don't feel a need to supplement.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (29:57 - 30:32)
OK, so if I'm telling you, I'm going to complain again that I still don't know exactly what the
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 163 of 713
(163 of 713), Page 163 of 713

process was leading to me getting fired, who initiated what decision, who was behind it, the
privilege log just opened even more questions and doors. So is there any willingness at all to
revise the initial disclosures for my request for witnesses involved in the retaliation,
termination, pretext, all that stuff, with, like, slightly more information of the date ranges
involved, or the ways they were involved, so I can actually figure out who to send my deposition
and interrogatories to.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (30:32 - 31:03)
So the initial disclosures, which we gave, is the name and address of every witness likely to have
discoverable information that they may use to support the claims or defenses, identifying the
subjects of the information. So that's what we did. But there's a bunch of people that were
never on that list that are on the privilege log on critical emails about- These are the people that
we believe are the people who have discoverable information that we're disclosing.
If you want to put more names on your list, you're welcome to do that.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (31:03 - 31:21)
But this is our list, and this is what we think- When you're saying discoverable, let's hone in on
this, you're saying, there's probably other people, but anyone else that was involved, we are
claiming privilege. And so we are not going to have discoverable documents from those people
even if they clearly were on emails about this, because we're claiming privilege.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (31:21 - 31:38)
Well, it's discoverable information that we may use to support our claims or defenses. So the
disclosure under 26A1A is who has discoverable information that we believe we may use to
support our claims or defenses.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (31:38 - 32:26)
For your defense only, okay. So then when I do a request for production and say, hey, I want all
this, and then you guys said, no, but- And then now you have all the privilege of saying we're
not going to tell you anything about this. I'm still- So this is a novel situation.
It's probably not that novel for like your guys' cases because you're like, this is like litigation, like
class 501. Like you guys are doing such wild, complicated stuff. But like, I need to know what
happened for like all prima facie elements of my case.
You guys are making it very, very difficult for me to get to that information. So my request for
production that was denied, that goes to one of my letters that I want to send asking, hey, like
this privilege log, one, oh, do you want to talk? Can we talk about the privilege log?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (32:26 - 32:29)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 164 of 713
(164 of 713), Page 164 of 713

The privilege log, yes. So I'm happy to talk about the privilege log.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (32:30 - 32:43)
If there's no like attorney involved and your guys' answer and all your defenses previously said
that there was no, like Apple was doing just everything normal and I was in trouble and there
was no threat of litigation until like August, but you guys are claiming privilege back to like
March.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (32:44 - 33:01)
Right, so there's a slight misconception on your part, I think. One is you thought the privilege
log only related to termination and that's inaccurate. Apple is entitled to get legal advice on
issues unrelated to the termination and did so.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (33:01 - 33:02)
Or retaliation.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (33:03 - 33:23)
My case is a retaliation. No, not retaliation. Anything that it wanted to get legal advice on, it can
get legal advice on.
And I believe you were making, there were some things that came up from as early as March
that you were involved in that Apple sought legal advice on. Unrelated to the termination.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (33:23 - 33:25)
Because expecting litigation.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (33:25 - 34:11)
Well, that's what product, but attorney client is different. Attorney client is, did the client talk to
an attorney about an issue? Also, there's not, it doesn't have to be, the attorney doesn't have to
be on the email.
For example, if I go to a client and I say, please go and investigate this issue so that I can give
you legal advice, the person I speak to can then go out and investigate it and can talk to other
people and then comes back to me and says, this is what I learned when you asked me to
investigate it and then I can give legal advice. So it doesn't have to be that the attorney is on all
the communications as long as the person who was doing the work was acting under the
direction of counsel.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (34:11 - 34:32)
I'm sending you an order again. This is from also our courthouse. This one was from December,
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 165 of 713
(165 of 713), Page 165 of 713

also in the Epic Games, which is not- Okay, I'm not involved in Epic Games.
They complain that Apple can't just vaguely assert attorney client privilege on everything. Like
it's a fog, he says, like a fog that rolls into the room.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (34:33 - 34:35)
And so I- I know nothing about the Epic Games case.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (34:35 - 35:06)
That's why I encourage you to read that decision, that order I just sent though, that's from our
courthouse, which should give a preview of their kind of position on some of this stuff. And so I
prefer to not have to challenge you guys with letters and fighting and wasting the court's time.
I'd rather if you guys are willing to step back and at least try like maybe a slightly amended
version.
We'll do some baby steps of stuff that, you know, you'd expect you probably would lose in an
argument in front of a judge about whether it's actually privileged or not. Like maybe we can,
we can find some compromise on here without having to actually file a bunch of letters.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (35:07 - 35:37)
Okay, we believe that what we put on the privilege log is privileged. If you want us, if you want
to pick out something and say, why is this privileged? You didn't explain it clearly enough in
your privilege log.
I'm happy to talk to you about that. And I've given you the reasons why things can be privileged
even before many months before your termination. And I've explained why things can be
privileged even if there isn't an attorney on an email.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (35:37 - 36:03)
You've explained why Apple views that it is a potentially reasonable argument to make such an
argument. But I think it'd be a good, I think, you know, exactly the stuff we're going to be
hashing out for the next couple of years. So I think getting a response on each of these clearly
of your position, that sounds like a ton of work.
I'm sorry, but you know, otherwise, I don't know how else we move forward other than just
making the judge happy to pick it all apart. So if I can get more information from you, I can file
some.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (36:03 - 36:42)
I've given you the privilege log gives you the information on each document. I have answered
your questions. Generic generally on why there might be privileged documents from before the
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 166 of 713
(166 of 713), Page 166 of 713

termination from months before and why there might be privileged documents, even if there's
not an attorney on it.
If you have specific concerns that you want to raise, I'm happy to look at that particular
document and explain further if you want further information, why it is privileged. But I would
have thought that you could look at the very detailed description we gave for the on the
privilege log, that explains why it's privileged.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (36:42 - 37:55)
I turned into a database. I have like a million follow up questions about all of it. So much stuff.
But like, let's let's ease in. This sounds like a reasonable first step of dealing with this situation.
So I will go through and pick my top.
Like, can you tell me more about this one specifically and explain why I have questions? And
then if you can respond and provide more info, that's that's a very good next step. I still am
kind of concerned, though, about like, you know, taking time bomb of I need to schedule my
depots and our auditories and stuff.
So like, I need some help from you guys. And so there's like, we've kind of lost mechanisms.
You've done a very good job of that.
I don't have a clear mechanism to get this information. But instead of having to file a bunch of
stuff, trying to find creative ways to get it, is there anything you guys can just like direct me
towards like who the key people were? And then also, like, if I send if I would want to depose
Deborah Rubinstein a thousand percent, because I told her about getting sick by the FAB back
in like 2020.
And then she's on all this stuff following, which is if I was to send her stuff, would you allow her
to answer? Or are you going to claim attorney client privilege on anything she would say?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (37:56 - 38:11)
Pretty much anything she would say that I can think of would be privileged. And so you would
not be able to take her deposition because there's lots of case law out there that says people
can't take depositions of attorneys because they don't have any relevant non-privileged
information to give.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (38:13 - 38:48)
I need to look because if I send you a request for a depo and you deny it, and then I lose one of
my depos, I'm not going to do it. But I need to get you to like say this directly because I'm going
to challenge it because there's also a ton of case law I found that you can't put lawyers on stuff
at the beginning for a cover up. And if you're doing a cover up and bring lawyers intentionally
trying to do privilege, then all of that's thrown out.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 167 of 713
(167 of 713), Page 167 of 713

And actually there's great evidence against the defendant. So like, this is something we really
we're going to have to hash this one out. She's going to be super key.
The other one I had asked you guys about is like Yannick. I need to depose Yannick. He sent
that email.
He doesn't work at Apple anymore. Are you going to make him available or am I going to have
to file for a subpoena?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (38:49 - 39:10)
I haven't asked about him because I've never heard from you whose depositions you want to
take. So Yannick is one whose deposition you want to take. I will certainly find out from Apple
whether they are going to produce him or whether you need to subpoena him.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:11 - 39:13)
Same question for Antonio Ligueras, please.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:13 - 39:14)
What was that?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:14 - 39:16)
Same question for Antonio Ligueras.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:17 - 39:17)
Antonio.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:18 - 39:24)
He was the head of Corporate Employee Relations. Mr. Suicide Nets. He set up the Suicide Nets
in Beijing and then was leading employee relations.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:24 - 39:25)
Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with this case.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:26 - 39:27)
He was, he...
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:28 - 39:31)
The Suicide Net in Beijing has nothing to do with this case.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:31 - 39:46)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 168 of 713
(168 of 713), Page 168 of 713

Oh, no, it is because I complained that he was doing that and we scoffed about it. And then
Department of Liberty But that's, that wouldn't be a... for dismissing my case thing.
I was harassing him. So actually, it is part of it. That was brought in.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (39:47 - 39:56)
Anyway, so a complaint about setting up a Suicide Net in Beijing would not be a complaint of
illegal activity. And I don't believe that's the subject of your lawsuit. I don't believe that's...
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (39:56 - 40:34)
Well, you can't say it's not relevant when it's something he and I talked to directly when I was
coming to God that I was realizing Apple is not going to do anything to help. And when I talked
about it, I was like, you're Mr. Suicide Nets and now you're pretending like you're going to help
me. And we had a lovely conversation about how I was very distressed because mostly Apple
was lying to me.
And I kept saying if they're going to act like this, like some of these corporations act, they
should have just told us instead of misleading us. And he actually said that that marketing
makes his job a lot harder. And then if you notice, he kind of dropped off and now he's a
student at a university.
It seems like he's also over it. So I'd love to talk to him. Michael Steger, third one.
Michael Steger, no longer at Apple. Do I have to subpoena or is he going to be made available?
He was the HS manager at the office.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:35 - 40:37)
I'll ask about those three people.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (40:38 - 40:40)
Do you want an email about that specifically the trip or driving?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:40 - 40:42)
No, I've made a note.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (40:46 - 40:53)
Is there like checking you can do with the Rubenstein thing to see if they would let me talk to
her at all? Or do we kind of know already that she's going to be a no?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (40:54 - 41:02)
I can find out. That's the fourth one you want to take is what you're saying. I can find out if
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 169 of 713
(169 of 713), Page 169 of 713

there's any information that she has that is non-privileged.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (41:03 - 41:41)
And specifically, I'm going to want to talk to her and get her, and maybe this is just
interrogatory instead of depo, but that I did talk to her in 2020 and I told her about what
happened and talk to her about the Apple office being on a Superfund site. Like we had a
conversation in November of 2020 that I don't think she can claim privilege. Okay, so that's
four.
This is huge progress, Melinda. Thank you. Let's see, ESI.
There's ESI plans, draft plans. I want to try to include that in my draft discovery plan. I'm going
to send you guys.
Do you guys have any objections to the ESI?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (41:41 - 41:44)
I don't know, send me what you want. Okay.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (41:48 - 42:15)
Oh, and I need to, I think, I didn't get a chance to respond to every great thing you sent. You
sent like 20 things. One of them, you said something about claims of privilege for me so far.
I'll send a written thing. I'm not making any claims of privilege. I've not found any documents
that I'm claiming anything for that yet, but I'm still going through stuff.
So I'll be very clear if I am and when I am. Trunk scheduling, we did that. Yeah, I want a
preservation order.
So I'll include that in the proposed stuff.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (42:15 - 42:25)
I lost all my- I think that's also in the case management conference statement. You don't need
to repeat the things we've already put in our case management conference.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (42:25 - 42:30)
Yeah, what you're saying is like a statement of like, we talked about it, but we're supposed to
have like a stipulated agreement.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (42:31 - 42:35)
Yeah, so you'll look at the case management conference statement that we already filed.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 170 of 713
(170 of 713), Page 170 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (42:35 - 42:37)
I'm aware of what you're talking about. That's not the same.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (42:37 - 42:38)
Okay, good.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (42:38 - 43:06)
There's even like a model ESI order next to your favorite protective order you keep asking for,
but you didn't want- you never wanted the ESI one. You actually said in those joint case
management statements you don't want one. So I'm just going to include Ashley's like ideal
stipulated discovery plan and trial schedule and all that stuff and we can sort through it.
I'm going to try to use the model stuff from the court website where I can. Let's see.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:06 - 43:20)
This evidence preservation is in section six of the joint case management conference statement.
The parties have reviewed the guidelines relating to the discovery. Electronically stored
information have met and conferred regarding reasonable proportional steps.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:21 - 43:44)
So just a pro tip from me, who's an expert in Apple contradicting themselves constantly, you
might want to try to find some alignment if you're saying must have protective order with huge
binding agreement, but refuse to have any of the other orders the courts say are default and
say that this one's super normal and everyone has it and always do it, but don't do any of this
other stuff that are also model and normal. I'm going to lean into that divide a lot.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:44 - 43:48)
OK, I haven't said that. I've said if you want an ESI order, send it to me.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (43:48 - 43:54)
OK, I'm going to send you a beautiful portfolio of all the examples and then let's see.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (43:54 - 44:00)
I don't want lots of examples. I want on a caption in this case what you want the ESI order to
say.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (44:00 - 44:45)
Yes, so I mean I'm going to integrate those. I'm not going to try to make it up myself. I'm going
to pull from the Westlaw stuff and the model orders and let you know where I pulled the stuff
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 171 of 713
(171 of 713), Page 171 of 713

from.
But yes, I'll have something that's like you want to sign this now and then we can negotiate the
terms. The disqualification thing, I'm deeply distressed to see that Jessica Perry was involved in
those termination emails back to early August with her response with the sworn declaration of
the court with my prior motion to disqualify, which feels very material and misleading. I am
considering the best path forward.
Right now I'm thinking maybe reviving the motion to disqualify. I may also do a fraud on the
court to try to undo some prior decisions for withholding information. I know you guys already
took Kate off.
What's her name?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (44:46 - 44:46)
Juvenile.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (44:48 - 45:04)
Perry is like the biggest issue here. It looks like she had an associate on it at that time who's not
on the litigation that I can tell, which is good. I think I'd have a very hard time getting ORC
disqualified if Perry stepped back.
Perry is the biggest issue. She was sending emails during that time.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (45:05 - 45:36)
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with we never disputed that we were involved in giving advice to
Apple with respect to you. Never disputed that. And that's not what Perry's declaration says.
So go back. She's not a witness. That was the whole point of the disqualification motion.
You said that she was a witness. We said she was not a witness. Witness mean is she going to
be called at the trial to testify under oath?
And the answer is no, she's no. We have no plans and you can't call lawyers to be witnesses.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (45:36 - 46:06)
But that's why they're supposed to be disqualified. If I can make a showing that she is someone
that could be an important witness for the case, then she should not be defense attorney
because that's the direct conflict of interest that she's protecting her own stuff because she was
implicated. So she's not completely loyal to Apple is the number one.
And then two, she could be covering up her own stuff. She can't work impartially. The
disqualification is a conflict of interest thing.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 172 of 713
(172 of 713), Page 172 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (46:07 - 46:10)
And you already argued that and the judge already denied it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (46:10 - 46:12)
And you guys misled about your involvement.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (46:13 - 46:21)
You've got to show there's something false in the declaration and there is nothing false. We've
all gone back and look at it. There is nothing false in the declaration.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (46:22 - 46:23)
We all went back and looked at it.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (46:25 - 46:34)
So if you want to renew your motion, but by the way, there's got to be an end to these motions.
You can't keep filing all these motions all the time.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (46:34 - 46:36)
You guys filed six motions to dismiss.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (46:37 - 46:43)
Yeah, but they were consecutive and they were granted. You've been filing endless motions and
they're denied.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (46:43 - 46:44)
What motion?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (46:45 - 46:51)
I can't even list all the motions you filed. Sometimes they come in for a day, whatever. So- For a
day.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (46:52 - 46:58)
You say I filed four motions a day and you cannot tell me what a single one of those motions
are except for the motion to disqualify.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (46:58 - 47:06)
Four discovery motions. I remember the motion to disqualify the motion. I have a list of all your
motions here somewhere, but it's obviously on the court docket.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 173 of 713
(173 of 713), Page 173 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (47:07 - 47:21)
And you're telling me that I need to stop filing motions? Motions that have no basis. Which of
my motions have no basis?
Most of them, all of them as far as I could tell. A dismissal or a denial is not the same as no
basis.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (47:22 - 47:36)
And we believe they have no basis and we believe that the use of these AI generated stuff is
unacceptable and the motions have no basis. And there just has to be a stop to these motions.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (47:37 - 47:46)
So my motions are about Apple violating the LRA, Apple's settlement agreement, a motion to
disqualify. I have the motion to strike and ask for a more definite statement.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (47:47 - 47:47)
Yeah.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (47:47 - 47:50)
I've had motions of notice of pendency.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (47:51 - 47:53)
Those are- Four discovery motions.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (47:53 - 47:53)
These are what you're saying are baseless?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (47:54 - 47:55)
Four discovery motions.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (47:55 - 47:59)
And you're saying AI generated nonsense and is abuse of the court. Yeah.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (48:00 - 48:03)
And you have four discovery motions to the magistrate.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (48:03 - 48:04)
Discovery motions.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 174 of 713
(174 of 713), Page 174 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (48:05 - 48:13)
And as I say, I do not have in front of me a list of all the motions, but all I can say is that there
needs to be an end to these motions.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (48:13 - 48:19)
Can you elaborate further on your coercive statement to help me understand exactly what you
were saying?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (48:19 - 48:23)
Yes. So I've said it all in the motions. I really have.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (48:23 - 48:38)
You're saying there has to be an end with like a gravelly tone, which is very close to violating
the NLRA again. So I'm just asking for more information of exactly what you're trying to censor
and stop and suppress and what this implied threat is at the gravelly end of the statement.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (48:39 - 48:46)
This is not on our agenda for this call. We have enough to cover in the call without going
through the fact.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (48:47 - 49:19)
Just to be clear, if I feel like a motion should be filed and there's a valid reason to file it, I'm
going to file it. And I'm trying to be as responsible as I can with how I file and how much
research I can do. But as you know, you guys have like 30 billion dollars and I have negative
everything and I am one person and you have hundreds of thousands.
How much does it work out? So that's unfair bullying for you to come at me saying it's not
perfect. Whatever.
Anyways, I object to that generally and I find that to be harassment.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (49:20 - 49:44)
But I've already told you in our oppositions to your motions why we believe the motions are
without merit. And the judge will end up deciding those whether the motions are without merit
or not. But we have said everything we intend to say with respect to the repeated filing of
motions with cases that don't exist.
And no, I don't mind.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (49:44 - 49:50)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 175 of 713
(175 of 713), Page 175 of 713

You refuse to give me any evidence that nothing exists. I've asked repeatedly for some kind of
evidence of nonexistence.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (49:50 - 49:59)
It's all in the brief. Every time you had a site, we went and looked at that site and it doesn't exist.
I can't give you evidence that something doesn't exist.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (49:59 - 50:05)
But you can. You go into Westlaw, you search it. It says no result.
You give me a copy. I asked for that three times and you expressly said no.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (50:06 - 50:16)
No, I haven't expressly said no on anything. It's all in our motion. We're not going to debate.
We're not going to debate the motions that are currently pending. The judge will decide those.
They're fully.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (50:16 - 50:23)
You're making allegations against me about filing frivolous motions and saying that I'm
incompetent and that I'm using false cases.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (50:23 - 50:24)
I haven't said any of those things.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (50:24 - 50:31)
You won't give me evidence that something doesn't even exist when all you have to do is print a
PDF to show it doesn't exist?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (50:32 - 50:55)
I haven't said you were incompetent in any sense. I've said you file briefs that cite to cases that
don't exist. Those motions are fully briefed.
The judge will decide them. You've already made your point that we did not produce proof that
they didn't exist and the judge will decide if that's a valid objection or not. Okay.
But we're not here to re-argue the motions.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (50:56 - 51:16)
I am considering what to do about that. I'm not doing anything immediately on that. Let's see.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 176 of 713
(176 of 713), Page 176 of 713

Preservation, that'll be included. Trial scheduling will include. Religious searchings will include.
ESI we talked about. Are you planning on deposing other people on my side? If so, what kind of
notice do I get of that?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (51:16 - 51:27)
So I don't have any current intentions. To do so. But I obviously might at some point in the
future.
And you will get whatever notice.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (51:27 - 51:36)
My friends are terrified of you? My normal Portland-y, hipstery friends. And if I can just reassure
them that there's nothing currently because they're stressed out too.
You guys are scary.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (51:37 - 51:59)
I have no current plans to take the depositions of your hipster friends. I don't even know who
your hipster friends are. I don't know what they might know about the facts of this case.
So I have no current intention. But after your deposition, you might reveal information that
leads me to believe that there are witnesses whose depositions I need to take. And in that case,
I would do so.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (51:59 - 52:55)
And I am including screenshots and chats and stuff I have with friends, including non-
employees, just to show what was going on in my mind and what I knew and things I'm hearing
for reasonableness. So you guys have that information. And then let's see.
Subject scope of discovery. I sent you guys a new request for production, just for clarity of this
prior stuff that was denied for whatever reasons. I incorporated them in the last two.
So hopefully, whatever you say, like, no to on this one will be our good. Like, this is full
discovery. Now you're saying no.
There's stuff I have to challenge. I have to challenge. I'd previously asked, like, if I give you a
request for production and there's something confusing or it seems too broad, like, let me
know and work with me.
And I will try to... I do FOIA requests all the time still. Like, just be like a FOIA office.
Actually, that's too broad. Can we narrow it? Happy to work with you guys.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 177 of 713
(177 of 713), Page 177 of 713

Instead, I just keep getting all these blanket rejections at the end. So, like, if you want to send
associates or something to me to, like, narrow stuff down, please do.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (52:57 - 53:14)
Yeah, that's why we respond and we do what the rules require, which is if they're overbroad,
then we tell you they're overbroad and we give you what's relevant if there's anything relevant.
But it would be better for you to draft more tailored requests sometimes. I need feedback.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (53:14 - 53:47)
You're not giving me any, like, directed feedback of, when you say this, this implicates five
different tools or this is... If you... Again, I have a database in my brain and I'm used to Apple
troubleshooting.
So, if you tell me the thing you're requesting would require us to search 20 different systems or
the thing you're requesting, there's no universal search, so we'd have to, like, pull individual
people. If you give us five people to pull, we could do that. Like, just work with me and I will
troubleshoot and try to refine them to make them as, like, logical and reasonable and easy as
possible.
But if you don't tell me anything on your side, then I can't.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (53:51 - 54:01)
All right. So, should we go through the discovery requests, our requests to you? We need to
meet and confer on those before we bring a motion to compel.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (54:02 - 54:02)
Go ahead.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (54:03 - 54:05)
So, first of all, you need to sign the send verifications.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (54:05 - 54:06)
I will.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (54:06 - 54:20)
Okay, good. So, on some of the interrogatories... See what I had on those.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (54:30 - 54:36)
There was one that was asking for medical records back to 2015, and some of my objections
are, like, Apple has those. Apple was my doctor.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 178 of 713
(178 of 713), Page 178 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (54:37 - 54:43)
Okay, Apple has no medical records of yours. We do not have your medical records, I assure
you.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (54:44 - 54:58)
Apple Wellness Center is a privately-owned, for-profit subsidiary of Apple Inc., and I got all my
digital records from them, which were sent through my emails and my Apple emails, and it
shows that Apple started reporting on my email a long time ago. So, they clearly have it.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (54:58 - 55:01)
We do not have your medical records.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (55:02 - 56:15)
And then Jenna was passing around that mammogram. That was disturbing. Jenna.
Because then there was the ADA stuff, and you guys got the documents from... Oh, and no, I
don't know if they're telling you the truth, because my one medical got an Apple request for
that ADA thing for all of my medical records on September 1st. I got from my records from the
doctor I requested for, like, all logs.
So, Apple did request all my medical records September 1st, 2021. And all of this to say, I don't
have to make a stink about all of this, if we can just have reasonable requests narrowed. But,
like, if Apple's gonna do something so...
And I looked it up. This is the kind of stuff that employers will do, and courts will say, don't do
that. What are you doing?
You're harassing the employee. Like, this falls in that category of weird stuff that's not terribly
justified. So, if we can narrow it to something that you actually need and is justified and makes
sense, happy to give it to you.
But if you're gonna do brute force and threaten to compel, then I'm gonna bring up all sorts of
stuff like this. Attaching the Jenna Mammogram email, attaching the request to one medical,
attaching, you know, all this stuff, to be like, I don't even know what they're asking for.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (56:16 - 56:37)
Okay, so let's go through the interrogatories. On number two, we asked you for the medical
providers regarding the claims in the Fifth Amendment complaint. And you referred us to our
initial disclosures.
And what we're looking for is the documents that are responsive to that request.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 179 of 713
(179 of 713), Page 179 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (56:38 - 56:42)
Which I said I was producing separately, so I didn't know why there was an interrogatory in
addition to the production.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (56:44 - 56:52)
So, we want to know which of your medical providers relate to the dismissed claims and which
ones relate to the remaining claims.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (56:52 - 57:13)
We are gonna bring that in front of a judge if you guys pursue that, because one that's super
messed up. Like, could you imagine if one of your daughters was going through this and a
lawyer said that to them, of, I need you to distinguish all of your emotional trauma from when
we dumped a bunch of toxic waste on your face, and then we're retaliating and ruining your
life, because those can't be combined or overlapping. So, first things first, please separate
those two.
That's really messed up.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (57:13 - 57:17)
Okay, if you can't distinguish, then you can give them all to us.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (57:18 - 57:50)
But if you want to- I'm giving you all the stuff, and I told you I already offered, which seems like
a really big deal that you guys have not acknowledged. You can do a mental exam. You guys
pay for it.
We can do a mental exam. It can be on the record. That seems like the best way for you to
figure out this kind of stuff.
Get an expert to decide what kind of damage there is, what I went through, what kind of stuff
triggered, whatever. Like, get a formal report about it. Like, an interrogatory or production of
documents like that is not going to answer your question.
That's expert witnesses and testimony, you know? Like, that's way more complicated than
interrogatory.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (57:50 - 58:12)
So, one of the things that the IME wants to see, the doctor who does the IME, wants to see is
the contemporaneous medical records. So, you can either give us the medical records that
relate to the remaining claims in this case, and if you can't distinguish which ones relate to the
remaining claims in the case and the ones that were dismissed, then give us all the medical
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 180 of 713
(180 of 713), Page 180 of 713

records.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (58:13 - 58:22)
I'm giving you all the medical records for everything pending, including appeal. And if it's
specifically for the medical examiner person, I prefer just to give it to them directly if possible.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (58:23 - 58:33)
So, are you saying that all of the healthcare providers that you listed in your initial disclosures
relate to the remaining claims in this case?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (58:36 - 59:51)
I am saying I gave you guys a long list of medical providers related to this overall case,
including my pending Ninth Circuit ones, which I argue are, you know, very much part of this
for protected activity, as well as, like, even if that was separate, the argument about punitive
damages for traumatizing me after, you know, what I went through, all of it's meshed together.
So, like, I don't, I'm not going to play any games of separating it myself. That would be expert
witnesses of the medical examiners, but also for damages experts if we're going to do that.
So, like, that's not today. That's much later. I have no problem giving you medical records of
everything related to all of my claims, in this case, in the Ninth Circuit case.
And I've been, you know, merging in DOL and LRB and stuff too, like, all together, because
there's not much that's actually, like, separate. So, I'm not holding back anything. You guys
were the ones that were holding back stuff on appeal or pending, settling pleadings.
But as far as, like, privacy goes, I would prefer, like, if the request for my medical records at this
point, primarily, is for a medical exam, then I would prefer if there's a way just to give those
documents to that doctor instead of having to give them to Apple would be preferable.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (59:52 - 59:57)
Okay. So, we would need to subpoena the medical providers that and get their records from
them.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (59:58 - 1:00:01)
You can't just me provide it, you have to get it directly from them?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:00:01 - 1:00:19)
We have to get it from them. Because then we know we got everything. So, we need to know
which medical providers we should subpoena.
We could either subpoena all of the people that you listed in your initial disclosures, and that's
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 181 of 713
(181 of 713), Page 181 of 713

fine too. Or if you think that some of them don't relate to the remaining claims, and you don't
want us to subpoena those, then just tell us which ones.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:00:20 - 1:00:26)
If you're subpoenaing, you're getting, like, everything. And I think that's overkill. Like, what
exactly are you trying to get from them?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:00:26 - 1:00:37)
I want to get the medical providers that relate to the remaining claims in this case, which is the
emotional distress you suffered as a result of the claims that are remaining in this case.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:00:37 - 1:00:48)
No, I know. But I can show you, like, oh, I had an appointment. Here's the after-visit summary.
And I can show you, oh, here's a receipt that I paid this money. But you're, you want everything.
You want their internal notes.
You want, why?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:00:50 - 1:01:03)
Because that's what we're entitled to. Are you? If it's relevant, yes.
Because if you've raised the claim of emotional distress, then you've put your emotional
distress at issue in the case, and we're entitled to get medical records relating to that claim.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:01:03 - 1:01:08)
Yeah, but that doesn't explain why you go to a primary care provider and request everything.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:01:08 - 1:01:25)
Well, that's what I'm asking you. That's exactly why I'm asking you. So which of the medical
providers relate to the emotional distress claims you're making in the case?
And then I'll subpoena them. I don't need to subpoena people if they are not related to the
claims you're making in this case. That's why I'm asking you to distinguish.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:01:25 - 1:01:31)
When are you planning on, do we have like a couple months to sort this out? Because I have a
million other things in my brain right now, and this is going to require a lot more thinking.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:01:33 - 1:02:03)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 182 of 713
(182 of 713), Page 182 of 713

Okay, so I want to get these. Sometimes it takes a while to get medical records from doctors.
And obviously it would be ideal to get them before your deposition so that we have them in
hand in connection with your deposition.
So that's why we'd like an answer to interrogatory number two. But if the answer is, which is
what I think it is, everybody I listed in my initial disclosures relates to the claims in the case,
then we can just subpoena all of them.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:02:03 - 1:03:05)
No, and I'm now like saying like what I said prior is for what I understood prior. You just gave
me a lot more context to what you're doing and what you're looking for. And I need to consider
all of that.
If this is something where like you'd move the depo if you don't get any time, like ideally you'd
send me like a letter summarizing all these things you're telling me and exactly what you're
looking for. I'm going to object to some of them. I can tell you already a lot of this is overbroad.
And there's, it looks like specific rules of like when something is actually relevant or not for this
type of question. So like what does it matter that some doctors said this or that when a medical
examiner was like, oh, it's just PTSD and there's testing, whatever, showing it got way worse.
And she told me all about all this stuff.
You know, I need to, I need to sort through, I'm sure there's a bunch of guides on this stuff. It
seems nuanced. I want to sort it out.
I can't promise you I'm going to get you a quick response because of everything else I'm also
dealing with. So anything you can do to try to.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:03:07 - 1:03:13)
Okay. Well, your answer was all the people listed in the initial disclosures. So I just wanted to be
sure.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:03:14 - 1:03:59)
On behalf of a someone who's going to do the medical exam who wants all the records for this
stuff. And it's like, I kind of was like, slow your roll was my response. It wasn't, I'm not giving
you anything else.
It was, we're very early in on this. I already gave you a bunch of names. Why are you asking for
all this information right now?
I don't even know what your defense is. So I didn't say no. The things you were telling me make
some sense.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 183 of 713
(183 of 713), Page 183 of 713

And I can see your reasoning of wanting this stuff. There's stuff I'm going to have to like
reshape and push back on some of it. But I agree what you're asking for sounds like a overall
reasonable request in this type of litigation.
So I want to help facilitate that. But like, just became way more complicated than what I
thought this issue was at this point.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:04:01 - 1:04:26)
Okay. So the number three is the people that you've worked for since you left Apple and how
much you've earned from them. And that's relevant because you're seeking lost wages in this
case.
And we're not even there yet. We're there from now that discovery has started. There's no
phased discovery.
Discovery starts and we're entitled to discovery on all the issues that are remaining in the case.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:04:27 - 1:04:28)
What are you planning on doing with this information?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:04:29 - 1:04:39)
So then we would deduct that what you've earned from the lost wages that you're claiming.
And then that would determine how much the lost wage claim is.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:04:40 - 1:04:48)
So why can't I just give you like the documents of the pay statements and stuff? Why do you
need formal names? Are you going to depose these people too?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:04:50 - 1:05:01)
I don't know. It depends. We'll make that decision.
But right now we don't have anything. You said it's premature. And what I'm saying is there's
no such thing as premature discovery.
Now that discovery is open, it's not premature.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:05:02 - 1:05:21)
Well, I said you're prioritizing weird things sooner. And I also complained that like one of them
had a job that Apple got me fired from. Not fired.
They severed the contract with Wilshire Law over that fraud lawsuit that they won against
Apple. Big settlement. But I got kicked off and they were defaming me.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 184 of 713
(184 of 713), Page 184 of 713

They made me read my tweets out loud during their meet and confer session.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:05:22 - 1:05:24)
This has nothing to do with the interrogatory and I have no idea what you're talking about.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:05:24 - 1:05:29)
Yes, it does. Because that was one of the employers. And Apple got me fired from the employer.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:05:29 - 1:05:43)
I have no idea what that's about. All I can say is the interrogatory asks you for the name and
address of the employers that you've worked for since you left Apple. And we're entitled to that
information.
So we need a response to that discovery.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:05:46 - 1:05:51)
I think I said you'd get it in the document production. I can't remember what I said.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:05:51 - 1:06:12)
You said plaintiff's discovery plaintiff contends the discovery is premature because this
discovery only goes to the potential offset of damages and refuses to provide a response out of
fear that Apple will further retaliate against her as she alleged it did for her prior expert
consulting engagement in response to an article she published in the magazine about her
experience with autism.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:06:12 - 1:06:18)
That was MWE. That was another law firm. It was Mofo, I think, who was harassing me with that
other one.
And then I got a job.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:06:18 - 1:06:20)
You wanted to know what your response.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:06:20 - 1:06:33)
And MWE's on there saying she's a liar and making vandalizing pictures about how I got fat
because I'm so depressed to what Apple did to me. And I'm like, yeah, I did because they're
mean. What the hell?
You're making 200,000 like.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 185 of 713
(185 of 713), Page 185 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:06:34 - 1:06:38)
I have no idea what you're talking about. All I want to know is you asked me what your
response was.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:06:38 - 1:06:40)
These are literally the answers you're getting.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:06:41 - 1:06:48)
No, I want to know the I want the answer to the question. So will you provide us with the
answer to question number three?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:06:49 - 1:07:07)
I'll give you names and amounts just like that. I'm going to ask that you hold back on anything
related to Northeastern. Right now, I'm under a really weird situation where I don't even know
if I'm allowed to say stuff.
I have to bring in DOJ if you want to talk about.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:07:07 - 1:07:11)
I just I just want the names. Just want the answer to the question.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:07:12 - 1:07:16)
So just it's like I was like, what are you going to do with that information?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:07:16 - 1:07:19)
That doesn't matter. You have to answer the question.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:07:19 - 1:07:33)
It does. If you're using it to harass, it's literally one of the criteria. I will agree right now, though,
by our ninth deadline or sending all their stuff, I will send the names, times and amount made
on each.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:07:38 - 1:07:53)
Number four, ask for social media platforms. And you said that we already have this
information and actually we don't. So we need you to tell us which social media platforms that
you've posted on.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:07:53 - 1:07:55)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 186 of 713
(186 of 713), Page 186 of 713

So I'm sorry, how does this go to Apple's defense?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:07:56 - 1:07:58)
Well, it depends what you've said.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:07:59 - 1:08:00)
So you're searching for after acquired evidence?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:08:01 - 1:08:08)
No, no. We're searching for what you have said on social media platforms. And all we want to
know is what they are.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:08:09 - 1:08:29)
No, I want to what are you? If I was to tell just to a court, they're going to ask, what are you
trying to achieve from this? What does it have to do with the outline of the case of these
burdens of things you're trying to prove, what your defenses are?
That's what I'm asking, what the judge would ask you. What kind of evidence do you think you
are going to obtain from this? And where does it plug into the outline of the case of how you
would use it?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:08:30 - 1:08:40)
So, for example, you might have published confidential information about Apple. You might
have, there's all sorts of things that you could have done. All I'm asking is for the name of the
platforms.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:08:41 - 1:08:43)
You're asking for me for like 10 years.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:08:45 - 1:08:56)
Since 2021, March 1st, 2021. Five years, which that's so broad. I don't know how many
platforms have you posted on, a hundred, five hundred?
Okay, give me a number.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:08:58 - 1:09:51)
So here's the thing though. This is like one, invasion of privacy. There's a lot of court procedure,
law precedent about that.
This is chilling of my NLRA activity. You're literally asking to go spy on all my stuff where you
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 187 of 713
(187 of 713), Page 187 of 713

know I was engaged in protective activity while concurrently threatening me about stuff. You're
not giving me a clear answer of like what exactly you use it for other than trying to find
something to use against me generally, including your example, leaking confidential
information.
So like if we can put a pin in this and spend some more time thinking about this, I want to give
you like everything I posted on any social media platform during that like August to I was fired
window. I agree. Everything there seems super relevant.
I was already going to produce all of that. All of that gets sent out. But you're doing like a drag
net.
Way beyond that.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:09:51 - 1:09:54)
I'm always just asking for the names of the platforms. It's not that hard.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:09:55 - 1:09:57)
And usernames and all this stuff.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:09:58 - 1:10:09)
Well, I mean, that would tell us who who posted, right? So it's not not passwords or anything.
It's just a Jovic if you did that or I hate Apple or whatever.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:10:09 - 1:10:13)
It's illegal in California. I'd even ask employees that now. That's against the labor code.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:10:13 - 1:10:16)
I'm not allowed to ask for passwords, but I can ask for the names.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:10:16 - 1:10:21)
You can't even not be on passwords. You can't even ask them what their accounts are. So the
lots happen the last five years.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:10:21 - 1:10:25)
I'm very aware of employment laws, but unfortunately, you're not an employee anymore.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:10:26 - 1:10:31)
So I'm just saying there's a lot of public policy for you to not snoop on all my stuff. And I'm
going to fight this one.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 188 of 713
(188 of 713), Page 188 of 713

[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:10:31 - 1:10:41)
Yeah, but that wasn't the response. The response you gave is we already have this information.
And I'm telling you that that response is inadequate because we don't already have the names
of all the sites that you post.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:10:41 - 1:10:50)
I believe I said you have it for that time period I specified and I'm producing all the documents
for that time period. And then I complained a lot about surveillance and privacy and stuff.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:10:50 - 1:11:07)
Plaintiff asserts that all relevant social media content in her possession will be produced and
that Apple is free to view any publicly accessible content independently. And we agree with
that, but we have to know the sites in order to view it. So that's all we're asking is tell me the
sites and then we will go review it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:11:08 - 1:11:28)
How about this? Would you be willing to narrow this interrogatory and you have more stuff you
can file later to social media accounts during June 1 to September 10, 2021. If you are willing to
narrow it to that, I will give you a beautiful little spreadsheet.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:11:29 - 1:11:38)
I will take that back and get back to you on that one. And then the number five was the
usernames. Okay, should we go to the request for documents?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:11:38 - 1:11:40)
Yeah, the fifth one, same deal.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:11:40 - 1:11:48)
Yeah, same one. So on the privilege, we've confirmed that you're not withholding any
documents based on privilege.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:11:49 - 1:11:49)
Currently, no.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:11:50 - 1:11:56)
Right, currently. And then medical records, you're going to produce the medical records that
you have.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:11:57 - 1:13:11)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 189 of 713
(189 of 713), Page 189 of 713

I'm planning on producing medical records. I already disclosed some doctors. I understand
your request though.
And it does not, my response does not exactly meet the parameters of your request and I don't
want to ignore that gap. So I need to think about, I mean, maybe me producing this stuff might
be enough for the depot for you. Like, again, if there's something very specific you're looking
for, tell me, like, if you ask me point blank for something and I have it, I'm not going to lie.
I don't know how to lie, Melinda. It's very inconvenient, actually. You ask me for something, I'm
just going to give it to you or I'm going to tell you no, but why?
I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist. So like, tell me. I will do that.
Otherwise, trying to produce all this stuff, gather all this stuff, all this other stuff's going on, but
trying to do that more urgently now that I, you know, if you give me heads up of stuff you want
before that depot, I can try to prioritize that over other stuff. So like, give me a bolded list or
something. And I'm going to have to wrap my head around the medical exam with the prior
records.
I know that there's a huge knowledge base on this topic specifically because it's so often
contested and I don't have any familiarity at this moment. So I need to go brief myself before I
respond further on it. But all that to say is I'm working on it, I'm doing it partially, and I'm trying
to figure out the rest of it.
I'm not saying no.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:13:13 - 1:13:23)
And then on the depot notice, I gave you the answers in my email I sent you. The email I sent
you to set up this yesterday, I think it was.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:13:24 - 1:13:25)
The depot notice.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:13:26 - 1:13:38)
Yes, you had some concerns about how you were going to get the transcript. And that's all in
the email, so I don't think we need to go over that. Okay.
So do you want to meet and confer also on your RFPs to Apple?
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:13:39 - 1:13:41)
If you have something you want to say already.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:13:43 - 1:13:46)
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 190 of 713
(190 of 713), Page 190 of 713

Well, I don't know if you were unhappy with our responses.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:13:47 - 1:14:19)
Oh, so that's why I kind of incorporate into this latest one because you did a good job with your
fog veils of making it kind of confusing of not full discovery pending stuff. So I'm going to wait
to protest anything from you guys until you respond to this latest one I sent that also
incorporates those prior ones. So I want like final, final.
No, like we said final then, but things change, confusion in the air. So once you respond to this
latest one I sent, then I'm going to pick stuff I might escalate, but I'm not planning on
escalating anything at this point otherwise.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:14:34 - 1:14:40)
Okay, so there's no reason to discuss any of your discovery to us, our responses to your
discovery to us at this time.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:14:43 - 1:14:54)
Okay, then I think that might be it on my list. Did you have other stuff on your list?
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:14:54 - 1:14:55)
I think that's it.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:14:56 - 1:15:06)
Okay, I'm going to go over all my notes and try to summarize, but also I'm probably not going
to surface again until the 7th after I file Ninth Circuit. That's a lot of work.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:15:07 - 1:15:09)
I'm not involved in the Ninth Circuit case. I don't know.
[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:15:10 - 1:15:27)
I'm just lawyer to lawyer. That's a lot of brand new baby lawyer doing Ninth Circuit. So I'm
going to try to focus as much as I can on that.
But I feel like we made a lot of good progress on this. I really appreciate you talking through
this stuff. I know it's not easy sometimes.
So thank you.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:15:28 - 1:15:29)
All right, we'll be in touch.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 191 of 713
(191 of 713), Page 191 of 713

[Ashley Gjovik (Pro Se)] (1:15:30 - 1:15:30)
Thanks.
[Melinda Reichert (Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)] (1:15:30 - 1:15:30)
Bye.
Turboscribe AI Transcription
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 192 of 713
(192 of 713), Page 192 of 713

9  
 
 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT G: GOBBLER PHOTOS  
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 193 of 713
(193 of 713), Page 193 of 713

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 194 of 713
(194 of 713), Page 194 of 713

Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 195 of 713
(195 of 713), Page 195 of 713

 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 196 of 713
(196 of 713), Page 196 of 713

 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 197 of 713
(197 of 713), Page 197 of 713

 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 198 of 713
(198 of 713), Page 198 of 713

 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 199 of 713
(199 of 713), Page 199 of 713

10 
EXHI B I T H: GOBBLER COMPLAINT 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 200 of 713
(200 of 713), Page 200 of 713

6/29/23, 5:09 PM
Inbox | ashleymgjovik@protonmail.com | Proton Mail
https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/q4OerrnDdgFI2Cnei2M_-jMRJxiYoAz-PQLyXancbcJo7bxvtxWxYapIYb8VE07ZRKjc-m5eJacApwocN3M8Tg==
1/1
Your Comment Submitted on Regulations.gov (ID: OSTP_FRDOC_0001-
0008)
From
no-reply@regulations.gov <no-reply@regulations.gov>
To
Ashley Gjovik<ashleymgjovik@protonmail.com>
Date
Thursday, June 29th, 2023 at 5:07 PM
Please do not reply to this message. This email is from a notification only address that cannot accept incoming
email.
Your comment was submitted successfully!
Comment Tracking Number: ljh-mm9t-ux8w
Your comment has been sent for review. This process is dependent on agency public submission
policies/procedures and processing times. Once the agency has posted your comment, you may view it on
Regulations.gov using your Comment Tracking Number.
Agency: OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP)
Document Type: Notice
Title: Request for Information: Extension of Comment Deadline Automated Worker Surveillance and Management
Document ID: OSTP_FRDOC_0001-0008
Comment:
I am filing a comment on behalf of myself, a worker with US labor agency charges & cases that involve critical
public policy concerns about worker surveillance and electronic monitoring. Please see attached memo in
response to this request for information.
Uploaded File(s):
OSTP Gjovik Comment 2023.pdf
For further information about the Regulations.gov commenting process, please visit
https://www.regulations.gov/faq.
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 201 of 713
(201 of 713), Page 201 of 713

- 1 - 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D. 
ashleymgjovik@protonmail.com  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Request for Information:  
 
Automated Worker 
Surveillance and 
Management 
 
Federal Register No. 2023-12995 
 
Doc ID: OSTP_FRDOC_0001-0008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 
TECHNOLOGY POLICY 
 
INFORMATION 
 
 
Associated Cases: 
 
U.S. Department of Labor:  
Ashley Gjovik v Apple (9-3290-22-051) 
 
U.S. National Labor Relations Board 
NLRB v Apple (32-CA- 284428) 
 
California Department of Labor:  
Ashley Gjovik v Apple (RCI-CM-842830) 
 
 
Associated Investigations:  
 
U.S. National Labor Relations Board 
Charge No. 32-CA-282142, 32-CA-283161, & 32-
CA-288816 (Division of Advice & Region 31) 
 
U.S. Federal Trade Commission 
Report No. 154835129 
 
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission   
Tip No. 16488- 304-158- 087 (SF Regional Office) 
 
German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection 
and Freedom of Information (BfDI) 
Complaint No. # 11-540 II#3693 (Bavaria Office) 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 202 of 713
(202 of 713), Page 202 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 2 of 47 -  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 
APPLE’S CULTURE OF “LOYALTY” & INTIMIDATION ................................................................................................. 6 
ELECTRONIC MONITORING & DATA COLLECTION.................................................................................. 12 
“FACE ID”& APPLE’S FACE “GOBBLER” APPLICATION ........................................................................................... 12 
EAR STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 27 
OTHER USER STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................. 30 
RADAR & SYSDIAGNOSE .......................................................................................................................................... 32 
SECRECY ................................................................................................................................................................... 33 
SECRECY POLICIES ................................................................................................................................................... 33 
SEARCH AND PRIVACY POLICIES.............................................................................................................................. 35 
PUBLIC POLICY ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 46 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AS “COMPLAINT FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY” IN APRIL 2022; 
REVISED FOR OSTP IN JUNE 2023 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 203 of 713
(203 of 713), Page 203 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 3 of 47 -  
 
June 29, 2023 
 
 
To Whom it May Concern, 
 
 
The United States’ legal protections for human rights at work lags far behind countries in 
the European Union, especially France and Germany. Similarly, national legal protections for 
digital privacy are basically non-existent in the United States and are decades behind other 
nations. 
 Over the last few years, we have witnessed increasing surveillance, electronic 
monitoring, and digital exploitation of workers in the United States. We have also seen an 
increasing number of requests from politicians, agencies, unions, and civil society asking the US 
government for legal protections for workers. 
Despite numerous and persistent requests from Senators,1 NGOs,2 unions, and from 
workers themselves3 – there is no progress to be seen. Despite a number of agency memos4 and 
social media posts, we have yet to see any new legal protections or even any meaningful 
enforcement of violations of existing laws. 
While you will likely receive comments and information from groups with more 
expertise on the history, policy, and legal landscape of this topic – what I can offer you is a first-
hand case study in failure.  
My story as a worker in the United States, for one of the biggest companies in this 
country, highlights the lack of legal protections for workers, the lack of express privacy 
protections for citizens, and the lack of any actual enforcement mechanism even for egregious 
violations of the narrow privacy/labor laws we do have on the books today. My story also 
highlights how my employer understood this current landscape and thus acted with an aggressive 
 
1 Letter from Senator Casey to U.S. Department of Labor, August 26 2022, 
https://www.casey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_the_department_of_labor_re_worker_privacy.pdf  
2 CDT, GFI, Others Send Memos Urging White House to Take Action on Electronic Workplace Surveillance, April 3 
2023, https://cdt.org/insights/cdt-gfi-others-send-memos-urging-white-house-to-take-action-on-electronic-
workplace-surveillance/ ; AI Now, Algorithmic Management: Restraining Workplace Surveillance, 
https://ainowinstitute.org/publication/algorithmic-management  
3 TechCrunch, Ex-Apple employee takes Face ID privacy complaint to Europe, April 11 2022, 
https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/11/gobbler-complaint-europe/ 
4 U.S. NLRB, NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo on Unlawful Electronic Surveillance and Automated 
Management Practices, https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-counsel-issues-memo-on-
unlawful-electronic-surveillance-and 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 204 of 713
(204 of 713), Page 204 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 4 of 47 -  
disregard for the law, ethics, or social norms. So far, they were right & they have faced no 
consequences.  
In March 2022, I received a written statement from my employer’s lawyers admitting 
they fired me (with multiple federal investigations already open due to my charges against them 
for whistleblower retaliation, environmental and labor violations, and fraud); but claiming I was 
not fired in retaliation for that, but instead fired for supposedly ‘legal’ retaliation for my protests 
of their unlawful surveillance of employees, their intimidation and censorship of employees, and 
their coercive harvesting of sensitive worker information in order to build their products (in ways 
that they admitted in writing that would be illegal in France of Germany).5 In response, in 
addition to complaining further to US agencies, I also filed a complaint to other countries where 
my ex-employer has large offices.6 
Despite overwhelming evidence and even a written confession admitting what my 
employer has done, my charges have sat with federal agencies for nearly two years now 
gathering dust. Despite my being a US citizen and all of this occurring within the United States, 
as far as I can tell, there has been more progress investigating my claims in Germany then there 
has been in the United States.7 
 
Introduction  
 
I worked for Apple as a Senior Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 until 
my termination on September 9 2021. During my tenure with Apple, I participated in 
engineering project management of numerous high-profile products such as the iPhone, iPad, 
iPod, Apple Watch, MacBook MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, Mac Pro, iOS, macOS, watchOS -- 
and high-profile projects/programs such as the launch of the Apple Music subscription service, 
Apple’s transition of computers from Intel to Apple silicon, and the development of a company-
 
5 Gizmodo, Apple Wanted Her Fired. It Settled on an Absurd Excuse, Oct 14 2021, https://gizmodo.com/apple-
wanted-her-fired-it-settled-on-an-absurd-excuse-1847868789  
6 Télérama, Ashley Gjøvik, lanceuse d’alerte licenciée par Apple, seule contre tous, March 14 2023, 
https://www.telerama.fr/debats-reportages/ashley-gjovik-lanceuse-d-alerte-licenciee-par-apple-seule-contre-tous-
7014661.php  
7 Der Speigel, Apple lädt Mitarbeiter zu Datenparty – um Gesichter zu scannen, June 24 2022, 
https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/gadgets/apple-laedt-mitarbeiter-zu-daten-party-um-gesichter-zu-scannen-a-
54c4a2da-0f39-48be-9762-1bda39fcca8e 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 205 of 713
(205 of 713), Page 205 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 5 of 47 -  
wide Artificial Intelligence ethics policy. I was told by my Apple managers that I was both “key 
talent” (irreplaceable) and a “high performer.” 
In August 2021, I expressed public concerns about Apple’s overly restrictive and 
invasive employee policies, and Apple pressuring its employees to participate in invasive data 
collection procedures, including scans of ears/ear canals (which I believed captured employee 
data that could be used for biometric identification and mass surveillance). I also raised concerns 
about an iOS application (the Face “Gobbler”) on employees’ iPhones that automatically took 
photos/videos whenever it “thought it saw a face.” 8 I raised concerns about Apple’s unlawfully 
invasive “Search and Privacy Policy” for employees, Apple’s limitless access to employees’ 
personal iCloud/Apple-server-based data, and Apple’s culture of intimidation and secrecy 
including a private police force with access to all of the above data.9 
Apple terminated me on September 9 2021 for reasons unknown to me at that time but 
assumed by myself and the press to be retaliation for my protected activities (I had filed labor 
and retaliation charges with the U.S. government only weeks earlier; and the US EPA demanded 
an inspection of my Superfund office due to my disclosures, conducted the inspection and found 
CERCLA non-compliance issues also only weeks prior).10 11 
Apple contacted me via external lawyers a week after I was fired to complain about 
several Twitter posts I made. Suggesting these posts were the reason for my termination was so 
farfetched & pretextual that a detailed article was written about it, titled “Apple Wanted Her 
Fired. It Settled on an Absurd Excuse.”12   
Last year, Apple offered their explanation for my termination to the U.S Department of 
Labor (in response to my allegations of federal whistleblower retaliation in violation of SOX, 
 
8 Zoe Schiffer, "Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless You Work at Apple," The Verge, Aug 30, 2021, 
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id  
9 Sarah Roach, "Worker surveillance is making employees miserable. What to consider before implementing 
monitoring tools," Protocol, Sept 20 2021, https://www.protocol.com/workplace/worker-surveillance-is-making-
employees-miserable  
10 Patrick McGee, "US labour board examines retaliation claims against Apple: Senior engineering program 
manager’s allegations include workplace harassment and job reassignment," Financial Times, Sept 2 2021, 
https://www.ft.com/content/484fa8be-925e-495c-91ff-54950b112754  
11 US EPA, TRW Microwave Superfund, 
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.docdata&id=0901181  
12 Dell Cameron, Apple Wanted Her Fired. It Settled on an Absurd Excuse, Gizmodo (Oct 2021), 
https://gizmodo.com/apple-wanted-her-fired-it-settled-on-an-absurd-excuse-1847868789  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 206 of 713
(206 of 713), Page 206 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 6 of 47 -  
CERCLA, and OSHA statutes).13 Apple doubled down on the “absurd excuse” & cited my 
opposition to their harvesting of employee biometrics and their secret, invasive photography of 
employees as a legitimate justification for my termination.14 I am now even more concerned 
knowing Apple felt comfortable telling the U.S. government that they believe their unlawful 
invasion of employee privacy is “legitimate” and any employees who protest privacy invasions 
deserve to be terminated, as I was. Any argument Apple had that employees consented to these 
practices was thrown out the window when they formally claimed I was terminated without 
warning for protesting those practices.  
 
APPLE’S CULTURE OF “LOYALTY” & INTIMIDATION  
 
I will describe some of these practices which Apple claimed were so secret, they’d 
terminate an employee for protesting and exposing them. However, first, it is important to 
establish that at Apple, there is a long-standing tradition that workers keep their mouths shut, do 
what they are told, and be ‘loyal’ to the company above all else.  
GDPR recognizes that employment relationships are inherently coercive and thus 
employees cannot provide meaningful consent to invasive surveillance and data collection 
practices. In the US, we sometimes still default to a neoliberal view that a ‘request’ or 
‘preference’ from an employer is somehow optional and thus employees have agency to decline. 
This is not accurate and Apple provides an incredible example of how many US companies 
operate but may be too afraid to explain aloud. Apple says the quiet parts aloud because they 
have terrorized their employees to the extent Apple was sure their employees would not report 
the misconduct.  
In stark contrast to international labor standards, Apple’s “Worldwide Loyalty Team” 
“does KGB-style lockdowns [of employees] and Gestapo interrogations that end in suicides.” 15  
The team is an “internal secret police team known for its network of informers, and ruthless, 
 
13 Patrick McGee, "Apple faces probe over whether it retaliated against whistleblower," Financial Times, Dec 13 
2021, https://www.ft.com/content/973aae8d-21d9-4e84-8912-ead071c7935d 
14 Letter from Apple Inc (via Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) to U.S. Department of Labor, March 4 2022, Re: 
Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 9-3290-22-051  
15 Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader,  Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-
sleazy-secret-police-lose-their-leader  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 207 of 713
(207 of 713), Page 207 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 7 of 47 -  
systematic pursuit of leakers.” 16 “Among some employees, they are known as the “Apple 
Gestapo,” a group of moles always spying in headquarters and stores, reporting directly to the 
CEO.”17 Apple holds out its security policies out as “voluntary” meanwhile: “management 
recommends that you relinquish your phones. If you don't do it they will fire you, or they will 
investigate why you didn't want to give them your cellphone.” 18 
Apple’s Global Security team has a sketchy history, including Apple employees accused 
in 2011 of impersonating policemen and searching a man’s San Francisco home for a lost 
prototype, and threatening to have the man deported if he did not cooperate. 19 Apple was also 
accused in 2010 of violating California's shield law with an illegal search warrant, when they 
searched the home of a journalist, again looking for a prototype. 20  Gawker described Apple’s 
secret police as “sleazy.”  
Apple employees’ experience with this Gestapo have been described by the press as 
“knowing how it feels to be watched, to always be considered guilty of crimes against another 
kind of state. Knowing how it felt to have no privacy whatsoever when he was working right 
here, in a little Californian town called Cupertino, in a legendary place located in One Infinite 
Loop.” 21  Indeed, a few years later an ex-Apple executive described the culture at Apple as 
“everything is on a need-to-know basis” and that Apple has “cells, like a terrorist 
organization.”22  
Further, while some Apple employees may report an earnestly positive experience, the 
company is large and has decades of history of very negative experiences for many others. Apple 
has gone to great lengths to conceal and cause society to forget its bad behavior. Apple has a 
 
16 Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader,  Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-
sleazy-secret-police-lose-their-leader  
17 Gizmodo, Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks, Dec 15 2009, https://gizmodo.com/apple-gestapo-how-
apple-hunts-down-leaks-5427058  
18 Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader,  Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-
sleazy-secret-police-lose-their-leader  
19 Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader,  Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-
sleazy-secret-police-lose-their-leader  
20 CNET, Apple pushed security executive out, https://www.cnet.com/news/source-apple-pushed-security-executive-
out/ ; MarketWatch,Police task force oversight committee has included Apple,  
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-has-sat-on-steering-committee-for-task-force-2010-04-27 
21 Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader,  Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-
sleazy-secret-police-lose-their-leader  
22 This Is How Apple Keeps the Secrets, 2012, https://fortune.com/2012/01/18/the-secrets-apple-keeps/ 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 208 of 713
(208 of 713), Page 208 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 8 of 47 -  
long history of child labor,23 “sweatshop” working conditions,24 hexane poisoning,25 mishandling 
of toxic waste,26 worker “interrogations” leading to suicide,27 suicides at the corporate 
headquarters,28 “no-suicide vows,”29 “suicide nets,”30 and even lobbying for forced labor.31 
Workers from Silicon Valley to Albania complain of surveillance, invasions of privacy, 
oppression, and unsafe work conditions.32 
Apple workers around the globe have been involved in organizing since at least the 1990s. 
Apple worker organizations have been made up of retail, corporate, contract, and other workers.  
Unionization efforts started in the United States back in 1991 with Apple’s janitors successfully 
unionizing with SEIU through protests, boycotts, press coverage, and even a hunger strike.33 
In 2013, retail workers started organizing a “Apple Retail Workers Union” and calling for a 
formal labor union.34 Apple security guards started organizing and looking to form a union in 2014 
 
23 Guardian, “Child labour uncovered in Apple's supply chain: Internal audit reveals 106 children employed at 11 
factories making Apple products in past year,” 2013 , https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-
child-labour- supply; BBC, “Apple, Samsung and Sony face child labour claims,” 2016, 
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35311456 ; AP, “Lawsuit: Apple, Microsoft profit from child cobalt miners,” 
2019, https://apnews.com/article/technology-business- africa-lawsuits-politics-a950d585f885f670aee416db8973e3f3  
24 Washington Post, “Sweatshop Conditions at IPod Factory Reported,” 2006, 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501898.html  
25 ICRT, “Harsh Reality Behind Apple Scandal,” https://icrt.co/harsh-reality-behind-apple-scandal/ ; Wired, 
“Workers Plan to Sue iPhone Contractor Over Poisoning,” 2010 https://www.wired.com/2010/05/wintek-
employees-sue/  
26 California DTSC, “Apple Agrees to Pay $450,000 to Settle Hazardous Waste Violations,” 2016, 
https://dtsc.ca.gov/2016/12/06/apple-agrees-to-pay-450000-to-settle-hazardous-waste-violations/    
27 Gizmodo, “Report: iPhone Leak Interrogations Drive Foxconn Employee to Suicide,” 2009, 
https://gizmodo.com/report- iphone-leak-interrogations-drive-foxconn-employ-5319275  
28 CNN, “Apple employee found dead at HQ shot himself,” 2016, 
https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/technology/apple- employee-death-gun-suicide/index.html   
29  NBC News, “Chinese factory asks for 'no suicide' vow,” 2010, nbcnews.com/id/wbna37354853   
30  WIRED, “Foxconn Rallies Workers, Leaves Suicide Nets in Place,” 2010, 
https://www.wired.com/2010/08/foxconn- rallies-workers-installs-suicide-nets/  
31 Washington Post, “Apple is lobbying against a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China,” 2020, 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-uighur/  
32 What It’s Like to Work Inside Apple’s ‘Black Site’: Contractors a few miles from the company’s spaceship-like 
headquarters live in fear of termination—and the bathroom lines. Bloomberg, (Feb 2019), 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-11/apple-black-site-gives-contractors-few-perks-little-security ; 
Big Tech call center workers face pressure to accept home surveillance: Workers at one of the world’s largest call 
center companies said additional monitoring would violate the privacy of their families in their homes. NBC News:  
(Aug 2021), https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/big-tech-call-center-workers-face-pressure-accept-home-
surveillance-n1276227  
33  UNION CLAIMS KEY VICTORY IN BID TO `CLEAN UP` SILICON VALLEY, Chicago Tribune, 1992, 
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-07-20-9203050495-story.html  
34 Apple Store Employee Cory Moll Seeks Union For Retail Staffers, Huffpost, Jun 13 2011, 
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/apple-store-employees-union-cory-moll-retail-workers_n_875767  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 209 of 713
(209 of 713), Page 209 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 9 of 47 -  
with SEIU.35 At that time, a USWW union executive complained, “Apple frequently intimidates 
workers and retaliates against those who get involved with the union around the country.” 36 
In 2015, Apple shuttle and bus drivers successfully unionized with the Teamsters.37 Starting in 
2022, numerous Apple Retail Stores in the US have attempted to unionize.38 Union-busting tactics 
were already reported early on.39  Apple retail store employees in Atlanta Georgia withdrew an 
election citing ‘illegal union-busting tactics’ by Apple.40 “Apple has conducted a systematic, 
sophisticated campaign to intimidate them and interfere with their right to form a union,” the CWA 
representative said. 41 NLRB General Counsel found merit Apple was unlawfully forcing workers to 
attend captive audience meetings.42  In September 2022, an Oklahoma City Apple retail store 
petitioned for an election, represented by CWA, and voted to unionize in October of 2022. They also 
filed charges with the NLRB against Apple for “illegally surveilling, threatening and questioning 
workers at the Oklahoma City store.” 43 44 
In October 2022, the NLRB issued a complaint against Apple over accusations that Apple 
interrogated its retail workers about their union support and prevented pro-labor fliers in a store break 
room.45 The union accused Apple of interrogating staff at a World Trade Center store and 
 
35 Guards Need Job Security of Their Own, Say Apple Store Protesters, In These Times, 2014, 
https://inthesetimes.com/article/guards-need-security-of-their-own-say-apple-store-protesters  
36 Guards Need Job Security of Their Own, Say Apple Store Protesters, In These Times, 2014, 
https://inthesetimes.com/article/guards-need-security-of-their-own-say-apple-store-protesters  
37 Silicon Valley Shuttle Drivers Vote to Join Union, Feb 2015, NYT, 
https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/silicon-valley-shuttle-drivers-vote-to-join-
union/?_r=0  
38 Some U.S. Apple Store employees are working to unionize, part of a growing worker backlash, Washington Post, 
Feb 18 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/02/18/apple-retail-stores-union-labor/  
39 Some U.S. Apple Store employees are working to unionize, part of a growing worker backlash, Washington Post, 
Feb 18 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/02/18/apple-retail-stores-union-labor/  
40 Apple Atlanta Workers Drop Bid for Union Vote Next Week, Claiming Intimidation, Bloomberg, May 27 2022, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-27/apple-atlanta-workers-drop-bid-for-unionization-vote-next-
week  
41 Apple Atlanta Workers Drop Bid for Union Vote Next Week, Claiming Intimidation, Bloomberg, May 27 2022, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-27/apple-atlanta-workers-drop-bid-for-unionization-vote-next-
week  
42 The Fallout From Apple’s Bizarre, Dogged Union-Busting Campaign, WIRED, July 28 2022, 
https://www.wired.com/story/apples-union-busting-campaign-caused-a-bad-fallout/  
43 An Apple Store in Oklahoma City votes to unionize, TechCrunch, Oct 15 2022, 
https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/15/an-apple-store-in-oklahoma-city-votes-to-unionize/  
44 Apple Employees in Oklahoma City Petition to Unionize Store, Bloomberg, September1 2022, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-01/apple-employees-in-oklahoma-city-petition-to-unionize-
store?sref=ExbtjcSG  
45 NLRB Issues Complaint Against Apple, NYT, Oct 4 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/business/apple-
store-nlrb-ruling.html  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 210 of 713
(210 of 713), Page 210 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 10 of 47 -  
discriminating against union supporters in enforcing a no-soliciting policy.46  In June 2023, an NLRB 
judge ruled against Apple, finding Apple violated federal labor law.47 
In December 2022, Apple retail workers organizing with CWA in Columbus Ohio filed a 
complaint to the NLRB alleging Apple was “soliciting employees to join an employer-created / 
employer-dominated labor organization as a means of stifling union activities” (aka an unlawful 
company union) in addition to holding captive audience meetings and making threats. 48 In December 
2022, NLRB found merit that Apple violated the NLRA in Atlantic Georgia.49 In January 2023, 
NLRB found merit in five unfair labor practice charges filed by corporate employees.50   
In China, Apple directly employs 12,000 workers across its retail and corporate divisions and 
claims agency over 4.8 million workers in the country; likely most are contracted through Apple’s 
suppliers and manufacturing plants, including at least 1.2 million working at Foxconn’s iPhone 
assembly factories.51 Foxconn is the largest unionized company in the world. Foxconn made global 
headlines with a wave of worker suicides at the company’s Chinese plants in 2009 and 2010, and 
after its treatment of its huge workforce has attracted intense scrutiny. Foxconn and Apple’s response 
to the suicides was to have large nets installed outside many of the buildings to catch falling bodies 
(“suicide nets”), and workers were made to sign pledges stating they would not attempt to kill 
themselves.52 Foxconn has become a focus for criticism of practices widespread in Chinese factories 
including illegal overtime, low pay, and the use of underage workers.53 Even last year, Foxconn’s 
Apple factories were in the news again – now with allegations of indentured servitude and 
 
46 Apple Created a Pseudo-Union to Defeat Organizers in Ohio, Complaint Claims, Bloomberg, December 16 2022, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-16/apple-created-pseudo-union-to-defeat-organizers-complaint-
says  
47 Bloomberg, Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff About Union, Judge Rules, June 2023, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-21/apple-illegally-interrogated-staff-about-union-judge-rules 
48 Apple Created a Pseudo-Union to Defeat Organizers in Ohio, Complaint Claims, Bloomberg, December 16 2022, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-16/apple-created-pseudo-union-to-defeat-organizers-complaint-
says 
49 Apple Created a Pseudo-Union to Defeat Organizers in Ohio, Complaint Claims, Bloomberg, December 16 2022, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-16/apple-created-pseudo-union-to-defeat-organizers-complaint-
says 
50 Apple Executives Violated Worker Rights, Labor Officials Say, Bloomberg, Jan 30 2023, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-30/apple-executives-violated-worker-rights-us-labor-officials-sa  
51 Apple Supports 4.8 Million Jobs in China, More Than Double US Total, Yahoo, March 17 2017 , 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apple-supports-4-8-million-135220928.html  
52 Life and death in Apple’s forbidden city, The Guardian, Jun 18 2017, 
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-
iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract  
53 Foxconn plans Chinese union vote, CNN, Feb 4 2013, https://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/03/business/china-
foxconn-union/index.html  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 211 of 713
(211 of 713), Page 211 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 11 of 47 -  
trafficking, and when workers protested the abuse, they were met with beatings by state police.54 
On December 18, 2014, retail workers in Apple’s Japan stores announced a union affiliated 
with Tozen. Three of Japan's ten Apple stores are now unionized with Tozen.55 There have also been 
unions and worker protests in India. In December 2020, thousands of contract workers at a Bangalore 
factory owned by Apple supplier Wistron Corp protested over alleged non-payment of wages.56 
Other violations highlighted found upon further investigation included underpayment of wages to 
contract workers and housekeeping staff, and making female staff work overtime without legal 
authorization.57 In December 23 2021, 159 workers protested for poor working conditions and a mass 
poisoning incident.58 Twenty-two activists, including leaders of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions 
(CITU), were put behind bars for extending support to the workers and visiting them. 59 
In September 2022, Australian workers brought Apple to the Fair Work Commission over 
employee demands for better pay and a guaranteed weekend.60 The workers secured a protected 
action order with the nation’s Fair Work Commission, which would allow them to protest without 
risking their jobs or getting sued.61 The national secretary of the SDA Union, accused Apple of 
acting like “a cheap bully in a cheap suit” and said it never should have taken intervention from the 
Fair Work Commission for Apple to come to the table. “This giant multinational should have more 
regard for the welfare of its Australian workforce than to try to dictate a pre-determined outcome it 
wants to impose rather than engaging in genuine bargaining. This is Australia not the United States,” 
he said.62 In October 2022, with three Australian unions negotiating with Apple for better pay, 
 
54 Foxconn apologizes for pay dispute at China factory, San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov 24 2022, 
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/nation/story/2022-11-24/foxconn-apologizes-for-pay-dispute-at-
china-factory  
55 Apple Retail Workers Unionize in Japan, Tozen, 2014, https://tozenunion.org/apple-retail-workers-unionize-in-
japan/  
56 India: arrests made after protest over food poisoning at Apple supplier Foxconn site in Chennai , SCMP, 
December 20 2021, https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/3160425/india-arrests-made-after-protest-
over-food-poisoning-apple  
57 Apple puts supplier Wistron on notice after Indian factory violence, Reuters, December 19 2020, 
https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-india-idCAKBN28T0DW  
58 TN: Underpaid and Exploited Foxconn Workers Burst in Protest After Workers Fell ill, Newsclick, 23 December 
2021, https://www.newsclick.in/TN-Underpaid-Exploited-Foxconn-Workers-Burst-Protest-Workers-Fell-ill 
59 TN: Underpaid and Exploited Foxconn Workers Burst in Protest After Workers Fell ill, Newsclick, 23 December 
2021, https://www.newsclick.in/TN-Underpaid-Exploited-Foxconn-Workers-Burst-Protest-Workers-Fell-ill 
60 ‘Bully in a cheap suit’: Apple agrees to negotiate with Australian staff after union showdown, The Guardian, 
September 21 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/sep/21/bully-in-a-cheap-suit-apple-agrees-to-
negotiate-with-australian-staff-after-union-showdown 
61 Australian Workers Are the Latest International Apple Staff to Unionise, VICE, September 8 2022, 
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjk3eb/australian-workers-union-apple-strike  
62 ‘Bully in a cheap suit’: Apple agrees to negotiate with Australian staff after union showdown, The Guardian, 
September 21 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/sep/21/bully-in-a-cheap-suit-apple-agrees-to-
negotiate-with-australian-staff-after-union-showdown  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 212 of 713
(212 of 713), Page 212 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 12 of 47 -  
benefits, and working conditions – 150 workers engaged in a strike.63 
Apple is a huge multinational corporation based in the United States with a long history of 
labor and human rights violations in their domestic and international supply chain and 
operations. If Apple is not held accountable in the country the corporation is headquartered in, 
what hope do other countries have in enforcing international labor standards against Apple 
abroad?  The United States must set expectations for Apple here & abroad – that whether it is 
California labor and privacy laws, United States labor statutes, foreign national labor laws, or 
international standards such as from the International Labor Organization – whether it is 
employees, contractors, or vendors – Apple should be expected to made a good faith effort to 
follow the law, and governments should be able to investigate allegations of misconduct with 
independence and integrity. But that is not occurring; enter, my case study. 
 
Electronic Monitoring & Data Collection 
 
 
“FACE ID”& APPLE’S FACE “GOBBLER” APPLICATION  
 
Apple announced its “Face ID” iPhone authentication feature on September 12, 2017.64 
Face ID captures, collects, and possesses Face ID users’ facial geometry by “projecting and 
analyzing tens of thousands of invisible dots to create a depth map of [the user’s] face and also 
captures an infrared image of [the user’s] face.”65 Face ID data is “refined and updated as 
[users] use Face ID.”66 Apple says their average users unlock their phones 80 times a day, but 
other reports state people look at their phones upwards of 130 times a day.67 Apple says Face ID 
is “attention aware” and only unlocks an iPhone when the user’s eyes are open and looking at 
the screen.68 
 
63 New Crack in Apple’s Armor as Dozens Strike at Its Stores in Australia, NYT, Oct 18 2022, 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/17/business/apple-store-strike-australia.html  
64 Apple announced Face ID during the unveiling of the iPhone X on September 12, 2017, 
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/12/16288806/apple-iphone-x-price-release-date-features-announced 
65 Apple Inc, About Face ID advanced technology,  https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208108 
66 Apple Inc, Face ID Privacy, https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/face-id/ 
67 Ben Bajarin, Apple’s Penchant for Consumer Security, Techpinions, April 2016, https://techpinions.com/apples-
penchant-for-consumer-security/45122, 
68 Apple Inc, Change Face ID and attention settings on iPhone, https://support.apple.com/en-
ph/guide/iphone/iph646624222/ios  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 213 of 713
(213 of 713), Page 213 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 13 of 47 -  
Privacy concerns arose quickly after launch, the security of biometrics gathered/stored by 
Face ID.69 TechCrunch wrote, “Face ID raises a range of security and privacy concerns because 
it encourages smartphone consumers to use a facial biometric for authenticating their identity 
and specifically a sophisticated full three-dimensional model of their face.”70 Concerns were also 
raised the year before about Apple’s “faceprints” in its Photos applications. The Verge wrote, 
“There’s a real privacy issue at stake… Facial recognition can be put to some very creepy uses 
when faceprints are freely available.” 71  
A researcher warned in 2017, “once the Face ID system is enabled, the iPhone X can 
become a potential technology for users to be spied on without noticing. Information about faces 
can contain a lot of personal information like age, gender, race but also emotions. Face ID can 
recognize these emotions and this information can for example be combined with on-screen 
content like advertisements and websites. Face ID technology might also ‘read’ the environment 
of the iPhone’s user. The technology might be aware of the user’s specific living conditions.” 72 
In 2017, Senator Al Franken wrote to Apple (via Tim Cook), expressing concerns and 
requesting clarifications about the privacy of Apple’s Face ID feature. Apple responded saying, 
“Face ID uses facial matching neural networks that we developed using over a billion images, 
including IR and depth images collected in studies conducted with the participants’ informed 
consent.” 73  Meanwhile, however, Apple was pressuring employees to upload their “faceprint 
data” to Apple internal servers, capturing secret photographs and videos of employees, and told 
employees that face-related logs were automatically uploaded from their iPhones daily. Further, 
with Apple’s internal Mobile Device Management (MDM) profiles and other security tools, it’s 
doubtful whether the data would even need to be “uploaded” or if Apple already had access if 
they wanted it. 74 
 
69 App developer access to iPhone X face data spooks some privacy experts, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
apple-iphone-privacy-analysis/app-developer-access-to-iphone-x-face-data-spooks-some-privacy-experts-
idUSKBN1D20DZ 
70 Natasha Lomas, Apple responds to Senator Franken’s Face ID privacy concerns, TechCrunch (October 17, 2017), 
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/17/apple-responds-to-senator-frankens-face-id-privacy-concerns/  
71 The Verge, Apple's new facial recognition feature could spur legal issues, 2016, 
https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/16/11934456/apple-google-facial-recognition-photos-privacy-faceprint 
72 Amber de Zeeuw, iPhone Face ID: Privacy issues we should worry about, 2017, 
https://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/blog/2017/09/25/iphone-face-id-privacy-issues-we-should-worry-about/  
73 Natasha Lomas, Apple responds to Senator Franken’s Face ID privacy concerns, TechCrunch (October 17, 2017), 
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/17/apple-responds-to-senator-frankens-face-id-privacy-concerns/  
74 CDEMI, Never accept an MDM policy on your personal phone, 2019, https://blog.cdemi.io/never-accept-an-
mdm-policy-on-your-personal-phone/  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 214 of 713
(214 of 713), Page 214 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 14 of 47 -  
In 2017, Craig Federighi said that because “the [Face ID training] data needed to include 
a high-fidelity depth map of facial data,” “Apple went out and got consent from subjects to 
provide scans that were quite exhaustive. Those scans were taken from many angles and contain 
a lot of detail that was then used to train the Face ID system.” 75 
On Jan 9 2019, the Apple manager running Gobbler, posted an article to LinkedIn called 
“Data Collection” where he wrote, “During the lead up to Face ID being launched, my team 
went out and collected a large set of potential aggressors to see if we were missing anything in 
our larger data collections, things would be normal to a regular user.” 76 Later that year, he 
posted again about the work Apple did on Face ID, saying that “tons of data was being collected 
at the time to cover all the bases.” 77  
In 2017, Craig Federighi said Apple “went to great lengths to gather its own data on 
facial shapes and angles.”78  Federighi said, Apple “retains a high-fidelity depth map of that 
[training] data” and “as Apple trains these models and iterate on these algorithms,” Apple 
“wants raw sensor data to use and develop and optimize them.” 79 Federighi, said “When it 
comes to customers, Apple gathers absolutely nothing itself via Face ID and that Apple does not 
gather customer data when you enroll in Face ID, it stays on your device, we do not send it to 
the cloud for training data.” 80 Federighi did not distinguish a customer in range of the hot & 
hungry camera of an Apple employee’s iPhone with Gobbler installed.  
Apple never responded directly to one of the Senator’s questions, either to the U.S. 
Senate or to the press. The Senator asked, “Apple has stated that it used more than one billion 
images in developing the Face ID algorithm. Where did these one billion face images come 
from?”81  Apple would not answer. What Federighi omitted is that those images came from 
employees just like me, whether I wanted to share them or not.  
 
 
75 TechCrunch, Interview: Apple’s Craig Federighi answers some burning questions about Face ID, 2017, 
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/15/interview-apples-craig-federighi-answers-some-burning-questions-about-face-id/ 
76 LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/design-experiment-data-collection-robert-mckeon-aloe/ 
77 LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ml-examining-test-set-robert-mckeon-aloe/ 
78 TechCrunch, Interview: Apple’s Craig Federighi answers some burning questions about Face ID, 2017, 
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/15/interview-apples-craig-federighi-answers-some-burning-questions-about-face-id/ 
79 TechCrunch, Interview: Apple’s Craig Federighi answers some burning questions about Face ID, 2017, 
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/15/interview-apples-craig-federighi-answers-some-burning-questions-about-face-id/ 
80 TechCrunch, Interview: Apple’s Craig Federighi answers some burning questions about Face ID, 2017, 
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/15/interview-apples-craig-federighi-answers-some-burning-questions-about-face-id/ 
81 Letter from Senator Al Franken to Tim Cook about Face ID, (Sept 13 2017), 
https://web.archive.org/web/20170914201224/https://www.franken.senate.gov/files/letter/170913_AppleFaceID.pdf  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 215 of 713
(215 of 713), Page 215 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 15 of 47 -  
The Gobbler User Study  
 
I worked in Apple Research & Development. We were frequently pressured to “live on” 
one device for both work and personal use. Apple wanted to use our uncompensated labor to test 
new hardware and software using customer scenarios 24/7, at the expense of our privacy and 
work/life balance. This extended to my “live on” and testing of these devices, with my personal 
data and usage, being cited in my annual review. I even received emails noting what device I was 
‘living on’ and nagging me to move to a future software build or prototype hardware model. We 
were also pressured to participate in very personal “user studies” using company devices. 
On August 3 2017, an Apple engineering manager emailed an unknown list of Apple 
employees, including myself, about a “Gobbler” user study.82 The manager wrote the study used 
an iOS application called “Gobbler,” and told employees “as you continue to use your device, 
use the Gobbler application to periodically upload data that has been logged.”83  The manager 
then wrote, “In terms of data collection, we 
want more. The algorithm uses deep 
learning and the more data the better.” He 
wrote that the Gobbler algorithms are 
“hungry for data” and that “for uploading 
data: all data that has your face in it is 
good data.”84 I did not respond to or act on 
the email; it was a weird email and by the 
way it was described, I wanted nothing to 
do with that tool/study, even if it meant I 
was being ‘disloyal.’  
On Aug 7 2021, I received a 
different email from a group account saying 
“Come join us! We look forward to seeing 
 
82 Email from R.M. in Apple Video Engineering, to “recipients not specified,” Date: August 3 2017 7:45am PST, 
Subject: Participating in [codename]Loop… 
83 Email from R.M. in Apple Video Engineering, to “recipients not specified,” Date: August 3 2017 7:45am PST, 
Subject: Participating in [codename]Loop… 
84 Email from R.M. in Apple Video Engineering, to “recipients not specified,” Date: August 3 2017 7:45am PST, 
Subject: Participating in [codename] Loop… 
Figure 1: One of the Twitter posts Apple claims they fired Gjovik over 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 216 of 713
(216 of 713), Page 216 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 16 of 47 -  
you there!” 85  The email appeared to be a mandatory social event, though I was confused why 
the email said not to attend if I was "taking photosensitizing medications or have any known 
photosensitizing medical conditions.” Regardless, I promptly accepted, assuming it was expected 
of me. (The message said nothing about Face ID.) I received another response later that day 
saying, “Hello there! Thank you very much for responding to our invite! ….. You will receive an 
iCal invite to the event shortly… Please arrive at [Apple’s Mathilda 3B office building] Patio at 
your scheduled time. Do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns 
regarding the study. See you soon!” 86 
It still sounded like some sort of mandatory social event, however the email also stated 
“Prior to your participation, we kindly request that you do the following: Review the ICF 
[Informed Consent Form] and email sign the ICF by registering your email and completing the 
short pre-study survey that will be sent.” During my time at Apple, I was forced to sign hundreds 
of contracts to get access to everything from offices, conference rooms, documentation, and the 
basic to do my job, so I “signed” the ICF as requested. As far as I can tell, I never received a 
confirmation I signed it, nor did I get a copy of the ICF, and when I tried to access the ICF 87 
again in 2021 the link went to website with an error message saying “connection insecure.”  
I showed up to the “Social Event” as requested. The “patio” was actually a parking lot. 
The temperature that day was very hot. As I approached the destination, if my memory serves me 
right, I saw a ~40ft diameter circular compound, with ~10ft high fence around it. There was a 
chain link fence, with black plastic lining it and then another chain link fence and more black 
plastic. On top, there were security cameras pointed inside and outside. There were one, maybe 
two, armed security guards standing outside the compound. One of the guards checked me in and 
told me to sit at a picnic table until called. I remember being hot, dehydrated, and scared. I 
wanted to leave, but didn't want to ask to leave, because then the armed guard might get upset or 
suspicious, so I waited. They finally let in 4 or 5 employees. They opened the first door of the 
gate, we went in, then they close the outer gate and open the inner gate – so no one on the 
outside could see in. I believe the gate was locked behind us. 
 
85 Email from SSP User Study Group to “recipients not specified,”  Date: August 7 2017 7:45am PST, Subject: 
Social Hour Study: You're Invited! 
86 Email from SSP User Study Group to “recipients not specified,”  Date: August 7 2017 6:55pm PST, Subject: 
Social Hour Study: Registration  
87 “Attache” link 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 217 of 713
(217 of 713), Page 217 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 17 of 47 -  
Upon entering, there was music playing in the background & we were told to sit in the 
circle. The armed guard left and there were two Global Security guys remaining. One was at the 
make-shift bar & the other guy sat with the employees in a circle. I wanted to leave but I was 
locked in a compound with 10ft high gates, security cameras, and an armed guard, so I thought 
“I’m too young to die” and stayed put. 
The guy in the circle explained what we're doing, we're going to enroll in Face ID and 
we're going to test it on iPhones with this Gobbler application and we must complete a set list of 
testing objectives before we are allowed to leave. The ICF had to be complete before we could 
set up the accounts, and he helped us set up the Gobbler accounts on the test phones. Then we 
had to try to enroll in Face ID and then complete our task list. It was like 12 tasks (put sunglasses 
on & take 10-20x pics, make a “silly” faces & take 10-20x pics, etc). He explained this testing 
set-up was specifically because they were having trouble with direct sunlight conditions, so even 
though they wanted to keep all testing in secure lockdowns, they set up this compound in the 
100-degree sun so we could do real world testing for them.  
 
I remember being miserable and desperately wanting to leave, so I did the testing as 
quickly as I could so I could go. When each of employee was done, I remember the guard 
unlocked the inner gate, then had the employee step in, closed the inner door, and opened the 
outer door and let them out. After that, the Gobbler application was always pre-installed and 
logged in on my iPhone, even if I changed phones. I 
kept attempting to log out and turn it off, but it 
would keep reopening and logging back in and 
collecting more videos/photos. 
Apple would later rename the application 
from Gobbler to “Glimmer” after criticism about the 
facial “Gobbler” name. On Apple’s internal “Living 
On” help page, it explains that when you “live on” 
Apple devices, “You are encouraged to make full use 
of your living on devices as you regularly would, and 
try to log as many bugs as possible. This will help us 
provide a better and bug free product to our 
Figure 2: Photos captured by “Gobbler” in Gjovik’s home 
bathroom, including Gjovik washing her face without clothing 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 218 of 713
(218 of 713), Page 218 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 18 of 47 -  
customers. 88 The page also has a section on Gobbler/Glimmer, explaining “Glimmer is an app 
that's included in internal development installs of Face ID equipped devices.” 89  
The page suggests uploading data from the app “captured in employee’s homes.” 90 
Apple’s internal “Face ID FAQ” page said “Users are encouraged to use Face ID in all places 
Touch ID is replaced on iPhone X….please use in a variety of conditions: From the bright 
outdoors to the darkest rooms. In workday, evening and weekend attire. With and without 
makeup.” 91 It said the Gobbler data “can be previewed and included in radars and/or donated 
otherwise via the Gobbler to help make the feature better (there are many other things beside 
training the neural nets, that the data can be used for to improve the product).” The page did not 
elaborate further.92  
In the documentation pages, several restrictions were noted. One said, “Data gathering 
may be restricted in some countries. You will be notified if that is the case.”93 Another said, 
“Data privacy laws only allow us to gather and upload data from the US, Canada or Israel. 
Please do not upload any data gathered outside of these countries.”94 Another said, “To 
participate, please take the time to download the Informed Consent Form… and review it.” The 
Apple manager said the study was being conducted in “the USA, Brazil, Tel Aviv,” and the EU 
“but not France or Germany.” 95  A page said, “some data should not be submitted from certain 
regions,” 96 while another page said, “For now, Glimmer is only available for Apple employees 
working in the United States.” 97 
I also saw in notes that the app was forbidden to be used in Japan and China, but then at 
some point, Apple decided to gather some logs there anyways. On October 16, 2019 an engineer 
filed a Radar titled, “Add Geo Location into Glimmer,” saying  
“We're going to change how we deal with blacklisted countries. We're going to 
allow auto-A files to upload…. The aim is to better understand Japan and China 
because we have a number of people over there know...We’re adding another 
 
88 Apple, Living On, Dev Pubs, Confluence page 
89 Apple, Using Glimmer, Confluence page 
90 Apple, Using Glimmer, Confluence page  
91 Apple, Face ID FAQ, Confluence page 
92 Apple, Face ID FAQ, Confluence page 
93 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Glimmer usage  
94 Apple, Face ID FAQ, Confluence page 
95 Email from R.M. in Apple Video Engineering, to “recipients not specified,” Date: August 3 2017 7:45am PST, 
Subject: Participating in [codename] Loop… 
96 Apple, Living On, Dev Pubs, Confluence page 
97 Apple, Using Glimmer, Confluence page 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 219 of 713
(219 of 713), Page 219 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 19 of 47 -  
field… specifying geo location is needed for distinguishing the location.... Once the 
ICF is updated, the geo location for all previous black-list countries as China and 
Japan can also collect autoAFile data.”98  
 
The engineer noted the changes were made as of Glimmer v3.25.0 on Dec 3, 2019.99 
It was extraordinarily unclear what data was being 
automatically uploaded, how and when. I saw another employee 
complaining in 2019, “why is Glimmer always running?”100 The 
engineer responded, “Glimmer is launched every day at 2 am to 
collect non-PI logs from FaceD, zip them, and upload them to a 
server for machine learning algorithms and data analysis tools to be 
computed. This allows to monitor non-regression and algorithm 
updates impacts.” 101 
Another employee asked in 2019, “Why is Glimmer launching 
automatically?” He wrote, “I noticed on my device there's some kind 
of launch job started by root to launch Glimmer as suspended all the 
time. Why is this happening? What is it for?” The engineer 
responded, “Glimmer is launched to upload some non PI (logs) data 
automatically.” 102 
My open questions included whether my personal data was 
being backed up on employee iCloud backups, synced via iCloud, 
and/or accessed/copied by Apple’s corporate MDM profiles – or 
other Global Security surveillance of employee phones. It also 
disturbed me that the app was taking photos/videos without any 
notification (sound, signal, etc), which made me think that Apple, if it 
wanted to, could activate my device cameras and watch me without 
me knowing at any time as well. I talked to other employees, including managers, with similar 
concerns.  
 
98 Radar filed on October 16, 2019 at at 4:35 PM, Title: Add Geo Location into Glimmer 
99 Radar filed on October 16, 2019 at at 4:35 PM, Title: Add Geo Location into Glimmer 
100 Radar filed on December 13, 2019 at 6:08 PM, Title: Why is Glimmer always running?  
101 Radar filed on December 13, 2019 at 6:08 PM, Title: Why is Glimmer always running?  
102 Radar filed on September 25, 2019 at 1:53 PM, Title: Why is Glimmer launching automatically? 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 220 of 713
(220 of 713), Page 220 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 20 of 47 -  
I partnered with a journalist to expose my concerns and the article was published on 
August 30, 2021 – while I was still employed by Apple, but while I had been forced on paid 
administrative leave. The article was titled, “Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless You Work at 
Apple.” 103 The article discussed the Gobbler app and that “images are recorded every time 
employees open their phones” and “every time an employee picked up their phone, the device 
recorded a short video — hopefully of their face.” The article quoted the internal email saying 
“all data that has your face in it is good data,” and also quoted me saying “If they did this to a 
customer, people would lose their goddamn minds, says Ashley Gjøvik, a senior engineering 
program manager.” 104 The article noted that two employees confirmed that participation in 
studies like Gobbler was not just “encouraged” but “even expected.” The article also noted 
employees had no idea “what was happening with the hundreds of images “ taken by their 
phones. 105 
 
103 Zoe Schiffer, Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless You Work at Apple, The Verge (Aug 30 2021), 
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id 
104 Zoe Schiffer, Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless You Work at Apple, The Verge (Aug 30 2021), 
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id 
105 Zoe Schiffer, Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless You Work at Apple, The Verge (Aug 30 2021), 
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 221 of 713
(221 of 713), Page 221 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 21 of 47 -  
 
106     
107 108 
^ The Twitter Posts Apple’s Lawyer’s Demanded that I Delete on Sept 15 2021 ^ 
 
Twitter Post: August 30 2021 109 
 
106 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381395955900416 
https://web.archive.org/web/20210830170534/https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381395955900416  
107 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381497370034184  
https://web.archive.org/web/20210830170723/https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381497370034184 
108 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400136471072769 
https://web.archive.org/web/20210830182052/https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400136471072769  
109 Twitter, https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/143241689120149094  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 222 of 713
(222 of 713), Page 222 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 22 of 47 -  
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 223 of 713
(223 of 713), Page 223 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 23 of 47 -  
Responses to my disclosures included, but were not limited to:  
- 
“This is creepy. I don't have words to express what is running through my head. “110 
- 
“Straight up abusive and creepy behavior how can deployed iOS devices even run stuff 
like this?“111 
- 
“Whatttt” 112 & “What the hell….”113 & “Excuse me WHAT”114 
- 
“Ah, but does the employee handbook say workers are human?” 115 
- 
“I've heard a manager say we don't have civil rights as employees” 116 
- 
“if anyone talks about apple privacy. show them this“ 117 
- 
“No, just no.” 118 
- 
This entire article is.. wow. 119 
- 
Because privacy is a fundamental human right* * that you need to give up to work for the 
company that cares so much about privacy. 120 
- 
[inserte su referencia a 1984 aquí] 121 
- 
This is terrible and so bothersome on many levels. 122 
- 
Quel enfer... 123 
 
 
 
The “Gobbler” applications attempted to access my fully personal iPhone, 
even after I was fired. 
 
110 https://web.archive.org/web/20210830182052/https:/twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400136471072769 
111 https://web.archive.org/web/20210830182052/https:/twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400136471072769 
112 https://web.archive.org/web/20210830182052/https:/twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400136471072769 
113 https://web.archive.org/web/20210830182052/https:/twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400136471072769 
114 https://web.archive.org/web/20210830182052/https:/twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400136471072769 
115 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381235926499332 
116 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381235926499332  
117 https://twitter.com/verge/status/1432381006670147587 
118 https://twitter.com/verge/status/1432381006670147587/retweets/with_comments 
119 https://twitter.com/verge/status/1432381006670147587/retweets/with_comments 
120 https://twitter.com/verge/status/1432381006670147587/retweets/with_comments 
121 https://twitter.com/verge/status/1432381006670147587/retweets/with_comments 
122 https://twitter.com/verge/status/1432381006670147587/retweets/with_comments 
123 https://twitter.com/verge/status/1432381006670147587/retweets/with_comments 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 224 of 713
(224 of 713), Page 224 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 24 of 47 -  
In 2010, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation wrote an article about Apple seeking a 
patent to do just the kind of thing the “Gobbler” application does today. EFF called the 
technology “spyware,” “traitorware,” and “especially creepy.”124 EFF warned the patent 
provided “a roadmap for how Apple can — and presumably will — spy on its customers and 
control the way its customers use Apple products.” 125 The technology would allow Apple to 
record the voice of the device's user, take a photo of the device's user's current location or even 
detect and record the heartbeat of the device's user. 126 
EFF called the technology “dangerous” and warned, “this patented device enables Apple 
to secretly collect, store and potentially use sensitive biometric information about the user.” The 
patented technology can: “take a picture of the user's face without a flash, any noise, or any 
indication that a picture is being taken to prevent the current user from knowing he is being 
photographed" and “can take a photograph of the surrounding location to determine where it is 
being used.” 127 EFF warned, “Apple will know who you are, where you are, and what you are 
doing and saying and even how fast your heart is beating.” 128 
“Apple does not explain what it will do with all of this collected information on its users, 
how long it will maintain this information, how it will use this information, or if it will share this 
information with other third parties.” 129 EFF urged, “This patent is downright creepy and 
invasive…. Spyware, and its new cousin traitorware, will hurt customers and companies alike — 
Apple should shelve this idea before it backfires on both it and its customers.” 130 
In 2010, Inc also wrote about Apple’s “spyware” patent,131 calling it “creepy” and 
“Orwellian.” The reporter said concerns may vary based on how much users trusted Apple and 
how intimate their “relationship is with a faceless mega-corporation.” The writer queried readers, 
“Are you comfortable enough with Apple that it's okay for them to have the power to turn on 
your iPhone camera, snap a picture of whatever is in plain site of the lense and then upload it to 
Apple for analysis?” And if you respond that yes you think that’s fine, then what if “... it's all a 
big misunderstanding and the camera takes a picture for the Apple mothership while you are in 
 
124 Julie Samuels, Steve Jobs Is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware, EFF, Aug 23 2010  
125 Julie Samuels, Steve Jobs Is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware, EFF, Aug 23 2010  
126 Julie Samuels, Steve Jobs Is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware, EFF, Aug 23 2010  
127 Julie Samuels, Steve Jobs Is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware, EFF, Aug 23 2010  
128 Julie Samuels, Steve Jobs Is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware, EFF, Aug 23 2010  
129 Julie Samuels, Steve Jobs Is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware, EFF, Aug 23 2010  
130 Julie Samuels, Steve Jobs Is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware, EFF, Aug 23 2010  
131 Patent: Systems and methods for identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device (10657238) 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 225 of 713
(225 of 713), Page 225 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 25 of 47 -  
the middle of sexy time?” 132 “Apple filed another patent in 2011 for iPhone remote surveillance 
capabilities, such as transmission of the images and sounds that the device secretly captures.” 133  
Courts have acknowledged the intrusive effect of hidden cameras and video recorders in 
settings that otherwise seem private. It has been said that the “unblinking lens” can be more 
penetrating than the naked eye with respect to “duration, proximity, focus, and vantage point.”134   
 
On March 4 2022 Apple (via Orrick lawyers) wrote to the U.S. federal government that:  
“Apple terminate Ms. Gjovik’s employment … because she violated Apple policy by 
intentionally disclosing confidential information about Apple products on Twitter and, as 
Apple later discovered, to the press … On August 30, 2021, Ms. Gjovik tweeted 
photographs and a video of herself created by the [Gobbler] application, thus disclosing 
Apple confidential information. She also linked to a story published in The Verge, a 
technology blog, in which she disclosed her participation in the [Gobbler user] study. As 
discussed above, Ms. Gjovik’s very involvement with the [Gobbler user] study 
constitutes confidential information, as do any details about the study or photos or other 
documents that are the product of it. Apple’s subsequent confirmation that she admitted 
to disclosing confidential information publicly and intentionally further justifies Apple’s 
termination decision.”135 
 
     
   
 
 
 
 
132 Renee Oricchio, Orwellian Watch: Apple's Creepy Patent Application, Inc., https://www.inc.com/tech-
blog/orwellian-watch-apples-creepy-patent-application.html 
133 9to5 Staff, Patent indicates sophisticated remote surveillance for Find My iPhone, (Jun. 16th 2011), 
https://9to5mac.com/2011/06/16/patent-indicates-sophisticated-remote-surveillance-for-find-my-iphone/  
134 Cowles v. State (Alaska 2001) 23 P.3d 1168, 1182 (dis. opn. of Fabe, J.) 
135 Letter from Apple Inc (via Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) to U.S. Department of Labor, March 4 2022, Re: 
Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 9-3290-22-051 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 226 of 713
(226 of 713), Page 226 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 26 of 47 -  
Apple’s Face “Gobbler” 
 
 
            
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 227 of 713
(227 of 713), Page 227 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 27 of 47 -  
EAR STUDIES  
 
On Aug 10 2018, I was invited to a “HE User Study” for “anthropometry HH” sent by 
two Apple employees who previous asked for photos of my ears, and had discussed wanting to 
take scan my ears. I replied declining “indefinitely.”136 I assumed I’d be taken off the list for ear 
studies, but then in 2021, while I was on Indefinite Administrative Leave in August, I received 
three separate emails from Apple asking to scan my ears/ear canals, again. The email was titled, 
“HE 3D Ear Scan Invitation!”  
The emails said, “You're invited to a voluntary in-person study where we will capture 
high-resolution 3D scans of participants' ears. The goal of this effort is to collect representative 
ear geometry data across age, gender, and ethnic groups. These 3D scans are extremely 
valuable to audio research efforts and better our understanding of ear geometry variance.” The 
email said I’d be asked to review an ICF prior to taking a recruitment survey and then another 
ICF for study participation. 137 I did not respond to any of the emails nor did I sign any ICFs.  
I was disturbed by Apple’s lack of respect for the privacy of its employees. I also 
wondered if Apple may have been emailing me these on purpose, since I already opted out, in 
order to harass me further. The emails didn’t say “Apple Confidential,” nor did they include 
anything that appeared actually secret or material. Regardless, I redacted them heavily when I 
publicly complained about the matter, since my point was to protest an employer pressuring its 
employees to gather such sensitive information (biometrics).   
 
 
 
136 Aug 10 2018, Gjovik to SJ 
137 Ask survey  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 228 of 713
(228 of 713), Page 228 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 28 of 47 -  
 
 
 
The Tweet Gjovik was fired over:  
 
“I’m still over here in Apple’s time-out chair & they keep telling me to respect my abuser’s 
privacy & be silent. Meanwhile I got 3x of these in the last month since being on leave. NO, 
APPLE, STOP IT. I can’t tell if they’re harassing me or just being super intrusive or both.” 
138 
 
 
138 Aug 28 Twitter Post:  https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1431824501457633283 
https://web.archive.org/web/20210829034222/https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1431824501457633283  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 229 of 713
(229 of 713), Page 229 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 29 of 47 -  
Further, this wasn’t news. On September 5 
2020, Apple VP of Marketing , Greg Joswiak 
(“Joz”) was interviewed by Wired about Apple 
AirPods.139 Joz said,“We did work with Stanford 
to 3D-scan hundreds of different ears and ear 
styles and shapes in order to make a design that 
would work as a one-size solution across a broad 
set of the population,” Joswiak says. “With 
AirPods Pro, we took that research further – 
studied more ears, more ear types. And that enabled us to develop a design that, along with the 
three different tip sizes, works across an overwhelming percentage of the worldwide 
population.” 
On December 9 2021, two Apple Product Design executives were interviewed by 
Wallpaper about Apple’s product design team. 140 The article said, “When AirPods’ development 
began a decade or so ago, human factors researcher Kristi Bauerly found herself researching 
the ‘crazily complex’ human ear.  ‘We moulded and scanned ears, worked with nearby 
academics, focusing on outer ears for the earbud design and inner ears for the acoustics,’ she 
says. Thousands of ears were scanned, and only by bringing them all together did the company 
find the ‘design space’ to work within. ‘I think we’ve assembled one of the largest ear libraries 
anywhere,’ Hankey says. ‘The database is where the design starts,’ Bauerly continues, ‘and then 
we iterate and reiterate.’ “ On July 28 2021, Apple was referred to as “[an] ear-canal 
innovator.“141 
In 2020, Apple’s patent filings describe a system for deriving biometrics using embedded 
biometric sensors on the AirPods (Earbuds). 142 The patent captures waveforms associated with 
the cycling profusion of blood to the skin, so multiple biometric parameters can be collected, 
 
139 The secrets behind the runaway success of Apple’s AirPods: The wireless headphones have been a surprise hit. 
Here’s how: Sept 5 2020, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-airpods-success    
140 Inside Apple Park: first look at the design team shaping the future of tech, Dec 9 2021, 
https://www.wallpaper.com/design/apple-park-behind-the-scenes-design-team-interview  
141 Can you ID me now? Apple les for ear- canal biometrics patent, Jan 28, 2022,, 
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202201/can-you-id-me-now-apple-files-for-ear-canal-biometrics-patent  
142 Patent number 10856068; Apple’s future AirPods/earbuds could facilitate biometric measurements, Niel Smith, 
December 30, 2020 https://www.myhealthyapple.com/apples-future-airpods-earbuds-could-facilitate-biometric-
measurements/  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 230 of 713
(230 of 713), Page 230 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 30 of 47 -  
including, for example, heart rate, blood volume, and respiratory rate.143 Ears have been flagged 
as the future of biometric-based mass surveillance. 144  145 
 
On March 4 2022 Apple (via Orrick lawyers) wrote to the U.S. federal government that:  
“On August 28, 2021, Ms. Gjovik tweeted details about a proprietary study Apple was 
conducting…. . Like the [Gobbler] study, the details of [this ear scanning study] were not 
known except to a small select group within Apple, and certainly not outside Apple, and 
Ms. Gjovik agreed to keep them confidential under her Confidentiality Agreement. Despite 
this, Ms. Gjovik’s tweet both identified the name and purpose of the study regarding an 
unreleased product under development….. Apple terminated Ms. Gjovik’s employment 
because she chose to disclose confidential Apple product information she was under an 
obligation to keep in confidence… The only reason that Apple terminated Ms. Gjovik’s 
employment was due to her own deliberate breaches of her confidentiality agreements and 
violations of Apple policy.“146 
 
While we still believe these reasons are pretext for Apple’s retaliation against me for reporting 
safety issues, discrimination, labor violations, and fraud – if Apple really thinks I violated their 
policies in protesting these invasive technologies, then their policies are wrong.  
 
OTHER USER STUDIES  
 
 
Despite Apple’s censoring of employee concerns about user studies, Apple is quite public 
about its user studies. Just searching LinkedIn for “Apple User Study,” numerous 
people/positions are returned with detailed descriptions of the roles and projects. In these 
descriptions, Apple talked about “small, focused research studies” and “large-scale worldwide 
[user study] operations.” 147 Positions talked about user studies and data collection for “sensor 
and health technology,” 148 ”biometric data” 149  and for “product comfort.” 150 Positions 
 
143 Patent number 10856068 
144 Ahila Priyadharshini, R., Arivazhagan, S. & Arun, M. A deep learning approach for person identification using 
ear biometrics. Appl Intell 51, 2161–2172 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01995-8 
145 3D Ear Biometrics  BIR BHANU, HUI CHEN, Center for Research in Intelligent Systems, University of 
California, Riverside, CA, USA , Springer  
146 Letter from Apple Inc (via Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) to U.S. Department of Labor, March 4 2022, Re: 
Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 9-3290-22-051 
147 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2942922643; https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2944339533  
148 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2942922643; https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2944339533  
149 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2944349447 
150 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2944349447 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 231 of 713
(231 of 713), Page 231 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 31 of 47 -  
included responsibilities such as to “identify and recruit user study participants,” 151  and 
“observe behavior” and “administer complex testing protocols.” 152 
 
During my time at Apple, I was invited to employee user studies looking to study me on 
topics ranging from my “eye movements,” “grip on an iPhone,” “voice”, “blood pressure,” 
physical response to “yoga, swimming, and running,” to studying my “menstruation” and 
“sleep.” Indeed, in April 2019 I was invited to a user study program to study my sleep.153  
“Congratulations! You have been selected to participate in the official kickoff of the Sleep 
LiveOn program. This survey will collect a couple more pieces of information before you 
can sign up for a session to pick up hardware. If you have a co-sleeper participating, you 
may want to wait to take the survey with them in the room.” 154 
 
Going forward, I would then be surveyed via email about my “insomnia severity index” and 
other medical information while a Beddit monitor155 was required to be placed under me as I 
slept, monitoring my heart rate, respiratory rate, and other data.156  
 
 
 
The request for co-sleeper information also extended to requesting co-sleepers sign NDAs, and 
even participate in the study themselves – even if they are not an employee. Personally, I didn’t 
want my employer to know who I was sleeping with and I stopped participating in that study. 
 
151 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2938135938 
152 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2944353441 
153 Email from LiveOn R&D to Ashley Gjovik, April 1 2019, Subj: LiveOn Sleep: You’re Invited!  
154 Email from LiveOn R&D to Ashley Gjovik, April 1 2019, Subj: LiveOn Sleep: You’re Invited!  
155 iMore, Apple cans the Beddit Sleep Monitor 5 years after buying the business,  https://www.imore.com/apple-
cans-beddit-sleep-monitor-5-years-after-buying-business 
156 Email from LiveOn R&D to Ashley Gjovik, April 16 2019, Subj: LiveOn Sleep: Insomnia Severity Index Survey  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 232 of 713
(232 of 713), Page 232 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 32 of 47 -  
 
RADAR & SYSDIAGNOSE  
 
When Apple employees file “Radar” tickets to track software development work and 
“bugs,” they include detailed information about the problems they are seeing. The default 
sharing settings for most Radar ticket included all of software engineering. Radar tickets also are 
not removable. Even when the tickets are closed, they remain searchable. In training, employees 
say they are told: “Radar is forever.” 157 
 
When employees file Radar tickets, they are often asked to include diagnostic files, 
internally called “sysdiagnose” to give Apple more information about the problem. If they are 
filing a bug about iMessage, they might be asked to install a sysdiagnose profile that exposes 
their iMessages to the team tasked with fixing the issue. For employees using a live-on device, 
default settings can mean that, as they are filing a Radar ticket, a sysdiagnose profile is being 
automatically created in the background, sending data to Apple without the employee realizing 
it. When sysdiagnose profiles are not included, employees have been known to post memes 
calling out the omission. 158 
I told The Verge journalist that in 2019, I filed a ticket about Apple’s photo search 
capabilities. I was quoted as writing, “If I search for ‘infant’ in my photo library, it returns a 
selfie I took of myself in bed after laparoscopic surgery to treat my endometriosis.” 159 This 
Radar, and many of the Radars I submitted with detailed logging and personal details were 
visible to tens of thousands of people. 
Whether it is the text content of the Radar, or the logs attached, if a coworker wanted to 
learn intimate details about your life, they could by simply searching through the Radars you’ve 
filed. Reviewing logs quickly exposes locations, routines, friends, and other highly personal data. 
Assumably far more data would be made available to the Worldwide Loyalty Team. 
 
 
 
 
157 Zoe Schiffer, "Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless You Work at Apple," The Verge, Aug 30, 2021, 
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id 
158 Zoe Schiffer, "Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless You Work at Apple," The Verge, Aug 30, 2021, 
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id 
159 Zoe Schiffer, "Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless You Work at Apple," The Verge, Aug 30, 2021, 
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 233 of 713
(233 of 713), Page 233 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 33 of 47 -  
Secrecy  
 
SECRECY POLICIES  
 
The New York Times wrote in 2009 that, “Few companies are more secretive than 
Apple, or as punitive to those who dare violate the company’s rules on keeping tight control 
over information. Secrecy at Apple … is baked into the corporate culture.” 160 Anil Dash (EFF 
board member and advisor to the Obama administration) wrote that Apple “chooses to operate 
with an extreme and excessive layer of secrecy, even when making reasonable business 
decisions.” 161 Dash wrote, “the cost of Apple keeping secrets has become morally and ethically 
untenable” and that “Apple spends an enormous amount of money on protecting and obfuscating 
normal business operations that any other company can do in the open.”162 
A 2017 internal training video included a quote from VP of Marketing, Greg Joswiak, 
telling employees that “I have faith deep in my soul that if we hire smart people they’re gonna 
think about this, they’re gonna understand this, and ultimately they’re gonna do the right thing, 
and that’s to keep their mouth shut.” 163 
Apple’s “New Product Security (Secrecy)” team is part of the larger Global Security 
team. Before joining Apple, the Global Security team manager, David Rice,164 worked at the 
NSA as a Global Network Vulnerability Analyst for four years, and before that was a Special 
Duty Cryptologist in the U.S. Navy. 165 Before joining Apple, other Apple Global Security 
managers have worked in US Coast Guard port security,166 local Police Chiefs,167 as U.S. Secret 
 
160 Brad Stone and Ashlee Vance, Apple’s Obsession With Secrecy Grows Stronger, New York Times (Jun 2009), 
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/technology/23apple.html  
161 Anil Dash, Apple: Secrecy Does Not Scale, Jul 31, 2009, dashes.com/2009/07/31/apple_secrecy_does_not_scale/ 
162 Anil Dash, Apple: Secrecy Does Not Scale, Jul 31, 2009, dashes.com/2009/07/31/apple_secrecy_does_not_scale/ 
163 William Turton, Leaked recording: Inside Apple’s global war on leakers: Former NSA agents, secrecy members 
on product teams, and a screening apparatus bigger than the TSA., The Outline (2017), 
theoutline.com/post/1766/leaked-recording-inside-apple-s-global-war-on-leakers 
164 David Rice, https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-rice-7b3686/  
165 William Turton, Leaked recording: Inside Apple’s global war on leakers: Former NSA agents, secrecy members 
on product teams, and a screening apparatus bigger than the TSA., The Outline (2017), 
theoutline.com/post/1766/leaked-recording-inside-apple-s-global-war-on-leakers 
166 Sean Downey, https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-downey-64a942119/ 
167 Greg Finch, https://www.linkedin.com/in/greg-finch-74a3228/ 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 234 of 713
(234 of 713), Page 234 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 34 of 47 -  
Service Special Agents,168  U.S. Department of State Special Agents & Executive Protection 
managers for weapons manufacturers,169 etc.  
In 2017, Rice complained that “U.S. employees have griped about [Apple’s] draconian 
security measures.” 170 With McCarthyism-flavored PSYOPs, Apple tells its employees that 
“leakers” at Apple “look like [regular employees],” and that “they come to work, they don't 
appear any different, and they start off with the exact same motivation about ‘I love Apple, I 
think this is a cool place to work, I wanna make it better.” 171 
I had grown deeply disturbed by the horrific lack of privacy for Apple corporate 
employees and was happy to expose to the issue to the public, as the anti-privacy policy for 
employees was a “feature” not a “bug” to Apple, and thus there was no internal complaint 
process on the matter, and even if there was, it seemed like a certain way to face additional 
retaliation. I posted on Twitter on August 30-31 2021 about The Verge article and complaining 
about Apple’s work conditions saying:  
- 
“Apple has an internal culture of surveillance, intimidation, & alienation. Employees 
are closely monitored & our data hoarded in the name of secrecy & quality. We’re told 
we have no expectation of privacy, while Apple says publicly: privacy is a human 
right.”172 
- 
“Apple probably considers what they’re doing to employees “internal information.” 
Why? For secrecy? For quality? Or because Apple knows the public would be 
outraged, & that outrage might start to “deprogram” their employees? “ 173 
- 
Cult: “great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work.” Information control: 
“encourage spying on other members” Behavior control: “instill obedience”174 
- 
“I still love Apple products & brand. I devoted nearly 7 years & much blood/sweat/tears 
ensuring Apple's products are exceptional. However, Apple the corporation needs a 
reckoning. Apple's policy of "secrecy" should not shield it from public scrutiny 
about human rights & dignity.”  
- 
“We’re learning about Apple’s long history of systemic oppression & retaliation against 
employees when employees express concerns about discrimination, harassment, & other 
 
168 Michael Rovins, https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-rovins-84880626/; Jeff Hill: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/sajah/  
169 Scott Nishi, https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-nishi-963591109/  
170 William Turton, Leaked recording: Inside Apple’s global war on leakers: Former NSA agents, secrecy members 
on product teams, and a screening apparatus bigger than the TSA., The Outline (2017), 
theoutline.com/post/1766/leaked-recording-inside-apple-s-global-war-on-leakers 
171 William Turton, Leaked recording: Inside Apple’s global war on leakers: Former NSA agents, secrecy members 
on product teams, and a screening apparatus bigger than the TSA., The Outline (2017), 
theoutline.com/post/1766/leaked-recording-inside-apple-s-global-war-on-leakers 
172 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381777658613762; 
https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381235926499332  
173 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432383062273191937 
174 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432382993046200323 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 235 of 713
(235 of 713), Page 235 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 35 of 47 -  
abuse. Why wouldn’t Apple try to use our data & their internal surveillance 
infrastructure against us?”175 
 
Thomas le Bonniec, an ex-Apple contractor and whistleblower, wrote to regulators in 
2019: “It is worrying that Apple keeps ignoring and violating fundamental rights and continues 
their massive collection of data. “I am extremely concerned that big tech companies are 
basically wiretapping entire populations despite European citizens being told the EU has one of 
the strongest data protection laws in the world. Passing a law is not good enough: it needs to be 
enforced upon privacy offenders.”176 Le Bonniec, said Apple has been, “operating on a moral 
and legal grey area and they have been doing this for years on a massive scale. They should be 
called out in every possible way.”177  
Le Bonniec exposed that Siri is recording when it is not triggered by the users. Thousands 
of recordings were sent to Apple in order for hundreds of Apple employees to listen, analyse and 
transcribe their content. The public statement reveals that Apple collected millions of 
confidential messages, full of intimate details, political opinions, sexual preferences, and 
discussions between persons in a room, without the users even being aware of it. In 2019, Apple 
admitted that these practices were not up to the privacy standards. According 
recent disclosures it seems that contrary to Apple’s statement, no end was put to the recording of 
Apple’s users.178  
In January 2023, the NLRB found merit in my charge that Apple’s NDAs do violate 
federal labor laws.179 There are still no decisions on my or Le Bonniec’s surveillance charges. 
 
 
SEARCH AND PRIVACY POLICIES   
 
In September of 2021, a journalist wrote about my experience realizing just how 
intensively Apple could and likely was surveilling me. She wrote, 
 
175 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381802602110976 
176 The Guardian, Apple whistleblower goes public over lack of action, May 2020,, 
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/20/apple-whistleblower-goes-public-over-lack-of-action 
177 he Guardian, Apple whistleblower goes public over lack of action, May 2020,, 
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/20/apple-whistleblower-goes-public-over-lack-of-action 
178 Noyb, “Siri: Are you recording me?” “No but I am listening to you,” May 2020, https://noyb.eu/en/former-apple-
employee-blows-whistle-apple-again 
179 TechCrunch, Labor officials found that Apple execs infringed on workers’ rights, 
https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/30/labor-officials-found-that-apple-execs-infringed-on-workers-rights/ 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 236 of 713
(236 of 713), Page 236 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 36 of 47 -  
 “Last weekend, Ashley Gjøvik walked around her apartment unplugging all of 
her electronics. Apple had just fired her for allegedly leaking information, and for 
months before then, she had spoken out with claims of harassment, intimidation 
and surveillance at the company. She'd been thinking through Apple's employee 
privacy policy, which states that workers have no expectation of privacy when 
using a personal device for Apple business, and wondered if that meant the 
company could watch her through her home devices, too.” 
 
I was quoted saying, "I think the worst moment was realizing that they were probably watching 
me through my Eve cameras and listening to me on my HomePod, It was this frantic moment. I 
don't even have words for it yet, of how violating and horrifying and terrifying it was." 180 I told 
the journalist it “wasn't until I began speaking out about the company that I started to realize 
[Apple’s surveillance] could be used against me.” 181 
In 2019, a former Apple executive also had a rude awakening and alleged that Apple 
reviewed his private text messages.182  He wrote, “To further intimidate any current Apple 
employee who might dare consider leaving Apple, Apple’s complaint shows that it is monitoring 
and examining its employees’ phone records and text messages, in a stunning and disquieting 
invasion of privacy.”183   
In 2021, I filed complaints with the U.S. NLRB and the California Dept of Labor over 
Apple’s unlawful employee policies, including their “Workplace and Searches Privacy.”184 
“In order to protect Apple confidential and sensitive185 information and maintain the 
security and integrity of our networks and equipment, any use of Apple property, as well 
as use of your personal devices for Apple business or for accessing Apple networks, is 
subject to this policy.” 
 
180 Sarah Roach, Worker surveillance is making employees miserable, Protocol, Sept 2021, 
https://www.protocol.com/workplace/worker-surveillance-is-making-employees-miserable 
181 Sarah Roach, Worker surveillance is making employees miserable, Protocol, Sept 2021, 
https://www.protocol.com/workplace/worker-surveillance-is-making-employees-miserable 
182 Mark Gurman and Edvard Pettersson, Ex-Apple Executive Accused of Betrayal Says He Was Snooped On, 
Bloomberg (December 9, 2019), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-10/ex-apple-executive-
accused-of-betrayal-says-he-was-snooped-on  
183 CNBC, Apple accused of monitoring employee text messages in lawsuit against ex-chip exec, Dec 2019, 
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/10/apple-accused-of-monitoring-employee-text-messages-in-lawsuit-against-ex-
chip-exec.html;  
184Apple Inc: https://people.apple.com/US/en/subtopic/845;  Photographing employees engaged in protected 
concerted activities constitutes unlawful surveillance because it has a tendency to intimidate employees and interfere 
with exercise of Section 7 rights. Photographing in the mere belief that something "might" happen is not a sufficient 
justification. F.W. Woolworth Co., 310 NLRB 1197 (1993); see also, National Steel and Shipbuilding Co., 324 
NLRB 499 (1997) (peaceful union rallies); Labor Ready, Inc., 327 NLRB 1055 (1999), (employer videotapes of 
workers employed by temporary service in waiting room waiting for assignments unlawful).  
185 Note: Overbroad 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 237 of 713
(237 of 713), Page 237 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 37 of 47 -  
“Workplace Searches 186 Only in cases where allowed under local law, 187 Apple may:  
Access, search, monitor, archive, and delete Apple data stored on all of its property, as 
well as non-Apple property, if used for Apple business or if used for accessing Apple 
data, servers, or networks. This includes all data and messages sent, accessed, viewed, or 
stored (including those from iCloud, Messages, or other personal accounts) using Apple 
equipment, networks, or systems.  
Conduct physical, video, or electronic surveillance, search your workspace such as file 
cabinets, desks, and offices (even if locked), review phone records, or search any non-
Apple property (such as backpacks, purses) on company premises.” 
“This means that you have no expectation of privacy when using your or someone elseʼs 
personal devices for Apple business, when using Apple systems or networks, or when on 
Apple premises.” 
“The search or removal of Apple-related content on a device will be determined on a 
case-by-case basis when there is a business need and subject to local approval processes. 
Refusing to permit a search or removal of Apple-related content may result in 
disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.” 188 
 
The GDPR notes that employee monitoring may result in the collection of non-
employees’ personal data. The GDPR and the BDSG also apply to the collection, processing, and 
use of non-employees’ personal data. Accordingly, the employer must have a valid legal basis 
for processing non-employees’ personal data and must notify nonemployees about potential 
personal data collection.189 Here, Apple simply tell employees they have no expectation of 
privacy whatsoever and makes no statements to non-employees who may get caught in Apple’s 
mass-surveillance infrastructure.  
Apple is in a unique position, perhaps only comparable to Google & ISPs/carriers, where 
they have access to an incredible amount of data as system administrators of services and those 
services are provided by monopolies. If Apple wanted to read its employee’s personal emails, 
and that employee used iCloud, Apple could simply login to its own systems and read the emails. 
This is the same for data backed up in iCloud backups, or saved on iCloud drive, or send through 
iMessages. Apple owns the hardware of one of the handful of phones and computers, and even if 
Apple employees were to use a different company’s products, anyone they interacted with who 
 
186 Boeing Corporation Advice Memo (2013), Boeing must cease and desist from creating the impression that its 
employees’ union and/or protected concerted activities are under surveillance. Register Guard, 344 NLRB 1142, 
1144 (2005) (test is whether the employee would reasonably assume from the statement that their union activities 
had been placed under surveillance.” Flexsteel Industries, 311 NLRB 257, 257 (1993). 
187 Note: Overbroad 
188 Note: Overbroad. Do organizing and union materials count as Apple-related? 
189 Employee Monitoring (Germany), Resource ID: W-008-3362, HOLGER LUTZ AND SIMONE BACH, BAKER 
MCKENZIE, WITH PRACTICAL LAW DATA PRIVACY ADVISOR 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 238 of 713
(238 of 713), Page 238 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 38 of 47 -  
did use Apple’s products would give Apple a way to spy on that employee through their friends. 
The same is comparable for Google employees. In this sense, there is no such thing as a 
“personal” device for an Apple employee. That also weaponizes many consumer products if the 
non-employee user is simply communicating with an Apple employee on that product.  
 
190 
 
I also provided Apple’s “Employee Workplace Search & Privacy Policy” to Zoe Schiffer 
back in June and Schiffer quoted it for The Verge’s August privacy article: 
Underpinning all of this is a stringent employment agreement that gives Apple the right 
to conduct extensive employee surveillance, including “physical, video, or electronic 
surveillance” as well as the ability to “search your workspace such as file cabinets, 
desks, and offices (even if locked), review phone records, or search any non-Apple 
property (such as backpacks, purses) on company premises.” Apple also tells employees 
that they should have “no expectation of privacy when using your or someone else’s 
personal devices for Apple business, when using Apple systems or networks, or when on 
Apple premises” 191 
 
Further, I also filed charge against an email Tim Cook sent his employees on September 21 2021 
responding to an employee or employees speaking with journalist about a meeting where Tim 
Cook talked about the pandemic, remote work, employee benefits, and pay equity.192 
“I want you to know that I share your frustration. These opportunities to connect as a 
team are really important. But they only work if we can trust that the content will stay 
within Apple. I want to reassure you that we are doing everything in our power to 
 
190 Twitter, Oct 7 2021, https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1446368610679730233  
191 Zoe Schiffer, "Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless You Work at Apple," The Verge, Aug 30, 2021, 
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id 
192 Apple Inc, Tim Cook to Apple_Employees$@group.apple.com, Date: Sept 21, 2021, Subj: Follow-up on global 
team meeting 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 239 of 713
(239 of 713), Page 239 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 39 of 47 -  
identify those who leaked.193 As you know, we do not tolerate disclosures of confidential 
information, whether it’s product IP or the details of a confidential meeting.194 We know 
that the leakers constitute a small number of people. We also know that people who leak 
confidential information do not belong here.195 196 197198 
 
The NLRB agreed with me and found there was merit to my charge against Cook in January 
2023.199 Shortly after Apple hired a prior NLRB Board Chair to defend them (Harry Johnson), 
and shortly after that, NLRB told me there will be a ‘re-decision’ of merit on the charge. There 
is no such thing as a ‘re-decision of merit’. I filed a complaint with General Counsel’s office 
arguing there must have been unlawful ex parte communications by Johnson leading to the 
regulatory subterfuge of a ‘redecision of merit’ (avoiding settlement or adjudication), which 
violates the NLRA, APA, and my Due Process rights. I have not heard back from NLRB for 
months. 
 
 
 
 
193 Register Guard, 344 NLRB 1142, 1144 (2005) (test is whether the employee would reasonably assume from the 
statement that their union activities had been placed under surveillance.” Flexsteel Industries, 311 NLRB 257, 257 
(1993), 
194 Report of the General Counsel Concerning Employer Rules, NRLB Memorandum GC 15-04 (2015) 
195 Yale New Haven Hospital, 309 NLRB 363, 368 (1992) (supervisor unlawfully threatened employee with reprisal 
by telling an employee that if he did not stop protected activities he would "talk" to him again; implies that the talk 
will not be mere conversation but will concern the employment of the offending employee). 
196 Valerie Manor,Inc.,351NLRB1306(2007)(threat of unspecified reprisals). 
197 Equipment Trucking Co.,Inc.,336NLRB277(2001)(statement, If you don’t like it, find another job, implied threat 
of discharge). 
198 Medco Health Solutions Of Las Vegas, Inc.,357NLRBNo.25(2011) (respondent's statement that, if employee 
could not support the respondent's policies, there were other jobs out there and perhaps “this wasn't the place for 
him” was an implied threat in violation of 8(a)(1)).  
199 Bloomberg, Apple Executives Violated Worker Rights, Labor Officials Say, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-30/apple-executives-violated-worker-rights-us-labor-officials-
say 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 240 of 713
(240 of 713), Page 240 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 40 of 47 -  
Public Policy 
 
 
 
[Collecting user data] is surveillance. 
These stockpiles of personal data serve only to enrich the companies that collect them.  
-Tim Cook (2018) 200 
 
I can’t think of any other company that has so proudly, and so publicly, distributed 
spyware to its own devices. The only restraint is Apple’s all-too-flexible company policies. 
-Edward Snowden (2021) 201 
 
 
“Ubiquitous employer surveillance of workers has a long and rich history as a defining 
characteristic of workplace power dynamics, including the de facto abrogation of almost any 
substantive legal restraints on its use. This history can be traced through many pivotal points 
including massive efforts through warfare, slavery, globalization, and other forms of colonialism 
used to control and exploit workers. 202 What is novel, and of real concern to privacy law, is that 
rapid technological advancements and diminishing costs now mean employee surveillance 
occurs both inside and outside the workplace - bleeding into the private lives of employees.”203 
There are areas of an employee's life in which his employer has no legitimate interest.204  
“The protection of workers' privacy is a civil rights issue: both for the protection of 
human dignity rights and because privacy invasions can serve as vehicles for unlawful 
discrimination. History has shown that economic pressures are an unreliable regulator for the 
preservation of the civil rights of those with comparatively lower economic power. We cannot 
simply look to the market to curtail abuses of power regarding worker surveillance.”205 
 
200 Ian Bogost, Apple’s Empty Grandstanding About Privacy, The Atlantic (2019), 
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/apples-hypocritical-defense-data-privacy/581680/  
201 Edward Snowden, The All-Seeing "i": Apple Just Declared War on Your Privacy, Aug 25, 2021, 
https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/all-seeing-i 
202 Ifeoma Ajunwa, Kate Crawford, and Jason Schultz, Limitless Worker Surveillance, 105 Calif. L. Rev. 735 
(2017). 
203 Ifeoma Ajunwa, Kate Crawford, and Jason Schultz, Limitless Worker Surveillance, 105 Calif. L. Rev. 735 
(2017). 
204 Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc., 963 F.2d 611 (3d Cir. 1992);  Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 319 A.2d 174 
(Pa. 1974) 
205 Ifeoma Ajunwa, Kate Crawford, and Jason Schultz, Limitless Worker Surveillance, 105 Calif. L. Rev. 735 
(2017). 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 241 of 713
(241 of 713), Page 241 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 41 of 47 -  
The predominant view of the U.S. Courts is that consent is not effective if it is not freely 
and voluntarily given.206  The protection for privacy & autonomy is a default rule that recognizes 
a sphere of protection, not only to protect civic and personal life, but also to mirror the likely 
implicit bargain between the employer and employee about where the employment relationship 
ends and personal life begins. 207 Even in the context of initial employment, consent to a 
particular type of invasion does not mean consent to all varieties of that invasion, 
reasonable or unreasonable.208    
The employer also cannot discharge employees for refusing to waive a nonnegotiable or 
nonwaivable right. 209 When an employee successfully refuses to submit to an employer's 
wrongful intrusion into protected employee privacy interests and the employee suffers a 
termination of employment or such adverse conditions of employment as to amount to a 
constructive discharge because of the employee's refusal to submit, the employee has a claim for 
wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The public policy is the protection against 
wrongful employer intrusions into protected employee privacy interests. 210  
However, companies may be able to process personal data if they obtain either subjects' 
voluntary affirmative consent to process data for the specific purpose intended or have a 
legitimate justification. Corporations in countries such as Germany and France tend not to rely 
on consent because employees must be expressly asked for it, must be able to refuse without risk 
of sanction, and can withdraw it at any time. Moreover, in the corporate investigation context, 
courts tend to assume that such consent is involuntary because of the imbalance of power between 
the employer and employee.211 
U.S. organizations that control or process the personal data of European Union residents 
likely are subject to the EU’s new data protection requirements, the General Data Protection 
 
206 See Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 74 S.W.3d 634, 647 (Ark. 2002); Papa Gino's of America, Inc., 780 F.2d 1067, 1072 (1st 
Cir. 1986) (applying New Hampshire law; employee contracted away certain rights by accepting employment from 
employer who forbade drug use, but employer's demand that employee submit to polygraph exceeded scope of 
employee's consent to allow reasonable investigation into drug use). 
207 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law  § 7.03, Protected Employee Privacy Interests in the Employee's 
Physical Person and in Physical and Electronic Locations,  Comments  
208 Frye v. IBP, Inc., 15 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1041 (D. Kan. 1998) 
209 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law > Chapter 7- Employee Privacy and Autonomy  
§ 7.07, Discharge in Retaliation for Refusing Privacy Invasion, Comment  
210 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law > Chapter 7- Employee Privacy and Autonomy  
§ 7.07, Discharge in Retaliation for Refusing Privacy Invasion, Comment  
211 ARTICLE: THE LAW OF CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE GLOBAL EXPANSION OF 
CORPORATE CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT, 93 S. Cal. L. Rev. 697 May 2020 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 242 of 713
(242 of 713), Page 242 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 42 of 47 -  
Regulation (GDPR).  A common practice in the U.S. is to rely on blanket consent clauses in 
employment contracts or handbooks that permit employers to process employee personal data. 
U.S. employers often also rely on implied consent from employees. However, such practices 
may not be considered valid forms of consent for lawful processing of personal data under the 
GDPR. The GDPR provides that consent must be “freely given, specific, informed and 
unambiguous.” Moreover, the GDPR adds, consent is not “freely given” where a “clear 
imbalance of power” between the data controller (i.e., employer) and the data subject 
(i.e., employee) exists.212 
The Article 29 Working Party emphasized the imbalance of power in the employment 
context: “Given the dependency that results from the employer/employee relationship, it is 
unlikely that the data subject is able to deny his/her employer consent to data processing without 
experiencing the fear or real risk of detrimental effects as a result of a refusal. It is unlikely that 
an employee would be able to respond freely to a request for consent from his/her employer to, 
for example, activate monitoring systems such as camera-observation in a workplace, or to fill 
out assessment forms, without feeling any pressure to consent.” The Working Party also advises 
that the imbalance of power in the employment relationship makes voluntary consent 
questionable and, for most work-related data processing, the GDPR lawful basis relied upon 
“cannot and should not” be the employee’s consent. 213 
Multiple GDPR factors invaliding employee to employer consent are present with 
Apple’s user studies. First, when I responded to the initial email about the Gobbler user study, I 
had no idea what I consented to/initiated., as it was “vague or unclear.” Next, I had no “clear 
records to demonstrate they consented,” as no receipt was sent and I was never given a copy of 
the ICF. It appears Apple also no longer has a copy of the ICF, otherwise it seems they would 
have provided it to me on Sept 15 or quoted it in their position statement.  
Next, there was “a clear imbalance of power between [the employer] and the individual,” 
the “employee would be penalized for refusing consent,” and “there was no genuine free choice 
over whether to opt in.” Between the general pressure for Apple R&D employees to “live on” 
new products and software, and to participate in studies, and my performance reviews 
 
212 Is Employee Consent under EU Data Protection Regulation Possible?, Joseph J. Lazzarotti and Maya Atrakchi, 
February 27, 2018 
213 Is Employee Consent under EU Data Protection Regulation Possible?, Joseph J. Lazzarotti and Maya Atrakchi, 
February 27, 2018 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 243 of 713
(243 of 713), Page 243 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 43 of 47 -  
mentioning my participation in these programs, but also that barbed wire compound with armed 
guards, too.  
Finally, apparently later some employees were given the option to use the Gobbler 
application but not be “whitelisted” so their PII would not be uploaded. However, I was not 
given this option nor even told it was an option, so “consent was a precondition of a service, but 
the processing is not necessary for that service.” Finally, once I apparently signed the ICF and 
after the Gobbler app was installed on my phone, I had no way to disable the app, nor was I 
given any way to withdraw consent. I had talked to other employees about the app with similar 
concerns over the years. Thus, the “consent’ was invalid because Apple “did not tell people 
about their right to withdraw consent” and “people cannot easily withdraw consent.” 214 
 
This non-consensual user data harvesting doesn’t only have implications on Apple’s 
employees and their families and friends. Intellectual Property rights cannot be granted for 
unlawful things/acts. Apple has deployed technology across the world, based on arguably illegal 
data and the fruit (algorithms and features) grown from that illegal data. What rights does Apple 
actually have to their technology if the people the data was harvested from had their own rights 
violated? What does that mean for customers using Apple products built off of human rights 
violations (again)? Today, the success of the global economy depends on Apple’s success. Apple 
cannot take these kind of risks when the fall-out may land everywhere.  
Apple says privacy is a fundamental right and “fundamental rights should not differ 
depending on where you live in the world.” Apple says, “they treat any data that relates to an 
identified or identifiable individual or that is linked or linkable to them by Apple as ‘personal 
data,’ no matter where the individual lives.”215 
California courts have found, "The constitutional [privacy] provision is self-executing; 
hence, it confers a judicial right of action on all Californians. Privacy is protected not merely 
against state action; it is considered an inalienable right which may not be violated by anyone.” 
216 California accords privacy the constitutional status of an inalienable right, on a par with 
defending life and possessing property.217 
 
214 Information Commissioner’s Office Consultation: GDPR consent guidance Start date: 2 March 2017 End date: 
31 March 2017 
215 Apple Inc, Worldwide Privacy Policy, https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ 
216 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corporation (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1034. 
217 Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 833, 841 [239 Cal. Rptr. 292, 740 P.2d 404] [limiting right to 
discover one's sexual history, habits and practices in action for sexual harassment and emotional distress]. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 244 of 713
(244 of 713), Page 244 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 44 of 47 -  
Apple Is headquartered in California. Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution 
provides that the right of "privacy" is among the people's inalienable rights. California appellate 
courts and at least one federal court have consistently held, in varying contexts, that Article I, 
section 1 provides some protection against non-governmental intrusion, as well as state 
conduct.218 The legislative history (ballot argument) stated,  
"The right of privacy is the right to be left alone. It is a fundamental and compelling 
interest. It protects our homes, our families, our thoughts, our emotions, our 
expressions, our personalities, our freedom of communion, and our freedom to 
associate with the people we choose. It prevents government and business interests 
from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and from 
misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to serve other purposes or 
to embarrass us.”219 
 
California employees have a cause of action against their private employer for violating 
their Constitutional right to privacy if the intrusion is against a legally protected privacy interest, 
including: “conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference” as 
determined by “established social norms.” 220  While California employees could contractually 
agree not to assert a right to privacy, the employer cannot be allowed to use such an agreement to 
circumvent the public policy favoring privacy, and the employer could not successfully enforce 
such a contractual agreement if it intruded on plaintiff's right to privacy.221  The public policy 
here "affects the duty not to intrude on the right of privacy, which inures to the benefit of the 
public at large rather than to a particular employer or employee." 222 
California employees have the right to privacy, even at the workplace, in areas where 
there is a reasonable expectation of being left alone.  For example, the California Labor Code 
prohibits video or audio monitoring of employees in restrooms, showers, locker rooms, and 
dressing rooms.223 Further, California Penal Code section 647j makes it a crime for a person 
 
218 Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825; Cutter v. Brownbridge (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 
836; Miller v. National Broadcasting Company (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1463; Chico Feminist Women's Health 
Center v. Scully (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 230; Chico Feminist Women's Health Center v. Butte Glenn Medical S. 
(1983) 557 F.Supp. 1190; Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corporation (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1034; Semore v. Pool 
(1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1034; Luck v. Southern Pacific Trans. Co. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1. 
219 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corporation (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1034. 
220 Hill, 7 Cal.4th 1, 35, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633. 
221 Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d at p. 670 (1988)  
222 Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 1088 
223 California Labor Code § 435, Contracts and Applications for Employment; § 435 was enacted to clarify "privacy 
rights in the workplace for both employers and employees" since court decisions had "left a definite gray area in 
regards to employee surveillance."  Hearing on A.B. 2303 Before the Assemb. Comm. on Labor & Emp't, 1997-98 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 245 of 713
(245 of 713), Page 245 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 45 of 47 -  
unlawfully to invade someone else’s privacy via a device to view in a private room, or by secret 
recording or photograph of a person’s body.224  
At a federal level, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employers may not 
monitor or surveil employees participating in protected concerted activities, including “creating 
the impression of surveillance.” 225  Further, 18 U.S.C. § 1801 makes it a federal crime to capture 
images of a private area of an individual (naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, 
buttocks, or female breast) without their consent and to knowingly do so under circumstances in 
which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 226  
While the legislative history for federal labor laws probably never anticipated a mega-
corporation using a tool they called the “Face Gobbler” to capture secret videos of employees 
24/7 – one would think The Congress would be outraged by an employer, one that markets that 
“privacy is a human right” none the less – justifying the termination of an employee who already 
had an open NLRB charge against the employer – on the employee protesting invasions of 
privacy & Gobbling of their face. 
 
 
 
Leg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 22, 1998). Since such surveillance was on the rise, the proponents of the statute felt that a 
"reasonable limitation" should be placed on it. Hearing on A.B. 2303 Before the S. Comm. on Indus. Relations, 
1997-98 Leg. Sess. (Cal. June 11, 1998). 
224 California Penal Code Section 647(j) PC, Criminal Invasion of Privacy in California,  
225 Gov Docs, More video surveillance in the workplace. But is it legal?, https://www.govdocs.com/can-employers-
use-video-surveillance-monitor-workers/; NLRB v Boeing (2017) 
226 18 U.S. Code § 1801 - Video voyeurism, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1801  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 246 of 713
(246 of 713), Page 246 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 46 of 47 -  
Conclusion 
 
 
No matter what it says, Apple is not a company committed to data privacy.  
Apple’s business model helped stimulate the data-privacy dystopia we now occupy.  
Apple is allowing the surveillance-capitalism atrocities it claims to oppose. 
- Ian Bogost, The Atlantic (2019) 227 
 
It’s clear Apple’s use of surveillance and electronic monitoring in the workplace is 
illegal, unlawful, and otherwise unethical. It’s clear Apple knows this.  
The Restatement makes clear: information regarding an employer's illegal activities is not 
a trade secret.228 Further, information regarding an employer's illegal activities is not protectable 
by means of restrictive covenant. 229 The public policy protecting whistleblowers would be 
completely thwarted if the employer could retaliate with impunity against any employee who 
decided to reveal improper conduct by the employer.230 
Yet, Apple is notorious for oppressing & silencing their workforce. An opinion piece was 
written by Anil Dash about the issue. Dash is “recognized as one of the most prominent voices 
advocating for a more humane, inclusive & ethical technology industry,” was an advisor to the 
Obama White House, and is a Board Member of the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) an 
international, non-profit digital rights group.231 Dash wrote about Apple:  
The sad truth is that Apple is still stuck in an anachronistic, 1984 mode of 
communicating with the world. If Apple doesn’t evolve, it’ll become a pathetic-
looking giant, constantly playing whack-a-mole with information leaks, 
diminishing its relevance by antagonizing the very creators it has so long sought 
to identify with. … The reckoning Apple has reached, whether it’s admitted or 
not, is that its secrecy is compromising its humanity…It’s incumbent upon 
Apple to do the moral thing here. Treat your employees, customers, suppliers and 
partner companies better, by letting them participate in the thing most of your 
products are designed for: Human self-expression. If the ethical argument is 
unpersuasive, then focus on the long-term viability of your marketing and 
branding efforts, and realize that a technology company that is determined to 
 
227 Ian Bogost, Apple’s Empty Grandstanding About Privacy, The Atlantic (2019), 
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/apples-hypocritical-defense-data-privacy/581680/  
228 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 8.02, Definition of Employer's Trade Secret, Comment 
229 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 8.02, Definition of Employer's Trade Secret, Comment 
230 Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 229-230, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 392, 294 P.3d 49; Green v. 
Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 90, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046  Whitehall v. County of San 
Bernardino, 17 Cal.App.5th 352 (2017)  
231 EFF, Anil Dash, https://www.eff.org/about/staff/anil-dash 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 247 of 713
(247 of 713), Page 247 of 713

INFORMATION FOR OSTP ON AUTOMATED WORKER SURVEILLANCE AND 
MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
- Page 47 of 47 -  
prevent information from being spread is an organization at war with itself. Civil 
wars are expensive, have no winners, and incur lots of casualties.232 
 
Apple clearly did not listen.  
The US government has not taken this seriously either. Both the NLRB and US Dept of 
Labor initially responded to my charges by attempting to intimidate me to withdraw those 
charges, and then when I refused, attempting to intimidate me and interfere with my due process 
rights. NLRB is now supposedly investigating. US Dept of Labor has only escalated it animosity 
towards me. California Dept of Labor says it won’t even start investigating for another 1-3 years. 
Meanwhile I’m now unemployed, denylisted, broke, in debt, severely ostracized, & my 
reputation destroyed by smears and defamation. 
What is the point of ‘worker protection laws’ or ‘privacy ‘laws’ if they are never 
enforced? Do we live in a democracy if corporations are above the law? The first step here is not 
passing new laws or enacting more MOUs; the first step is deciding that no company is above 
the law. The first step is ensuring labor agencies will actually fulfill their statutory obligations. 
We must all agree that labor rights are human rights, and human rights must be protected. 
 
Please let me know if I can be of any help. I’m more than happy to provide documents, 
testimony, or other additional resources. Thank you. 
 
 
 
Respectfully,  
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, JD 
Albany, New York 
ashleymgjovik@protonmail.com  
 
 
 
232 Anil Dash, Apple: Secrecy Does Not Scale, Anil Dash, 
https://anildash.com/2009/07/31/apple_secrecy_does_not_scale/ 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 248 of 713
(248 of 713), Page 248 of 713

11 
EXHIBIT I: THE VERGE, APPEL CARES ABOUT PRIVACY 
UNLESS YOU WORK AT APPLE 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 249 of 713
(249 of 713), Page 249 of 713

1/8
Zoë Schiffer
August 30, 2021
Apple cares about privacy, unless you work at Apple

theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id
Jacob Preston was sitting down with his manager during his first week at Apple when he was
told, with little fanfare, that he needed to link his personal Apple ID and work account.
The request struck him as odd. Like anyone who owns an Apple product, Preston’s Apple ID
was intimately tied to his personal data — it connected his devices to the company’s various
services, including his iCloud backups. How could he be sure his personal messages and
documents wouldn’t land on his work laptop? Still, he was too giddy about his new job as a
firmware engineer to care. He went ahead and linked the accounts.
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 250 of 713
(250 of 713), Page 250 of 713

2/8
Three years later, when Preston handed in his resignation, the choice came back to haunt
him. His manager told him to return his work laptop, and — per Apple protocol — said he
shouldn’t wipe the computer’s hard drive. His initial worry had come to pass: his personal
messages were on this work laptop, as were private documents concerning his taxes and a
recent home loan. Preston pushed back, saying some of the files contained highly personal
information and there was no reasonable way to make sure they were all removed from the
laptop without wiping it completely.
“If they did this to a customer, people would lose their goddamn minds.”
He was told the policy wasn’t negotiable.
Preston’s story is part of a growing tension inside Apple, where some employees say the
company isn’t doing enough to protect their personal privacy and, at times, actively seeks to
invade it for security reasons. Employees have been asked to install software builds on their
phones to test out new features prior to launch — only to find the builds expose their
personal messages. Others have found that when testing new products like Apple’s Face ID,
images are recorded every time they open their phones. “If they did this to a customer,
people would lose their goddamn minds,” says Ashley Gjøvik, a senior engineering program
manager.
Apple employees also can’t use their work email addresses to sign up for iCloud accounts,
so many use their personal accounts.
The blurring of personal and work accounts has resulted in some unusual situations,
including Gjøvik allegedly being forced to hand compromising photos of herself to Apple
lawyers when her team became involved in an unrelated legal dispute.
Underpinning all of this is a stringent employment agreement that gives Apple the right to
conduct extensive employee surveillance, including “physical, video, or electronic
surveillance” as well as the ability to “search your workspace such as file cabinets, desks,
and offices (even if locked), review phone records, or search any non-Apple property (such
as backpacks, purses) on company premises.”
Apple also tells employees that they should have “no expectation of privacy when using your
or someone else’s personal devices for Apple business, when using Apple systems or
networks, or when on Apple premises” (emphasis added).
Many employees have a choice between getting an Apple-owned phone or having the
company pay for their phone plan. But one source tells The Verge that trying to maintain two
phones can become impractical. In software engineering, certain employees are expected to
participate in a “live-on” program that puts out daily builds with bug fixes. “You can’t have a
successful live-on program without people treating these devices exactly the same as a
personal phone,” the source says. “So a work device or a work account just won’t cut it.”
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 251 of 713
(251 of 713), Page 251 of 713

3/8
“You must link your personal Apple ID with your AppleConnect work account”
None of these policies are unique. Tech companies almost always have rules in place to
search employees’ corporate devices, including personal devices used for work. It’s also
common practice for tech companies to ask employees to test new software, which could
potentially expose personal information. But Apple sets itself apart from other tech giants
through its commitment to consumer privacy. As Tim Cook said at the CPDP Computers,
Privacy and Data Protection conference in January 2021, businesses built on buying and
selling user data, without the knowledge or consent of consumers, “[degrade] our
fundamental right to privacy first, and our social fabric by consequence.” The lack of
employee privacy has made the perceived hypocrisy particularly irksome to some workers.
Now, as employees begin to push back against a variety of Apple norms and rules, these
policies are coming under the spotlight, raising the question of whether the company has
done enough to safeguard personal employee data. It might seem like a company obsessed
with secrecy would be sympathetic to its employees’ wishes to have confidential information
of their own. But at Apple, secrecy requires the opposite: extensive knowledge, and control,
over its workforce.
This is how it starts: a new Apple employee is told during onboarding that collaborating with
their colleagues will require them to make extensive use of iCloud storage, and their
manager offers a two terabyte upgrade. This will link their personal Apple ID to their work
account — in fact, the instructions for accessing this upgrade explicitly say “you must link
your personal Apple ID with your AppleConnect work account.” The connection will give
them access to collaborative apps like Pages and Numbers that they might need to do their
jobs. (Apple employees who do not have a business need to collaborate do not go through
this process.)
Employees could pause during onboarding and say they want to create a new Apple ID
specifically for work or use a different phone. But most do not — it seems a little paranoid,
and the Apple instructions say to go ahead and use your personal account. What’s more,
most Apple devices don’t support using multiple Apple IDs. To switch between iCloud
accounts on an iPhone, you have to completely sign out of one ID and into another — a
clunky, disruptive process. It is far easier culturally and technically to simply link personal and
work accounts, which adds a new Apple Work folder to the employee’s iCloud account.
“I get mad that I have to use my personal phone to text my boss.”
In theory, this Apple Work folder is where all of the collaborative documents for employees
are supposed to live in order to keep personal and work files separate. In practice, the owner
of a document often forgets to store files in the work folder, and documents quickly become
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 252 of 713
(252 of 713), Page 252 of 713

4/8
intermingled. In fact, when Apple employees create a document in, say, Pages, the app
automatically enters the personal email address used for their Apple ID. “I asked my
manager about it and it’s just sort of an issue everyone deals with,” Preston says.
Employees can choose to not sync certain folders, like their photo libraries. But others, like
messages, can be trickier. Apple adopted Slack in 2019, but some teams still use iMessage
as a primary way to communicate, which makes opting out of a message sync nearly
impossible.
Over the past few weeks, employees have been discussing the difficulty of setting up
different Apple IDs to keep work and personal files separate, noting that while it’s possible,
there are significant technical hurdles. “I don’t understand why they didn’t create an Apple ID
and iCloud account from our work email address during the onboarding process,” one
employee said on Slack. “I get mad that I have to use my personal phone to text my boss,”
said another.
Concerns about data privacy are not ubiquitous inside Apple. Many employees who spoke to
The Verge said they were aware the company gave itself extensive rights to search their
data, but — for various reasons — weren’t overly worried about the fallout.
“When I joined Apple, I personally expected it to be pretty invasive and took some serious
steps to separate my work and personal life,” one source says.
For other employees, however, the mixing of personal and work data has already had real
consequences. In 2018, the engineering team Ashley Gjøvik worked on was involved in a
lawsuit. The case had nothing to do with Gjøvik personally, but because she’d worked on a
project related to the litigation, Apple lawyers needed to collect documents from her phone
and work computer.
“All data that has your face in it is good data.”
Gjøvik asked the lawyers to confirm that they wouldn’t need to access her personal
messages. She says her team discouraged the use of two phones; she used the same one
for work and personal and, as a result, had private messages on her work device.
A member of the legal team responded that while the lawyers did not need to access
Gjøvik’s photos, they did not want her to delete any messages. During an in-person meeting,
Gjøvik says she told the lawyers the messages included nude photos she’d sent to a man
she was dating — a sushi chef who lived in Hawaii. Surely, those weren’t relevant to the
lawsuit. Could she delete them? She says the lawyers told her no.
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 253 of 713
(253 of 713), Page 253 of 713

5/8
In 2017, Apple rolled out an app called Gobbler that would allow employees to test Face ID
before it became available to customers. The process was routine — Apple often launched
new features or apps on employees’ phones, then collected data on how the technology was
used to make sure it was ready for launch.
Gobbler was unique in that it was designed to test face unlock for iPhones and iPads. This
meant that every time an employee picked up their phone, the device recorded a short video
— hopefully of their face. They could then file “problem reports” on Radar, Apple’s bug
tracking system, and include the videos if they found a glitch in the system. “All data that has
your face in it is good data,” said an internal email about the project. After rumors of criticism,
Apple eventually changed the codename to “Glimmer.”
Unlike other Apple features, Glimmer wasn’t automatically installed on employee phones. It
required an informed consent form so employees would know what they were getting into.
Still, for some people on engineering teams, participation was encouraged — even expected,
according to two staff members. Once it was installed, some data that didn’t contain
personally identifiable information would automatically upload to Radar, unless employees
turned off this setting.
Apple was careful to instruct employees not to upload anything sensitive, confidential, or
private. But it didn’t tell people what was happening with the hundreds of images they didn’t
upload in Radar reports.
The reports themselves were also a cause for concern. When employees file Radar tickets,
they include detailed information about the problems they are seeing. In 2019, Gjøvik filed a
ticket about Apple’s photo search capabilities. “If I search for ‘infant’ in my photo library, it
returns a selfie I took of myself in bed after laparoscopic surgery to treat my endometriosis,”
she wrote, including four images in the ticket. The default sharing settings for the ticket
included all of software engineering.
“They’re the one tech company that takes privacy seriously.”
Radar tickets also are not removable. Even when the tickets are closed, they remain
searchable. In training, employees say they are told: “Radar is forever.”
What’s more, when employees file Radar tickets, they are often asked to include diagnostic
files, internally called “sysdiagnose” to give Apple more information about the problem. If
they are filing a bug about iMessage, they might be asked to install a sysdiagnose profile that
exposes their iMessages to the team tasked with fixing the issue. For employees using a
live-on device, default settings can mean that, as they are filing a Radar ticket, a
sysdiagnose profile is being automatically created in the background, sending data to Apple
without the employee realizing it.
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 254 of 713
(254 of 713), Page 254 of 713

6/8
When sysdiagnose profiles are not included, employees have been known to post memes
calling out the omission.
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 255 of 713
(255 of 713), Page 255 of 713

7/8
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 256 of 713
(256 of 713), Page 256 of 713

8/8
Gjøvik is currently on administrative leave from Apple due to an ongoing investigation into
claims she made about harassment and a hostile work environment. If she leaves the
company, she’ll likely face the same conundrum as Jacob Preston, related to the mixing of
her personal and work files.
Employees likely wouldn’t care too much about this were it not for another Apple rule that
bars them from wiping their devices when they leave the company. If they do, they’ll be in
direct violation of their employment agreement, leaving them vulnerable to legal action.
After Preston gave notice, he received a checklist from his manager that explicitly said: “Do
not wipe or factory reset any Apple owned units (such as laptops, Mac, ipads, and
iPhones).”
“Before joining Apple I had a lot of respect for the company,” Preston says. “They’re the one
tech company that takes privacy seriously. But then they go and have these policies that are
hypocritical and go against their stated values. It’s sort of hard to reconcile. It’s like now that
I’m leaving, my privacy isn’t a concern anymore.”
Apple did not respond to a request for comment from The Verge.
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 257 of 713
(257 of 713), Page 257 of 713

 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 258 of 713
(258 of 713), Page 258 of 713

 
Pl.’s Req. for Jud. Not. in Supp. of Pl.’s MTA. | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC 
Apple cares about privacy, unless you work at Apple 
The company has taken a strong stance on safeguarding its customers’ data — but 
some employees don’t believe it protects theirs 
by Zoë Schiffer 
Aug 30, 2021, 12:33 PM EDT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id 
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 56 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 259 of 713
(259 of 713), Page 259 of 713

 
Pl.’s Req. for Jud. Not. in Supp. of Pl.’s MTA. | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC 
 
 
 
POST: AUG 19 2021 | FIRED: SEPT. 9 2021 
https://x.com/ashleygjovik/status/1428495420917837826  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 58 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 260 of 713
(260 of 713), Page 260 of 713

 
Pl.’s Req. for Jud. Not. in Supp. of Pl.’s MTA. | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC 
 
 
 
POST: AUG 19 2021 | FIRED: SEPT. 9 2021 
https://x.com/ashleygjovik/status/1428496048415133699/ 
 
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 59 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 261 of 713
(261 of 713), Page 261 of 713

 
Pl.’s Req. for Jud. Not. in Supp. of Pl.’s MTA. | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC 
 
 
POST: AUG 19 2021 | FIRED: SEPT. 9 2021 
https://x.com/ashleygjovik/status/1428536076654637061  
 
 
 
 
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 60 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 262 of 713
(262 of 713), Page 262 of 713

 
Pl.’s Req. for Jud. Not. in Supp. of Pl.’s MTA. | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC 
 
 
 
 
POST: SEPT. 7 2021 | FIRED: SEPT. 9 2021 
https://x.com/ashleygjovik/status/1435444945117073414 
 
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 63 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 263 of 713
(263 of 713), Page 263 of 713

 
Pl.’s Req. for Jud. Not. in Supp. of Pl.’s MTA. | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
POST: SEPT. 7 2021 | FIRED: SEPT. 9 2021 
https://x.com/ashleygjovik/status/1435444339019182083 
 
 
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 62 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 264 of 713
(264 of 713), Page 264 of 713

 
Pl.’s Req. for Jud. Not. in Supp. of Pl.’s MTA. | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC 
 
 
POST: AUG 19 2021 | FIRED: SEPT. 9 2021 
https://x.com/ashleygjovik/status/1428499560062586883 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 61 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 265 of 713
(265 of 713), Page 265 of 713

12 
EXHIBIT J: JUSTICE AT APPLE (OPEN LETTER) 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 266 of 713
(266 of 713), Page 266 of 713

Justice at Apple: No One is Above the Law 
 
An Open Letter to the US Gov Agencies Overseeing Employment & Labor Law Compliance 
 
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D., B.S., PMP | ashleygjovik.com  
Justice at Apple: justiceatapple.com | Open Letter, Sept 27 2022 | Page 1 of 9 
 
 
Addressees:  
• 
Martin J. Walsh, US DOL Secretary of Labor 
• 
Seema Nanda, US DOL Solicitor of Labor 
• 
Lauren McFerran, US NLRB Chair 
• 
Jennifer A. Abruzzo, US NLRB General Counsel  
• 
Charlotte A. Burrows, US EEOC Chair 
• 
Vacant, US EEOC General Counsel 
• 
US Rep. Bobby Scott, US House Education & Labor Committee Chair 
 
 
Hello, 
 
I write to you today to express deep concerns about the lack of due process and abundance of conflicts 
of interest that Apple Inc employees face when they report employer misconduct and challenge their 
employer through complaints to federal agencies.  
 
Your agencies have recently claimed to take retaliation issues very seriously, even announcing a joint 
program to protect employees exercising their labor rights.1 I reach out to you on my own behalf, with 
charges filed in all of your agencies,2 3 4 & I also reach out on behalf of other Apple employees who 
have or will in the future, attempt to seek justice through the US government for harm caused by Apple. 
 
My Cases 
 
I am a former Apple employee who worked at the company for over six years and held the final position 
of Senior Engineering Program Manager. Despite six years of excellent performance reviews, no 
warnings or disciplinary actions, and ongoing praise for my work – I was fired without justification or 
explanation on September 9 2021 following my reports to state and federal agencies about unsafe work 
conditions (Superfund toxic waste exposure), labor law violations, fraud, discrimination, harassment, 
retaliation, cover ups, and corruption by Apple Inc.5 6 
 
I was fired shortly after press coverage of my open federal charges and the day before I was supposed to 
provide federal testimony against Apple. I complained of federal witness intimidation in writing to 
Apple only hours before I was unceremoniously fired. I already won my unemployment appeal with an 
 
1 US NLRB, US EEOC, US DOL: “The National Labor Relations Board, US Department of Labor, US Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission Align to End Retaliation, Promote Workers’ Rights,” Nov 16 2021, https://www.nlrb.gov/news-
outreach/news-story/the-national-labor-relations-board-us-department-of-labor-us-equal  
2 US NLRB: 32-CA-282142; 32-CA-283161; 32-CA-288816; 32-CA-284428; & 32-CA-284441 
3 US DOL OSHA WPP: APPLE INC/GJOVIK/9-3290-22-051 
4 US EEOC: 556-2021-00608C; California DFEH: 202111-15427017 
5 US EPA, US SEC, US DOJ, US EEOC, US NLRB, US DOL, CA Dept of Labor, CA EPA, etc. 
6 California Department of Labor, Gjovik v Apple, RCI-CM-842830 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 267 of 713
(267 of 713), Page 267 of 713

Justice at Apple: No One is Above the Law 
 
An Open Letter to the US Gov Agencies Overseeing Employment & Labor Law Compliance 
 
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D., B.S., PMP | ashleygjovik.com  
Justice at Apple: justiceatapple.com | Open Letter, Sept 27 2022 | Page 2 of 9 
Administrative Law Judge finding Apple terminated me for reasons “other than misconduct” and 
provided “no specific information” about the supposed basis of the termination.7 
 
The results of my own FOIA requests would later reveal a mandatory onsite safety inspection of my 
Apple office by the US EPA, based on my complaints, which identified a number of safety concerns and 
the EPA requested a number of corrective actions.8 Apple’s own press activities would also disclose 
they were openly colluding with the US EPA the two days prior to the inspection.9 This was all before I 
was fired. 
 
Apple’s post-hoc justification for firing me, provided nearly six months after the fact, was that I 
disclosed Apple’s secret videotaping and harvesting of biometrics of employees, even when employees 
may be naked, be engaged in sexual conduct, etc (a violation California Labor Code).10 Apple’s second 
justification was that I protested Apple’s extensive scanning of employee ears, which was already public 
information. Finally, Apple claimed that because I would not get on the phone with the “Workplace 
Violence” interrogator11 the day before my NLRB affidavit and requested communication stay in writing 
out of concerns of federal witness intimidation, that I “failed to cooperate” with a supposed 
investigation.12  
 
The evidence and timeline are damning. Despite such egregious retaliation (even Apple’s proffered 
explanation for my termination is a termination in violation of public policy in California), it is over one 
year now without decisions on my US DOL or US NLRB cases, and instead, I have faced disturbing 
interference and intimidation by the agencies themselves.  
 
Initially, both US DOL & US NLRB attempted to close my charges without investigating. The US 
NLRB Region 32 would not allow me to provide evidence at all – and while US DOL Region IX did 
allow me to provide evidence, it was clear the investigator failed to review anything I provided before 
attempting to dismiss the case.13  
 
The US DOL told me this month that I will not be shown any of the evidence provided against me, 
however Apple would see everything I provided against them.14 When I protested lack of due process, 
 
7 California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Case No 7253819, July 14 2022 hearing, July 27 2022 decision 
8 US EPAFOIA EPA-R9-2022-002062; EPA-R9-2022-002063; EPA-R9-2022-002064  
9 US EPA FOIA EPA-2022-006433 & EPA-2022-006434; Axios, “Exclusive: EPA administrator visits Apple HQ to talk 
climate, environmental justice,” Aug 18 2021,  https://www.axios.com/2021/08/18/epa-administrator-visits-apple-
headquarters-climate; CNBC, “Apple backs Biden’s proposal to eliminate greenhouse gases from power plants by 2035,” 
Aug 18 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/18/apple-backs-biden-clean-energy-standard.html  
10 California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 435, “(a) No employer may cause an audio or video recording to be made of an 
employee in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for changing clothes.”  
11 Gizmodo, “Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks,” 2009, https://gizmodo.com/apple-gestapo-how-apple-hunts-
down-leaks-5427058  
12 TechCrunch, “Ex-Apple employee takes Face ID privacy complaint to Europe,” April 2022, 
https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/11/gobbler-complaint-europe/; Gizmodo, “Apple Wanted Her Fired. It Settled on an Absurd 
Excuse,” October 2021, https://gizmodo.com/apple-wanted-her-fired-it-settled-on-an-absurd-excuse-1847868789  
13 US DOL FOIA #2022-F-13951 
14 US DOL FOIA #2022-F-13951 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 268 of 713
(268 of 713), Page 268 of 713

Justice at Apple: No One is Above the Law 
 
An Open Letter to the US Gov Agencies Overseeing Employment & Labor Law Compliance 
 
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D., B.S., PMP | ashleygjovik.com  
Justice at Apple: justiceatapple.com | Open Letter, Sept 27 2022 | Page 3 of 9 
their assistant administrator for Region IX, Matthew Parra, confirmed glibly I will not be provided due 
process.15 Meanwhile, the US DOL stopped the California DOL investigation into my cases (which are 
based on state laws) for over nine months, claiming federal preemption.  
 
Both US DOL & US NLRB, prior to any serious investigation, attempted to justify a preferred dismissal 
of my cases by parroting back to me Apple’s baseless pretextual justifications and post-hoc 
rationalizations. It was clear to me the agencies planned to go along with whatever Apple said. Both US 
DOL and US NLRB also appeared to be attempting to interpret their own statutes in a light more 
favorable to Apple Inc, despite current guidance and precedent pointing the opposite direction.  
 
I complained to both agencies about conflicts of interest & apparent corruption related to my cases.  I 
complained about the head of US DOL OSHA having a prior relationship with Apple VP Lisa Jackson. I 
complained about US NLRB Region 32 leadership having a number of self-reported conflicts of 
interests as well as one of the two investigators in that office actively applying for employment at Apple 
Inc (Employee Relations) while the team was supposed to be investigating charges against Apple. After 
much protest, I was able to have my NLRB cases transferred to Region 21. However, the US DOL 
refused to acknowledge my concerns or transfer my cases.  
 
I faced intimidation & tampering by both federal agencies. The US NLRB altered my first affidavit and 
threatened me when I requested to have the investigator’s changes reverted. The Region 32 US NLRB 
investigator also requested I not file specific charges or make specific allegations, justifying his requests 
with a basis of “he prefers current precedent & does not want me to instigate a change in precedent” 
and that another charge would “make his job harder.” 16 
 
The US DOL responded to an email where I raised concerns about the agency’s handling of my cases by 
asking me to join a phone call with two supervisors where they would then intimidate and threaten me, 
and attempt to coerce me to withdraw my charges against Apple. I was told at this meeting on 
September 16 2022 that my US DOL cases would be dismissed arbitrarily in “six weeks.” 17 
 
I also raised concerns in 2021 about the US DOL repeatedly attempting to dump my cases – first dual 
filing with the state, then claiming they did not dual file & they dismissed them, then docketing them but 
providing almost no updates, and upon inquiry, US DOL suggested I “kick out” all three cases which 
would have resulted in the permanent withdrawal of two of my charges without “kick out” provisions. 
Then US DOL had suggested I ask for the investigation to be stopped & take the current results to an 
ALJ to review (which would have stopped discovery and the investigative process for the matter 
permanently).18 
 
 
15 US DOL FOIA #2022-F-13951 
16 Big Tech Politics, “Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I,” https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-
regulatory-capture 
17 US DOL FOIA #2022-F-13951 
18 Big Tech Politics, “Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II,” https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-
regulatory-capture-c08  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 269 of 713
(269 of 713), Page 269 of 713

Justice at Apple: No One is Above the Law 
 
An Open Letter to the US Gov Agencies Overseeing Employment & Labor Law Compliance 
 
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D., B.S., PMP | ashleygjovik.com  
Justice at Apple: justiceatapple.com | Open Letter, Sept 27 2022 | Page 4 of 9 
My cases directly involve actions and records held by the US EPA, however upon request for assistance 
to compel the EPA to handover relevant records (my FOIA requests have taken upwards of over nine 
months for a response), none of your agencies would assist.  
 
I have suffered psychological violence and likely-criminal retaliation by Apple Inc et al (home break-
ins, surveillance, hacking, stalking, threats of violence, etc),19 yet despite many pleas for a referral to the 
US DOJ for assistance, I was consistently denied.  
 
Despite your agencies’ statement last fall that you aim to work together to protect whistleblowers, I was 
openly discouraged from attempting to coordinate investigations across agencies. In addition to denials 
noted above, and refusal to coordinate with each other, the US DOL also told me to not tell them 
anything about an investigation initiated by the US SEC based on my SEC whistleblower complaints, 
despite those complaints being part of the basis of my US DOL SOX whistleblower case. Despite my 
request, I was never given an explanation as to why they would not include that information. 
 
As for the US EEOC, I requested a Right to Sue letter and later decided not to proceed with a lawsuit 
and instead focus on the US NLRB & US DOL cases. However, I would discover very troubling 
information later. The prior EEOC investigatory supervisor over Silicon Valley for quite some time had 
just left the EEOC and joined Apple’s Employee Relations team last winter.20 In fact, he celebrated this 
openly on LinkedIn with Apple Human Resources and Recruiters posting that they were glad he 
“finally” made it to Apple – implying he had been attempting to join Apple for a significant amount of 
time while he was supposedly acting independently in investigating Apple, such as with my EEOC 
charge if I had requested agency investigation.21 
 
Many of my complaints about agency misconduct appear to be already corroborated by prior federal 
agency whistleblowers, such as Dr. Darrell Whitman (a prior US DOL OSHA WPP investigator). 
Whitman characterized the rampant retaliation against whistleblowers by the Whistleblower Protection 
Program by saying, “You either quit your job or keep your mouth shut because if a company doesn’t fire 
you or blacklist you, OSHA will destroy your life.”22 Whitman pointed to OSHA’s “systemic efforts to 
cover-up the retaliation of whistleblowers” for large companies.23  His whistleblowing on his own 
agency led to his termination, then an OIG investigation requested by the Office of Special Counsel.24 25 
 
19 U.S. DOJ FBI: 9/3/2021, 2/4/2022, 2/7/2022, 5/22/2022, 5/29/2022, 5/31/2022, 8/8/2022; Santa Clara Police Department: 
Report 2205310079, Report #0087 Aug 9 2022); Santa Clara District Attorney 5/26/2022 
20 Big Tech Politics, “Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I,” https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-
regulatory-capture  
21 Bryan Hoss, https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanhoss/  ; https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bryanhoss_newjob-apple-
newbeginnings-activity-6860950416490934272-A-ZS/  
22 NBC News, “OSHA Whistleblower Investigator Blows Whistle on Own Agency,” Feb 23 2015, 
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/osha-whistleblower-investigator-blows-whistle-on-own-agency/77171/  
23 WorkWeek, “OSHA Investigator/Lawyer Darrell Whitman, OSC, Culture Of Corruption, GAP & The Democrats,” May 
17 2016, https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2018/10/15/18818221.php  
24 Bloomberg, “He Investigated Dubious Firings for U.S. Then He Was Fired,” July 21 2017, 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-21/he-investigated-suspicious-firings-for-u-s-then-he-was-fired  
25 US DOL OIG, 2020, “REGION IX WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM COMPLAINTS WERE NOT 
COMPLETE OR TIMELY,” https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2021/02-21-001-10-105.pdf  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 270 of 713
(270 of 713), Page 270 of 713

Justice at Apple: No One is Above the Law 
 
An Open Letter to the US Gov Agencies Overseeing Employment & Labor Law Compliance 
 
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D., B.S., PMP | ashleygjovik.com  
Justice at Apple: justiceatapple.com | Open Letter, Sept 27 2022 | Page 5 of 9 
 
Louis Clark, co-founder of the Government Accountability Project, has also spoken out about “systemic 
corruption and obstruction of justice by top officials of OSHA and the US Department of Labor who 
were engaged in a criminal cover-up to collude with corporations against OSHA health and safety 
whistleblowers.”26 
 
Apple, Generally 
 
Apple Inc the company is nearly fifty years old, founded in 1976. The corporation has over 150,000 
employees across the world. Despite this, there are remarkably few public United States-based lawsuits 
and charges against Apple for violating employment and labor laws. In fact, perhaps the most notable 
employment-related lawsuit was not even initiated under employment laws, but instead the “anti-
poaching conspiracy” lawsuit was initiated by the US DOJ as an antitrust matter.27  
 
Looking at the NLRB case files before the summer of 2021, there are only six NLRB charges listed 
against Apple. Of these six, Apple’s lawyers (Littler Mendelson & Jackson Lewis) facilitated 
settlements and charge withdrawals of two.28 Two more charges were withdrawn in less than one month 
after filing, and while no settlement was noted, one must wonder what Littler Mendelson (attorneys for 
both of those charges) or Apple may have done to cause such a swift withdrawal.29 The final two 
charges were filed in 2016 and 2020 with Littler Mendelson representing Apple on both. The NLRB 
found against the Apple employees.  
 
The 2016 case alleged Apple disciplined an employee for protected activity – but the decision claimed 
no evidence of knowledge by Apple about protected activities and no linkage establishing retaliation.30 
The 2016 also alleged discriminatory hiring based on retaliation for protected activities, but was tossed 
because the other individual supposedly “refused to cooperate with the investigation.” The claimant also 
complained Apple’s “Social Media” policy and “Employee’s Responsibility” work rules were violations 
of the Act, but NLRB found that the rules were satisfactory.   
 
The 2020 NLRB case alleged a termination in retaliation for protected activities and also unlawful 
employee policies.31 The region dismissed the case, but the employee appealed to the Office of Appeals 
who again found in favor of Apple. The Office of Appeals found that an Apple employee sharing 
 
26 Labor Video, “Whistleblower Protection Program & Fired WPP OSHA Investigator Darrell Whitman With GAP,” Mar 17 
2016, https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2016/03/17/18784138.php 
27 US DOJ, “Justice Department Requires Six High Tech Companies to Stop Entering into Anticompetitive Employee 
Solicitation Agreements,”  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-six-high-tech-companies-stop-
entering-anticompetitive-employee ; Bloomberg Businessweek, “Apple, Google, and the Hubris of Silicon Valley's Hiring 
Conspiracy,” May 2 2014, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-01/apple-google-and-the-hubris-of-silicon-
valleys-hiring-conspiracy  
28 Florida, Region 12, Nov 2013, https://www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CA-116964; California, Region 32, 2018, 
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-222022  
29 New York Region 3, May 2019, https://www.nlrb.gov/case/03-CA-240530; Colorado, Region 27, April 2021, 
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/27-CA-276075 
30 Indiana, Region 25, Jan 2016, https://www.nlrb.gov/case/25-CA-168399  
31 Minnesota, Region 18, Oct 2020, https://www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-267376 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 271 of 713
(271 of 713), Page 271 of 713

Justice at Apple: No One is Above the Law 
 
An Open Letter to the US Gov Agencies Overseeing Employment & Labor Law Compliance 
 
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D., B.S., PMP | ashleygjovik.com  
Justice at Apple: justiceatapple.com | Open Letter, Sept 27 2022 | Page 6 of 9 
information with other employees was not “concerted,” and that an Apple employee sharing information 
related to work conditions with other employees can be lawfully disciplined if Apple declares the 
information the employee shared was somehow “confidential.”  
 
With only six NLRB charges over thirty years, and one of the biggest companies in the world - one must 
wonder how many employees attempted to file charges and were talked out of doing so, like Region 32 
attempted to do with me several times. 
 
As for US EEOC claims, it appears a significant number of charges have been filed but there is no 
history of EEOC ever pursuing a case against Apple. Instead, there are a number of state and federal 
employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuits against Apple (who generally has been represented 
by high-power, anti-labor firms including Littler Mendelson, Lewis Jackson, Baker McKenzie, and 
Orrick). Most of these cases ended in dismissal following much litigious abuse by Apple against their 
prior employees.  
 
Of the few cases that found a decision against Apple on the merits, Apple dragged the cases out for 
years. (see, Frlekin v. Apple, Inc. 2014-2022).32 33 (see, Felczer v Apple Inc, 2012-2021).34 35 
 
Some cases included seemingly unfair procedural decisions, such as accepting Apple’s request to change 
venue for a case by a recent college graduate who was working in retail, moving the case to a state 
where the ex-employee seemed unlikely to be able to continue the lawsuit.36 In another case, the judge 
ruled to dismiss the entire discrimination case because the ex-employee filed his case one day late past 
the EEOC statute of limitations, even though the government sent his letter to the wrong address (see, 
Chaffin v Apple Inc). 37 
 
In other cases, Apple made egregious statements such as claiming they can lawfully fire whistleblowers 
in retaliation for reporting financial crimes. (see, Banko v. Apple Inc).38  Meanwhile, Apple’s 
discrimination cases have been dismissed due to lack of formal EEOC filings, with no mercy for Apple 
never informing their employees about the EEOC or NLRB complaint process (see, Underwood v Apple 
Inc).39 
 
 
32 Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. C 13-03451 WHA (N.D. Cal. May. 30, 2014) through Frlekin v. Apple Inc., C 13-03451 WHA 
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2021)). 
33 Fortune, “Apple didn’t want to pay hourly workers for the time spent searching their bags. It has now settled a $30.5 
million lawsuit,” 2022, https://fortune.com/2022/08/18/apple-employee-bag-check-lawsuit-settles-california-court/  
34 Felczer v. Apple, Inc., 63 Cal.App.5th 406, 277 Cal. Rptr. 3d 727 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). 
35 TechCrunch, “Apple Faces Class-Action Lawsuit In California Over Alleged Labor Violations Affecting 20K Employees,” 
2014, https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/22/apple-faces-class-action-suit-affecting-20000-employees-over-pay-violations/; 
CNN, “Apple sued by employees over labor issues,” https://money.cnn.com/2014/07/23/technology/apple-labor/index.html  
36 Sutton v. Apple Inc., No. 10-CV-08176, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67395 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2011) 
37 Chaffin v. Apple, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-00155-SB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127891 (D. Or. June 21, 2019); Adopted by, 
Dismissed by Chaffin v. Apple, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127417 (D. Or., July 26, 2019) 
38 Banko v. Apple Inc., 20 F. Supp. 3d 749 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2013), Banko v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-02977 RS (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 
2013) 
39 Underwood v. Apple Inc., No. CV 120-136, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10615 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 20, 2022) 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 272 of 713
(272 of 713), Page 272 of 713

Justice at Apple: No One is Above the Law 
 
An Open Letter to the US Gov Agencies Overseeing Employment & Labor Law Compliance 
 
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D., B.S., PMP | ashleygjovik.com  
Justice at Apple: justiceatapple.com | Open Letter, Sept 27 2022 | Page 7 of 9 
In an especially egregious case, a product safety lawyer sued Apple for wrongful termination and found 
herself subjected to a court ordered psychological evaluation at Apple’s request (and she was fined 
$5,000 for protesting the evaluation). Apple also requested her employment records from a prior 
employer including any complaints she had ever made to them (see, Levitan v Apple Inc). 40 This Apple 
employee had complained that “male coworkers were regularly given preferential treatment and that 
she was fired after complaining about an environment of ‘fear and intimidation.’” 41 This prior attorney 
also complained Apple made her engage in acts "of moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption" that 
could potentially affect her standing with the California Bar.42 She lost. 
 
In another painful case, an employee sued Apple for discrimination and also initiated a class action 
through California’s Private Attorney General’s Act for pay discrimination, which somehow ended with 
her not only losing, but the employee having to pay Apple’s legal fees (see Schulze v Apple Inc).43 
 
Today, a number of open employment discrimination & labor violation lawsuits sit open against 
Apple.44 In just the last few months, Apple has settled a number more.45  
 
Meanwhile, all of these cases are against the same company with a long, public history of child labor,46 
“sweatshop” working conditions,47 hexane poisoning,48 mishandling of toxic waste,49 worker 
 
40 Levitan v. Apple Inc., 2017 Cal. Super. LEXIS 57554; Levitan v. Apple Inc., 2018 Cal. Super. LEXIS 3115 
41 FindLaw, “Jane Don't: Ex-Apple In-House Attorney Can't Sue Company Under Pseudonym,” 2016, 
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/in-house/jane-dont-ex-apple-in-house-attorney-cant-sue-company-under-pseudonym/  
42 Id.  
43 Schulze v. Apple, Inc., 20CV369611, Santa Clara County Superior Court 
44 Melissa Pocek vs Apple, Inc., 22CV395429, Santa Clara County Superior Court; Catherine Vartuli v Apple, 21CV384676, 
Santa Clara County Superior Court; John Chovanec vs Apple, Inc., 22CV396439, Santa Clara County Superior Court; Joseph 
Fanta vs Apple, Inc. et al, 22CV400298, Santa Clara County Superior Court; Bernadette Alexander v Apple, 21CV377065, 
Santa Clara County Superior Court 
45 Ricardo Castro vs Apple, Inc., 20CV367610, Santa Clara County Superior Court; Tomas Casillas vs Apple, Inc., 
20CV366784, Santa Clara County Superior Court; Jose Carboney vs Apple, Inc et al, 21CV375896, Santa Clara County 
Superior Court; Sharon Glass vs Apple Inc., 21CV375923, Santa Clara County Superior Court; Trieu Pham vs Apple, 
19CV361037, Santa Clara County Superior Court; Sarah Magee vs Apple Inc. et al, 19CV357764, Santa Clara County 
Superior Court; Cativo v. Apple Inc, ATMHS, LLC, et al., 21CV378464,  Santa Clara County Superior Court. 
46 Guardian, “Child labour uncovered in Apple's supply chain: Internal audit reveals 106 children employed at 11 factories 
making Apple products in past year,” 2013 , https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-
supply; BBC, “Apple, Samsung and Sony face child labour claims,” 2016, https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35311456; 
AP, “Lawsuit: Apple, Microsoft profit from child cobalt miners,” 2019, https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-
africa-lawsuits-politics-a950d585f885f670aee416db8973e3f3 
47 Washington Post, “Sweatshop Conditions at IPod Factory Reported,” 2006, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501898.html  
48 ICRT, “Harsh Reality Behind Apple Scandal,” https://icrt.co/harsh-reality-behind-apple-scandal/; Wired, “Workers Plan to 
Sue iPhone Contractor Over Poisoning,” 2010 https://www.wired.com/2010/05/wintek-employees-sue/  
49 California DTSC, “Apple Agrees to Pay $450,000 to Settle Hazardous Waste Violations,” 2016, 
https://dtsc.ca.gov/2016/12/06/apple-agrees-to-pay-450000-to-settle-hazardous-waste-violations/  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 273 of 713
(273 of 713), Page 273 of 713

Justice at Apple: No One is Above the Law 
 
An Open Letter to the US Gov Agencies Overseeing Employment & Labor Law Compliance 
 
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D., B.S., PMP | ashleygjovik.com  
Justice at Apple: justiceatapple.com | Open Letter, Sept 27 2022 | Page 8 of 9 
“interrogations” leading to suicide,50 suicides at the corporate headquarters,51 “no-suicide vows,”52 
“suicide nets,”53 and lobbying for forced labor.54 
 
This is the same company frequently referred to by the U.S. government (including federal judges and 
federal agencies) as having a “reckless disregard” & “blatant and aggressive disregard for the law.”55 
This is the same company who, over only the last few years, had their chief compliance officer indicted 
for bribing a local sheriff & had their head of corporate legal compliance found to have committed 
securities fraud and who is facing decades in federal prison.56 
 
When challenging your openly hostile employer in court can result in so much lawfare and dismal 
chances of success, one would hope government agencies could act as mediators and chaperones as they 
follow their statutory duties to protect employees from unlawful discrimination and retaliation.  
 
Conclusion 
 
There is currently a large number of open US NLRB charges against Apple, exponentially more than 
Apple has ever had before. My US DOL cases appear to be the first Whistleblower Protection Program 
cases ever brought against Apple Inc. A number of U.S. Apple retail stores and other groups of 
employees have begun to unionize, already filing Unfair Labor Practice complaints about union-busting 
and other misconduct by Apple.57 Apple workers even started a petition pleading for Apple to cease its 
retaliation & union-busting campaign.58 
 
It is time for Apple to have to face justice for misconduct, just like smaller companies do. While not 
every case will be found to have merit, all employees are owed their due process rights and a fair 
investigation. It does not appear they are receiving that today, & I know I have not. Thus, it is no wonder 
Apple acts like it will never be held accountable for its actions. That must stop – today. 
 
Apple is a huge multi-national corporation based in the United States with a long history of labor and 
human rights violations in their international supply chain and operations. If Apple is not held 
 
50 Gizmodo, “Report: iPhone Leak Interrogations Drive Foxconn Employee to Suicide,” 2009, https://gizmodo.com/report-
iphone-leak-interrogations-drive-foxconn-employ-5319275  
51 CNN, “Apple employee found dead at HQ shot himself,” 2016, https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/technology/apple-
employee-death-gun-suicide/index.html 
52 NBC News, “Chinese factory asks for 'no suicide' vow,” 2010, nbcnews.com/id/wbna37354853 
53 WIRED, “Foxconn Rallies Workers, Leaves Suicide Nets in Place,” 2010, https://www.wired.com/2010/08/foxconn-
rallies-workers-installs-suicide-nets/  
54 Washington Post, “Apple is lobbying against a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China,” 2020, 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-uighur/ 
55 Big Tech Politics, “A Blatant and Aggressive Disregard for the Law,” 2022, https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/a-blatant-
and-aggressive-disregard  
56 Id.  
57 WIRED, “The Fallout From Apple’s Bizarre, Dogged Union-Busting Campaign,” July 28 2022, 
https://www.wired.com/story/apples-union-busting-campaign-caused-a-bad-fallout/ 
58 Change.org, “Apple, Abide By Your Own Code. Respect Your Employee’s Rights.,” https://www.change.org/p/apple-abide-
by-your-own-code-respect-your-employee-s-rights 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 274 of 713
(274 of 713), Page 274 of 713

Justice at Apple: No One is Above the Law 
 
An Open Letter to the US Gov Agencies Overseeing Employment & Labor Law Compliance 
 
 
Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D., B.S., PMP | ashleygjovik.com  
Justice at Apple: justiceatapple.com | Open Letter, Sept 27 2022 | Page 9 of 9 
accountable in the country the corporation is headquartered in, what hope do other countries have in 
enforcing international labor standards against Apple abroad?  
 
The United States must set expectations for Apple here & abroad – that whether it is California labor 
laws, United States labor and anti-discrimination statutes, foreign national labor laws, or international 
standards such as from the International Labor Organization – whether it is employees, contractors, or 
vendors – Apple should be expected to made a good faith effort to follow the law, & governments 
should be able to investigate allegations of misconduct with independence and integrity.   
 
In announcing your new joint anti-retaliation initiative last year, Solicitor Nanda said, “The enforcement 
of labor laws only works when workers who speak out for themselves and their fellow workers and not 
fear or suffer from retaliation.” Here, despite fear of even more retaliation, I continue to speak out for 
myself and for my coworkers. I speak out in hope that my doing so can prevent future retaliation against 
my coworkers by their employer, and by the federal government agencies supposedly chartered to 
protect us.   
 
Please investigate the past, present, and future handling of employee charges against Apple. Evaluate 
conflicts of interest, revolving doors, procedural misconduct, failure to comply with internal practices, 
and other red flags for corruption.  
 
Please review my cases for agency misconduct. Please respond to my complaints, and my requests for 
OIG review & intervention.  
 
Please ensure all Apple employees are given our “day in court,” as the US Constitution & international 
law demands.  
 
Thank You. 
-Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D 
September 27, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Note: This letter will be posted on justiceatapple.com and open for comments and sign-ons from past 
and current Apple employees, and others who support whistleblower protection. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 275 of 713
(275 of 713), Page 275 of 713

13 
EXHIBIT K: THIRD PARTY WITNESS STATEMENT 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 276 of 713
(276 of 713), Page 276 of 713

1 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
 
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 
 
ASHLEY GJOVIK,  
an individual, 
Plaintiff/Appellant, 
v. 
APPLE INC,  
a corporation, 
Defendant/Appellee. 
Case No. 25-2028 
Declaration of Thomas le Bonniec  
 
 
 
DECLARATION OF THOMAS LE BONNIEC  
IN SUPPORT OF ASHLEY GJOVIK’S REQUEST FOR APPEAL  
AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 
 
 
Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1746, I, Thomas Le Bonniec, declare as follows: 
1. 
My name is Thomas Le Bonniec. I make this declaration of my own 
personal knowledge, and if called to testify in Court on these matters, I could do so 
competently under oath to such facts. I make this declaration in support of 
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Dismiss her Third Amended 
Complaint. 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 277 of 713
(277 of 713), Page 277 of 713

2 
 
2. 
I contacted Plaintiff, Ashley Gjovik, in November of 2022. I wanted 
to speak with her about [stuff]. Plaintiff responded in November 2022, and since 
then, she and I have emailed and also met several times for video conversations. 
We often discuss our concerns about consumer privacy. I shared with Plaintiff 
what I saw working at an Apple subcontractor, and Plaintiff shared with me her 
experience with Apple’s “Gobbler” application and other data collection practices 
performed Apple that bothered her. We have often spoke about how important the 
right to privacy is to us, and complained about statements made by Apple about 
privacy which we felt were deceptive based on our own firsthand experiences with 
the company. Plaintiff and I have also discussed how fearful we both were and are 
to speak out against Apple. 
3. 
During my conversations with Plaintiff, she shared with me some of 
the negative experiences that have occurred to her after she reported Apple to the 
US and California governments. The statements Plaintiff made to me contained 
specific allegations and were consistent with her statements under her RICO Act, 
Bane Act, Ralph Act, and IIED claims in her Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff 
has also expressed to me her fear and reluctance to continue to act as a witness 
against Apple due to the negative events she has experienced. 
4. 
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint alleged that, in violation of the 
U.S. RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, that Apple was 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 278 of 713
(278 of 713), Page 278 of 713

3 
 
intentionally creating a “knowingly false reputation of strong regulatory 
compliance” and is engaging on “intimidation” of potential “witnesses.” [docket 
#47]  
5. 
Apple disputes this point in its Motion to Dismiss [docket #48, page 
14, lines 5-8] Apple wrote that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint did 
adequately state “what role Apple or any other entity played in concocting the 
alleged scheme or ensuring its and success.” docket #48, page 18, lines 1-9]. 
Apple also argued that Plaintiff “does not identify any other ‘witness’.” [docket 
#48, page 19, lines 3-9]. 
6. 
I offer this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s claims. I was a witness 
to, what I feel was, violations of multiple laws by Apple – and also a witness to, 
what I feel, was a scheme by Apple to conceal the acts and intimidate witnesses 
from reporting Apple’s activities. What I witnessed occurred in Cork, Ireland 
during 2019 while I worked for Global Technical Services Ltd. (“GlobeTech”), a 
subcontractor of Defendant Apple Inc.  
7. 
On May 8th, 2019, I signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement and an 
employment agreement with GlobeTech. [Exhibit A]. I worked in the position of 
“Data Analyst” at Globetech. My job consisted of listening to audio files recorded 
by Apple’s products and to verify and correct the written transcription from “Siri,” 
Apple’s vocal assistant.  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 279 of 713
(279 of 713), Page 279 of 713

4 
 
8. 
I witnessed thousands of audio recordings of the public, captured by 
Apple’s devices all over the world, and stored on service where we could listen to 
the actual audio recordings. I witnessed recordings in situations like a person 
talking about their political opinion, kids talking to their iPad, and others dictating 
private messages about their health state. I also heard a man playing out loud his 
sexual fantasies with young children. 
9. 
The employee guidelines provided to me by GlobeTech stated: “Be 
aware that this project will involve private and personal user data. Vulgar 
language, violent themes, pornographic or criminal subjects may show up. If this is 
too disturbing, please speak to your manager.” [attached as Exhibit C is a true and 
correct image of the message noted which I captured myself while still employed 
at GlobeTech] 
10. 
This activity was conducted on Apple’s hardware (MacBooks), 
through Apple’s Virtual Private Network, and on Apple’s platform 
(“CrowdCollect”). [attached as Exhibits D and E are true and correct images of the 
“CrowdCollect” tool, which I captured myself while still employed at GlobeTech]. 
I was also provided a @apple.com Apple corporate email address.  
11. 
While I worked at GlobeTech analyzing the recordings, in addition to 
the NDA I signed, I also witnessed managers telling me and other workers that 
GlobeTech expected us to remain silent and not speak with each other during our 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 280 of 713
(280 of 713), Page 280 of 713

5 
 
shift. I also witnessed a manager telling me and others to not tell anyone about our 
work, even our family or friends, and they said, especially journalists. I desperately 
wanted to talk to my coworkers about the ethics of what we were doing, but due to 
these rules, I felt it was very difficult to do so. 
12. 
I felt that that Apple’s recordings of these private conversations was 
unethical, so I left GlobeTech without prior notice. I did not want to participate in 
what I felt could be unlawful activity. I received after a few days a notice of 
termination of employment due to my absence. 
13. 
In 2019, I engaged with European media outlets to share my 
experience. In 2020, after resigning, I filed several complaints with the European 
Data Protection Authorities and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange 
Commission attesting to what I saw and experienced in my position at GlobeTech. 
14. 
One specific issue I raised to the US SEC was how Apple and 
GlobeTech asked GlobeTech workers to sign non-disclosure agreements which I 
felt were intimidating and too restrictive. I felt that the wording of the NDA 
implied I could not communicate with law enforcement agencies about what I 
witnessed related to Apple’s audio recordings without a risk of retaliation, 
including being sued by Apple. [See Exhibit A, page 4, section “5.6 Remedies”]. 
15. 
I have publicly stated that these NDAs have a chilling effect and I 
believe they are intended to intimidate workers who are witnesses of potentially 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 281 of 713
(281 of 713), Page 281 of 713

6 
 
unlawful conduct by Apple, and which is facilitated by Apple’s external business 
partners, like GlobeTech. [attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a 
Bloomberg article I was interviewed for and quoted it] 
16. 
Despite my fear of retaliation for reporting what I saw, which I did 
and do have, I felt compelled to report, as I felt it was an ethical obligation, despite 
the EU authorities’ absence of reaction. I was also motivated to speak out after 
reading about other Apple whistleblowers who also came forward to speak about 
these Siri recordings a few days before I did. I read about these whistleblowers in 
articles including in The Guardian on July 26th, 2019 [attached as Exhibit F is a 
true and correct image of the article noted] and El Pais on July 26th, 2019 
[attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct image of the article noted]. I was and 
am concerned that I witnessed Apple’s audio recording practices still occurring in 
2019-2020, even after those other whistleblowers came forward in 2019 before me. 
17. 
On February 14th , 2025 on the basis of my testimony and the evidence 
I provided, a complaint was filed by the Human Rights League in France for these 
privacy violations (exhibit H). 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 282 of 713
(282 of 713), Page 282 of 713

7 
 
18. 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 
of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Executed this 12TH day of May 2025 
 
in Paris, France. 
______________________________ 
Thomas LE BONNIEC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 283 of 713
(283 of 713), Page 283 of 713

9 
 
EXHIBIT A: GLOBETECH NDA 
 
Exhibit A 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 284 of 713
(284 of 713), Page 284 of 713

10 
 
 
Exhibit A 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 285 of 713
(285 of 713), Page 285 of 713

11 
 
 
Exhibit A 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 286 of 713
(286 of 713), Page 286 of 713

12 
 
 
Exhibit A 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 287 of 713
(287 of 713), Page 287 of 713

13 
 
 
Exhibit A 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 288 of 713
(288 of 713), Page 288 of 713

14 
 
EXHIBIT B: 2023 BLOOMBERG INTERVIEW 
 
 
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-18/tech-firms-try-to-muzzle-workers-with-
ndas-sec-tipsters-say 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 289 of 713
(289 of 713), Page 289 of 713

15 
 
EXHIBIT C: SCREENSHOT OF SIRI GRADING PER COUNTRY 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT D: SCREENSHOT OF SIRI GRADING PER COUNTRY 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 290 of 713
(290 of 713), Page 290 of 713

16 
 
EXHIBIT E: SCREENSHOT OF SIRI RECORDING ON 
CROWDCOLLECT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 291 of 713
(291 of 713), Page 291 of 713

17 
 
EXHIBIT F: 2019 THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE 
 
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-
confidential-details-on-siri-recordings 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 292 of 713
(292 of 713), Page 292 of 713

18 
 
EXHIBIT G: 2019 EL PAIS ARTICLE 
 
 
https://elpais.com/tecnologia/2019/07/23/actualidad/1563902000_568286.html 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 293 of 713
(293 of 713), Page 293 of 713

19 
 
EXHIBIT H : 2025 RADIO FRANCE ARTICLE 
 
 
https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/l-info-de-france-inter/l-info-de-france-
inter-3297121 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 294 of 713
(294 of 713), Page 294 of 713

14 
EXHIBIT L: FIELD NOTES ON REGULATORY CAPTURE, 
PART I 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 295 of 713
(295 of 713), Page 295 of 713

Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
Part I: Welcome to my personal hellscape of conflicts of interest, obstruction, &
arbitrary denials of due process
MAY 22, 2022
Share
The Good Place, Copyright NBCUniversal Media, LLC
In the U.S., regulatory agencies (like the EPA, NLRB, or SEC) can become
dominated by the industries they are charged with regulating. Economists
describe this as “regulatory capture.” Sometimes capture occurs through a
“revolving door” where employees rotate between the private and public sector,
and industries unlawfully promise higher paying jobs if the agency employees
make regulatory decisions in favor of the business. The influence of heavy
lobbying can also coerce agencies. When an agency is “captured,” rather than
acting in the public interest, an agency instead acts in ways that benefit the
industry it’s supposed to be regulating.
As many of you already know, my Apple Inc office in Sunnyvale, California sat
atop a two-mile lake of poison. The lake was a cocktail of hellish chemicals, but
predominantly the incredibly toxic TCE. There was so much of it, and so close to
the surface, the chemicals had been forcing themselves up into the buildings in
the area as they broke down and vaporized, which in turn led to the humans in
those buildings breathing it in & becoming ill. My office was so toxic it was
declared a federal Superfund site (the TRW Microwave site, regulated under the
CERCLA statute and administered by the U.S. EPA). In 2013, The Atlantic literally
called my office a “paved-over environmental disaster zone.” By that point my
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK
1
Overview
Agency Capture
The Toxic Dump
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
1/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 296 of 713
(296 of 713), Page 296 of 713

office was part of the Triple Site, with three large, toxic groundwater plumes
merging into a megaplume.
I became a whistleblower after Apple unexpectedly emailed my team saying they
wanted to test for “vapor intrusion” in the office, while intentionally avoiding
explaining what that term meant or notifying us we were on a Superfund site. (I
would later be informed by Apple that I had no “Right to Know”). I raised
concerns about the safety of the plan of record for my office and was quickly and
severely retaliated upon. I began complaining about corruption & fraud, and was
swiftly suspended, and then fired by a interrogator within Apple’s secret police
team. This was followed by months and months of harassment, threats,
intimidation, and psychological violence (a phrase I first heard from another
Apple whistleblower, describing the brutality he suffered from Apple).
Because Apple broke so many laws, I wanted to pursue as many cases as I could
for the best chance at winning against this notoriously vindictive and legally
abusive company. I was afraid to deal with Apple in court, after hearing many
stories about Apple apparently intentionally making the entire experience as
miserable as humanly possible, so I decided to pursue the regulatory route.
I currently have open charges with the US NLRB, multiple cases with the
California Department of Labor, and I have three open cases with the U.S.
Department of Labor for whistleblower retaliation under the EPA/CERCLA,
SEC/SOX, and DOL/OSHA. My SOX case is based on my complaints about conflict
of interest and corruption.
While Apple was busy flogging me for reporting their safety crimes, I began
asking if they were abusing me so severely because the previous CEO of the
corporation who created that lake of TCE under my office was now a current
member of Apple’s Board of Directors, &/or if because the previous head of the
U.S. EPA now reports to Tim Cook. Apple didn’t like that at all.
In the United States, we often assume large corporations have influence over the
government agencies and officials who are supposed to oversee their financial
dealings. We may talk broadly about the plutocracy or corruption. We may joke
about how megacorps can get away with murder. [Side note, see Astroworld
reference below]
The tone of the conversation changes suddenly and dramatically when it shifts
from general observation to personal experience. It is now a human being who
lost money, reputation, and opportunity.
So, let’s say you’re a worker and the megacorp you worked for did something
terrible to you. You decide you don’t want to sue them yourself, instead you want
the government to represent you and mediate the situation. You, like I did, might
The Agencies & Adjudication
Captured
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
2/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 297 of 713
(297 of 713), Page 297 of 713

expect the government will protect you and help ensure the megacorp has to at
least play by the rules.
You look to the government agency as an institution of democracy. You think,
surely when it comes to individual employee/employer disputes, the government
will look out for employee rights.
I’ve been wanting to write a piece on this for a while. I knew I need to, because
I’ve seen so much corruption and so far all the journalists I’ve talked to about it
end up having any potential articles about it killed by them, their editors, or the
execs. [Side note: Apple’s influence/tyranny over the press is another topic
deserving its own treatise.]
A couple of weeks ago I saw something on LinkedIn that is now burned into my
mind and forced me to prioritize taking the time to document all of this. I
discovered the profile of a man named Bryan Hoss.
Hoss’ “headline” on LinkedIn was “Employee Relations @ Apple | Former EEOC
Supervisory Investigator.”
I had to look again and confirm I wasn’t mistaken. There it was, clear as day. Ok, I
thought, well maybe he worked at EEOC a long time ago. I scrolled down. Nope.
He joined Apple as a “Corporate Employee Relations Business Partner” in
November 2021. Directly before that he was an US EEOC “Supervisory
Investigator” for three years, and before that a “Senior Investigator” and
“Investigator” for another four years, even serving on committees on behalf of the
EEOC. Hoss’ most recent title was “Intake Supervisor for the San Francisco
District Office,” which would have included the San Jose office and local Apple
cases. An EEOC press release in 2019 noted Hoss had personally investigated a
case, so he was actively investigating cases as well.
I had filed a charge with the US EEOC against Apple in August 2021, but at that
point I was planning to sue Apple in court. Before you can sue under EEOC
governed statutes, you need a “right to sue” letter from the EEOC. I submitted my
charge, completed the interview, and received my letter. However, I later decided
that based on previous horror stories, I wanted to be no where near Apple in a
court room. So, I dropped the employment discrimination case & simply tweet
about the inappropriate, discriminatory, illegal, & abusive conduct towards me
instead. It’s also cited in my other complaints as well, since Apple was
supposedly “investigating” these complaints when they fired me. Spoiler alert,
instead of investigating my complaints, Apple was investigating me.
As of November 2021, Hoss now works on the same Apple employee relations
team that retaliated against me to the point of violating federal corruption
statues (SOX/Enron).
Hoss likely already applied for a position with Apple when he would have triaged
and supervised my EEOC complaint against the very company he was seeking a
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Part I
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
3/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 298 of 713
(298 of 713), Page 298 of 713

employment at. In the words of John Oliver, cool.
We’ll come back to Hoss in a moment.
I filed my first NLRB charge against Apple on August 26 2021. I received a letter
confirming my case and within a few days an NLRB investigator reached out. He
took my first affidavit on September 10 — the day after Apple fired me. At the
beginning, I didn’t know much about the NLRB or NLRA. However my
investigator was frequently saying things that did not sit well with me.
For example, my NLRB investigator refused to allow me to provide any evidence
or witnesses in my case. He told me previous Big Tech cases had been ruined
when employees provided evidence and the company then claimed that
evidence was confidential. So, he told me, only Apple gets to provide evidence.
I’m was in law school. I knew this was an insane thing for him to say. I cannot
explain why I didn’t immediately escalate.
The investigator also tampered with my testimony as a witness. I provided my
oral testimony and he was documenting it in an affidavit for me to sign. During
this process, Apple hired the Trump University lawyers to send me harassing
emails claiming I violated my confidentiality agreement. They pointed to my
protests of having my ear canals scanned, and my complaints about their face
Gobbler app that hijacked my phone to record secret videos and photos of me
constantly. [Side note: Travis Scott just hired that same firm, O’Melveny & Myers,
to defend him related to the Astroworld mass causality event, which was
sponsored and live streamed by Apple].
I called my investigator after I received the ear canal letter, complaining of even
more harassment from Apple. Instead, my investigator quietly added a section
into my affidavit, positioned as if I testified to him before I received the emails
from Apple. He wrote that I said the only reason I can think Apple might justify
firing me other than my protected activity was the ears & Gobbler stuff. He made
no mention of Apple’s email about it.
I protested & asked him to remove his additions as they were irrelevant unless he
also added the context of Apple’s post-termination emails. I said if you keep that
new section, we should add a section describing how they them emailed me
about this and how I do not think what I did was wrong. He refused.
My investigator told me Apple will “use it against me” if I edit the document now.
He told me to only make edits if anything was factually incorrect. After receiving
that email from Apple, I did suspect Apple would use those things as their bogus
justification, so I decided to stop fighting him. His addition was misleading, but
not “factually incorrect.” Exploiting my vulnerability, he convinced me it would
be worse for me to fight him. Out of fear, I signed the affidavit. This may have
actually been been a federal crime: intimidating a witness to alter testimony.
The U.S. National Labor Review Board
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
4/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 299 of 713
(299 of 713), Page 299 of 713

I learned later that there was nothing stopping him from editing the affidavit
based on my concerns and that it was extremely unlikely that Apple could ever
access the drafts. He lied to me.
Looking back, the only rationalization I can find as to why I went along with the
investigator for so long, is the concept of “institutional betrayal,” which I will
discuss more in the conclusion. Briefly, it would cause me moral injury to admit
to myself an institution chartered to protect my rights, could be weaponized to
simply cause me more harm. To reckon with that, you have to surrender part of
your belief in democracy. So, I proceeded in denial through most of 2021.
My investigator had quirks too. He said he personally did not believe in
affirmative action & claimed the Regional Director did not either. He told me he
was moving to the Southern US because he was “tired of all the ‘woke’ shit’” in
the San Francisco Bay Area. He told me he had a Nixon bumper sticker on his
car. I asked him how, there was no way anyone was producing Nixon bumper
stickers in 2021. He said he made himself.
In September, after re-reviewing Apple’s employee policies while taking Labor
Law, I told the investigator that I believed most of Apple’s employee handbook
appeared to be unlawful. I told him I wanted to add it to my charges. He told me,
without seeing the policies, that Apple’s policies are legal under “Boeing.”
He told me not to file charges, but I did anyways. After which, I received a very
annoyed phone call from him for “catching him off guard” because “he didn’t’
know I was filing the charges.” He also forced me to resubmit my charges
without my written complaints attached, which had been drafted in partnership
with an expert labor activist, detailing exactly why Apple’s policies were illegal.
Once again, he did not want me to submit evidence, or written complaints, or to
provide witnesses.
Things completely swerved out of control this January. I had been complaining
for sometime now about ongoing federal witness intimidation & retaliation by
Apple (including threats of violence). I asked how I can report Apple to the US
DOJ. He told me: he didn’t know, didn’t think there was a way, and to drop it.
I later learned these agencies have direct connections to the Department of
Justice to refer these types of issues and to request assistance.
Finally, in early January, I decided to file the charges against Apple for the
harassment, despite his protest. I filed them to NLRB, Dept of Labor, and Dept of
Justice.
I expected another annoyed call from my NLRB investigator about the NLRB
charge, like with my policy charges, and indeed, he protested the charge. He
pointed to some of the parties and insisted I don’t name them, because he said “it
will make his job harder.”
This is when I woke up.
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
5/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 300 of 713
(300 of 713), Page 300 of 713

I protested. I told him I’d do it anyway. We argued for some time. He and Region
32 then apparently did unbelievable things to me, which I’m currently prevented
from telling anyone about (other than via court/agency testimony), due to an
illegal gag order which has deprived me of both my free speech and due process
rights. It’s been devastating.
I escalated to the NLRB OIG in January about my investigator’s behavior, but also
about an abundance of conflicts of interest in the Region 32 office. The director
had to recuse herself from my case, as well as the supervisor reporting to her,
both due to conflicts of interest with Apple. Further, the other investigator in the
region was actively applying to join Apple’s employee relations team. So, she
had to recuse herself from investigating my newest charge. My investigator had
told me, I must keep this all secret; it’s confidential.
Now the NLRB sounded as corrupt as Apple.
I emailed the NLRB Inspector General’s office and told them all of this & pled for
help. Moments later I received a phone call from the Nixon Bumper Sticker
investigator again and he urged me to drop/modify my harassment charge
(which would reduce Apple’s liability). I told him: no, absolutely not.
Then, only after I refused his requests, he informed me that he believes my case
doesn’t have merit. He says that Apple’s claims about ear canals and Face
Gobblers, as wild as they may be, are valid because I’m an adult, and I consented
to a contract, and then broke that contract (see: Lochner v NY).
I remember literally yelling something like:
“Am I a fucking 1920s New York baker!? “
As for my policy charges, he told me that he likes the pro-business Boeing
precedent and he thinks all of Apple’s policies should be upheld. He tells me that
because he begrudgingly has to send my charges to Division of Advice in
Washington DC because “I made the cases so high profile” that he thinks General
Counsel won’t agree with him and will in fact find merit on all my charges under
Biden administration labor policies. He complains more.
I get off the phone and email the Inspector General again to share this as well. I
email the investigator informing him I reported him to the OIG and request all
further contact be written. He resigns from or is removed from my case the next
day.
I then demanded an investigation by the NLRB OIG and to have my case
transferred to a different region. I eventually get confirmation of an investigation
but it is unclear if any action was taken against the investigator at all. As far as I
know, OIG also refused to investigate Region 32 overall.
It took much more persistence to get my case transferred. Even once I got a new
investigator in another region (Region 21 in LA), the investigator’s report was still
to go back to Region 32 to make the decision on merit. I kept grieving to the OIG
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
6/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 301 of 713
(301 of 713), Page 301 of 713

until I received a phone call from an Assistant General Counsel to hear “my side
of the story.” Apparently, Region 32 had begun grieving about me after I began
protesting the first investigator’s misconduct.
Once I explained what happened and provided evidence of my exchanges with
Nixon Bumper Sticker, I received an apology from NLRB leadership. They
assured me my case would be fully transferred to a different division, I would be
able to provide evidence and witnesses and I could take additional affidavits to
fill in the gaps from what the first agent tried to omit and mislead. I spent the last
few months doing all of that. I also FOIA’d NLRB on the conflicts of interest and
received confirmation of the recusals.
However, Region 32 is apparently still hanging on to my case with white
knuckles. They refused for some time to allow it to be transferred. (Why did they
care so much, I wonder?) The case is still formally listed as a Region 32 case. It
appears when I get a finding of merit, I’ll probably be forced into another brawl
with Apple’s Region 32 wanting to litigate my cases…. into the ground, I’m sure.
Not to mention, one of the three attorneys Apple immediately hired to defend
them against my charges, Syed Mannan, previously served as a law clerk at the
NLRB under a current NLRB board member and currently seated NLRB judge. He
also served as a law clerk at the EEOC, under the current chair. Apple also openly
lobbied Congress about “NLRA issues” at least once.
As for the gag order, I’m currently appealing but it’s already cost me nearly
$5,000, an enormous amount of time, has put my ability to become a practicing
lawyer at risk, shows up on employment and renter screening background
checks, and has been actively used to assassinate my character. The appeals
hearing is currently scheduled for 8:30am on my 36th birthday. I also had to
remove my first lawyer and have an open grievance with the Washington bar
about him - I have reasons to be concerned my own lawyer may have been
acting against me, on behalf of Apple.
There’s an entire story about suspicious behavior by the U.S. Department of Labor
in their initial handling of my cases as well, but I’ll save that for another day. For
now I’ll just say, I also discovered that following my complaints about Superfund
safety & labor compliance in 2021, Apple retained a new lobbying firm led by Paul
Brathwaite, a Clinton administration Department of Labor official, who also spent
10 years at the Podesta Group before starting his lobbying firm. Brathwaite left
Podesta Group as the firm became a target of special counsel Robert Mueller’s
probe into Paul Manafort and Russian meddling in US elections. Brathwaite is
also lobbying for Amazon as well.
There’s an entire movie and/or volume of books, about the corruption within the
U.S. EPA related everything I went through at Apple. I will be publishing much
more on this shortly, including the EPA’s apparent suppression of documents
The U.S. Department of Labor
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
7/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 302 of 713
(302 of 713), Page 302 of 713

confirming Apple & Northrop Grumman were subject to formal, mandatory vapor
intrusion-related inspections of my Apple office following my disclosures, they
were subject to new oversight requirements, and there was a terrifying revelation
about the contamination under the building. The community involvement
coordinator and the remedial project manager were both taken off the site, new
employees assigned, and one of the removed employees left the US EPA
completely.
Stay tuned.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the EEOC/Hoss revelation what how
unconcerned Hoss was about broadcasting his use of the revolving door. Around
October 2021, Hoss posted on LinkedIn that he was leaving the EEOC for “a new
opportunity in the private sector,” and then posted again shortly after saying:
“I'm excited to announce that I have joined the Employee Relations team at
Apple! I am beyond grateful for this opportunity, and so I would like to say
thank you again to everyone who helped me to get here. I promise to make you
proud.” - Bryan Hoss via LinkedIn
I was already curious if Hoss received “help” to get that role, so it was convenient
he admitted it publicly. If there was need for any further validation of foul play,
the “likes” and comments on his posts sent me to the sunken place.
Numerous EEOC investigators and leaders publicly congratulating him, and over
a dozen Apple employee relations employees and engineering managers
welcoming him. One Senior EEOC investigator, also based in San Francisco,
commented that Hoss joining Apple was a “phenomenal gain” for Apple. An
Apple recruiter commented to Hoss “You know I’m your biggest fan!!! I am over
the moon that you are finally at Apple. Wahoo!!!” An Apple Business Affairs
manager commented, “Yay !!!! So glad this came back around! Welcome to the
fam!”
Wait… what? Finally & back around? How long was Hoss trying to join Apple?
I submitted FOIA #820-2022-008282 to the EEOC on May 7 2022 notifying them
what I had discovered, & requested information on how they planned to manage
all the confidential information he had from Apple employees, now that he’s over
in Mordor. I look forward to the pile of blank, black construction paper the EEOC
replies with informing me they redacted all sensitive information.
In the meantime, after the initial publication of this article, at least one ex-
employee came forward confirming Hoss handled her case, and she had
complained for some time prior that she worried Apple had used EEOC to further
retaliate against her.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Part II
Lobbying
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
8/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 303 of 713
(303 of 713), Page 303 of 713

Apple is a corporation with tremendous power and means: it has more than
150,000 employees, a market cap of $2.23 trillion. Last year Apple spent
$6,500,000 on lobbying and in 2022 Apple’s already spent at least another
$2,500,000. Similarly, Northrop Grumman (previously run by, now Chair of
Apple’s Finance & Audit Committee and Board Member, Ronald Sugar) is a huge
weapons manufacturer and defense contractor who spent $10,673,000 last year
on lobbying.
Apple’s “Government Affairs” team manages lobbying efforts and was run by a
mix of Catherine A. Novelli from 2005-2013, Cynthia Hogan from 2016-2020, and
Lisa Jackson from 2013 to current. There was never a formal announcement that
Jackson took over lobbying, but even before Hogan left, the entire lobbying team
was moved from under General Counsel, to now under Jackson. It sounded like it
happened around 2018-2019, as I heard complaints of confusion about it during
my 2019 legal internship.
Beyond already seeing Apple’s corruption and conflicts of interest first hand, the
more I dug into Apple’s revolving door, the more I screamed. (Literally… My dog
was very concerned). For example, before joining Apple, from 2009 to 2013, Hogan
served as deputy assistant to the President and counsel to the Vice President of
the United States (see, Al Gore, who is also currently an Apple Board member).
She led the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Before that,
she served as the chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Hogan led Apple’s lobbying until 2020, when she was tapped by Joe Biden to join
his presidential transition team. Great.
As for Lisa Jackson, before joining Apple, she served as the administrator of the
U.S. EPA from 2009-2013, appointed by President Obama. Jackson left the EPA in
2013 amid scandals about private email accounts, unexplained shadow accounts
(with an alias of “Richard Windsor”), retaliating against EPA whistleblowers, and
FOIA avoidance. Upon leaving the EPA, Jackson joined Apple as a Director and
accepted a Board position at the Clinton Foundation. She appears to still serve on
the Clinton Board, yet at some point around 2019-2020 all mentions of her
involvement with the Foundation were scrubbed from the Foundation and
Apple’s websites.
Jackson poached a number of her previous staffers from the EPA to join her at
Apple, including David Mcintosh (her previous EPA Administrator of
Congressional & Intergovernmental Relations, and then Apple Lobbyist, & now an
Apple Director managing affairs with China related to Internet Software &
Services), Arvin Ganesan (her previous EPA Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and
now Apple lobbyist), and Alisha Johnson (her previous EPA Deputy Director of
Communications & Press Secretary, and now her Director of Environment, Policy,
& Social initiatives…. who apparently still does hazardous waste PR).
Before Hogan & Jackson, there was Novelli. Novelli worked in the U.S. President’s
Executive Office on trade, then joined Apple from 2005-2013, until Obama
appointed her the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the
Environment through 2017. She now serves on the Board of the National Wildlife
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
9/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 304 of 713
(304 of 713), Page 304 of 713

Federation. She initiated Apple’s lobbying of the US EPA about hazardous waste
in the 2000s.
There’s a short note in her Wikipedia page about Novelli’s husband, Mr. David J.
Apol, the General Counsel of the United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Apol was then appointed as acting Director of the OGE by President Trump in
2017. OGE oversees all federal government “ethics.” (Did you scream too?)
The NYT reported in 2017 that Apol’s colleagues complained Apol “sought to roll
back or loosen ethics requirements on federal employees.” “Mr. Apol has argued
that the agency is often too rigid in interpreting conflict-of-interest laws,” his
colleagues said.
The departing Director called Apol’s views on conflicts of interest
“immediately obviously crazy,” and described Apol’s general approach to
government ethics as “loosey-goosey.”
-NYT, 2017
David Apol is still currently the General Counsel of the US OGE, the agency
responsible for directing executive branch policies relating to the prevention of
conflict of interest on the part of Federal executive branch officers and employees
(including all of the federal agencies processing my charges).
When I complained to the NLRB OIG about the NLRB’s retaliation against me on
behalf of Apple… the NLRB OIG was reporting up to an agency led by the husband
of one of Apple’s long-time VP’s of Government Affairs and lobbying.
This isn’t the good place.
It’s challenging to even attempt to describe the pain felt upon realizing the
employer who abused you had also intentionally corrupted the regulatory
agencies who were supposed to assist you in seeking justice. You realize the
corporation not only disregarded your humanity, but the corporation also
planned well-in-advance to prevent you from even being able to properly grieve
about and remedy the harm they would later cause.
The two best terms I’ve discovered so far are moral injury & institutional betrayal
- terms shared with me by yet another Apple whistleblower trying to find
meaning in the wreckage that often overpowers us following blowing the whistle
on the Fruit Stand.
Moral injury is the damage done to one’s conscience or moral compass when
that person witnesses or fails to prevent acts that transgress one’s own moral
beliefs, values, or ethical codes of conduct. This includes failure to be
protected by leaders, especially in combat. Moral injury debilitates people,
preventing them from living full and healthy lives. The effects of moral injury
can destroy one’s capacity to trust others.
Conclusion
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
10/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 305 of 713
(305 of 713), Page 305 of 713

While a company may have already harmed an employee emotionally,
psychologically, and even physically – when the company weaponizes the
institution put in place to protect the employee’s rights – it hurts on a spiritual
and moral level. It harms the soul.
Institutional betrayal is potent because it represents a profound and
fundamental violation of trust in a necessary dependency relationship. The
breach of trust, the unreciprocated loyalty, and the exposure to retaliation are
like a knife in the back.
I still cannot properly describe the injuries inflicted upon me by this. Worse,
while an employee faces this harm, they are also once again forced to fight the
same company on an unequal playing field for their basic rights to even seek
justice for the original harms. Even though I now know all of the things I just
shared with you, I must continue to fight knowing all of the effort I dedicate to
the process may still be subverted to cause me even more harm. I am fighting
like hell, knowing I should win, but prepared that I may likely lose.
While agencies attempt to block claims from being filed, sabotage the claims
which are filed, demoralize victims, and make us wish we never filed the damn
charges in the first place — many simply give up, as it is too much to bear. It
seems completely understandable to walk away, considering the pain and
frustration of it.
Why even try if you destined to lose? Why try when there’s no point in trying?
That’s the point. That’s why these corporations do all of this. It’s the chilling
effect of corruption.
Please go have a friendly chat with your elected representatives. Drop in on
regulatory process hearings. Implore journalists and editors to tackle the
politically unpopular stories. Submit FOIA requests and share the results.
Support whistleblowers. Reject plutocracy.
Please try to help take some of the burden off of those who are already collapsing
under the weight of an entire national government that is often adversarial to
their pursuit for justice. We need help.
Read Part II here:
Big Tech Politics
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
Part I Summary This article is a continuation of my May 2022 article about
Apple’s “capture” of the US government. This article will discuss recent
revelations from US EPA FOIA documents & retaliation *by* the US
Department of Labor against whistleblowers…
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
11/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 306 of 713
(306 of 713), Page 306 of 713

Read more
3 years ago · Ashley M. Gjøvik
You can follow me & watch my cases (and hellscape) progress here, on my
website at ashleygjovik.com, and/or on Twitter at @ashleygjovik
Thanks for reading Big Tech Politics! Subscribe
for free to receive new posts.
Donations to my legal & advocacy fund are also always welcome. Go Fund Me:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ashley-gjoviks-advocacy-fund
Thank you!
-Ashley M. Gjovik
1 Like
Discussion about this post
Subscribe
Type your email...
Write a comment...
© 2025 Ashley Gjovik ∙ Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Substack is the home for great culture
Comments
Restacks
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part I
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
12/12
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 307 of 713
(307 of 713), Page 307 of 713

15 
EXHIBIT M: FIELD NOTES ON REGULATORY CAPTURE, 
PART II 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 308 of 713
(308 of 713), Page 308 of 713

Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
Part II: My personal hellscape of conflicts of interest, obstruction, & arbitrary denials
of due process continues...
SEP 18, 2022
Share
This article is a continuation of my May 2022 article about Apple’s “capture” of
the US government. This article will discuss recent revelations from US EPA
FOIA documents & retaliation *by* the US Department of Labor against
whistleblowers.
Before you read Part II, you can read Part I here:
Big Tech Politics
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture
Overview Agency Capture In the U.S., regulatory agencies (like the EPA, NLRB,
or SEC) can become dominated by the industries they are charged with
regulating. Economists describe this as “regulatory capture.” Sometimes
capture occurs through a “revolving door…
Read more
3 years ago · Ashley M. Gjøvik
You can also read my June 2022 article about Apple’s history of aggression
towards the US SEC, US Department of Justice, and financial regulations here:
Big Tech Politics
A Blatant and Aggressive Disregard for the Law
Apple likes to hold itself out as a golden child of human rights & regulatory
compliance. Like the state its headquartered in (California), much of Apple’s
marketing is gross hypocrisy and a distraction from its actual actions. In reality,
Apple has a long history of outright aggression towards regulation, including
battles with the U.S. Department of J…
Read more
3 years ago · 2 likes · 1 comment · Ashley M. Gjøvik
Since May 2022, a lot has developed with my Apple whistleblower cases. The
most incredible was the release of the first US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) documents about my Apple office, so let’s start there.
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK
1
Part I Summary
Part II
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
1/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 309 of 713
(309 of 713), Page 309 of 713

In January 2022, I asked the US EPA about the status of my August 29 2021
formal complaint to the US EPA about Apple, Lisa Jackson, & my Superfund office
- but the US EPA told me they sent my complaint (about federal laws and
agencies) to state of California. The California EPA would later claim they never
received a referral, nor would they have jurisdiction on the matter.
I also emailed the site contacts for my Apple office Superfund site, asking for
confirmation if the indoor air was ever tested or cracks in the floor inspected.
The US EPA would out-right refuse to answer any of my questions, even after I
pleaded that the information about chemical exposure would directly impact my
risk of cancer, lifetime health outcome, my coworkers still being exposed, and my
open litigation against Apple.
In January 2022, I filed three FOIA requests for US EPA information about my
Apple Superfund office. The US EPA FOIA lawyers would intimidate me:
frequently trying to get me onto phone calls and video meetings despite my
insistence to keep everything in writing; threatening me it may cost me
hundreds or thousands of dollars to respond to my requests; and refusing to
respond to requests for EPA headquarters documents without overly-specific
information & pre-agreeing to pay a potentially large sum of money.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
I filed a new FOIA request for records abt my Apple 
Superfund office from Jan to Aug 2022, to fill the gap after 
the first batch, & find out if they ever tested our air or 
inspected the cracked floor
The @EPA said they won't answer directly
EPA responded today asking for $1,275 
11:11 PM ∙ Sep 2, 2022
8 Likes
4 Retweets
In March 2022, I’d receive a copy of Apple’s position statement in my US Dept of
Labor whistleblower cases where Apple would claim both they and the US EPA
had reassured me that my Apple office was safe & fine, and thus my concerns
were unreasonable and unprotected.
The TRW Microwave Superfund Site
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
2/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 310 of 713
(310 of 713), Page 310 of 713

Re: Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 9-3290-22-051, March 4 2022, Orrick on
behalf of Apple Inc
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Apple didn't say anything about this to the government 
investigators in my retaliation cases
In fact, Apple said the office was fine & I was being 
unreasonable, even after Apple knew we were exposed
Which sounds like an extension of an existing cover up
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. @ashleygjovik
Apple knew the EPA found that Apple had been piping in TCE & infusing 
workers with high-risk industrial chemicals
In Apple's reply brief for my CERCLA whistleblower case, Apple said my 
concerns about my office were "unreasonable"
Apple omitted their gas chamber from the filings
12:22 AM ∙ Aug 30, 2022
I became further inflamed after I noticed the US EPA quietly added a document to
their website supposedly about groundwater testing in 2021, but on page 89 of
329 (yes, this kind of extensive research & watchdogging is basically all I do
now), the report noted there was some sort of EPA visit to my Apple office in
October of 2021 to inspect the vapor intrusion mitigation system (the sub-slat
depressurization system, or SSD).
Northrop Grumman, 2021 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former
TRW Microwave Site, US EPA (March 17 2022)
I pressed harder for more information. I raised more concerns about the US EPA
to the US EPA, about them apparently continuing to helping Apple cover up the
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
3/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 311 of 713
(311 of 713), Page 311 of 713

issues with my office and what Apple did to me. I complained again of Lisa
Jackson influencing the matter.
The first significant document I would receive was on May 27 2022: a three page
letter from the US EPA to Northrop Grumman on October 7 2021.
I will never forget opening that PDF. The letter documented an onsite inspection
of my office by the US EPA on August 19 2021 (while I was suspended, before I
was fired), where the US EPA found a number of safety issues, including several
concerns I myself raised months prior in email and before I was suspended.
I wept for nearly an hour. With everything I’ve suffered and lost after speaking
up about that damn office, I’ve of course questioned whether it was worth it.
What if I was wrong? Unfortunately I was not wrong. We were exposed to
industrial chemical vapors & the site was out of compliance with Superfund
regulations.
I wept with relief & I wept with grief.
I pushed on the US EPA site team again for more information, at which point a
US EPA lawyer responded by removing the scientists and engineers, and told me
I’d only be able to talk to her going forward, & she would not answer any of my
questions. I doth protested much.
I received the first batch of FOIA documents on June 27 2022, over six months
after I requested them. I received the completed response to the first request
August 29 2022 and a partial release of the second request on August 12 2022. The
remainder of the second request and the entirety of the third request still have
not been released, even nine months later.
The US EPA also finally began updating the documentation for the site on their
own website, as they should have done months & years prior. Their abrupt
diligence was assumably in response to me continuing to push fiercely on the
matter.
Each additional release of documents, via FOIA and the website, have provided
context and insight into what really happened last year. From documents
released thus far, I’ve gathered:
April 2021: Despite me not informing Apple I was complaining about my office
until summer of 2021, the EPA met with Apple in late April to tell Apple about my
concerns. They had several meetings between April 28-30; which per their own
emails, the meetings were to strategize about how to respond to me. (Note: Apple
isn’t even party with the EPA on the building - Northrop Grumman is the
responsible party and the state of California owns the building, Apple simply
rents). Then, I had a meeting with my Senior Director on April 29 where he told
me I should quit Apple, & after he started quietly giving my work away to random
people in the organization. The US EPA rep I talked to, and who reached out to
Apple to tell them I was blowing the whistle on them, apparently knew Lisa
Jackson for many years, worked directly with Jackson at the US EPA, and
suddenly stopped working at the US EPA in late 2021 (after nearly 20 years with
the agency).
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Email from me to the @EPA on 4/30, re: #Apple's 
oversight of my office building (the TRW Microwave 
#Superfund)
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
4/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 312 of 713
(312 of 713), Page 312 of 713

-there's at least a decade of toxic indoor air through 2014
-Apple hasn't tested the air for 5yrs & refuses to inform 
employees
-I'm being "pressured" not to talk abt it 
7:21 PM ∙ Sep 18, 2021
38 Likes
6 Retweets
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Apparently when I complained to the EPA in April 2021 
abt Apple's recklessness with my Superfund office, the EPA 
immediately told Apple I complained & had several mtgs 
abt it
Two days later my Apple boss suggested I resign
Meanwhile, the ex-head of the EPA reports to Tim Cook  
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. @ashleygjovik
I submitted several FOIA requests to the EPA in January 2022. 
The EPA finally just released the first batch... six months later. 
For this one, I had requested any comms between Apple & the EPA about CA 
Superfund sites from Jan 2021 to Jan 2022.
They just released 88 records. https://t.co/LEvUkY19V5 https://t.co/rUCIvrVcA5
7:37 PM ∙ Jul 3, 2022
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
5/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 313 of 713
(313 of 713), Page 313 of 713

30 Likes
11 Retweets
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
So, the EPA:
- Ratted me out
- Never told me they ratted me out
- Helped facilitate Apple's retaliation against me
- Never told me Apple was pumping VOCs *into* the 
HVAC
- Never told me they inspected my office
- Took 6 months to release FOIA docs because they 
incriminate the EPA
7:39 PM ∙ Jul 3, 2022
26 Likes
12 Retweets
May 2021: Northrop Grumman & the US EPA had several meetings & exchanged
numerous emails about my office based on my complaints, which led to EPA
requesting extensive information from Northrop Grumman about the safety of
the building, including details on vapor intrusion testing and mitigation. This
was at the same time Apple was claiming there was nothing wrong with my
office & assigned me a “five-point balancing test” 1 to complete per thought, if I
wanted to talk to my coworkers about any environmental or safety concerns. The
EPA also informed Northrop that I was talking to the NYT and informed them of
the reporter's name who was asking the EPA questions about my office.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
My manager told me I wasn't allowed to talk about 
workplace safety concerns with coworkers.
Then #Apple ER essentially told me the same. After an 
aneurysm inducing call with ER, here's my notes on their 
speech restriction 5pt obstacle course.
I kept screaming LABOR LAWS. 
3:26 AM ∙ Aug 22, 2021
37 Likes
6 Retweets
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
6/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 314 of 713
(314 of 713), Page 314 of 713

July 2021: In March 2022, Apple would submit a position statement to the US
Dept of Labor claiming I was told in July 2021 that all EH&S work on my
Superfund office was “routine” and “voluntary” and there was no reason Apple
had to inform the EPA of any of it, so I was being “unreasonable” and I deserved
no protection for my whistleblowing.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
On 7/30 I wrote #Apple ER again: "EH&S noted there’s 
cracks in the floor of my bldg which is how vapor intrusion 
gets into the air, but is refusing to test the air before they 
fix the cracks. Due to my complaints, the Fed EPA is now 
involved and sounds like met with them this wk" 
2:18 AM ∙ Oct 2, 2021
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
And letting the EPA know the manager who used to run all 
of Apple's Superfund due diligence just quit Apple after 
seven years, a couple months after I started raising 
concerns about my office. And letting Apple know the EPA 
now knows.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. @ashleygjovik
@ZiggyTheHamster @EPA Fun email circa July 8th. Manager running #Apple 
due diligence quits, the whole function is re-orged, I complain about poor 
testing protocols & misrepresentation of what they're up to, they say they 
won't talk to me anymore, & all I need to know is "its safe" because they say so 
https://t.co/KbBs6z0sDJ
11:20 PM ∙ Dec 16, 2021
9 Likes
5 Retweets
Also in July, the US EPA formally requested an onsite inspection of my Apple
office. They sent the letter on July 26 and requested the inspection occur shortly
after. They noted Apple's environmental lawyer was on vacation that week &
Northrop Grumman said they'd talk to her when she's back on August 2nd. I was
then suddenly suspended on August 4th, after I had been gathering evidence of
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
7/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 315 of 713
(315 of 713), Page 315 of 713

the cracked floor on August 2nd-3rd and was preparing to go onsite to gather
more evidence on August 5th. Apple mentioned none of this in their position
statement, of course.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Aug 4-5, 2021, nonsense emails from  #Apple Employee 
Retaliations
10am mtg with ER to review remaining evidence turns into 
"putting me on leave" despite my protest, w/ no ETA for 
any updates or end, saying will narrow scope of inquiry, & 
implies they don't want me organizing 😡 
11:10 AM ∙ Sep 6, 2021
20 Likes
2 Retweets
July-August 2021: Apple demanded the US EPA sign an extensive NDA before
they would allow the EPA to come on site for the safety inspection. Among other
problematic terms, the NDA declared anything the EPA learned during the
inspection (assumably including safety issues) were “Apple Confidential” and the
EPA could not make any public statements about the inspection without Apple’s
permission. Apparently the EPA refused to sign Apple's NDA and also
complained to Northrop Grumman about Apple's secrecy demands.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Attn: anyone interested in @Apple declaring that safety 
issues at my #Apple office were "Apple Confidential" & 
trying to get the US @EPAregion9 to sign an NDA
I'm attaching some related FOIA docs
See: public FOIA releases: EPA R9 2022 0020 62-63
Note: CBI=Confidential Biz Info 
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
8/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 316 of 713
(316 of 713), Page 316 of 713

11:16 PM ∙ Aug 21, 2022
4 Likes
1 Retweet
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
APPLE LITERALLY TRIED TO CLAIM TO THE FEDERAL GOV 
THAT PHOTOS OF GIANT ASS CRACKS IN THE FLOOR AT 
MY SUPERFUND OFFICE WERE 'CONFIDENTIAL' 
9:01 PM ∙ Jun 27, 2022
28 Likes
4 Retweets
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
@Apple @EPAregion9 I finally got copy of the NDA Apple 
tried to get the EPA to sign. Among other things, it claims:
-Any non-public info gathered from inspections of Apple 
offices is Apple Confidential
-The EPA can't make any public statements about what 
they find
-The existence of NDA is secret 
12:26 AM ∙ Aug 30, 2022
8 Likes
2 Retweets
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
9/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 317 of 713
(317 of 713), Page 317 of 713

August 2021: On August 19 2021, the US EPA and Northrop Grumman conducted
an onsite inspection of my Apple office and found a number of potential and
actual issues: perhaps the most significant of which was that the toxic gases
under the building were being piped *into* the HVAC that came out above our
heads in the office. We were indeed exposed to toxic gases for years.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
The EPA report included something unexpected
The building has a system to vent the super toxic gases 
under the building up to the roof & out into the 
atmosphere
When Apple moved in, Apple rearranged stuff on the roof
Resulting in:
THE TCE VENTED OUT & THEN INTO THE HVAC INTAKE 
11:00 PM ∙ May 28, 2022
37 Likes
12 Retweets
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Here's the Aug 19 2021 Site Visit notes
EPA: "West bldg vents are 10ft from HVAC...Not great for 
VOCs bc venting into HVAC...Need to extend 10' high. East 
bldg stack issues. Vents too close to chiller, cut too low." 
EPA: Need to "seal sub slat ports. Not abandoned 
properly" 
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
10/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 318 of 713
(318 of 713), Page 318 of 713

9:38 PM ∙ Jun 27, 2022
12 Likes
1 Retweet
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
EPA on Sub-Slat Vents (the ports to Hades under the 
building for sampling of Hades fumes):
"SS-5 ... seems mislabeled." 
"SS-4 not poured well." 
"Seal sub slat ports. Not abandoned properly. Rusted. 
Reinstall or abandon." 
9:41 PM ∙ Jun 27, 2022
13 Likes
1 Retweet
Apple would claim in 2022 that they fired me based on conduct that occurred
(and Apple was made aware of) on August 28 and August 30 2021. Apple would
never tell me this directly, even after they fired me. In fact, Apple still pretended
like they were investigating my concerns, not me, in emails on September 3 & 7
2021.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Here's a fun timeline:
-8/26: I file NLRB charge against #Apple
-8/30: Apple receive notice of the NLRB charge (thx FOIA)
-8/31: 3 lawyer file notice of appearance w/ NLRB on 
behalf of Apple
-9/3: NLRB notifies deadline for affidavit is 9/13
-9/7: Apple wants to talk before 9/13 
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. @ashleygjovik
#Apple Employee Retaliations just responded to my 9/3 email, implicitly 
refusing to provide updates in writing 
He also said based on his interviews & evidence reviewed there are "some 
inconsistencies" he'd like to "discuss in detail" & "give me the opportunity" to 
give info. https://t.co/mye6eA8drs
4:16 AM ∙ Sep 9, 2021
18 Likes
4 Retweets
I had also publicly filed: a NLRB charge on August 26; a US DOL whistleblower
retaliation charge & complaint to the US EPA on August 29; and SEC
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
11/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 319 of 713
(319 of 713), Page 319 of 713

Whistleblower tip on August 31 2021; among others. On September 3rd (Labor Day
weekend), Apple got one of their blogs to write a smear article about my NLRB
charge.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
The title of the 3 Sept 2021 article was: 
"US labor board investigating Apple employee complaints, 
as doubts cast on one"
First line: "Doubts have been expressed about some of 
Gjøvik’s claims, including evidence that appears to 
disprove one of them ..."
9to5Mac @9to5mac
US labor board investigating Apple employee complaints, as doubts cast on 
one https://t.co/i09gCBxzeV by @benlovejoy
10:52 PM ∙ Feb 6, 2022
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
70%+ of the article was retracted within hours of me 
sending 9to5Mac a Twitter-demand letter re: defamation 
& false light 
10:54 PM ∙ Feb 6, 2022
Sept 2021: Apple fired me on September 9 2021 and then on Sept 15, sent me
harassing letters about secret videos they took of me and emails insisting on 3D
scanning my ears.
dell cameron 
@dellcam
not sure why posting at 11pm but.... 
NEW: The "intellectual property" Apple fired 
@ashleygjovik for tweeting include, in full: (a) some 
photos of herself, taken with her own phone; (b) a 
screenshot of Apple asking to take pictures of her ears. 
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
12/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 320 of 713
(320 of 713), Page 320 of 713

gizmodo.com
Apple Wanted Her Fired. It Settled On an Absurd Excuse
The reasons for firing Ashley Gjøvik include tweeting a photo of herself—taken 
by her own phone.
3:03 AM ∙ Oct 15, 2021
78 Likes
35 Retweets
dell cameron 
@dellcam
In a twist, the law firm Apple paid to pester Gjovik to 
delete pictures of herself is the same that defended Trump 
University. 
The pictures were taken by an app automatically. If you 
remember your Monkey Selfie history -- which I guess 
Apple doesn't -- that's not copyrightable.
3:14 AM ∙ Oct 15, 2021
38 Likes
8 Retweets
Oct 2021: On October 7 2021, the EPA sent a written summary of the Aug 19 2021
site inspection to Northrop Grumman & asked for written comments within 30
days. The EPA asked for a report on the vapor intrusion mitigation system. The
EPA also raised concerns about a number of the issues I had also raised to Apple
prior (which Apple brushed off) including: testing the indoor air with HVAC off
instead of on, documentation on the repair of the cracks in the floor, the need to
identify missing “sub-slat vent ports,” and need to repair or decommission
compromised ports. The EPA apparently also visited the site again at least on
October 12 2021.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Me before I'm fired: you need to test the air with HVAC 
OFF
Apple: no, we'll test with HVAC ON, and that's the right 
way to do it
Ashley: Not its not & I'm gonna tell the EPA
Apple: You're fired
EPA: You need to test with HVAC OFF
Apple: You're fired too (& EPA PM is gone!) 
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
13/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 321 of 713
(321 of 713), Page 321 of 713

10:01 PM ∙ Jun 27, 2022
42 Likes
11 Retweets
[Fast Forward] May 2022: The next year, the EPA denied Northrop's proposed
plan to fix the vapor intrusion mitigation system as inadequate. The EPA stated
improvements to the vapor intrusion mitigation system are required. The EPA
also said indoor air testing is required & still not conducted since 2016. The EPA
had a consultant review Northrop's plans for my office & he noted: "significant
uncertainty,” "concentrated effluents" may indeed be pushed into HVAC, and a
variety of indoor air testing is needed to design fix for the vapor intrusion
mitigation system.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
5 months after I originally raised concerns & my concerns 
had now multiplied... Part of my revised "issue 
confirmation" I sent #Apple employee relations & biz 
conduct on 8/23 included new sections where I suggested 
they"investigate themselves." For EH&S: negligence, toxic 
torts.. 
7:26 PM ∙ Sep 18, 2021
13 Likes
3 Retweets
June 2022: This summer, with still no indoor air testing, and apparently my
coworkers still working in our office subject to chemical exposure, Northrop
Grumman wrote to the US EPA that they will only do "one round of indoor air
sampling” and only want to do the same limited testing they did in 2016 (only
8hrs, etc). Northrop also noted Apple has to approve the timing & design of
testing, and that Apple claims the TCE in the HVAC system is “Apple
Confidential,” and that Apple doesn’t plan to fix the HVAC vents. Apparently Apple
claims it would violate "local laws" to fix the vents currently spewing poison on
my teammates.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
It sounds like my Apple coworkers are still being exposed 
to the toxic waste chemical fumes in our office
It also sounds like Apple still hasn't tested the indoor air 
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
14/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 322 of 713
(322 of 713), Page 322 of 713

because they already know the results will come back with 
poisonous gases
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. @ashleygjovik
The EPA report included something unexpected
The building has a system to vent the super toxic gases under the building up 
to the roof & out into the atmosphere
When Apple moved in, Apple rearranged stuff on the roof
Resulting in:
THE TCE VENTED OUT & THEN INTO THE HVAC INTAKE 
https://t.co/EFd1tqFeOY
12:20 AM ∙ Aug 30, 2022
9 Likes
3 Retweets
July 2022: The EPA responded to Northrop Grumman noting they have now only
agreed to do only part of the bare minimum requested. EPA told Northrop they
can't delay testing the toxic gases under the floor, and reminded Northrop that
environmental science requires "multiple lines of evidence" so they would need
to do more than one round of air testing.
There’s much more than this and you can review the documents directly on the
links above, but this summary should give you a picture of what I’ve a
discovered.
One thing I quickly learned about retaliation lawsuits is that the timeline is key.
Lawyers always want to see the timeline of events, including: any protected
activities, when the employer knew/must have known, and when adverse
actions occurred. The crux is: an employee did something protected > the
employer knew > the employer then did something materially bad to the
employee > and the employer assumably did the bad thing because of the
protected thing the employee did earlier.
I’d learn that sometimes suspicious timing and circumstances may be enough to
prove retaliation. In addition, an employer’s deceit and omission of key
information during litigation, or clear post-hoc rationalizations, may become
further evidence against the employer and prove pretext.
Even before the FOIA documents came to light, the timeline & circumstances
were already incredibly damning. With this new information, it became
remarkably clear that Apple planned to deal with me extra-legally.
Apple must of bet all the harassment, intimidation, threats, corruption, & misery
they were inflicting upon me would be enough to remove me from the equation,
one way or another.
Then, only last week, I discovered a press release Apple themselves coordinated
when I was suspended last year. Lisa Jackson invited the current head of the
EPA (Michael Regan) to Apple Park the two days immediately prior to the
inspection of my Superfund office. They’d talk to Axios and CNBC about the visit
(even mentioning plans to privately discuss Apple’s mandatory environmental
SEC disclosures), do a photo shoot, & record a video of a “fireside chat.”
Regan would post the video from both the US EPA press account and his own
Twitter account, where he noted he and Jackson were “good friends.” 2
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
15/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 323 of 713
(323 of 713), Page 323 of 713

Michael Regan, U.S. EPA 
@EPAMichaelRegan
Stopped by @Apple Park to see my good friend and 
former @EPA Administrator @lisapjackson to discuss 
environmental justice, climate change and how we are 
collectively creating a better planet for our children! Let’s 
go! 👍🏾🌎 
Image
10:04 PM ∙ Aug 18, 2021
403 Likes
47 Retweets
I filed a complaint about all of this to the US EPA Office of Inspector General on
July 20 2022 & have continued to update it after. I also filed FOIA requests for
communications between Jackson and Regan about me and/or my office. 3
On August 29 2021, I filed a complaint with the US Department of Labor
Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP) & made it public that I did so. I was
actively in discussion with the investigator and providing evidence before I was
fired. I provided copies of my other agency complaints (ie, US EPA & US SEC) on
September 8 2021.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
@NLRB Case: 32-CA-282142
@OSHA_DOL Whistleblower Claim: 1218-023
@USEEOC Case: 556-2021-00608
@SEC_Enforcement Whistleblower Claim: 16304-612-987-
465
@CivilRights Complaint: 98145-RJH
@CA_DIR Whistleblower Claim: RCI-CM-842830 
@CalDFEH Case: 202108-14540123
11:12 AM ∙ Sep 6, 2021
61 Likes
9 Retweets
I was then fired the next day, which was also the day before my first NLRB
affidavit (and Apple knew).
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Hey #Apple, "This feels a little like witness intimidation. I 
let @NLRB know." Love, Ashley 
Clutches panic button & Mace while still laying on floor 
pondering the brutality of U.S. capitalism... 
The U.S. Department of Labor Whistleblower
Protection Program
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
16/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 324 of 713
(324 of 713), Page 324 of 713

9:33 PM ∙ Sep 9, 2021
121 Likes
17 Retweets
Already, one would think this would be a “slam-dunk” case with timing alone.
I had also filed complaints to the California Dept of Labor in August 2021, noting
violations of state labor, and health & safety laws (like Prop 65).
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
I also filed a Retaliation Complaint with the @CA_DIR Dept 
of Industrial Relations Labor Commissioner's Office. 
Q: "How did your employer (#Apple) know about the 
protected right you exercised?"
A: "I kept saying, 'Stop it, you guys. There's Labor laws 
about this.'" 
5:39 AM ∙ Sep 2, 2021
45 Likes
13 Retweets
On September 10 2021, the US Dept of Labor investigator notified me my US Dept
of Labor charges would be “dual filed” with the state and would ask the state to
take lead on investigating. When I asked the state why they would be
investigating federal laws, they said it was a decision based on resourcing & that
they are still separate cases.
It began to worry me why the federal government would ask an understaffed
state labor department to investigate federal environmental and securities laws,
so I followed up with the US Dept of Labor investigator asking about it again and
ensuring my SEC & EPA complaints were included.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
The SOX whistleblower retaliation violation was triggered 
by my internal biz conduct complaint to the Apple Board 
of Directors & then also my SEC filing about Ronald 
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
17/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 325 of 713
(325 of 713), Page 325 of 713

Sugar's conflict of interest & Apple's fraudulent 
statements, all before Apple fired me.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. @ashleygjovik
My intake interview w/ @USDOL is next week, for my charges against #Apple 
for whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act amongst 
others.
SOX was passed in the wake of Enron, in an effort to curb corporate corruption 
& fraud.
We'll have a lot to talk about. https://t.co/2mXfgHpfjv
11:14 PM ∙ Dec 16, 2021
8 Likes
5 Retweets
This was the first, and not last time, I’d see the US Dept of Labor’s dark side.
The investigator suddenly attempted to close my entire case without
investigating or reviewing evidence, and without explanation. When I protested,
she claimed it was a “decision from management.”
“After reviewing the information you’ve provided and consulting with my
management team, it has been determined that your complaint does not meet
the criteria for OSHA Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP) to open an
investigation.” -US Dept of Labor (Nov 16 2021)
I immediately questioned the investigator why she had previously told me I had
an open case and that it was referred to the state Dept of Labor, and that she
herself had said my federal complaint would not be closed until after the state
issues a decision.
The investigator then responded on November 22 2021 with some hot garbage:
falsely claiming conflicts of interests with a corporate board of directors do not
implicate SOX concerns; saying I have no CERCLA case because Apple told me
my office was fine so there was no issue, even though I had a number of accurate
and appropriate concerns about the plan of record, including Apple refusing to
test the indoor air until after they fixed the cracks in the floor & refusing to tell
the EPA about the cracks in the floor at all.
What the investigator said was Apple’s nonsense position, which the investigator
apparently regurgitated without investigation. She said again she was
dismissing the entire matter.
The investigator said I could appeal the decision to an ALJ, but implied if I
request to appeal then Apple would be notified US DOL previously dismissed my
case. I remember reading her email like it was a threat intending to intimidate
me to not even appeal. Her wording implied I could save face if I just drop the
matter completely.
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
18/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 326 of 713
(326 of 713), Page 326 of 713

Letter from US DOL, Nov 22 2022
At this point, I pointed out the inconsistencies & complained to investigator that I
felt like I was being retaliated against by the US Dept of Labor itself.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
My experience with the @USDOL Whistleblower 
Protection Program abt my #Apple charges has been so 
miserable, I emailed their solicitor yesterday saying "At 
this point my best description of the WPP program is that 
I feel retaliated for being a whistleblower by the US DOL 
itself." 
Bloomberg Law @BLaw
A spike in employers retaliating against employees for asserting workplace 
rights is leading the U.S. Labor Department to use more aggressive 
enforcement and litigation tools. https://t.co/D3tzOTmcGg
10:52 PM ∙ Nov 23, 2021
29 Likes
4 Retweets
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
DOL appears to be refusing to review the evidence I sent, 
ignoring many of my claims (not even acknowledging 
them), & won't show their work. I keep asking for an 
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
19/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 327 of 713
(327 of 713), Page 327 of 713

explanation, to talk to someone more familiar with 
Superfunds-nada. One email I got yesterday even felt like 
a threat.
10:59 PM ∙ Nov 23, 2021
6 Likes
2 Retweets
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
I'm still emailing them, hoping they'll do the right thing, 
but if they don't, I'll publish all our emails. It really feels 
like an #Apple ER "we investigated & there's no policy 
violations" thing, when they clearly didn't even review the 
evidence. It's so disappointing.
11:01 PM ∙ Nov 23, 2021
5 Likes
2 Retweets
I filed a FOIA request for any discussion about my case (which would return
emails showing a “management decision” without investigation, to refer my case
to the state of California, but still calling it “dual filing,” not dismissal).
The investigator then doubled back & told me I had 10 days to respond with more
evidence. I ask for clarification on what evidence was needed, since the first
round of evidence I sent was apparently not even reviewed. I received no
response. I asked for clarification again & expressed more concerns. Still no
response…and now the clock was ticking.
“I reported concerns of violations of CERCLA and SEC. Per the DOL library case
law, I meet prima facie for multiple whistleblower statutes.YOU NOT
RESPONDING TO ME FOR DAYS AND WAITING TO RUN OUT YOUR
ARBITRARY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A RESPONSE IS OFFENSIVE.” -
Nov 26 2021
I then received an “out of office” message from the investigator, saying she was
on leave until Dec 1 2021, which was after the arbitrary deadline she gave me.
I then escalated to US Dept of Labor Solicitor Nanda & requested a new
investigator. I pointed to a 2020-2021 US DOL OIG investigation into the program,
noting excessive delays, incomplete investigations, and 98% of cases being
dismissed for no reason.
“If you don't find I meet the statutory requirements, that's one thing. But not
even investigating is completely unacceptable.” -Dec 1 2021
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
So, the @USDOL's failure to even pretend to investigate 
wasn't just my imagination. Current reports show DOL 
only investigating 20% of claims & resolving 2%, & 96% of 
investigations were insufficient. I'm really hoping Solicitor 
@SeemaNanda can step in & ensure we get due process 
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
20/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 328 of 713
(328 of 713), Page 328 of 713

11:29 PM ∙ Dec 1, 2021
7 Likes
2 Retweets
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
@USDOL @SeemaNanda "Resolving a mere two percent 
of OSHA retaliation complaints in six months is a dismal 
record under any circumstances. It undermines workers’ 
confidence that they’ll be protected when reporting 
unsafe working conditions." 
nelp.org
Report: OSHA Investigated, Resolved Only 2% of COVID Retaliation Complaints
More than half the 1,744 retaliation complaints received were dismissed 
without being investigated.
11:31 PM ∙ Dec 1, 2021
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
I guess between my "are you doing corruption to me?" 
and my "are you even a functioning agency?" emails, the 
@USDOL is at least now pretending to look at my case. 
However, they did refuse to explain what they're even 
looking for or what I should provide. The US gov in 
action... 
10:30 PM ∙ Dec 4, 2021
On Dec 8 2021, I received a letter from US Dept of Labor saying my case was just
now referred to California Dept of Labor. The next day, Dec 9, I received a letter
from the California Dept of Labor saying that the US Dept of Labor is now leading
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
21/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 329 of 713
(329 of 713), Page 329 of 713

the investigation (the same case that US Dept of Labor previously claimed they
were not, a week & day prior).
The state agency told me the federal agency also asked them to pause on
investigating Apple's violation of state laws, until the federal agency finishes
their own investigation, citing preemption (somehow even for state laws with no
federal counterparts like Prop 65, etc). 4
On Dec 10 2021, my FOIA request returned with the emails acknowledging the
dual filing back in September. 5 That same day, the US Dept of Labor investigator
notifies me she has now opened federal cases for OSHA, CERCLA, & SOX
retaliation. The federal investigator claims that letter from California Dept of
Labor, saying US Dept of Labor will investigate, was the original case that US
Dept of Labor previously claimed they were not investigating. (If your head is
spinning, it should be, they kept changing their stories every damn email).
But I read the letter & knew my persistence was working…
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Here's the letter I received from the US Department of 
Labor on Dec 10. DoL informed me they opened an 
investigation into Apple based on my whistleblower 
retaliation complaints about Apple's neg actions towards 
me due to the concerns I raised about safety & corporate 
corruption. 
11:11 PM ∙ Dec 16, 2021
67 Likes
19 Retweets
Financial Times 
@FinancialTimes
Exclusive: The US Department of Labor is investigating
Apple over claims that it retaliated against an employee
who complained of workplace harassment and unsafe
working conditions on.ft.com/3EURvOS
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
22/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 330 of 713
(330 of 713), Page 330 of 713

9:00 PM ∙ Dec 13, 2021
73 Likes
27 Retweets
Over the next nine months, the US Dept of Labor would only provide me Apple’s
first position statement, but no additional communications and no notice as to
what evidence was provided against me. Meanwhile the federal investigator told
me every single thing I sent her would also be sent to Apple, and even warned
me against sending certain evidence (like reports to law enforcement or details
of other federal investigations) because she said she would have to send them to
Apple, but didn’t explain why.
I’d ask if any witnesses were ever interviewed, but never hear back. I asked for
help to get documents from the US EPA more quickly, but US Dept of Labor would
refuse. I’d ask for a referral to the US Dept of Justice for assistance with the home
break-ins, hacking, and threats of violence - but US Dept of Labor would refuse.
I’d ask for help with a retaliatory lawsuit admittedly filed in response to my
federal charges against Apple - but again, US Dept of Labor refused.
I asked US Dept of Labor to investigate Apple’s clearly unlawful employee
policies, (as US NLRB was also investigating them and they could be used to
substantiate punitive damages in my OSHA whistleblower charge), but US Dept of
Labor refused.
I told US Dept of Labor that the US SEC had started investigating. US Dept of
Labor told me not to tell them about it. I questioned them, asking if US SEC might
pursue a Dodd Frank whistleblower case through the US DOJ for my termination
so closely following the public filing of a SEC whistleblower tip, how would that
not be relevant to my SOX whistleblower case? The US DOL never responded.
I expressed concerns that Apple lied to US Dept of Labor in their position
statement about my office, completely omitting the safety inspections, the safety
issues, and the ordered corrective actions. The investigator never responded.
I expressed concerns about a potential conflict of interest with OSHA
administrator Douglas Parker (who oversees the entire US DOL whistleblower
program) with Lisa Jackson (previous US EPA administrator now running Apple
lobbying), since Parker ran federal Mining Safety while Jackson ran the US EPA -
but the investigator never responded.
I sent the investigator my EPA OIG complaint - she never responded.
I complained about how long it was taking to process my case. The statutes said
they should have completed an investigation in 30 days for CERCLA, 60 days for
SOX, and 90 days for OSHA. We were over a year now.
The investigator told me I could “kick-out” all of my charges & sue Apple myself
in a federal court, instead of going through an agency. (Note: beyond the insanity
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
23/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 331 of 713
(331 of 713), Page 331 of 713

of suggesting a pro se employee sue the most profitable corporation in the world
in a highly complicated and expensive legal setting - the investigator’s advice
was also incorrect). In reality, I could kick-out my SOX claim, but the statutes
expressly forbid any kick-out of OSHA or CERCLA. I told her this and she agreed
that if I had listened to her and withdrew my charges, I would have forfeited my
OSHA & CERCLA cases completely.
I complained more about the delays. I told her even if I could manage a SOX
whistleblower case in a federal district court myself, it was poor legal strategy to
separate that case from the CERCLA & OSHA cases. The investigator then told me
I could ask to close the agency investigation now and bring the results to an ALJ
to review. I questioned her why I’d stop an in progress investigation, without
being told what evidence was gathered or reviewed, or if any witnesses were
even interviewed. I’d be requesting findings on an incomplete investigation and
already biased investigation, which sounded like it would be highly favorable to
Apple. I also told her Apple would use it as a justification to further claim my
charges were “meritless,” etc. She did not disagree.
I asked for ways to simplify my case & allegations to speed things up. I asked
several times. I said I was willing to drop certain claims if it would expedite the
process. The investigator never responded.
I told the investigator I won my California unemployment appeal and an
Administrative Law Judge found that Apple’s termination of my employment
was based on something other than misconduct by me. The ALJ ordered I be
paid state unemployment insurance (paid by Apple). I attached the three-page
court order to my email. The US Dept of Labor investigator simply said “received.”
Ashley M. Gjøvik, J.D. 
@ashleygjovik
Judge: Gjovik "received notice from [her Apple] vice 
president that she was being discharged. The notice was 
vague and incomplete...no specific information was 
provided...evidence shows [Gjovik] was discharged for 
reasons other than misconduct." 
"Benefits are payable." ✅ ⚖️ 💪 
8:50 PM ∙ Jul 29, 2022
104 Likes
9 Retweets
On September 6 2022, I again requested status on my cases. I told the investigator
that because I’ve discovered so much corruption with the US NLRB & US EPA, at
this point I have to assume the delays and poor communication with my US Dept
of Labor case must also be signs of corruption.
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
24/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 332 of 713
(332 of 713), Page 332 of 713

She did not respond by Sept 12 2022, so I send another email asking for the name
of someone in US Dept of Labor I could escalate to. Still no response. On Sept 14
2022, I pointed out the delays in my cases are violating US Dept of Labor’s own
statutes. I also point out I just discovered a whistleblower from the US Dept of
Labor’s own whistleblower program, who was based in the Regional Office my
case is in, who claims he was fired by US Dept of Labor in retaliation for
complaining about corruption in the whistleblower program. I told her I’m going
to file an OIG complaint about my case.
The US Dept of Labor investigator then responded just a few hours later! She said
a supervisor will be in touch shortly to set up a phone call. The supervisor
reached out the next day, Sept 15 2022, asking to set up a conference call with me
and one other supervisor on Sept 16 2022.
I quickly responded to schedule the call and asked who the other supervisor was:
she says its the Assistant Administrator for Region IX. (I look him up, he’s a
naval captain specializing in “surface warfare” and “Seabee combat”). Cool.
The September 16 2022 US Dept of Labor meeting was one of the craziest things
to happen to me through all of this. From starting with aggressive demands to
“not record the meeting,” (despite me not even asking to do so), to ending with the
captain telling me that even though my cases were still under investigation, that
I should expect to have them dismissed in roughly six weeks… it quickly became
clear the sole purpose of the meeting was to intimidate me into withdrawing my
charges.
I was told I would not be informed of any evidence provided against me. I was
told any misconduct with my cases were my own fault. I was told they
investigated themselves and found no policy violations. They said my case will
not be transferred. He wrapped up by saying “I believe I’ve now addressed all of
your concerns.”
I can understand how a reasonable person who had been fired by their powerful
employer in retaliation for raising concerns about violations of federal laws,
might be intimidated by that conversation to the point of spending those next six
weeks worrying about publicly losing their lawsuit and facing further
defamation and shaming, which could result in them withdrawing their charges
instead & claiming they simply decided to move on with their life.
Unfortunately for the US Department of Labor & for Apple, I’m not a reasonable
person.
At the end of the call I told them both I had no idea what the point of the call was
other than to intimidate me, they addressed none of my concerns, gave me new
concerns, and I will be reporting all of it.
I wrote up notes & emailed them to the supervisors, expressing grave concerns. I
told them I’d add the matter to my OIG complaint & I cc’d Solicitor Nanda. I said
I’d appeal my case all the way to ARB if necessary.
When I published Part I earlier this year, I never expected to have a Part II even
more scandalous than the first… but here we are.
Next up will be Part III, where I’ll discuss the violence I’ve faced since speaking
out, including: multiple home break-ins, unlawful surveillance, & online threats &
Conclusion
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
25/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 333 of 713
(333 of 713), Page 333 of 713

harassment. I’ll review the FBI SF Regional Office’s public statements praising
Apple & discuss Apple’s chokehold over local, state, & federal law enforcement.
Don’t let the bastards grind you down.
-Ashley
Updates: Additional FOIA documents were released in December 2022 which
revealed a number of additional concerns.
US Dept of Labor didn’t even attempt to investigate my CERCLA case before
trying to dismiss/block it, and only started to investigate in December 2021
after I filed complaints to US DOL OIG
US EPA provided reports to US DOL in December 2021 disclosing the August
2021 inspection of my Apple office & the open safety issues, but US DOL never
told me they had this information & never shared it with me or US NLRB
The US EPA began working with Northrop Grumman & requesting extensive
data about my Apple office back in April 2021
Northrop Grumman discovered the state of the SSD system in November
2020 but didn’t share findings until US EPA asked for the report in May 2021
(due to my complaints)
The August 2021 inspection of my office was *due to* my complaints to the
US EPA about the cracks in our office floor
US EPA internal emails from August 2021 admit to intention to not create a
paper trail of the issues
In December 2021, US EPA documents that the TRW site is out of compliance
with CERCLA & needs a new Record of Decision including vapor intrusion
US EPA as contacted by a reporter in December 2021 asking about the office &
US EPA completely omitted the August 2021 inspection & open issues from
their response
"An Apple employee recently contacted EPA and notified EPA that there were
cracks in the building's foundation. If true and the cracks are significant, this
could impact the effectiveness of the VI mitigation system for protectiveness
of human health."
- US EPA, August 16 2021
"I will not prepare a formal memo of the site visit. Anything I share with
management will be verbal or in an email, and at the 'site management level'
regarding human health protectiveness & site management action items.
- US EPA, August 20 2021
Dec 6 2022 FOIA release:
Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD 
@ashleygjovik
🧵 I just received the documents from this FOIA request
I'm digging through them now... I've already seen a 
couple things that are 🤯 😭
Will post docs on this thread as I sort through them 
Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD @ashleygjovik
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
26/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 334 of 713
(334 of 713), Page 334 of 713

I'm very curious what the US EPA was talking to OSHA about back in December
That was back when US DOL OSHA claimed they had dismissed my case (even 
though they didn't)
⛳️ FOIA-EPA-2023-000312 filed today
I'm curious if this might reveal more US DOL and/or US EPA shenanigans...
9:41 PM ∙ Dec 6, 2022
20 Likes
7 Retweets
Dec 7 2022 FOIA release:
Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD 
@ashleygjovik
🧵 I complained to US EPA that the records I received 
yesterday should have been included in response to my 
*prior* FOIA requests
I asked why they were *excluded* without explanation
US EPA lawyers just said "I don't know" & then released 
another 305 docs to me. Adding below ⬇️ 
Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD @ashleygjovik
FOIA docs prove US Dept of Labor tried to dismiss my whistleblower cases 
against Apple in Nov 2021 w/out even investigating
When finally started investigating (after I filed Inspector General complaint) 
DOL obtained docs from US EPA with critical evidence but didn't tell me 
https://t.co/P4kD3IpQTW
10:38 PM ∙ Dec 7, 2022
28 Likes
10 Retweets
These documents were finally released shortly after I send the US EPA a number
of documents about years of issues with the HVAC in my Apple office building.
Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD 
@ashleygjovik
There's still a bunch of new info from today's FOIA release 
I haven't posted yet
Documents important enough I need to take a moment to 
process
Info EPA was holding on to & refusing to release for a 
literal year
What happened in the last month to make EPA change 
their minds? 
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
27/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 335 of 713
(335 of 713), Page 335 of 713

1:17 AM ∙ Dec 8, 2022
Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD 
@ashleygjovik
Nov 8: "Apple also claimed they were doing testing in one 
of our conference rooms on Aug 4, with 'lots of devices'... 
unclear if that was air testing. I was permanently 'removed 
from the workplace' hours later." - me to US EPA
So EPA decided they're not running cover anymore? 
1:22 AM ∙ Dec 8, 2022
1 Like
1 Retweet
Thanks for reading Big Tech Politics! Subscribe
for free to receive new posts.
1
Apple Employee Relation’s five-point balancing test for employees interested in
discussing environmental & safety matters: the communicated information must be 1)
complete 2) accurate 3) does not cause a panic 4) does not make an assessment about
safety 5) any follow up questions or concerns are sent directly to Apple EH&S or
Employee Relations and not discussed with me or other coworkers
2
Note: The EPA’s Michael Regan would later present at a tech conference the same day
as Tim Cook in September of 2022.
3
US EPA FOIA EPA-2022-006433 & EPA-2022-006434
4
CA DOL DIR Case RCI-CM-842830
5
US DOL FOIA # 2022-F-0177
Subscribe to Big Tech Politics
By Ashley M. Gjøvik · Launched 4 years ago
Big Tech Politics is a newsletter where Ashley Gjøvik examines the intersection of Big Tech, international law,
political science, & our dystopian future.
Subscribe
Type your email...
Subscribe
Type your email...
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
28/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 336 of 713
(336 of 713), Page 336 of 713

By subscribing, I agree to Substack's Terms of Use, and acknowledge
its Information Collection Notice and Privacy Policy.
1 Like
Discussion about this post
Write a comment...
© 2025 Ashley Gjovik ∙ Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Substack is the home for great culture
Comments
Restacks
5/11/25, 1:12 PM
Field Notes on Regulatory Capture, Part II
https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/field-notes-on-regulatory-capture-c08
29/29
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 337 of 713
(337 of 713), Page 337 of 713

16 
EXHIBIT N: WHISTLEBLOWERS ARE THE CONSCIENCE OF 
SOCIETY, YET SUFFER GRAVELY (LLRX) 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 338 of 713
(338 of 713), Page 338 of 713

1/31
April 30, 2023
Whistleblowers Are the Conscience of Society, Yet Suffer
Gravely For Trying to Hold the Rich and Powerful
Accountable For Their Sins

llrx.com/2023/04/whistleblowers-are-the-conscience-of-society
Why Don’t More People Support Whistleblowers? …Legislatures
Should Provide the Protections They Deserve
[Author’s Note: I blew the whistle and was met with an experience so destructive that I did
not have the words to describe what happened to me. I set out to learn if what happened to
me is a known phenomenon and, if so, whether there are language and concepts to explain
the experience. I found it is well studied. This article focuses on experiences like mine, where
a still-employed whistleblower takes disclosures of systemic issues public due to inaction or
cover-ups by the institution. This article does not intend to discount the other varieties of
whistleblower experiences; instead, it seeks to explain, expose and validate the turmoil many
whistleblowers in similar positions are often forced to endure alone. You are not alone.] T
Editor’s Note: This article is republished with permission of the author with first publication
by CovertAction Magazine, a project of CovertAction Institute, Inc., a not-for-profit
organization incorporated in the State of New York. The group’s statement re Copyrighted
Material: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a not-for-profit charitable
organization incorporated in the State of New York, we are making such material available in
an effort to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find
solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. You can read more
about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law
School.
The term whistleblower is thought to originate from Victorian England, where, when a crime
was committed, the policemen would blow a whistle while chasing the criminals to alert the
public of the crime. Today, much like those historic figures, modern whistleblowers who spot
misconduct “blow the whistle” and alert the public of the threat. The whistleblower acts as an
early warning signal and defense mechanism of the common good.
The term “whistleblowing” can be used very broadly to refer to an act of dissent, or it can be
defined in a precise way, such as defined by statute. Whistleblowing generally seeks to
reveal abuse and malfeasance, and to promote accountability. Publicly known whistleblowing
[1]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 339 of 713
(339 of 713), Page 339 of 713

2/31
cases often concern issues of societal importance, like human rights violations,
environmental damage, health and safety dangers, miscarriages of justice, and systemic
corruption.
Legendary Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 
1971. 
[Source: britannica.com]
Despite the importance of their actions, named whistleblowers are often subjected to
oppressive and stigmatized labels—like “snitch” or “leaker.” Those discussing whistleblowers
often treat them as some sort of sympathetic antagonist, the person is publicized instead of
the disclosures, and coverage is constrained to interpreting actions only through formal laws
and norms with a deference to industry.
Perhaps due to the potential disruption whistleblower disclosures can cause to established
systems, there is a positivist urge to quantify and label whistleblowers. There have been
extensive—and generally fruitless—studies searching for a special recipe of human
[2]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 340 of 713
(340 of 713), Page 340 of 713

3/31
characteristics that lead one to become a whistleblower. This is misguided and distracts from
whistleblowing as a moral challenge anyone may have to face. Studies are predictably
conflicted as to the whistleblower’s most common gender, nationality, race, ethics, or age.
There does seem to be positive association with education, honesty, strength of spiritual
faith, and morality—only subjective characteristics. Studies have shown nearly half of all
workers never raise any concerns at all. Other workers may raise concerns and the employer
will actually quickly address the issue, or conversely the employee may give up after the first
failed attempt. It’s clear the distinguishing factors that sets whistleblowers apart from other
employees are the very acts of speaking out and escalating when the first attempt fails.
The attempted classification of scientific categories to predict whistleblowing have been
debunked and cautioned for decades—yet it persists. Ignoring the issues that cause the
person to come forward in the first place, many studies still focus on an endless search for
data points to classify whistleblowers based on immutable and subjective categories.
At best, this is perhaps researchers attempting to flag categories to screen potential risks to
power structures but, at worst, this is a disturbing quest to declare formal biological and
social determinants of moral behavior. In modern history, “scientific studies” attempting to
formally determine if people with certain immutable characteristics are superior or deficient
related to basic human behaviors and activities has often ended in tribunals.
There is also a flawed tendency toward a Foucauldian view of whistleblowers, celebrating
the idea of “fearless speech” and viewing the whistleblower as a political actor who performs
an act of resistance by speaking truth to power. This view is nascent—and only relevant at
the earliest stages of whistleblowing or for those who blow the whistle after they are well out
of harm’s way—while ignoring the predictable and devastating aftermath for those who blow
the whistle while still employed.
Far from some sort of fearless rebel, whistleblowers are often professional idealists and loyal
organization adherents who were not aware of the dangers and consequences of disclosure.
Instead, whistleblowers often earnestly trust their organization and believe it will take actions
to address the issues raised. Similarly, military and intelligence whistleblowers are often
conservative and patriotic.
Many whistleblowers speak up because they believe in formal procedures and justice, never
expecting an antagonistic response. Many whistleblowers also expect that taking the matter
to a regulatory body will finally deliver law and order to the situation, but instead are often
met with even more threats and retaliation, now by the government agencies supposedly
chartered to protect them.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 341 of 713
(341 of 713), Page 341 of 713

4/31
Frank Serpico, who exposed police corruption in New York City. [Source: npr.org]
Having a Reason to Blow a Whistle
Deconstructing the process of blowing the whistle, there are two significant moral
queries. The first is: When is it justified to blow the whistle at all? The second is:
When is it justifiable to not blow the whistle?
Justification for blowing the whistle requires: an organization, policy or product that poses a
serious and considerable harm to the public; the employee reported the threat to their
supervisor (if feasible); and, if not addressed, the employee escalated further to the extent
they exhausted all possibilities for resolution internally. If these requirements are satisfied, it
becomes morally permissible to blow the whistle, though the person is not morally required
to blow the whistle.
An employee becomes morally obligated to blow the whistle if the employee has accessible,
documented evidence that would convince a reasonable and impartial observer that the
whistleblower’s view of the situation is correct; and the employee has good reason to believe
that, by going public, the necessary changes will be brought about and harm will be
prevented.  Because managers are almost certain to deny wrong-doing, a whistleblower
needs ironclad evidence in-hand, and a whistleblower who can obtain this is in a rare and
impactful position. When all five conditions are met, whistleblowing is a form of “minimally
[7]
[8]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 342 of 713
(342 of 713), Page 342 of 713

5/31
decent Samaritanism.” Indeed, many whistleblowers have described themselves as
involuntarily compelled to blow the whistle and “having no other choice.” This is often in
direct contradiction to the way society wants to view whistleblowers.
For those in situations where whistleblowing would be justified but not morally required, there
is a moral and personal reckoning process. Functional considerations may be at play such
as social policy, individual prudence, legal protections, socioeconomic status, expectation of
loyalty to the organization, or organizational and professional norms. Regret functions to
connect seriousness to intention, while fear of retaliation may trigger moral disengagement
(i.e., dehumanizing victims) to reduce cognitive dissonance and throttle moral emotions.
 In
general, workers are most likely to blow the whistle on severe issues and intentional
misconduct. In two-thirds of cases the whistleblower went to a regulator because their
complaint was ignored by the company and, in ten percent of the cases, the whistleblower
came forward because of a cover-up.
[Source: ncbi.nim.nih.gov]
Whistleblowing is a dynamic process that takes time to unfold. Most people do nothing until
they are convinced the wrongdoing is alarming: morally offensive and with considerable
threat of harm. Most people have no idea what they are about to face, and may not have the
information required to properly reckon with the decision to be made. Many disclosures are
made in quiet good faith and the person would never think of themselves as a
“whistleblower,” and thus also does not gather sufficient evidence that could withstand an
imminent cover-up, nor would they have the perspective to actively identify, document, and
navigate the reprisals about to unfold.
[9]
[10]
[11]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 343 of 713
(343 of 713), Page 343 of 713

6/31
Effective whistleblowing is “the extent to which the questionable or wrongful practice (or
omission) is terminated at least partly because of whistleblowing and within a reasonable
time frame.” This may be displayed in the organization launching an investigation into the
whistleblower’s allegations (on their own initiative or required by a government agency),
and/or if the organization takes steps to change policies, procedures, or eliminate
wrongdoing. Few may be able to achieve these outcomes and those who do may still
question if it was worth the sacrifice.
Predictable Violence
Despite the appearance of whistleblower laws and protections in the United States, the
inefficacy of these protections is demonstrated by the institutional violence used to silence,
discredit and, ultimately forcibly remove the whistleblower from the workplace. Whistleblower
retaliation is a severe form of violence and whistleblowers who disclose while still employed
seldom anticipate the often-catastrophic consequences of their actions.
On the other side, faced with a blown whistle, institutions instinctively react to minimize their
culpability and damage. The standard management tactic is instigating mobbing by co-
workers to then build a vague complaint against the whistleblower, which is then investigated
and documented to impugn the whistleblower’s credibility and assassinate their character,
and the whistleblower is then also formally isolated to “protect” the new farcical investigation.
Ultimately, about 70% of whistleblowers will find themselves swiftly fired or forced to
resign—usually the whistleblowers who took their concerns outside the company.
Retaliation against whistleblowers is common and severe. Those who report externally and
trigger adverse publicity can expect to meet “comprehensive forms of retaliation.” Those who
blow the whistle on serious wrongdoing are expected to suffer “significant damage.”
Whistleblowers often face retaliation to the extent it disrupts their core sense of self. The
impact of whistleblower retaliation cannot be overstated.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 344 of 713
(344 of 713), Page 344 of 713

7/31
[Source: poststar.com]
Disabling PTSD-like symptoms first start with self-doubt and then escalate in a spiral to a
loss of sense of coherence, dignity and self-worth. This anxiety is felt for years. Compared to
the general population, whistleblowers have much more severe depression, anxiety, distrust
and sleeping problems. Some 88% of whistleblowers report intrusive thoughts and
nightmares, 89% report feeling humiliated about the situation, and 87% report belief there
was a hostile mob organized against them. The psychological impact has been compared to
the grief associated with the death of a loved one, or a person’s mental state two to three
weeks after experiencing a major natural disaster.
In addition to counter-accusations and job loss, retaliation may include: demotion,
harassment, decreased quality of working conditions, threats, reassignment to degrading
work, character assassination, reprimands, denigration, punitive transfers, increase in
workload, smear campaigns, surveillance, rumors, deny listing from their field of work, denial
of promotions, overly critical performance reviews, double-binding, the “cold shoulder,”
referral to psychiatrists, manufacturing personal and/or professional problems, exclusion
from meetings, insults, retaliatory lawsuits, stalking, ostracism, petty harassment, abuse,
[17]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 345 of 713
(345 of 713), Page 345 of 713

8/31
bullying, doxing, vandalism and destruction of personal property, police reports and arrests,
and even harm to the whistleblower’s own body through physical attacks and sexual
assaults, to the extent of assassination.
There are several known, confirmed whistleblower assassinations in just the last few years,
including:
Eliud Montoya blew the whistle on a labor-trafficking scheme at his company, where
undocumented workers were hired and their pay was skimmed—with the perpetrators
stealing more than $3.5 million. In 2017, Montoya reported the scheme to his company
management (a subsidiary of Davey Tree Expert Company), then four months later
also reported the situation to the U.S. EEOC. Two days after Montoya took the
complaint to federal regulators, three men at the company assassinated Montoya,
shooting him to death.
Another assassinated whistleblower was Babita Deokaran, the chief director of
financial accounting at a Department of Health agency in South Africa. She blew the
whistle on suspected corruption at Tembisa Hospital, flagging nearly £43m of possibly
fraudulent transactions. The corruption is now suspected to also be connected to an
organized crime ring. In 2021, Deokaran was shot dead outside of her home in a “hit-
style” killing. Days before the murder she had warned her supervisors “our lives could
be in danger.”
In New York, Allyzibeth Lamont discovered her boss was paying employees under the
table (not deducting payroll taxes). She reported the issue to the New York Department
of Labor and planned to take the issue public. The employer testified he was nervous
the labor complaint would now “get in the way” of his plans to open a new location, so
he hired someone to assist him in assassinating Lamont. In 2019, Lamont was
suffocated with a plastic bag over her head, then beaten to death with a baseball bat
and sledgehammer, and her body dumped in a shallow grave next to a highway. The
New York Labor Commissioner said Lamont’s killing was “the most heinous act of
retaliation against a worker that the New York State Department of Labor has ever
seen.”
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 346 of 713
(346 of 713), Page 346 of 713

9/31
Allyzibeth Lamont [Source: people.com]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 347 of 713
(347 of 713), Page 347 of 713

10/31
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 348 of 713
(348 of 713), Page 348 of 713

11/31
Eliud Montoya [Source: gunmemorial.org]
[Source: news24.com]
In addition to known murders, there are also several notoriously suspicious whistleblower
deaths which are suspected to be retaliatory killings, including:
Frank Olson was an executive in the CIA’s Special Operations Division and MK-ULTRA
program. Olson was involved in a number of ghastly secret chemical and biological
warfare experiments and operations. Olson expressed shame about his involvement
and compared some of the U.S.’s activities to “what had been done to people in
concentration camps.” He told his wife he was deeply bothered about the germ warfare
experiments in Korea, that he had “made a terrible mistake,” and contemplated quitting.
There were also suspicions Olson planned to blow the whistle on the CIA’s connection
to a mass poisoning event in Pont-Saint-Esprit in 1951. Shortly after failing a CIA
interrogation in 1953, and a finding that he breached security protocols, Olson then “fell
out of a window.” The witness, another CIA executive, could not provide a coherent
explanation of events leading up to the fall yet, right after the “fall,” he made a phone
call to an unidentified source saying “he’s gone,” to which the person replied “that’s too
bad” and hung up. An autopsy found a blow to Olson’s head from the butt of a gun. The
night before his death, Olson told his wife someone was trying to poison him and he
feared for his safety.
[22]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 349 of 713
(349 of 713), Page 349 of 713

12/31
Karen Silkwood was a lab technician at a Kerr-McGee plutonium plant. In 1974, she
reported to her labor union and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission that the plant had
quality-control failures and lax safety procedures that put employees at risk of
radioactive contamination. The union encouraged her to gather internal documents to
corroborate her allegations. Less than two months later, she was contaminated with
plutonium at work three days in a row, and then also found plutonium contamination in
her home—all of which she alleged was intimidation by Kerr-McGee. Silkwood
persisted, obtained corroborating evidence, including documents exposing that a
significant amount of plutonium was missing from the factory, and got in her car to drive
to meet with a New York Times reporter to share the documents. Silkwood was found
dead in a car crash. The documents Silkwood obtained to expose Kerr-McGee went
missing. It was later revealed Silkwood likely unwittingly collected documents that also
exposed a nuclear smuggling ring.
[23]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 350 of 713
(350 of 713), Page 350 of 713

13/31
[Source: delphiumbooks.com]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 351 of 713
(351 of 713), Page 351 of 713

14/31
Frank Olson [Source: nbcnews.com]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 352 of 713
(352 of 713), Page 352 of 713

15/31
Cliff Baxter was a vice chairman at Enron and had raised a number of concerns
internally about Enron’s dubious off-the-books transactions with private partnerships.
Fellow Enron whistleblower Sherron Watkins noted Baxter’s dissent in her now famous
memorandum to CEO Kenneth Lay. In 2002, two weeks after Baxter was first publicly
named as an Enron whistleblower in Watkins’s memo, Baxter was found shot dead in
his car with “rat-shot” (an unusual type of ammunition not easily traced back to the gun
from which it was fired). Baxter had unexplained wounds on his hand and shards of
glass on his shirt. A few days before his death, Baxter had commented about needing
a bodyguard. At that time, Enron was engaged in the now notorious, extensive and
obstructive shredding of incriminating documents and deletion of computer files.
[24]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 353 of 713
(353 of 713), Page 353 of 713

16/31
William Lerach, an attorney representing shareholders suing 29 current
and former Enron Corporation executives and directors, carries a box of
shredded documents into Federal Court in Houston on January 22, 2002.
[Source: sfgate.com]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 354 of 713
(354 of 713), Page 354 of 713

17/31
[Source: nytimes.com]
Based on the U.S.’s history of incredibly violent responses to labor organizing, it is probably
safe to assume that, if large, powerful institutions could successfully murder their most
threatening whistleblowers, they would not hesitate to do so.
The capacity for retaliatory physical violence may often be present (especially if the whistle is
blown on an institution with a large private security force), and threats of violence can be
exceptionally effective in silencing witnesses. However, threats of violence and attempts at
assault are often not worth the risk to employers, as it may give the employee tangible proof
of retaliation, an actionable complaint for law enforcement, and also lead to extensive
publicity. Thus, employers seem most often to follow a playbook designed to initiate a self-
destruction protocol through social and psychological violence, instead of direct physical
assaults.
Overall, 99% of whistleblowers report feeling harassed, 94% report bullying that left them
fearful, and 89% reported confrontation and threats. About 14% of whistleblowers reported
being physically and/or sexually assaulted. Retaliation is expected to be more severe when
the person discloses information about systemic and deep-seated wrongdoing (as opposed
to isolated incidents), or when whistleblowers go outside their organization to report to a
regulator or journalist.
Management will often continue to allow, if not actively enable or instigate, retaliation by co-
workers. The corporation will pressure other employees to collude against and inform on the
activities of the whistleblower. The whistleblower will concurrently be ostracized and
shunned, with their disclosures scrutinized and minimized, in order to thwart their sense of
purpose and community (factors often associated with depression and suicide). Some 50%
of whistleblowers admit to thoughts of suicide.
 [25]
[26]
[27]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 355 of 713
(355 of 713), Page 355 of 713

18/31
[Source: thehrcompany.ie]
One of the most devastating forms of retaliation to a whistleblower is gaslighting. The
corporation wants to deflect its wrongdoing, degrade its victims, and undermine the victim’s
credibility as a witness. To achieve this, the institution enables reprisals and retaliation, then
explains away those actions with excuses and misdirection, and then claims the
whistleblower is overreacting irrationally, while also creating a mirage of concern and respect
for the whistleblower. This psychological manipulation protocol intends to cause the
whistleblower to question their own memory, perception, and sanity. To onlookers without
context, the whistleblower appears inconsistent and unstable.
[Source: linktr.ee]
Retaliation by official government channels is especially problematic because, while similar
gaslighting is likely to occur, public opinion will generally view those processes as fair and
independent while, in reality, those agencies were often created and captured by business
interests.
 Official channels also narrow the disclosures due to statutory terms and
[28]
[29]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 356 of 713
(356 of 713), Page 356 of 713

19/31
regulatory procedures, transforming the whistleblower’s experience of retaliation into an
administrative and technical matter—which may be dragged out for years before commonly
being dismissed without proper investigation. The institutional systems put in place to squash
whistleblowers intend to leave the whistleblower, and anyone watching, to feel there was no
point in ever coming forward.
Similarly, the press has been known to publish adversarial coverage of credible
whistleblowers, even on matters of great public importance. The press and pundits may
participate in smears and discredit the whistleblower through racist and classist ideology,
while concurrently parroting the institution’s unsubstantiated statements as conclusive fact.
They may also frame the whistleblower and supporters as “conspiracy theorists” or otherwise
untrustworthy, and push a hero-traitor paradigm. These tactics can be quite intentional,
fueled by professional and partisan politics, and business interests. Institutions, especially
the U.S. government, have even been known to reward journalists willing to push the
institution’s biased views, and punish the reporters who tell the truth.
Through the process of complex and holistic retaliation, a whistleblower’s identity will be
disrupted. In order to counter the gaslighting, the whistleblower must accept a variety of
institutional betrayals and tend to their resulting moral injuries. Like the prisoner freed from
Plato’s Cave, they must reckon with a different view of the world than they had before. This
new knowledge of how the world really works does not fit within the existing frames and
forms of society, and they must now walk in the world knowing what most do not, and
wishing they never learned it themselves. The whistleblower will avoid people and places
that trigger traumatic memories and feelings of humiliation, paranoia, or despair. This is likely
to include self-withdrawal from social contacts and abandoning hobbies. Most whistleblowers
will also report an increase in physical pain and fatigue. Whistleblowers often (78%) suffer
from declining physical health post-disclosure.
Instead of resembling the sort of rebellious, inspirational hero they are often depicted as,
many whistleblowers suffer an existence comparable to Saint Sebastian (martyr) or Job
(biblical figure). The media continue to personify the act of whistleblowing in the
whistleblower (ignoring the institutional response), and the public often only engages with the
grotesque truth of retaliation if presented in beautiful aesthetic like a magazine profile
(imagine Francisco Goya’s “Saturn Devouring His Son” on display at the Prado Museum in
Madrid). No one wants to accept that an embodied and vulnerable person is made to suffer
so severely in a sacrificial battle for the common good.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 357 of 713
(357 of 713), Page 357 of 713

20/31
[Source: wikiart.org]
“Whistleblower”
Rather than abstract figures, whistleblowers are embodied, relational beings and, like
everyone, their minds and bodies are vulnerable to demise. The experience of whistleblower
retaliation is chaotic. The identity crisis that results from the aftermath of blowing the whistle
can lead to an un-doing of the person. Previously held and stable views of self are thrown
into disarray, leading to an unraveling of one’s identity and an experience of derealization.
Retaliation robs whistleblowers of their identities as capable and successful professionals.
Having spoken up, they are no longer seen as valid subjects deserving of basic respect, and
so become targets of various kinds of retaliation and ridicule. Having spoken up, they are no
longer seen as sufficiently valid to hire and, instead, they are excluded from recruitment
processes. Finally, they are denied subjectivity in social interactions. They are seen as the
“other” and shunned by former friends.
A boundary appears to emerge and these subjects find themselves on the outside.
This experience plunges whistleblowers into an existential crisis. The human mind works
hard to avoid these crises, and may clutch the stigmatized, controversial identity of
“whistleblower” as a psychic lifeline, seeing no other option for a normative identity and
preferring it over “leaker” or “activist” or worse. The experience will often leave
whistleblowers’ minds stuck in static time and their lives paralyzed by the trauma. Those who
are able to survive severe retaliation intact, often live the remainder of their lives in a state
the Japanese refer to as “the freedom of one who lives as already dead.” 
[34]
[35]
[36]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 358 of 713
(358 of 713), Page 358 of 713

21/31
“First one is enveloped by death, then one becomes the death by which one was
enveloped and so goes on to live in a new way.” 
Power and the Dance of Dissent
Power is complex and circulating between the person being retaliated against and the
organization which is retaliating. Some call this the “Dance of Dissent.”
The nature and extent of retaliation can be viewed as a balance of power between
whistleblower and wrongdoer. Retaliation will likely be worse when the institution senses a
threat to its resources due to the disclosure: if their exposed conduct involves harm to the
public, if the legitimacy of the organization is threatened, or if the wrongdoing has already
become systemic to the organization. If the organization is heavily dependent upon the
wrongdoing for resources, the more a whistleblower attempts to disrupt the wrongdoing, the
more the corporation will resist and retaliate. If the whistleblower is a senior employee, the
company is more likely to make an example of the “defector.” In these situations, the
retaliation may even rise to intentional “punishment.”
Individuals who are connected to the illicit actions in some ways are likely to view
whistleblowers as threats to the system they are still a part of. For managers and co-workers
who directly engaged in the exposed wrongdoing, or have been tacit observers to it, their
immediate and natural response is to deny or minimize the illicit behavior. Anyone who
stands to benefit from the unethical activity is a candidate for administering punishment.
Implicated individuals may be fearful of losing status, reputation and material rewards. Faced
with feelings of apprehension and helplessness caused by the thought of losing resources,
individuals may see retaliation against the whistleblower as a way to prevent that from
happening. Rather than risk losing the benefits they may reap from the unethical behavior,
individuals are likely to try to discredit the whistleblower and the allegations, in an effort to
keep the established system from unraveling. As the system continues, the potential threat of
whistleblowers to this “house of cards” becomes more dangerous and institutions will take
various measures to dissuade anyone else from speaking out.
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 359 of 713
(359 of 713), Page 359 of 713

22/31
[Source: journals.sagepub.com]
Defense of a collective identity may also trigger a negative response to a whistleblower’s
actions. Group members who share strong collective identities may feel overly protective of
one another and, thus, choose to retaliate against whistleblowers they view as trying to
disrupt these strong ties. Blowing the whistle on something like systemic corruption can
represent a perceived threat to one’s group or system. These threats, in turn, activate
cognitive and emotional processes. A norm of self-interest is likely to encourage the actor to
do what is necessary to maintain the status quo.
A Precarious Ledge
Whistleblowers are dependent on institutions and infrastructures (and their relational
interdependence), for their material survival after speaking up against wrongdoing. The
whistleblower is under relentless pressure in precarious living conditions. After losing their
livelihood, profession, and income—whistleblowers may eventually be forced to give up their
fight to avoid homelessness and/or bankruptcy. Many whistleblowers will eventually lose their
homes and their families, and around half will file for bankruptcy. “A typical fate is for a
nuclear engineer to end up selling computers at Radio Shack.”
[41]
[42]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 360 of 713
(360 of 713), Page 360 of 713

23/31
[Source: blogwhistleblowersecurity.org]
After making disclosures, a whistleblower’s income plummets while expenses rack up with
relocation to a new home, legal costs, medical costs after losing insurance, costs for re-
training in a new field, and credit fees and interest during the period of post-disclosure
unemployment. The average shortfall during this period is $32,580 a year, and for those who
are fired or otherwise lose earnings, the average shortfall is $76,291 a year. Even when
whistleblowers are allowed to return to work, they can expect their average earnings to drop
67% post-disclosure.
The time and work spent on disclosures and surviving the aftermath is entirely unpaid,
unless there is an eventual lawsuit decision with compensatory damages, but that often
takes years. However, the required activities of a whistleblower post-disclosure are a “full-
time, all-consuming job in and of itself.” Virtually all (97%) whistleblowers report spending
more than 100 hours on disclosure-related activities and 39% report spending more than
1,000 hours. Only the whistleblower has the knowledge and experience to provide lengthy
and detailed descriptions of the wrongdoing and any subsequent retaliation. Such work is
often carried out alone, unsupported and uncompensated.
Because whistleblowers are usually met
with character assassination and smear
campaigns, in addition to managing the
disclosures, whistleblowers are also forced
into a self-advocacy role as a necessary
defense in this time of precarity. If the
whistleblower’s name is made public, a
self-advocacy role is not optional and is
essential to effective whistleblowing and
personal survival. Time is spent seeking
help from journalists, politicians,
regulators, and lawyers—all of whom
require different presentations of case information.
If the whistleblower decides to also seek justice for the post-disclosure aftermath, it becomes
a second campaign requiring as much cost and effort as the original claim. In both cases,
time is required to prepare for and engage in lengthy court cases: compiling evidence,
researching legal rights, studying organizational policies, assisting investigations, and
advocating for political support.
This time spent on disclosures might otherwise be devoted to seeking further employment,
retraining, and engaging in the self-care required to mitigate the adverse health effects of
whistleblowing-related stress. Instead, that required work is postponed. Concurrently,
whistleblowers often deny the vulnerability they experience. Many suffer severe financial
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 361 of 713
(361 of 713), Page 361 of 713

24/31
loss, but prefer to hide it due to social stigma around wealth and status. Similarly,
whistleblowers also find themselves coerced to subvert outward signals of their internal
suffering and terror, “in the name of effective lobbying.”
Pointless Is the Point
Whistleblowers are an antithesis to cultures of secrecy, which are fertile for corruption due to
the lack of disinfecting sunlight. As of 2022, 52% of organizations surveyed with revenue
exceeding $10 billion said they experienced fraud in the past two years, the highest level in
20 years of research; 18% of those companies reported more than $50 million in financial
impact due to the fraud incident. One-quarter (24%) of the fraud reported was asset
misappropriation (illegal activities in the workplace). The perpetrator of the most severe fraud
was identified to be internal 31% of the time and collusion between internal/external actors
26% of the time.
[Source: economist.com]
Whistleblowers are desperately needed, yet U.S. whistleblower protection laws (an
inconsistent web of employment law protections claiming to encourage disclosures of
evidence of wrongdoing by offering “protections” from retaliation) dependably fail to actually
protect employees. Existing schemes are not working for the majority they are supposed to
serve and are based on flawed assumptions about the tangible and material experiences of
[47]
[48]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 362 of 713
(362 of 713), Page 362 of 713

25/31
speaking out. Some critics have gone so far to allege the current whistleblower laws are a
“cynical attempt to entrap whistleblowers in a procedural abyss” and to fool employees into
revealing their identity in order to make them easier targets for attack.
Indeed, it is a cruel lie to call these laws “protections” when the best they offer is a small
chance for an insufficient “remedy” after the fact—and even that still requires years of
additional abuse and subjugation to obtain. Further, once an employee goes to a regulator in
the U.S., there is a significant chance the employee will face additional retaliation by the
regulator on behalf of the corporation or in support of business interests generally.
[Source: colombian.com]
This societal structure of whistleblowing puts the burden on individuals to alleviate systemic
informational problems. Yet at the same time, whistleblower laws focus on what is done to
whistleblowers (retaliation) and frequently neglect investigation into the original issues the
employee raised. When policies compel employees to put themselves at risk and fulfill their
presumed ethical obligations to come forward and disclose wrongdoing, it raises a question if
that compulsion is ethical due to the personal devastation that will likely follow.
[49]
[50]
[51]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 363 of 713
(363 of 713), Page 363 of 713

26/31
Because a successful whistleblower brings down corrupt people in high places simply by
exposing information, it is foolish to not recognize the incredible risk inherent in threatening
the status and livelihood of those in powerful positions, and the incentive they have to bury
that information and anyone who knows about it. The bare minimum the U.S. must do today
is formally criminalize retaliation against whistleblowers. The laws and precedent for such
legislation already exist in prosecutions of people for obstruction of justice and for witness-
tampering but are rarely used outside of murder cases.
A whistleblower who turns to regulators is ultimately a witness and informant; thus, there is
no reason the same laws that protect someone directly assisting the Department of Justice
on a criminal investigation should not apply to a whistleblower disclosing misconduct under
other federal statutes. There also needs to be an independent mechanism for this process
outside of the captured labor agencies. As of now, the ability (if any) for labor agencies to
refer cases to the U.S. DOJ is unclear. Further, the process for seeking assistance directly
from the U.S. DOJ is even more unclear and whistleblowers are likely to face similar issues
of capture, at least for intake, as the captured labor agencies.
Until there is at least some deterrent for employers to retaliate against whistleblowers (i.e.,
jail time instead of a relatively small fine), we should expect the devastating experience that
is destined in certain types of whistleblowing to continue. This deters would-be
whistleblowers from coming forward, instead of deterring institutions from engaging in
misconduct.
1. Hazlina Shaik Md Noor Alam, “Whistleblowing When It Hurts: Whistleblower
Gaslighting and Institutional Secrecy,” International Conference on Law, Environment
and Society, October 2019; Multinational Monitor, “Blowing the Whistle on Corporate
Wrongdoing: An Interview with Tom Devine,” Vol. 23, No. 10, October/November 2002.
↑
2. Brian Martin and Will Rifkin, “The Dynamics of Employee Dissent: Whistleblowers and
Organizational Jiu-Jitsu,” Public Organization Review, 4: 221–238 (2004); Hannah
Bloch-Wehba, “The Promise and Perils of Tech Whistleblowing,” Northwestern
University Law Review, March 7, 2023; Brita Bjorkelo and Ole Jacob Madsen,
“Whistleblowing and Neoliberalism: Political Resistance in Late Capitalist Economy,”
Psychology & Society, Vol. 5, No. 2, (2013); Richard Alexander, “The Role of
Whistleblowers in the Fight against Economic Crime,” Journal of Financial Crime, Vol.
12, No. 2, (2004). ↑
3. Adam R. Nicholls, et al., “Snitches Get Stitches and End Up in Ditches: A Systematic
Review of the Factors Associated with Whistleblowing Intentions.” Frontiers in
Psychology, October 5, 2021; Matthew McClearn, “A Snitch in Time,” Canadian
Business, Vol. 77 Issue 1, 60-70 (Dec 2003); Kate Kenny, Marianna Fotaki,, and Wim
Vandekerckhove, “Whistleblower Subjectivities: Organization and Passionate
Attachment,” Organization Studies (2018). ↑
[52]
[53]
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 364 of 713
(364 of 713), Page 364 of 713

27/31
4. Michael Davis, “Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing,” Business & Professional Ethics
Journal, Vol 15, No 1 (1996). ↑
5. Brian Martin, “Illusions of Whistleblower Protection,” UTS Law Review, No. 5 (2003);
Kate Kenny, “Censored: Whistleblowers and Impossible Speech,” Human Relations,
Vol. 71, No. 8 (2018). ↑
6. Kenny et al., “Whistleblower Subjectivities”; Kaeten Mistry and Hannah Gurman, eds.,
Whistleblowing Nation: The History of National Security Disclosures and the Cult of
State Secrecy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2020); Martin and Rifkin, “The
Dynamics of Employee Dissent.” ↑
7. Herman T. Tavani and Frances Grodzinsky, “Trust, Betrayal, and Whistle-Blowing:
Reflections on the Edward Snowden Case,” ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society,
44(3), Special Issue on Whistle-Blowing (2014); Davis, “Some Paradoxes of
Whistleblowing.” ↑
8. Tavani and Grodzinsky, “Trust, Betrayal, and Whistle-Blowing.” ↑
9. Carmen R. Apaza and Yongjin Chang, “What Makes Whistleblowing Effective:
Whistleblowing in Peru and South Korea,” Public Integrity, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Spring 2011);
Martin and Rifkin, “The Dynamics of Employee Dissent”; Kenny et al., “Whistleblower
Subjectivities”; Davis, “Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing.” ↑
10. Kenny et al., “Whistleblower Subjectivities”; Jawad Khan, et al., “Examining
Whistleblowing Intention: The Influence of Rationalization on Wrongdoing and Threat of
Retaliation,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; 19(3):
1752 (February 2022); Davis, “Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing”; Khan, et al.,
“Examining Whistleblowing Intention”; Nicholls et al., “Snitches Get Stitches and End
Up in Ditches.” ↑
11. April White, “Truth Be Told,” Harvard Business School (December 6, 2021),
https://www.alumni.hbs.edu/stories/Pages/story-bulletin.aspx?num=8524; Nicholls et
al., “Snitches Get Stitches and End Up in Ditches”; Martin, “Illusions of Whistleblower
Protection”; Khan, et al., “Examining Whistleblowing Intention.” ↑
12. Apaza et al., “What Makes Whistleblowing Effective.” ↑
13. Jacqueline Garrick and Martina Buck, “Whistleblower Retaliation Checklist: A New
Instrument for Identifying Retaliatory Tactics and Their Psychosocial Impacts After an
Employee Discloses Workplace Wrongdoing,” Crisis, Stress, and Human Resilience
(CSHR): An International Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2 (September 2020); McClearn, “A Snitch
in Time.” ↑
14. Garrick and Buck, “Whistleblower Retaliation Checklist”; Shaik, “Whistleblowing When
It Hurts.” ↑
15. Apaza et al., “What Makes Whistleblowing Effective.” ↑
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 365 of 713
(365 of 713), Page 365 of 713

28/31
16. Kathy Ahern, “Institutional Betrayal and Gaslighting: Why Whistle-Blowers Are So
Traumatized,” The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, Vol. 32, No. 1, 59–65
(2018); Apaza et al., “What Makes Whistleblowing Effective”; Khan et al., “Examining
Whistleblowing Intention”; Kate Kenny, Marianna Fotaki, and Stacey Scriver, “Mental
Health as a Weapon: Whistleblower Retaliation and Normative Violence,” Journal of
Business Ethics, 160, 801–815 (2019). ↑
17. Peter G. van der Velden, et al., “Mental Health Problems Among Whistleblowers: A
Comparative Study,” Psychological Reports, 122 (2): 632-644 (April 2019); Garrick and
Buck, “Whistleblower Retaliation Checklist”; Ahern, “Institutional Betrayal and
Gaslighting”; Peter G. van der Velden, et al., “Mental Health Problems Among
Whistleblowers.” ↑
18. Martin, “Illusions of Whistleblower Protection”; Garrick and Buck, “Whistleblower
Retaliation Checklist”; Martin and Rifkin, “The Dynamics of Employee Dissent”; Kenny,
et al., “Mental Health as a Weapon”; Mark Worth, “Diagnosing Retaliation: The
Traumatizing and Insidious Effects of Whistleblowing,” Whistleblower Network News,
https://whistleblowersblog.org/features/diagnosing-retaliation-the-traumatizing-and-
insidious-effects-of-whistleblowing/ ↑
19. United States Department of Justice, “Guilty verdict on all counts for illegal alien who
murdered whistleblower in an illegal labor conspiracy” (November 1, 2022),
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdga/pr/guilty-verdict-all-counts-illegal-alien-who-
murdered-whistleblower-illegal-labor; US DOJ, Three Men Indicted In Conspiracy to Kill
Whistleblower, (December 13, 2018), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdga/pr/three-men-
indicted-conspiracy-kill-whistleblower ↑
20. Ben Farmer and Peta Thornycroft, “Mystery of murdered whistleblower who uncovered
hospital corruption,” The Telegraph, October 11, 2022,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/mystery-murdered-
whistleblower-babita-deokaran-who-uncovered/; News24, “Silenced: Why Babita
Deokaran was murdered,” https://specialprojects.news24.com/silenced/index.html ↑
21. Aaron Keller, “‘I Hope and Pray that You Die Alone and Scared’: Family Members of
Victim Slam ‘Piece of Sh*t’ Restaurant Boss for Brutal Murder of Employee,” Law &
Crime, November 30, 2021, https://lawandcrime.com/crime/i-hope-and-pray-that-you-
die-alone-and-scared-family-members-of-victim-slam-piece-of-sht-restaurant-boss-for-
brutal-murder-of-employee/ ; Stephen Williams, “Kakavelos found guilty of first-degree
murder, nine other charges,” The Daily Gazette, June 17, 2021,
https://dailygazette.com/2021/06/17/kakavelos-found-guilty-of-first-degree-murder-nine-
other-charges/ ↑
22. Jeremy Kuzmarov, “There’s Something Rotten in Denmark:” Frank Olson and the
Macabre Fate of a CIA Whistleblower in the Early Cold War,” Class, Race and
Corporate Power: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 3 (2020). ↑
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 366 of 713
(366 of 713), Page 366 of 713

29/31
23. “Karen Silkwood dies in mysterious one-car crash, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-
history/karen-silkwood-dies-in-mysterious-one-car-crash; Howard Kohn, “Karen
Silkwood: The Case of the Activist’s Death,” Rolling Stone, January 13, 1977,
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/karen-silkwood-the-case-of-the-
activists-death-52287/; Jennifer Latson, “The Nuclear-Safety Activist Whose Mysterious
Death Inspired a Movie,” Time, November 13, 2014; David Burnham, “US Says Lost
Plutonium,” The New York Times, (Jan 3
1975), https://www.nytimes.com/1975/01/03/archives/us-says-lost-plutonium-is-only-a-
small-amount.html. ↑
24. Chris Oregan, “The Mysterious Death of an Enron Exec,” CBS (April 10, 2002),
https://web.archive.org/web/20090315083648/https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/0
4/10/eveningnews/main505845.shtmlPatrick Martin, “The strange and convenient
death of J. Clifford Baxter—Enron executive found shot to death,” World Socialist Web
Site, (January 28, 2002), https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/01/enro-j28.html; Brian
Ross, “Enron Destroyed Documents by the Truckload,” ABC News, (January 29, 2002),
https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130518&page=1 ↑
25. Paul F. Lipold, “’Striking Deaths’ at their Roots: Assaying the Social Determinants of
Extreme Labor-Management Violence in US Labor History—1877–1947,” Social
Science History, 38(3-4), 541-575 (2014); Jonah Walters, “Labor Day is May 1,”
Jacobin, September 7, 2015, https://jacobin.com/2015/09/labor-day-may-first-
american-labor-movement-haymarket/; “The Labor Movement,” Zinn Education Project,
https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/labor-movement; PBS, “Labor Wars in the
U.S.,” PBS: The Mine Wars,
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/theminewars-labor-wars-us/;
Richard Alexander, “The Role of Whistleblowers in the Fight Against Economic Crime,”
Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 131-138 (2004). ↑
26. Kenny, “Censored: Whistleblowers and Impossible Speech”; Garrick and Buck,
“Whistleblower Retaliation Checklist.” ↑
27. Garrick and Buck, “Whistleblower Retaliation Checklist.” ↑
28. Garrick and Buck, “Whistleblower Retaliation Checklist”; Ahern, “Institutional Betrayal
and Gaslighting.” ↑
29. Martin and Rifkin, “The Dynamics of Employee Dissent.” ↑
30. Shaik, “Whistleblowing When It Hurts”; Martin and Rifkin, “The Dynamics of Employee
Dissent”; Neil Weinberg, “He Investigated Dubious Firings for U.S. Then He Was
Fired,” Bloomberg, July 21, 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-
21/he-investigated-suspicious-firings-for-u-s-then-he-was-fired ↑
31. Mistry, “Whistleblowing Nation” ↑
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 367 of 713
(367 of 713), Page 367 of 713

30/31
32. C. Fred Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power, (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 2002); Peter G. van der Velden, et al., “Mental Health
Problems Among Whistleblowers”; Craig J. Bryan, et al., “Measuring Moral Injury:
Psychometric Properties of the Moral Injury Events Scale in Two Military Samples,”
Assessment, 1-14, (2015); Garrick and Buck, “Whistleblower Retaliation Checklist”;
Alec M. Smidt and Jennifer J. Freyd, “Government-mandated Institutional Betrayal,”
Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 19:5, 491-499 (2018); Kenny, et al., “Mental Health
as a Weapon.” ↑
33. Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power; Britannica, “St.
Sebastian,” Encyclopedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-
Sebastian ↑
34. Kenny, “Censored: Whistleblowers and Impossible Speech”; Kenny, et al., “Mental
Health as a Weapon”; Kate Kenny and Marianna Fotaki, “The Costs and Labour of
Whistleblowing: Bodily Vulnerability and Post-disclosure Survival,” Journal of Business
Ethics, 182, pp. 341-64 (2023). ↑
35. Kenny, “Censored.” ↑
36. Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power; Kenny, et al,
“Whistleblower Subjectivities.” ↑
37. Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power. ↑
38. John J. Sumanth, David M. Mayer, and Virginia S. Kay, “Why Good Guys Finish Last:
The Role of Justification Motives, Cognition, and Emotion in Predicting Retaliation
Against Whistleblowers,” Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 1, Issue 2, (2011);
Kenny, et al., “Mental Health as a Weapon”; Martin and Rifkin, “The Dynamics of
Employee Dissent”; Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power. ↑
39. Sumanth, et al., “Why Good Guys Finish Last.” ↑
40. Id. ↑
41. Id. ↑
42. Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power; Kenny, et al., “Mental
Health as a Weapon”; Kenny and Fotaki, “The Costs and Labour of Whistleblowing. ↑
43. Kenny and Fotaki, “The Costs and Labour of Whistleblowing. ↑
44. A full-time job is generally 1,700 hours per year. Kenny and Fotaki, “The Costs and
Labour of Whistleblowing.” ↑
45. Kenny and Fotaki, “The Costs and Labour of Whistleblowing.” ↑
46. Kenny and Fotaki, “The Costs and Labour of Whistleblowing.” ↑
47. Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power; Kenny and Fotaki,
“The Costs and Labour of Whistleblowing.” ↑
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 368 of 713
(368 of 713), Page 368 of 713

31/31
48. Sharfa Hassan, et al., “Unethical Leadership: Review, Synthesis and Directions for
Future Research,” Journal of Business Ethics, 183. 1-40 (2022); PwC, “PwC’s Global
Economic Crime and Fraud Survey” (2022).
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/forensics/economic-crime-survey.html; Dr.
Devakumar Jacob, “Collateral Damage: An Urgent Need for Legal Apparatus for
Protection of the Whistleblowers & RTI Activists,” IOSR Journal of Humanities and
Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 19, Issue 4, Ver. VII (April 2014). ↑
49. Martin, “Illusions of Whistleblower Protection”; Kenny and Fotaki, “The Costs and
Labour of Whistleblowing.” ↑
50. Martin, “Illusions of Whistleblower Protection”; Vicky Nguyen, Liz Wagner and Felipe
Escamilla, “OSHA Whistleblower Investigator Blows Whistle on Own Agency,” NBC
Bay Area, February 24, 2015, https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/osha-
whistleblower-investigator-blows-whistle-on-own-agency/77171/ ↑
51. Kenny and Fotaki, “The Costs and Labour of Whistleblowing”; Martin, “Illusions of
Whistleblower Protection”; Bloch-Wehba, “The Promise and Perils of Tech
Whistleblowing.” ↑
52. Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver, “To Tell the Truth,” Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan/Feb 2006); Anthony R. Petruzzi, Adrienne B. Kirshner,
“Beware of Potential Criminal Implications for the Improper Handling of a Whistleblower
Investigation,” Inside Counsel (October 21, 2015); Martin, “Illusions of Whistleblower
Protection”; United States v. Stoker, 706 F.3d 643, 646 (5th Cir. 2013). ↑
53. 18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant; 18 U.S. Code
§ 1513 – Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant; Thomas Brewster,
“FBI’s San Francisco Chief: We Heart Apple, They Train Our Cops,” Forbes (January
16, 2018), https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/01/16/apple-and-the-fbi-
are-closer-than-you-think ↑
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 369 of 713
(369 of 713), Page 369 of 713

17  
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT O: APPLE’S OSHA EXHIBITS  
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 370 of 713
(370 of 713), Page 370 of 713

To:
Mantoan, Kathryn G.
Cc:
Perry, Jessica R.
Subject:
Apple Inc./Gjovik/9-3290-22-051: Request for Information
Date:
Friday, September 16, 2022 4:07:00 PM
Ms. Mantoan and Ms. Perry,
After review of your March 4, 2022 response, the following information
is needed for the
subject complaint investigation.
1.
Documentation to support Ms. Gjovik intentionally disclosed confidential information
about Apple products on Twitter and to the press. This may include, but is not limited
to copies of any text messages between Ms. Gjovik and another employee, tweets,
press articles, reports from Business Conduct Helpline, or emails.
2. Copy of Apple’s policy regarding disclosure of confidentiality/proprietary information.
3. Copy of Apple’s Misconduct and Discipline Policy.
4. Copy of Ms. Gjovik’s signed non-disclosure agreement regarding
confidential/proprietary information.
5.
Documentation to support Ms. Gjovik refused to cooperate with Apple’s internal
investigation. This may include, but is not limited to emails, meeting notes, phone call
logs, or a signed statement from the company investigator(s) or company official(s)
that attempted to contact Ms. Gjovik.
6.
From January 2021 to present, please provide information of other Apple employees
who have been terminated for disclosing confidential information and specifically
identify the individuals that were terminated for posting on social media and/or
communicating with the press. At minimum provide the following for each employee:
1) name or identifier, 2) job title, 3) date of termination, and 4) reason for
termination.
A response is needed by September 30, 2022. Please identify which evidence contains
confidential business information and Apple requests to receive pre-disclosure notification
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26 in the event of any FOIA request covering this response.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
(b) (7)(C)
Whistleblower Protection Program
U.S. Department of Labor — OSHA
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 24 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 371 of 713
(371 of 713), Page 371 of 713

C
orrick
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
September 30,
2022
San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
+1 415 773 5700
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
orrick.com
(b) (7)(C)
Kathryn G. Mantoan
Whistleblower Protection Program
E
kmantoan@orrick.com
U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA
D
+1415 773 5887
300 Fifth Avenue, Room 1280
F
+1 415773 5759
Seattle, Washington 98104
(b) (7)(C)
Re:
Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 9-3290-22-051
tab) (7)(C)
Apple provides the following information and supporting documents in response to the Department of
Labor’s request for additional information on September 16, 2022.
1.
REQUEST:
Documentation to support Ms. Gjovik intentionally disclosed confidential information
about Apple products on Twitter and to the press. This may include, but is not limited to copies of
any text messages between Ms. Gjovik and another employee, tweets, press articles, reports from
Business Conduct Helpline, or emails.
RESPONSE:
Please see Exhibits 1-10, which show that Ms. Gjovik disclosed Apple’s confidential
product
information
to
external
third
parties,
namely
Twitter and
a
reporter from The Verge
publication.
REQUEST:
Copy of Apple’s policy regarding disclosure of confidentiality/proprietary information.
RESPONSE:
Please see Apple’s Confidentiality and
Intellectual
Property Agreement that Ms.
Gjovik signed upon hire (Exhibit 11), and Apple’s Business Conduct Policy (Exhibit 12), which also
contains a confidentiality provision.
REQUEST:
Copy of Apple’s Misconduct and Discipline Policy.
RESPONSE:
Please see Exhibit 13.
REQUEST:
Copy
of
Ms.
Gjovik’s
signed
non-disclosure
agreement
regarding
confidential/proprietary information.
RESPONSE:
Please see the two agreements that Ms. Gjovik signed in which she agreed to not
disclose Apple’s confidential information: Exhibit 11 (executed copy of Apple’s Confidentiality and
Intellectual Property Agreement), Exhibit
1 (executed copy of the Alpha Study consent form).
CONFIDENTIAL — EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 25 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 372 of 713
(372 of 713), Page 372 of 713

C
orrick
(b) 7)(C)
September 30, 2022
Page 2
5.
REQUEST:
Documentation
to
support Ms.
Gjovik
refused
to cooperate with
Apple’s
internal
investigation. This may include, but is not limited to emails, meeting notes, phone call logs, or a
signed statement from the company investigator(s) or company official(s) that attempted to contact
Ms. Gjovik.
RESPONSE:
Please see Exhibits 14-15, which shows that Ms. Gjovik refused to be interviewed
as part of Apple’s internal investigation.
REQUEST:
From
January
2021
to
present,
please
provide
information
of
other
Apple
employees who
have
been
terminated
for
disclosing
confidential
information
and
specifically
identify the individuals that were terminated for posting on social media and/or communicating with
the press. At minimum provide the following for each employee: 1) name or identifier, 2) job title,
3) date of termination, and 4) reason for termination.
RESPONSE:
Please see Exhibit 16, which identifies i other Apple employees who have been
terminated for violating their confidentiality obligations.
Please note
that this
letter and
Exhibits
1-8 and
11-16
(the
“Materials’)
contain
confidential
business
information protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(4). Apple requests to receive pre-disclosure notification pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26 in the event
of any FOIA request covering the Materials.
If you require any further information, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
Attorneys for Apple Inc.
By:
/s/ Kathryn G. Mantoan
Kathryn G. Mantoan
CONFIDENTIAL — EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 26 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 373 of 713
(373 of 713), Page 373 of 713

Case: 2021-8-4406 - Hotline Web
Apple US
Concern
Case Snapshot
Opened: 08/29/2021
Days open: 1
Last modified: 08/31/2021 8:17 PM
Date closed: 08/31/2021
Intake method: Hotline Web
Status: Closed
Alert: None
General Case Info
Case number:
 
2021-8-4406
Received/Reported date:
 
08/29/2021
Language:
 
English
Assigned tier:
 
Apple US
Issue
Primary issue:
 
Concern
Case Details
Reported tier information
Case type:
 
Allegation
Intake method:
 
Hotline Web
Location
Organization/Building name:
 
Apple
Country:
 
United States
Reporter contact information
Reporter anonymous:
 
Yes
Case Information
CONFIDENTIAL – EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 28 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 374 of 713
(374 of 713), Page 374 of 713

Are you an Apple Employee?
 
Yes
Who was involved?
 
Ashley Gjøvik
Details:
 
Ashley Gjøvik keeps Twitting about Apple. While I don't know how truthful as her claims and what she is allowed to share about her
experience, I think she's also going too far by sharing screenshots of internal emails about Apple's research about 
:
https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1431824501457633283.
While the overall claims she's making should be investigated thoroughly (and I want to believe that this is currently the case and
that Apple will do the right thing), it also feels like she's trying to see how far she can push things before getting fired, and keeps
turning any narrative to her advantage. I wouldn't be surprised if she's looking to get fired to then fire back publicly at Apple some
more (which would help her future career as a lawyer). 
In any case, regardless of all this one again, I don't think Ashley sharing screenshots of internal research that could benefit
unreleased products is appropriate. Maybe she should lose access to her email account while she's on leave.
Follow-ups 
Reporter Additional Information
There are no additional notes for this incident.
Questions/Comments and Reporter Responses
08/31/2021 - 
Question:  Thank you for raising your concerns to the Business Conduct Helpline. Apple takes your concerns seriously, and we
have shared them with the appropriate internal teams for review and investigation. 
Please be assured that Apple has a strict policy prohibiting retaliation against employees who raise complaints to managers, PBP,
and Business Conduct, or who participate in the investigation into any such complaint. It would be very helpful if you would be
willing to speak to or correspond with an investigator - your information will be handled confidentially. Please follow up on a
regular basis, or, should you choose, share a way for us to contact you for any additional questions.
Attachments
Files from Reporter
 
File
Description Date
#1 Capture 
 2021-08-29 à 19.22.09.png
Tweet
08/29/2021
Case Notes
08/31/2021 8:17 PM - 
HRC
   
 
Omega Study
CONFIDENTIAL – EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
This page was received by OSHA with redactions.  Redactions made by OSHA for FOIA contain Exemptions per the FOIA.
(b) (7)(C)
(b) (7)(C)
(b) (7)(C)
(b) (7)(C)
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 29 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 375 of 713
(375 of 713), Page 375 of 713

To:
Mantoan, Kathryn G.
Cc:
Perry, Jessica R.
Subject:
Apple Inc./Gjovik/9-3290-22-051: Request for Information
Date:
Friday, September 16, 2022 4:07:00 PM
Ms. Mantoan and Ms. Perry,
After review of your March 4, 2022 response, the following information
is needed for the
subject complaint investigation.
1.
Documentation to support Ms. Gjovik intentionally disclosed confidential information
about Apple products on Twitter and to the press. This may include, but is not limited
to copies of any text messages between Ms. Gjovik and another employee, tweets,
press articles, reports from Business Conduct Helpline, or emails.
2. Copy of Apple’s policy regarding disclosure of confidentiality/proprietary information.
3. Copy of Apple’s Misconduct and Discipline Policy.
4. Copy of Ms. Gjovik’s signed non-disclosure agreement regarding
confidential/proprietary information.
5.
Documentation to support Ms. Gjovik refused to cooperate with Apple’s internal
investigation. This may include, but is not limited to emails, meeting notes, phone call
logs, or a signed statement from the company investigator(s) or company official(s)
that attempted to contact Ms. Gjovik.
6.
From January 2021 to present, please provide information of other Apple employees
who have been terminated for disclosing confidential information and specifically
identify the individuals that were terminated for posting on social media and/or
communicating with the press. At minimum provide the following for each employee:
1) name or identifier, 2) job title, 3) date of termination, and 4) reason for
termination.
A response is needed by September 30, 2022. Please identify which evidence contains
confidential business information and Apple requests to receive pre-disclosure notification
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26 in the event of any FOIA request covering this response.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
(b) (7)(C)
Whistleblower Protection Program
U.S. Department of Labor — OSHA
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 24 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 376 of 713
(376 of 713), Page 376 of 713

C
orrick
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
September 30,
2022
San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
+1 415 773 5700
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
orrick.com
(b) (7)(C)
Kathryn G. Mantoan
Whistleblower Protection Program
E
kmantoan@orrick.com
U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA
D
+1415 773 5887
300 Fifth Avenue, Room 1280
F
+1 415773 5759
Seattle, Washington 98104
(b) (7)(C)
Re:
Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 9-3290-22-051
tab) (7)(C)
Apple provides the following information and supporting documents in response to the Department of
Labor’s request for additional information on September 16, 2022.
1.
REQUEST:
Documentation to support Ms. Gjovik intentionally disclosed confidential information
about Apple products on Twitter and to the press. This may include, but is not limited to copies of
any text messages between Ms. Gjovik and another employee, tweets, press articles, reports from
Business Conduct Helpline, or emails.
RESPONSE:
Please see Exhibits 1-10, which show that Ms. Gjovik disclosed Apple’s confidential
product
information
to
external
third
parties,
namely
Twitter and
a
reporter from The Verge
publication.
REQUEST:
Copy of Apple’s policy regarding disclosure of confidentiality/proprietary information.
RESPONSE:
Please see Apple’s Confidentiality and
Intellectual
Property Agreement that Ms.
Gjovik signed upon hire (Exhibit 11), and Apple’s Business Conduct Policy (Exhibit 12), which also
contains a confidentiality provision.
REQUEST:
Copy of Apple’s Misconduct and Discipline Policy.
RESPONSE:
Please see Exhibit 13.
REQUEST:
Copy
of
Ms.
Gjovik’s
signed
non-disclosure
agreement
regarding
confidential/proprietary information.
RESPONSE:
Please see the two agreements that Ms. Gjovik signed in which she agreed to not
disclose Apple’s confidential information: Exhibit 11 (executed copy of Apple’s Confidentiality and
Intellectual Property Agreement), Exhibit
1 (executed copy of the Alpha Study consent form).
CONFIDENTIAL — EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 25 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 377 of 713
(377 of 713), Page 377 of 713

C
orrick
(b) 7)(C)
September 30, 2022
Page 2
5.
REQUEST:
Documentation
to
support Ms.
Gjovik
refused
to cooperate with
Apple’s
internal
investigation. This may include, but is not limited to emails, meeting notes, phone call logs, or a
signed statement from the company investigator(s) or company official(s) that attempted to contact
Ms. Gjovik.
RESPONSE:
Please see Exhibits 14-15, which shows that Ms. Gjovik refused to be interviewed
as part of Apple’s internal investigation.
REQUEST:
From
January
2021
to
present,
please
provide
information
of
other
Apple
employees who
have
been
terminated
for
disclosing
confidential
information
and
specifically
identify the individuals that were terminated for posting on social media and/or communicating with
the press. At minimum provide the following for each employee: 1) name or identifier, 2) job title,
3) date of termination, and 4) reason for termination.
RESPONSE:
Please see Exhibit 16, which identifies i other Apple employees who have been
terminated for violating their confidentiality obligations.
Please note
that this
letter and
Exhibits
1-8 and
11-16
(the
“Materials’)
contain
confidential
business
information protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(4). Apple requests to receive pre-disclosure notification pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26 in the event
of any FOIA request covering the Materials.
If you require any further information, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
Attorneys for Apple Inc.
By:
/s/ Kathryn G. Mantoan
Kathryn G. Mantoan
CONFIDENTIAL — EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 26 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 378 of 713
(378 of 713), Page 378 of 713

Are you an Apple Employee?
 
Yes
Who was involved?
 
Ashley Gjøvik
Details:
 
Ashley Gjøvik keeps Twitting about Apple. While I don't know how truthful as her claims and what she is allowed to share about her
experience, I think she's also going too far by sharing screenshots of internal emails about Apple's research about 
:
https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1431824501457633283.
While the overall claims she's making should be investigated thoroughly (and I want to believe that this is currently the case and
that Apple will do the right thing), it also feels like she's trying to see how far she can push things before getting fired, and keeps
turning any narrative to her advantage. I wouldn't be surprised if she's looking to get fired to then fire back publicly at Apple some
more (which would help her future career as a lawyer). 
In any case, regardless of all this one again, I don't think Ashley sharing screenshots of internal research that could benefit
unreleased products is appropriate. Maybe she should lose access to her email account while she's on leave.
Follow-ups 
Reporter Additional Information
There are no additional notes for this incident.
Questions/Comments and Reporter Responses
08/31/2021 - 
Question:  Thank you for raising your concerns to the Business Conduct Helpline. Apple takes your concerns seriously, and we
have shared them with the appropriate internal teams for review and investigation. 
Please be assured that Apple has a strict policy prohibiting retaliation against employees who raise complaints to managers, PBP,
and Business Conduct, or who participate in the investigation into any such complaint. It would be very helpful if you would be
willing to speak to or correspond with an investigator - your information will be handled confidentially. Please follow up on a
regular basis, or, should you choose, share a way for us to contact you for any additional questions.
Attachments
Files from Reporter
 
File
Description Date
#1 Capture 
 2021-08-29 à 19.22.09.png
Tweet
08/29/2021
Case Notes
08/31/2021 8:17 PM - 
HRC
   
 
Omega Study
CONFIDENTIAL – EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
This page was received by OSHA with redactions.  Redactions made by OSHA for FOIA contain Exemptions per the FOIA.
(b) (7)(C)
(b) (7)(C)
(b) (7)(C)
(b) (7)(C)
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 29 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 379 of 713
(379 of 713), Page 379 of 713

This page was received by OSHA with redactions.
Redactions made byOSHA for FOIA contain Exemptions per the FOIA.
From: Business Conduct | epmvasyuve:ovemee
Date:
tember 15. 2021
at
12:57:
ubject:
68489 - Evidence Regarding
Confidential IP Leak
Reply-To: Business Conduct <
Hello,
The Business Conduct Helpline received concem for your review Please see the case details below
vero
KOTO)
lam sending this information in good faith regarding a very public situation regarding Ashley Gjovik and an internal application I am not disclosed on code named
ENE
My goal is to ensure that this gets to the correct people, and I do not want it to come out at a later time that I was aware ofthis, and did not do the right thing
I want to expressly state that I played no part in any of this leak, and would not under any circumstances engage in such behavior
I respect Apple’s policies in this
regard, despite working to change some things regarding workplace issues
ley informed me that she had sent Zoe Schiffer from the Verge details and images from. which does not align what she is saying
publicly, denying leaking any unreleased IP to the public
She specifically told me she sent her all of the screenshots she sent me, which I've attached
b)(7)(©) ee
12:23
47
atl
5GE (4a)
ent
cneTeee
ur OWN
U
Mb MVVEE
More boobs... nip removed...
IMAGE REDACTED
- CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL — EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 31 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 380 of 713
(380 of 713), Page 380 of 713

This page was received by OSHA with redactions.
Redactions made by OSHA for FOIA contain Exemptions per the FOIA.
IMAGE REDACTED
- CONFIDENTIAL
atl
5GeE ea)
Pla
Mis an application to
DESCRIPTION REDACTED
- CONFIDENTIAL
DESCRIPTION REDACTED
- CONFIDENTIAL
Thanks for your assistance in this
important effort.
DESCRIPTION REDACTED
- CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL — EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 34 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 381 of 713
(381 of 713), Page 381 of 713

This page was received by OSHA with redactions.
Redactions made by OSHA for FOIA contain Exemptions per the FOIA.
IMAGE REDACTED
- CONFIDENTIAL
o0l
5GeER4a)
Ashley
>
I'm helping Zoe with the privacy
elatecmmerwucmaca
Alpha
[el-rits
because that bothers me too
| have nudes in there too that
| think
get uploaded
I'm even letting her include a few
pics from
Paving its me as
long as she removes any app UI and
code/strings/numbers
IMAGE REDACTED
- CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL — EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 37 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 382 of 713
(382 of 713), Page 382 of 713

This page was received by OSHA with redactions.
Redactions made by OSHA for FOIA contain Exemptions per the FOIA.
From:
CSS
-
Sent:
Wednesday, September 15, 2021 7:41 PM
To:
ashleygjovik@icloud.com
Subject:
Correspondence on behalf of Apple Inc.
Attachments:
Gjovik, Ashley M. IPA.pdf; Sep_15_Gjovik_Letter_FINAL.pdf
Please see the attached correspondence.
Sincerely,
&nb=p;
0&=8217;Melveny
(b) (©)
O:
+QOIGXKS)
=0:p>
O’Melveny & Myers LLP<=pan style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height: 110%;color:black;mso-fareast-lang=age:JA">
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor=/o:p>
San Francisco, CA 94111
Website<=a>
| LinkedIn
This =essage and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of=O'Melveny & Myers LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If y=u are not the intended
recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received =his transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e=mail and then
delete this message.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 47 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 383 of 713
(383 of 713), Page 383 of 713

This page was received by OSHA with redactions.
Redactions made by OSHA for FOIA contain Exemptions per the FOIA.
'
O'Melveny
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
T: +1 415 984 8700
File Number:
Two Embarcadero Center
F: +1 415 984 8701
600,000-3 (Apple Inc.)
28 Floor
omm.com
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
September 15, 2021
(b) (7)(C)
VIA E-MAIL
Ms. Ashley Gjovik
1050 Benton Street, Apt 2310
Santa Clara, CA 95050
ashleygjovik@icloud.com
Dear Ms. Gjovik:
On behalf of Apple Inc., we write to request that you remove certain images and video that you
have displayed publicly in violation of your Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Agreement
with Apple dated January 31, 2015 (the “IPA’).
The first are the images contained in the following tweet:
https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1431824501457633283
As you know, the images are comprised of internal Apple emails regarding a confidential Apple-
internal user study project. Please remove those images from any public location and refrain
from further public disclosures about that project.
The second is the image contained in the following tweet:
https://twitter.com/ashleyagiovik/status/1432400136471072769
The related video is located here:
https://volume-
assets.voxmedia.com/production/7739cb4ec481082f874bd63244468b2d/547059/playlist.m3u8
As you know, that image and video were generated by a confidential internal Apple application
during confidential Apple-internal user studies. Please remove that image and video from any
public location and refrain from further public disclosures about that application or related user
studies.
A copy of the IPA is included with this letter.
| am available to discuss this matter at any time.
If
you are represented by counsel in this matter, please identify your counsel.
///
Century City
*
Los Angeles
+
Newport Beach
+ New York
* San Francisco «
Silicon Valley
* Washington, DC
Beijing
*
Brussels
* Hong Kong
* London
+ Seoul
* Shanghai
+ Singapore
* Tokyo
CONFIDENTIAL — EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 48 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 384 of 713
(384 of 713), Page 384 of 713

O'Melveny
Sincerely,
(b) (FO)
of O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
CONFIDENTIAL — EXEMPT FROM FOIA DISCLOSURE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC     Document 155-2     Filed 01/31/25     Page 49 of 109
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 385 of 713
(385 of 713), Page 385 of 713

Exhibit P: 
US DOJ 
Legal Memo
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 386 of 713
(386 of 713), Page 386 of 713

Ashley M. Gjovik 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate 
Santa Clara University, Class of 2022 
 
For Submission To:  
• 
U.S. NLRB: Region 32 & Office of General Counsel  
• 
U.S. Department of Labor: Whistleblower Protection Program  
• 
U.S. Attorney’s Office: Northern District of California  
• 
California DOJ: Office of the Attorney General  
• 
California Department of Labor: DIR Labor Commissioners  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS. ASHLEY GJOVIK 
 
 
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
APPLE INC., et al., 
 
                        Respondent. 
 
 
Case No.:  
U,S. Dept of Labor: 9-3290-22-051 
U.S. NLRB: 32-CA- 282142, 283161, 
284428 & 284441, & 288816 
U.S. EEOC 556-2021-00608 
U.S. SEC: 16304-612-987-465 & 16353-
506-600-213 
CA Dept of Labor: RCI-CM-842830 
 
LEGAL MEMO 
Date Action filed: February 7, 2022 
 
Charges:  
National Labor Relations Act §8(a)(1) 
National Labor Relations Act §8(a)(4) 
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9610 
SOX 18 U.S.C.A. §1514A 
OSHA §11(c) 29 U.S.C. §660 
18 U.S.C. §1512(a),(b),(c),(d) 
18 U.S.C. §1505 
18 U.S.C. 1513 
18 U.S.C. §371 
18 U.S.C. §876 
Dodd-Frank 15 U.S.C. §78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii) 
Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt 
Organizations Act 
Civil Rights Act Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e 
CA Labor Code §232.5, §6310, §1102.5, 
§6399, & §132(a) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 387 of 713
(387 of 713), Page 387 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 2 of 327 
 
 
 
 
 
INTIMIDATION, RETALIATION, & PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN  
 
 
Evidence Report 
 
 
DRAFT v9 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 388 of 713
(388 of 713), Page 388 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 3 of 327 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN EVIDENCE REPORT ..........................................................................................................................1 
CHARGES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................5 
ASSOCIATED CHARGES & CASES: ...........................................................................................................................................................5 
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................5 
REVIEW METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................................9 
UNLAWFUL THREATS MADE BY APPLE INC ..............................................................................................................................10 
THREATS OF VIOLENCE .........................................................................................................................................................................10 
THREATS OF TERMINATION & RETALIATION .........................................................................................................................................12 
THREATS OF BLACKLISTING; RUINING LEGAL CAREER ........................................................................................................................14 
THREATS AGAINST FRIENDS & COLLOGUES .........................................................................................................................................17 
APPLE INC’S RETALIATORY ANIMUS ..........................................................................................................................................18 
FORBIDDEN ANIMUS ..............................................................................................................................................................................18 
APPLE INC’S LAWFARE .....................................................................................................................................................................20 
LAWFARE:  THREATS OF LITIGATION; PROSECUTION; BANKRUPTCY; “RUIN” ......................................................................................20 
LAWFARE:  COERCION TO WITHDRAW 
 CHARGES & COMPLAINTS .....................................................................................................................................................................23 
LAWFARE: DOUBT; DISINFORMATION; FALSE ACCUSATIONS ...............................................................................................................27 
ANTI-UNION & ANTI-LABOR THREATS & COERCION ............................................................................................................32 
DISCRIMINATION DUE TO SEX &/OR DISABILITY ...................................................................................................................33 
EVIDENCE OF PROPAGANDA BY TYPE ........................................................................................................................................37 
THE BIG LIE (GROßE LÜGE) + AD NAUSEAM & RATIONALIZATION .......................................................................................................37 
DIVIDE & RULE; BLACK/WHITE FALLACY; FACTIONS ..........................................................................................................................42 
VIRTUE WORDS; APPEAL TO PREJUDICE; TRANSFER; MORAL PANIC; FEAR-MONGERING ...................................................................44 
CULT OF PERSONALITY; DEMAGOGUE; APPEAL TO AUTHORITY ...........................................................................................................47 
BANDWAGON & INEVITABLE VICTORY ..................................................................................................................................................48 
SPIN; AGENDA SETTING; BURY BAD NEWS ...........................................................................................................................................49 
FALSE FLAG OPERATION  & REVERSE FALSE-FLAG ..............................................................................................................................52 
AD HOMINEM ATTACKS; SMEARS; CHARACTER ASSASSINATION; FALSE ACCUSATIONS ......................................................................55 
RED HERRING; WHATABOUTISM; STRAWMAN; MINIMIZATION; CHERRY-PICKING ..............................................................................59 
DEMORALIZATION; GASLIGHTING; PROPAGANDA OF DESPAIR .............................................................................................................62 
EVIDENCE (CHRONOLOGICAL) ......................................................................................................................................................63 
LEGEND .................................................................................................................................................................................................63 
AUGUST 2021 ........................................................................................................................................................................................64 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 389 of 713
(389 of 713), Page 389 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 4 of 327 
SEPTEMBER 2021 ...................................................................................................................................................................................98 
OCTOBER 2021 ....................................................................................................................................................................................174 
NOVEMBER 2021 .................................................................................................................................................................................196 
DECEMBER 2021 ..................................................................................................................................................................................208 
JANUARY 2021 ....................................................................................................................................................................................235 
FEBRUARY 2021 ..................................................................................................................................................................................271 
APPENDIX I: CAST OF CHARACTERS (PARTIES) .....................................................................................................................298 
EMPLOYER (MANAGERS/SUPERVISORS) ..............................................................................................................................................298 
EMPLOYEES ACTING AT DIRECTION OF APPLE INC .............................................................................................................................300 
AGENTS ACTING AT DIRECTION OF APPLE INC ....................................................................................................................................306 
APPLE INC: AGENTS FOR PROPAGANDA ..............................................................................................................................................307 
APPENDIX II: RETALIATORY MEMES ........................................................................................................................................323 
APPENDIX III: BABY HUMMINGBIRD .........................................................................................................................................326 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 390 of 713
(390 of 713), Page 390 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 5 of 327 
 
CHARGES 
 
ASSOCIATED CHARGES & CASES:  
 
• U.S. NLRB 32-CA-282142, 32-CA-283161, 32-CA-284428, & 32-CA-284441 
• U.S Department of Labor: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc., (Apple Inc/Gjovik/9-3290-22-051: CERCLA, 
SOX, & OSHA whistleblower retaliation). 
• U.S. EEOC: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc., (556-2021-00608) 
• U.S. DOJ: pending  
• California Department of Labor: Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., (RCI-CM-842830) 
• California Civil Lawsuit: pending 
 
See: Legal Memo for details on legal analysis   
 
SUMMARY 
 
Under information & belief, Apple Inc, (via their managers, employees, & agents), have been 
orchestrating an extensive propaganda & harassment campaign against Gjovik since August 2021. Under this 
campaign, Apple Inc has made frequent, damaging false accusations about Gjovik’s actions and statements, her 
motives and character, and her mental health. Apple Inc has also made numerous threats against her related to 
retaliation, termination, litigation, blacklisting, and violence.  
The campaign started while she was still an Apple employee & has been waged by Apple managers 
under their name & Apple position (i.e. Ricky Mondello, Faye Garfinkle, Eric Vitiello, DJ Capelis, Bryan 
Bartow, & others) as well as current and ex-Apple employees (Cher Scarlett, Shantini Vyas, Amanda Harrison, 
Kev Kitchens, Steven McGrath , Brian Ganninger  Ankit Aggarwal & others), again, under their own names & 
positions at Apple. There also appears to be a large online presence assumably contracted by Apple Global 
Security which appears to have access to much of her private &/or personal information, and repeats, ad 
nauseum, specific talking points assumably selected by Apple Inc for this campaign.  
This campaign is believed to be being waged in retaliation for Gjovik’s protected activity starting in 
March 2021, and also in retaliation for her reporting Apple Inc’s unlawful conduct to the government and law 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 391 of 713
(391 of 713), Page 391 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 6 of 327 
enforcement in the summer of 2021, and continuing to participate in the government investigations. This 
campaign is believed to be being waged in an effort to chill organizing & unionization efforts at Apple Inc, 
intimidate witnesses from testifying to what Apple Inc did to Gjovik, coerce Gjovik to withdraw her complaints, 
and to generally intimidate current Apple Inc employees from speaking out or reporting unlawful activity.  
This campaign began shortly after Gjovik started talking to the press and the government about her 
safety, labor, and discrimination concerns but quickly amplified once she filed formal complaints against Apple 
Inc with the NLRB, EEOC, U.S. Department of Labor, California Department of Labor, U.S. SEC, U.S. FBI, 
and other regulatory & law enforcement agencies. Within days of her reports, the frequency and intensity of the 
abuse dramatically increased, including threats of termination & other retaliation, threats of violence, threats of 
litigation, threats of bankruptcy, threats against her friends and supporters, and much coercion to drop her 
government complaints & to not file a lawsuit. 
Assumed agents of Apple Inc referred to Gjovik’s protected activities as “worthy of death,” and made 
references to Gjovik dying from “double tap” gunshot wounds, that in Russia Apple whistleblowers would die 
from a “car accident,” suggested Apple employee organizing around discrimination concerns be “relocated to 
Afghanistan” to see how the “Taliban” would “deal” with Apple’s employee organizers, and noted Gjovik was 
deserving of “death and rape threats.” One Twitter account posted the day after Gjovik was fired that the world 
was “reaming” her and that Gjovik deserved it (violent anal sex). 
After Gjovik was fired, Apple Inc mailed her possessions from her office in a box full of broken glass 
shards and them commented to her on her Twitter about the box before she opened it, alluding to it containing a 
severed head of one of her loved ones. Agents of Apple Inc wrote Gjovik was “deserving of misery,” that they 
looked forward to seeing Apple “swallow her & spit her out,” and that she is lucky Apple has not “crushed her 
like a bug.” Even as of this week, an Apple Global Security employee communicated to Gjovik she did not 
want Gjovik “to exist in her world.” 
Apple employees & assumed agents of Apple Inc suggested Apple Inc should / will sue Gjovik for 
corporate espionage, disinformation, reputational bias, defamation, blackmail, and federal crimes, among other 
things. Employees & agents suggested appropriate consequences for Gjovik’s protected activity included jail, 
the death penalty, “suing her into oblivion,” “ending her,” “destroying her,” “ruining her,” and bankrupting her. 
Apple managers & agents of  Apple Inc referred publicly to the retaliation she faced from Apple Inc, including 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 392 of 713
(392 of 713), Page 392 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 7 of 327 
termination of her employment, as “invited upon herself” like “walking down a dark alley,” “finding out” for 
“fucking around,” a “self-fulfilling prophecy,” and the “consequence” of “airing Apple’s dirty laundry.”   
Apple Inc agents also threatened to blacklist Gjovik from the technology, engineering, and legal 
employment fields: including “never working in the tech industry again, never working for a large corporation 
again, never getting a job as a lawyer, failing the California bar association’s Moral Character investigation, and 
never getting a job anywhere again other than working in fast food.” Apple Inc, (through at least the actions of 
Cher Scarlett and Shantini Vyas), effectively blacklisted Gjovik from access to the press, from access to & 
support from leading activists, and certain access to social media platforms.  
Apple manager Ricky Mondello and ex-Apple employees Cher Scarlett and Shantini Vyas and other 
Apple agents have referred to the journalists and publications who write about Gjovik’s protected activities as 
“lacking credibility,” “anti-business,” not deserving of respect, creating “manufactured narratives,” “unethical,” 
and causing “irreparable harm.” Cher Scarlett, speaking on her ”AppleToo” employee organizing platform has 
stated she “ejected Gjovik from amplification,” “stopped amplifying Gjovik,” and called journalists who write 
about Gjovik not “good news outlets.” Scarlett’s threatened she could “use her platform” to “destroy Gjovik.”  
Scarlett also recently began to claim Gjovik is “harassing,” “defaming,” and “extorting” her and went so 
far as to report Gjovik to the U.S. FBI, though later said it was a mistake and blamed her actions on a narcotics 
relapse. Gjovik has requested Scarlett stop contacting her numerous times, including requesting Scarlett stop 
harassing her & her friends, and stop making defamatory statements about her. In December 2021, Gjovik 
resorted to threatening she’d request a restraining order if Scarlett did not cease & desist. Scarlett did not stop. 
As of the last week, Scarlett sent Gjovik a 3,000 word email making wild accusations, confirming she reported 
Gjovik to the FBI, and demanding Gjovik remove certain evidence and accusations about Scarlett & her 
associates from Gjovik’s federal administrative and criminal filings. When Gjovik refused to rescind her 
allegations of Scarlett’s unlawful activity and refused to omit incriminating evidence, Scarlett then announced 
she is pursuing frivolous, retaliatory litigation against Gjovik. 
Apple managers, employees, and agents have referred to Gjovik’s complaints to the federal and state 
government about Apple Inc as “unsubstantiated,” “meritless,” “baseless,” “dead in the water,” and that there’s 
“no case.” Apple’s agents referred to Gjovik as an “ambulance chaser” and her cases as “shakedown lawsuits.”  
Apple manager Ricky Mondello and ex-Apple employees Cher Scarlett and Shantini Vyas have publicly called 
Gjovik a “liar,” “predator,” “racist,” “inconsequential,” “not a real whistleblower,” “not a real activist.” These 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 393 of 713
(393 of 713), Page 393 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 8 of 327 
parties have described Gjovik’s protected activities as a “vendetta,” “warpath,” “perjury,” “fabricated 
nonsense,” “misleading rhetoric,” &  “misinformation.”  Among other things, Apple Inc & their agents have 
publicly called me a “liar, toxic, attention-seeking, obnoxious, vindictive, entitled, cancer, lacking credibility, 
dishonest, malicious, a sociopath, a provocateur, unhinged, insane, overweight, a narcissist, ‘universally hated’, 
a psychopath, paranoid, Bipolar, psychotic, schizophrenic, a grifter, a Karen, a Super Karen, Karenx100, a 
‘typical feminist,’ and a ‘classic cow’. 
 
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 394 of 713
(394 of 713), Page 394 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 9 of 327 
 
REVIEW METHODOLOGY  
 
Through this unfortunate experience with Apple, I have attempted to document events and 
communications that appeared odd, harmful, or which might be otherwise useful to reference later on. The 
primary document collection was of screenshots and PDFs. I started writing this report based on those records, 
and then gathered additional materials based on them, and for all evidence, attempted to cite a live, public 
version of the communication that the reader can access themselves via the footnotes. Where possible, I 
attempted to preserve digital evidence via 1) flat-file screenshot, 2) PDF, & 3) Internet Archive Wayback 
Archive file.  
In effort to identify posts by Apple agents (not just random people online) I filtered & analyzed 
comments looking for factors such as: overly specific to my situation & my personal information, including my 
private personal information and/or information only Apple would know, lies and misrepresentations that only 
benefited Apple &/or were frequently repeated, legalese, and rhetoric which fit common union-busting 
techniques. I reviewed accounts looking for factors like: few/no followers, few posts and of those they are 
specific to Apple, posts that are always very positive about Apple & defend Apple, lack of biographical 
information provided, “liking” and “replying” to other suspicious accounts, age of account, & common 
language patterns amongst accounts with similar attacks.  
The accounts and comments noted in this report are a best guess and should not be seen as exclusive. 
Additional evidence should also be gathered such as IP & other account data to confirm accounts (such as 
linked Apple Inc locations, employees, contractors, etc) & named employees/managers should be deposed and 
asked to identify additional parties who participated. Apple Inc should be asked to confirm which accounts are 
or are not acting on their behalf, directly or indirectly.  
 
 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 395 of 713
(395 of 713), Page 395 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 10 of 327 
UNLAWFUL THREATS MADE BY APPLE INC 
 
THREATS OF VIOLENCE  
 
- 
4 Aug 2021: If you didn't know that you were gonna get [death & rape] threats then you are honestly 
still a child. There's always consequences to you actions whether good or bad. I dont think you are child 
so I believe you just want attention. (Twitter)1 
- 
7 Sept 2021: Espionage has long been treated as a crime worthy of death and all Apple would need to 
do is to make it apply to corporations and not just nations.” (Reddit) 2   
- 
9 Sept 2021: A certified interrogator from Apple’s “Workplace Violence” team emails me and 
demands I get on the phone with him within the hour, but won’t tell me why. 
- 
9 Sept 2021:  “I said it in the last thread about bad, criminal employees, and I'll say it again. It's time for 
Apple to take out the trash. Do whatever it takes to identify and catch the leakers and then ruin their 
lives. Fire them, prosecute and go after them. Do whatever it takes. Hunt them down like wild 
animals. Leakers and other activist employees who believe that they can do as they please have no 
business being at Apple. I want to see them gone and I want to see them destroyed. Trashy employees 
do not belong at Apple. And who is surprised that the leakers go running to the garbage site called the 
Verge? They already had one campaign that backfired on them when the lunatic woman leaker was 
fired, now it's time to get rid of any remaining leakers and criminals. Go get 'em Tim! Espionage has 
long been treated as a crime worthy of death and all Apple would need to do is to make it apply to 
corporations and not just nations.” (Reddit) 3   
- 
10 Sept 2021:): #ashleygjovik the world is both pandering to you and also reaming you. This sounds 
about right. #narcissist #youdeserveit #coward (Twitter) 4 
- 
22 Sept 2021: [Tim Cook] gonna f@*k some peeps up (picture of racecar driver with a baseball bat) 5 
- 
29 Sept 2021: Don’t open it! (Picture from the movie “7” with Brad Pitt in a field next to a box with a 
severed human head and the words “WHAT’S IN THE BOX”)  6 
- 
30 Sept 2021: #Apple prides itself in it's packaging... but this is what arrived at my doorstep today. My 
personal effects from my office, shoved haphazardly in a random box, no packing materials, infused 
with Superfund fumes, [rocks], shards of glass, & spite. (Ashley Gjovik) 7 
- 
15 Oct 2021: Maybe [Janneke} can go to Afghanistan and form her AppleToo group there , see 
how Taliban deals with her. (Apple Insider) 8 
 
1 Twitter, https://twitter.com/k1ngofgam3s/status/1423453566879076354 
2 Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/pt91m5/comment/hdv5qbj/ ; 
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/pt91m5/comment/hdvtqqn/  
3 Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/pt91m5/comment/hdv5qbj/ ; 
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/pt91m5/comment/hdvtqqn/  
4 Twitter, https://twitter.com/beezie_wacks/status/1436340545194905608,  
5 MacRumors, https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-ceo-tim-cook-in-leaked-memo-we-are-doing-everything-in-our-power-to-
identify-leakers.2312633/,  
6 Twitter, DELETED, https://web.archive.org/web/20210929195613/https://twitter.com/SvatosJason/status/1443303485546532867  
7 Twitter, https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1443702363299188741  
8 Apple Insider, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/224577;  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 396 of 713
(396 of 713), Page 396 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 11 of 327 
- 
15 Oct 2021: Good riddance! Another entitled brat who tried to politicize the workplace, and get a fat 
payout as a result. In a country like Russia, they would have a car accident. (Apple Insider) 9 
- 
20 Dec 2021: Tomorrow's headline: Apple Whistleblower found dead of heart attack at 22 (never 
mind the double tap, nothing to see here). 10 
- 
7 Jan 2022: Actual conversations" show both sides. Here's the other: [screenshot: Cher Scarlet: I said 
I’ll sign something if she writes it up. I literally don’t want her to exist in my world lol]. (Cher Scarlett) 
11 
- 
30 Jan 2022: : “The nail that sticks out, gets hammered.” (Twitter)  12  
- 
3 Feb 2022: Whistleblowers deserve a better voice than yours or Cheers or any one person. I hope 
Twitter shuts you down for some perspective. Your Tweets are like a feminist version of 
@ProudBoysUS @TrumpWarRoom 13 
- 
5 Feb 2022: I’ll always have your back, [Cher Scarlett]. This thread [about Ashley] is very kind and 
fair, especially with everything you’ve been going through. [Pinned photo on user profile has two 
baseball bats that say “Fuck Around” & “Find Out.”]14 
- 
5 Feb 2022: Implying that people are trying to have you assassinated or cause you to kill yourself, 
me included, is extremely harmful, and I alerted APPLE about the chain of tweets involved in doing 
so. (Cher Scarlett) 15 
 
 
 
 
9 Apple Insider, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/224577;  
10 Reddit, 
https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/rkyslb/comment/hpg6bzu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3  
11 Twitter, https://twitter.com/cherthedev/status/1490097625495789569, 
https://web.archive.org/web/20220205230927/https://twitter.com/cherthedev/status/1490097625495789569  
12 Twitter, https://web.archive.org/web/20220130031154/https://twitter.com/i_mspam/status/1487549097070379008  
13 Twitter, https://twitter.com/one_more_time_2/status/1489749317631967235,  
14 Twitter, https://twitter.com/medus4_cdc/status/1490167045354397699,  
15 Twitter, https://twitter.com/cherthedev/status/1490053004791218177,  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 397 of 713
(397 of 713), Page 397 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 12 of 327 
 
THREATS OF TERMINATION & RETALIATION  
 
- 
4 Aug 2021: Haha and your never coming back you clown ass fool (Twitter)16 
- 
4 Aug 2021: Honestly apple should probably just let her go, she seems to be the one creating the 
hostile workplace environment" (Twitter)17 
- 
4 Aug 2021: As an Apple shareholder I hope they terminate her employment completely. 
(AppleInsider)18 
- 
4 Aug 2021: WHERE EXACTLY DO U THINK BITING THE LITERAL HAND THAT FEEDS U 
... WILL GET U.. HONESTLY THINK ABOUT THAT. (Twitter)19 
- 
4 Aug 2021: I’m surprised Apple allowed her to work there while badmouthing the company. I would 
have gotten rid of that b**** so fast without extra compensation. Even now she’s still getting paid and 
still talking sh**. (AppleInsider)20 
- 
5 Aug 2021: This woman is a psychopath and frankly is a danger to other Apple Employees! Would 
any of you feel safe working alongside a person like this? Be honest! Apple needs to bring the hammer 
and make an example of people like this, men or women (Apple Insider) 21 
- 
12 Aug 2021:  I’ve informed Apple they should fire [Gjovik] immediately (Christy Dehus) 22 
- 
21 Aug 2021: I'd fire you in a heartbeat.(Twitter) 23 
- 
23 Aug 2021: Apple - show these people the door (MacRumors)24 
- 
26 Aug 2021 Leadership, if you’re reading this, punish the entitled minority and not the entire 
company.25 
- 
23 Aug 2021: Seems like [Gjovik & Scarlett] just Tweet internal info all day, fire them both. They 
bring ZERO value (Apple Insider) 26 
- 
26 Aug 2021 The HR conversation should be: It sounds like you are no longer happy here. I guess it’s 
time to part ways and make room for a better fit. We are looking for our next generation of leaders and 
you clearly are not it. Good luck. (MacRumors) 27 
- 
26 Aug 2021: Those people wouldn’t quit. I’d have them fired 🔥🔥🔥 (MacRumors) 28 
 
16 Twitter, https://twitter.com/dake_smith/status/1423254970124718089,  
17 Twitter, https://twitter.com/abm_11110/status/1423224560330084352  
18 Apple Insider, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/223222;  
19 Twitter, https://twitter.com/dake_smith/status/1423254573393797123,  
20 Apple Insider, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/223222;  
21 Apple Insider Forums, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/223222/female-apple-employee-put-on-administrative-leave-
following-tweets-about-sexism-in-the-wor/p3 ,  
22 Emails, see screenshots 
23 Twitter, https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1429174603713191936  
24 MacRumors, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3330761/#Comment_3330761,  
25 Team Blind, see screenshots  
26 Apple Insider, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/223646, ;  
27 MacRumors, https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-employees-increasingly-content-to-criticize-the-company-amid-switch-
remote-working-and-use-of-slack.2308761/ 
28 MacRumors, https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-employees-increasingly-content-to-criticize-the-company-amid-switch-
remote-working-and-use-of-slack.2308761/; 
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 398 of 713
(398 of 713), Page 398 of 713

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC  
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, & OBSTRUCTION | EVIDENCE REPORT 
 
 
 
 
ASHLEY M. GJØVIK 
Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Santa Clara University  
Ex-Apple Sr. Engineering Program Manager from February 2015 to September 2021 
Page 13 of 327 
- 
3 Sept 2021: They should fire her long time ago. One sick apple in the box always spoil others. The 
atmosphere and energy she was spreading especially as team leader is the worst thing. They should 
actually fire now all her team because they are all infected. Next is the one who hired her. (Twitter)29 
- 
3 Sept 2021: Why people just don’t leave if they don’t like their work place? Why make it toxic for 
everyone else? This company grow too fast so a few bad apples came in and spoiling it for everyone. 
One toxic person can destroy positivity and peace anywhere. Get rid of them! (Twitter) 
- 
10 Sept 2021: Apple should have fired cancer like this way earlier (Apple Insider) 30 
- 
11 Sept 2021:  The person who hired this wack job at Apple should also be fired 31 
- 
15 Oct 2021: Companies don't hire employees so that the employees can "make change". Screw these 
people and their causes. They are hired to be employees, not activists. If the latter is more important to 
them, then they should either find another job or get fired. Either solution is fine with me. (Reddit) 32 
- 
15 Oct 2021: Apple needs to fire the HR manager too for hiring these idiots. (Apple Insider) 33 
- 
29 Oct 2021: I supported my coworker’s claims during an HR investigation against our Director. I was 
passed over for a promotion. The dumb fck that defended the Director got the promotion. Go figure 
(Twitter) 34 
- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29 Twitter, https://twitter.com/DanielSavills/status/1436195552945913860,  
30 Apple Insider, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/223877;  
31 Apple Insider, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/223902;  
32 Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/q8y4ce/apple_fires_one_of_the_appletoo_movements_leaders/;  
33 Apple Insider, https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/224577;  
34 Twitter, DELETED, https://web.archive.org/web/20211028044923/https://twitter.com/LeglLovzSolr/status/1453584618729263108  
Case: 25-2028, 05/12/2025, DktEntry: 19.3, Page 399 of 713
(399 of 713), Page 399 of 713

Full text truncated for size.

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.ca9.f3138983-8df4-4361-97d4-4aafb99aa85c.19.3.pdf
Size
38,938,722 bytes
SHA-256
0a3efbb039169abc29390da43ece0a6cf94075eca64a5b78ad12c2632495de1a
Our copy
gov.uscourts.ca9.f3138983-8df4-4361-97d4-4aafb99aa85c.19.3.pdf
Original
www.courtlistener.com
  1. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by United States of America as to Kisha… — United States of America v. Sutton et al (Dkt. 195)same month · 2025-05-12
  2. Order denying Keisha Sutton's 179 Second Motion — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 196, S.D. W. Va.)same month · 2025-05-12
  3. Sentencing Memorandum by Daisha Sanders — USA v. Sanders et al. (Dkt. 278)same month · 2025-05-11
  4. BANA EDD - Motion to Seal Opp Mot Leave Surreplysame month · 2025-05-09

Part of: Other pandemic litigation · Other civil cases · Docket sheets · 2025 · Court filings

Back to top