Declaration of Ashley M. Gjovik in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion to Disqualify — Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC (Dkt. 174, N.D. Cal.)

Summary

Ashley Gjovik's Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Reply re: Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify, filed February 24, 2025 as Document 174 in Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The self-represented plaintiff, declaring under 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, submits exhibits in support of her motion to disqualify Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP as the defendant's counsel. The declaration describes Exhibit A through Exhibit I, including Apple's discovery responses, a meet and confer transcript, and communications with the U.S. Dept. of Labor in an OSHA investigation, and it addresses citation errors raised by Apple's counsel. Exhibit A is Defendant Apple Inc.'s Initial Discovery under General Order 71. The 334-page filing includes a dated timeline of events asserted by the plaintiff.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Pages 114, 115, 128, 129, 159, 178, 188, 199, 206, 212, 213, 217–221, 283, 295, 298, 300, 301, 311, 313, 317, 318, 320–322, 331, and 332 of 334 are not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 1 of 334

Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
In Propria Persona

2108 N St. Ste. 4553
Sacramento, CA, 95816
(408) 883-4428
legal@ashleygjovik.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge: The Honorable Edward Chen
ASHLEY GJOVIK, an individual, Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
Plaintiff,
Ashley Gjovik’s Declaration
VS. in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply

re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify
APPLE INC, a corporation, Civil L.R. 7-3, 7-5

Defendant.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 2 of 334

DECLARATION OF ASHLEY M. GJOVIK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To DISQUALIFY ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, I, Ashley M. Gjovik, hereby declare as follows:

My name is Ashley Marie Gjovik. I am a self-represented Plaintiff in this above captioned matter.
I make this Declaration based upon my personal knowledge and in support of my pending Motion to
Disqualify the Defendant’s counsel]. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in this Declaration, and
if called to testify, I could and would testify competently thereto.

I submit these exhibits in support of my Motion & Reply because they are directly relevant to
Apple's opposition and to the key factual issues before the Court. It is well established that courts may
consider extrinsic evidence when ruling on a motion to disqualify counsel (Jn re Complex Asbestos Litig.,
232 Cal. App. 3d 572, 588 (1991)). Courts recognize that motions to disqualify opposing counsel are fact-
intensive and require an examination of the record and supporting evidence (SpeeDee Ol Change Sys., Inc.,
20 Cal. 4th 1135, 1145 (1999)).

Additionally, courts permit parties to submit new evidence in reply if it rebuts arguments made in
the opposition Because Apple's opposition contains factual misstatements, mischaracterizations, and
omissions, Plaintiff submits these exhibits to correct the record and provide the Court with the necessary
factual basis to resolve the motion. Courts have broad discretion to consider documents submitted with
motions and declarations when they assist in ruling on a motion. Because these exhibits establish Apple’s
attorneys’ conflicts of interest, their involvement in retaliatory conduct, and their manipulation of legal

proceedings, they are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s disqualification motion.

DECLARATION OF ASHLEY GJOVIK | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 3 of 334

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s discovery responses,
claiming Attorney Client Privilege for facts over a six-month period, as referenced on page 2 of the

Reply.

. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s initial disclosures, which do
not include it’s only witness for the U.S. Dept. of Labor proceeding, and responses to Request for

Production, which refuse production, as referenced on page 3 of the Reply.

. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the April 1 2024 Meet & Confer

transcript, documenting quoted text on multiple pages in the Reply.

. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the documents related to Apple’s legal

interactions with Appleseed, as mentioned on page 5-6 of the Reply.

. Attached hereto as Exhibit FE is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s communications with U.S.
Dept. of Labor in the Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc OSHA investigation, and the OSHA investigation

log, showing Appleseed as the only witness, as referenced on multiple pages of the Reply.

. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Apple’s counsel’s request for copies of
court records from Appleseed’s lawsuit against the Plaintiff, and the notices of appearance for

MWE and Orrick, as mentioned in the Reply.

DECLARATION OF ASHLEY GJOVIK | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 4 of 334

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Appleseed’s communications with
OSHA as a defense witness for Apple, as released by U.S. Dept of Labor in Dec. 2024, and

mentioned in the Reply.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the chapter in my U.S. Dept. of Labor
complaint that Apple reported to OSHA as “leaking,” which includes information that reveals

Apple filed a falsified Informed Consent Form for the Gobbler study, as referenced on page 8 of the

Reply. ].

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of some of the social media posts I alleged

that I believe are not only Apple, but I now believe are the Orrick attorneys, as referenced on page

10 of the Reply.

The documents attached as exhibits are referenced in my Reply and provide supporting evidence
for the arguments therein. These documents include records produced by Apple, communications, court

filings, agency determinations, and other materials directly relevant to the issues before the Court.

Finally, Apple’s counsel also accuses me of misconduct due to typos in my legal citations in my
motion, and accuses me of using AI to generate the complaint. I already disclosed I started using AI tools
to assist me after Judge Chen warned me I cannot be late on deadlines - because I was already trying to

finish as quickly as I could, and without additional resources, or extensions, then the quality is what must

DECLARATION OF ASHLEY GJOVIK | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 5 of 334

suffer, unfortunately. I did confirm all four cases are relevant and they do support my arguments. However,
the complaint unfortunately used quotes around summaries (not actually quotes), and the citations for
Smith v. Superior Court were slightly incorrect, with the correct citation being Smuth ». Superior Court, 68

Cal.2d 547, 68 Cal. Rptr. 1, 440 P.2d 65 (Cal. 1968).

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true

and correct.

Executed on this 24th day of February 2025, in Boston, Massachusetts

Signature:

/s/ Ashley M. Gjovik
Pro Se Plaintiff

Email: legal@ashleygjovik.com

Physical Address: Boston, Massachusetts

Mailing Address: 2108 N St. Ste. 4553 Sacramento, CA, 95816
Phone: (408) 883-4428

DECLARATION OF ASHLEY GJOVIK | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _~ Filed 02/24/25

EXHIBIT A

Page 6 of 334
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Jperry @ orrick.com
mriechert @ orrick.com

1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
Telephone: +1 650 614 7400
Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401

kmantoan@orrick.com

The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Telephone: +1 415 773 5700
Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759

ASHLEY GJOVIK,
Plaintiff,
V.
APPLE INC..,
Defendant.

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 7 of 334

(Additional counsel on following page)
JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC

DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S INITIAL
DISCOVERY UNDER GENERAL
ORDER 71

DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _~ Filed 02/24/25

KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)

kjuvinall @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Telephone: +1 310 633 2800

Facsimile: +1 310 633 2849

RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)

rbooms @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Telephone: +1 202 339 8400

Facsimile: +1 202 339 8500

Attorneys for Defendant
Apple Inc.

Page 8 of 334

DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)

[23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 9 of 334

Defendant Apple Inc. responds to Northern District of California General Order No. 71:
Initial Discovery Protocols For Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (“Gender Order 71’’)
as follows:

Defendant provides these responses based on the information and documents currently
available to it, given that discovery in this action is ongoing. Nothing contained in these responses
shall in any way limit Defendant’s ability to make all uses at trial or otherwise of the information
or documents referenced herein or of any information, documents or other evidence that may be
discovered in the future. Defendant has made its best effort to respond accurately to each category,
but reserves the right to amend its objections and responses upon completion of its search for
responsive documents.

Defendant objects to each and every category to the extent that it seeks information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other
applicable privilege. If supplying any of the requested documents would result in waiving any
applicable privilege or objection based on any such privilege, Defendant objects to providing the
documents and will not do so. If Defendant inadvertently produces any documents falling within
any applicable privilege, Defendant does not intend to waive the applicable privilege.

Defendant objects to each and every category to the extent that it seeks documents and/or
information that is protected from disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party non-litigants.

Defendant objects to each and every category to the extent that it seeks electronically stored
information (“ES?’) from sources that are not reasonably accessible because of undue burden and
expense. To the extent that any categories call for ESI from sources that are not reasonably
accessible without undue burden or cost within the meaning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(2)(B), or for which the burden or cost of retrieval and review would not be proportional to
the needs of the case (including where the burden or expense would outweighs its likely benefit),
Defendant will not supply or render such ESI.

Subject to and without waiving any of the above objections, and incorporating each of them
by this reference into each response below, Defendant responds to General Order 71 as follows:

_|- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 10 of 334

1. Production of Documents By Defendant

Category A:

All communications concerning the factual allegations or claims at issue in this lawsuit
among or between: (i) The plaintiff and the defendant; (11) The plaintiff's manager(s), and/or
supervisor(s), and/or the defendant’s human resources representative(s).

Response to Category A:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: The only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not presently subject to a pending motion to
dismiss are those directly related to the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment.
After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce, pursuant to a protective
order regarding the treatment of confidential information (“the Confidentiality Order’), non-
privileged communications concerning Plaintiff and the factual allegations or claims at issue in this
lawsuit directly related to her alleged wrongful termination, between Plaintiff and Yannick
Bertolus, Aleks Kagramanov, Ekelemchi Okpo, Dave Powers, Michael Steiger, Jenna Waibel,
and/or Dan West from March 1, 2021 to September 9, 2021. After a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry Defendant will also produce non-privileged correspondence concerning Plaintiff and the
factual allegations or claims at issue in this lawsuit directly related to her alleged wrongful
termination, between or among Yannick Bertolus, Aleks Kagramanov, Ekelemchi Okpo, Dave
Powers, Michael Steiger, Jenna Waibel, and/or Dan West from March 1, 2021 to September 9,
2021.

Category B:

Responses to claims, lawsuits, administrative charges, and complaints by the plaintiff that
rely upon any of the same factual allegations or claims as those at issue in this lawsuit.

Response to Category B:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: The only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not presently subject to a pending motion to
dismiss are those directly related to the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment.

The only complaints made by Plaintiff of which Defendant is aware that may be related to her

_2- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 11 of 334

wrongful termination claims in this lawsuit are certain administrative charges she filed with the
National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and with the United States Department of Labor
(“DOL”). Defendant will not be producing its responses to the NLRB Charges because the NLRB
cases are still open, and as a result the responses are not available to Plaintiff nor are they subject
to a FOIA request. See NLRB’ Freedom of Information Act Manual,

1727/march2008foiamanual.pdf, at 87 (stating that “[t]he FOIA is not intended to function as a

private discovery tool,” and citing NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978)
and Coastal States Gas Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 644 F.2d 969, 982 (3d Cir. 1981)). As for
Plaintiff's case before the DOL, to the extent that any factual allegations overlap, Defendant will
not be producing its response because on December 8, 2023, the DOL issued a finding of no cause
on Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff communicated to Defendant that same day her intent to appeal.
As of the date of this filing, Plaintiff’s time to appeal the DOL Secretary’s Findings has not yet run.

Category C:

Documents concerning the formation and termination, if any, of the employment
relationship at issue in this lawsuit, irrespective of the relevant time period.

Response to Category C:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will produce Plaintiff’s
personnel file, which includes her offer letter and termination letter.

Category D:

The plaintiff's personnel file, in any form, maintained by the defendant, including files
concerning the plaintiff maintained by the plaintiff’s supervisor(s), manager(s), or the defendant’s
human resources representative(s), irrespective of the relevant time period.

Response to Category D:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will produce Plaintiff’s

personnel file. No other files identified in Category D exist.

_3- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 12 of 334

Category E:

The plaintiff’s performance evaluations and formal discipline.

Response to Category E:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce, pursuant to a
Confidentiality Order, Plaintiff's performance reviews. Defendant will also produce the
termination letter related to Plaintiff.

Category F:

Documents relied upon to make the employment decision(s) at issue in this lawsuit.

Response to Category F:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce, pursuant to a
Confidentiality Order, non-privileged documents relied on to make the decision to terminate

Category G:

Workplace policies or guidelines relevant to the adverse action in effect at the time of the
adverse action. Depending upon the case, those may include policies or guidelines that address: (1)
Discipline; (i1) Termination of employment; (iii) Promotion; (iv) Discrimination; (v) Performance
reviews or evaluations; (vi) Misconduct; (vii) Retaliation; and (viii) Nature of the employment
relationship.

Response to Category G:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce policies relevant
to Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination of employment (the only issues/claims not presently
subject to a pending motion to dismiss), including the Confidentiality and Intellectual Property
Agreement that Plaintiff signed, and relevant portions of Defendant’s Business Conduct Policy and
EEO Policy. Defendant will produce its internal facing Misconduct and Discipline Policy pursuant

to a Confidentially Order.

_4- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 13 of 334

Category H:

The table of contents and index of any employee handbook, code of conduct, or policies
and procedures manual in effect at the time of the adverse action.

Response to Category H:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: The only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not presently subject to a pending motion to
dismiss are those directly related to the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment.
After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will produce the table of contents of its
Business Conduct Policy effective October 2020, which was in effect at the time of the alleged
adverse action at issue in this lawsuit (Plaintiff’s termination).

Category I:

Job description(s) for the position(s) that the plaintiff held.

Response to Category I:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: Defendant will produce job descriptions for the particular position(s) that Plaintiff held
if it is able to locate any after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry.

Category J:

Documents showing the plaintiff's compensation and benefits. Those normally include
retirement plan benefits, fringe benefits, employee benefit summary plan descriptions, and
summaries of compensation.

Response to Category J:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce, pursuant to a
Confidentiality Order, non-privileged documents showing Plaintiff's compensation and benefits
from during her employment with Defendant.

Category K:

Agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant to waive jury trial rights or to arbitrate

disputes.

_5- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 14 of 334

Response to Category K:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive documents exist.

Category L:

Documents concerning investigation(s) of any complaint(s) about the plaintiff or made by
the plaintiff, if relevant to the plaintiff’s factual allegations or claims at issue in this lawsuit and not
otherwise privileged.

Response to Category L:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: The only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not presently subject to a pending motion to
dismiss are those directly related to the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment.
After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will produce, pursuant to a
Confidentiality Order, responsive, non-privileged, non-work-product documents that are directly
related to Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination.

Category M:

Documents in the possession of the defendant and/or the defendant’s agent(s) concerning
claims for unemployment benefits unless production is prohibited by applicable law.

Response to Category M:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have any responsive
documents.

Category N:

Any other document(s) upon which the defendant relies to support the defenses, affirmative
defenses, and counterclaims, including any other document(s) describing the reasons for the
adverse action.

Response to Category N:

There is no operative answer on file. Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in

support of its defenses and affirmative defenses at the appropriate time after its answer is filed.

_6- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 15 of 334

Defendant’s investigation of Plaintiff's claims is ongoing and Defendant reserves the right to
amend this response, to supplement documents produced in support of this response, and to rely on
such information and documents as evidence in this action.

2. Production of Information By Defendant

Defendant has provided, to the best of its knowledge and ability at this time, complete and
accurate information required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A) and General Order 71. As set forth below,
Defendant reserves its right to supplement or delete from the responses below as more information
is obtained through the discovery process.

Category A:

Identify the plaintiff’s supervisor(s) and/or manager(s).

Response to Category A:

Linda Keshishoglou, Evan Buyze, and David Powers.

Category B:

Identify person(s) presently known to the defendant who were involved in making the
decision to take the adverse action.

Response to Category B:

Defining “adverse action” as the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, Yannick Bertolus
made the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.

Category C:

Identify persons the defendant believes to have knowledge of the facts concerning the
claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit, and a brief description of that knowledge.

Response to Category C:

Defendant believes the following individuals are likely to have discoverable information
relevant to facts regarding Plaintiff's claims for alleged wrongful termination of employment— the
only issues/claims not presently subject to a pending motion to dismiss—as alleged with
particularity in the pleadings:

1. Plaintiff (information regarding complaints to Defendant, and termination of

DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 16 of 334

2. Yannick Bertolus (Hardware Engineering Vice President) (information regarding

termination of Plaintiffs employment)

3. Aleks Kagramanov (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding

termination of Plaintiffs employment)

4. Ekelemchi Okpo (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding

complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

5. David Powers (SW Development Engineer Director) (information regarding

complaints to Defendant)

6. Michael Steiger (Environmental Health and Safety Manager) (information

regarding complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

7. Jenna Waibel (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding

complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

8. Dan West (Hardware Development Engineer Senior Director) (information

regarding complaints to Defendant)

Except for Plaintiff, all individuals identified above may only be contacted through
Defendant’s counsel. Following discovery and receipt of additional information regarding the
nature of Plaintiff’s claims, additional witnesses may be identified, and Defendant reserves the right
to supplement this list accordingly.

Category D:

State whether the plaintiff has applied for disability benefits and/or social security disability
benefits after the adverse action. State whether the defendant has provided information to any third
party concerning the application(s). Identify any documents concerning any such application or any
such information provided to a third party.

Response to Category D:

To Defendant’s knowledge, Plaintiff has not applied for disability benefits or social security
disability benefits. As a result, Defendant has not provided information to any third party

concerning any such application.

_g- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 17 of 334

Dated: December 18, 2023 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

By: /s/ Jessica R. Perry
JESSICA R. PERRY
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

_9- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 18 of 334

From: Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com>

Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 1:29 PM

To: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)

Cc: Booms, Ryan; Riechert, Melinda; Mantoan, Kathryn G.; Perry, Jessica R.; Mahoney, Brian;

harryjohnson; kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com; mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com;
crystal.carey@morganlewis.com
Subject: RE: Gjovik v Apple | Requesting signed instruments under CLC § 432

Ashley,

As you know, the federal rules of civil procedure allow you to request these types of documents during
discovery after the Rule 26(f) conference occurs.

We are not aware of any statute governing contracts that allows you to seek these types of documents outside
of the formal discovery process. If you are referring to a specific statute, please send us the citation.

Best,
Kate

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 3:09 PM

To: Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com>

Cc: Booms, Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>; Mantoan, Kathryn G.
<kmantoan@orrick.com>; Perry, Jessica R. <jperry@orrick.com>; Mahoney, Brian <brian.mahoney@morganlewis.com>;
harry.johnson <harry.johnson@morganlewis.com>; kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com;
mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com; crystal.carey@morganlewis.com

Subject: RE: Gjovik v Apple | Requesting signed instruments under CLC § 432

[EXTERNAL]

FYI, | talked with two people at CalDOL DIR today about Section 432 and both said it applies to ex-employees of California employers.
I'm now waiting for written confirmation from the California Labor Commissioner's Office.

Ashley M. Gjovik
BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Thursday, December 14th, 2023 at 8:06 PM, Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com> wrote:

Thank you for the update. | received your email about Section 432. | find the legal analysis in the cases cited
questionable, and neither of the two cases are controlling, so | will be researching the topic further. | also plan to call
the CalDOL office to discuss it with them as well, so | will get back you later on my challenge.

| will also request a copy of the Face Gobbler ICF from Apple once more, now under contract law. Apple has cited
that alleged Gobbler ICF in their defense, and claim it is evidence supporting their decision to terminate me.
However, Apple has not provided me a copy of that document, and when | attempted to access that document prior
to my termination, | could not -- the prior link said it no longer existed. If | was to sign such a thing, it assumably had

1
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 19 of 334

obligations that lasted longer than 1 year, and thus statute of frauds is implicated. If there is no proof of signed
document, then there is no contract. Further, | will be arguing bad faith conduct by Apple, and further evidence of lack
of consent and lack of mutual assent, if they continue to refuse to provide a copy of the document they claim is
symbolic of my ‘consent’. Finally, without providing me even confirmation the document does even exist still, | will
also be treating the document as assumed to be non-existent in my amended complaint and opposition.

If my request is denied again, | will of course also be requesting the document in discovery.
Thanks,
-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik
BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Thursday, December 14th, 2023 at 7:18 PM, Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com> wrote:

Hi Ashley — confirming receipt of your email. We separately responded today
regarding your LC section 432 request and will follow-up regarding your request
under the CPRA.

Thank you,

Kate

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>

Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 6:35 PM

Cc: Booms, Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>;
Mantoan, Kathryn G. <kmantoan@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com>;
Perry, Jessica R. <jperry@orrick.com>; Mahoney, Brian
<brian.mahoney@morganlewis.com>; harry.johnson
<harry.johnson@morganlewis.com>; kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com;
mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com; crystal.carey@morganlewis.com

Subject: RE: Gjovik v Apple | Requesting signed instruments under CLC § 432

[EXTERNAL]

Removing OMM who confirmed they're no longer on this either

Hello,

Contracts
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 20 of 334

First, since Gobbler is the crux of Apple's legal defense in this matter, I'd think that
the alleged Gobbler NDA would be easily on hand and it should only take a couple
days at most to send over. Its been 10 days now. Please send or confirm it no longer
exists.

CPRA

Second, the US DOL decision today (which | am appealing on both claims) appears
to make direct reference to my personal information that was on my personal iPhone
and personal iCloud account, including my discussions with non-employees on their
iPhones and my personal iPhone, which must have been collected by Apple, and
shared by Apple. Prior filings also reference my personal text messages (copied by
Global Security) and my social media posts. All of this is personal information.

Considering this, under the CPRA, | am requesting copies of my personal information
held by Apple including "where it came from, retention policies, and third-party
disclosures." Among more standard types of data, personal information also includes
“geolocation, biometrics, and internet activity" data. [see Morgan Lewis article]. This
also includes but is not limited to: "information collected and analyzed concerning a
consumer’s health... and sex life." [see Orrick article].

If Apple would like to deny the request for certain types of data, please provide
information on what exception they relied on to deny the request and for what
category of data they applied it.

| also opt out of the sale or sharing of that data, automated decision making based
on that data, and ask to limit the use/disclosure of that information.

That information includes, but is not limited to: "The CPRA also grants employees a
new right to limit use and disclosure of “sensitive personal information,” which is
defined to include (1) precise geolocation data, (2) racial or ethnic origin, (3) union
membership, (4) the contents of certain employee email and text messages, and (5)
biometric information." [see Morgan Lewis article].

Finally, | reserve my right to also request a deletion of that data.

| am filing this request as an ex-Apple employee, but also as someone with an active
business based in California who owns and uses Apple products, thus a standard
‘consumer.’
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 21 of 334

A business cannot discriminate against a consumer because the consumer

exercised any of the consumer’s California rights, unless the price or service
difference is reasonably related to the value provided to the business by the
consumer’s data. [see Orrick article].

Thank you.

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Sunday, December 3rd, 2023 at 11:08 PM, Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)
<legal@ashleygjovik.com> wrote:

Thank you for the update, MWE. Moving MWE to bcc.

Morgan Lewis - | now assume you are assigned to all five NLRB charges
(including the two open cases).

You guys should fix up your notices of appearance - it still shows MWE on most
of the NLRB case webpages.

If Morgan Lewis is not retained for some of the NLRB charges, please confirm,
and let me know if | should ask Apple who is, or if Apple is handling them directly,
or if you know who else is handling them if not you.

Thank you.

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 22 of 334

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Saturday, December 2nd, 2023 at 5:17 PM, Foster, Christopher
<Cfoster@mwe.com> wrote:

MWE does not represent any party in these referenced
matters.

Thank you,

Chris

CHRISTOPHER FOSTER

Partner

McDermott Will & Emery LLP 415 Mission Street, Suite 5600, San Francisco, CA 94105-2616
Tel +1 628 218 3826 Email cfoster@mwe.com

Biography | Website | vCard | Twitter | LinkedIn

* Admitted to practice law in California, Washington, and Idaho

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)
<legal@ashleygjovik.com>

Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 9:18 AM

To: Foster, Christopher <Cfoster@mwe.com>;
McConnell, Julie <Jmcconnell@mwe.com>; Booms,
Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Riechert, Melinda
<mriechert@orrick.com>; Mantoan, Kathryn G.
<kmantoan@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate
<kjuvinall@orrick.com>; jperry <jperry@orrick.com>;
Mahoney, Brian <brian.mahoney@morganlewis.com>;
harry.johnson <harry.johnson@morganlewis.com>;
kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com;
mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com;
crystal.carey@morganlewis.com; Eberhart, David R.
<deberhart@omm.com>

Subject: Re: Gjovik v Apple | Requesting signed
instruments under CLC § 432
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 23 of 334

Some people who received this message don't often get email from legal@ashleygjovik.com. Learn why this is important

[ External Email ]

+ OMM if they're still on this too

Removing Sayed at MWE who per O00 apparently left in Feb
'23 (@Chris, Ron left around that time too, and Julie is on
leave, so if there are others on your firm now on my NLRB
cases, please loop them in).

Can someone from one of these firms please at least confirm
receipt of my request? | sent this Tuesday and haven't heard
anything back from any of you.

If this request needs to be submitted directly to Apple, please
let me know - however y'all are representing Apple and I'm
supposedly supposed to go through you with my requests and
questions during litigation/adjudication.

It's unclear to me if the NLRB NDA adjudication is now
represented by both MWE and Morgan Lewis, or if Morgan
Lewis is only on the Cook email and my 1/10/22 witness
intimidation and witness retaliation charge, and MWE is still on
the NDAs and employment policies and 8/26 & 9/16/21 unfair
labor/retaliation charges. If someone can clear that up too
please, it would be appreciated.

| also don't know who Apple hired to represent them on the
California Dept of Labor cases but | assume that is moot now
that | rolled them into the federal civil suit.

Can we also do a roles and responsibilities matrix, maybe?

Thank you.

-Ashley
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 24 of 334

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Tuesday, November 28th, 2023 at 12:25 AM, Ashley
M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>
wrote:

Hello Apple lawyers,

| am requesting copies of all instruments |
signed (physical and electronic signatures)
relating to my obtainment and holding of
employment at Apple Inc.

This request is governed by California Labor
Code, Article 3, § 432. The litigation
exception to § 1198.5 does not apply to §
432.

| am requesting that the Face Gobbler
related instrument(s) be released first and
expeditiously, and not saved for a bulk
release with the others. If Apple does not
have a copy of any signed Face Gobbler
related instruments, | would like confirmation
of that fact and swiftly.

For all instruments, | am requesting to
receive records digitally, which should not be
an issue as almost all of them were signed
digitally. You can share the documents via
email attachments or via a shared document
repository as long as it allows me to
download them without alteration.

As we are over two years into this litigation,
I'd expect these records should already be
on hand, and as such | do not expect any
prolonged delays.

Thank you for your cooperation. Please let
me know if you have any questions.

7
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 25 of 334

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

This message is a PRIVATE communication. This
message and all attachments are a private
communication sent by a law firm and may be
confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information
contained in or attached to this message is strictly
prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error
by replying to this message, and then delete it from your
system. Our Privacy Policy explains how we may use
your personal information or data and any personal
information or data provided or made available to us.
Thank you.

Please visit htto:/Awww.mwe.com/ for more information
about our Firm.

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by I:
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immedie
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/~Avww.orrick.com.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 26 of 334

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https:/Awww.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/Avww.orrick.com.

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 27 of 334

(Additional counsel on following page)

JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
jperry@orrick.com

MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015

Telephone: +1 650 614 7400

Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)
kmantoan@orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669

Telephone: +1 415 773 5700

Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759

Attorneys for Respondent
Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

ASHLEY GJOVIK, OALJ Case No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA Case No.: 9-3290-22-051
Complainant,
RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S INITIAL
V. DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO
JANUARY 19, 2024 NOTICE OF
APPLE INC., DOCKETING AND 29 C.F.R. §
18.50(c)(1)

Respondent.

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
4134-7275-2462 OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-051
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 ~~ Filed 02/24/25

KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)
kjuvinall@orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Telephone: +1 310 633 2800

Facsimile: +1 310 633 2849

RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)
rbooms@orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Telephone: +1 202 339 8400

Facsimile: +] 202 339 8500

Attorneys for Respondent
Apple Inc.

4134-7275-2462

Page 28 of 334

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NO.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 29 of 334

Pursuant to the January 19, 2024 Notice of Docketing and 29 C.F.R. § 18.50(c)(1),
Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Respondent’’) hereby submits the following Initial Disclosures
to Complainant Ashley Gjovik (“Complainant”). Apple makes these Initial Disclosures based upon
information currently available to it and reserves the right to supplement all disclosures as discovery
progresses. Apple makes these disclosures concerning the claims and defenses properly at issue in
OALJ Case No. 2024-CER-00001, which are limited to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9610 claim and
defenses addressed in the Secretary of Labor’s December 8, 2023 findings in OSHA Case No. 9-
3290-22-051.' See 29 C.F.R. § 24.100 et seg. (setting forth procedures required to make and appeal
determinations regarding alleged whistleblower retaliation under CERCLA)?

These disclosures are made without waiving the right to object on the grounds of
competency, privilege, relevancy and materiality, hearsay or any other proper ground and the right
to object on any and all grounds, at any time, to any discovery request or proceeding involving or
relating to the subject matter of these Initial Disclosures.

Category 1: The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each
individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that
information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the
use would be solely for impeachment.

The following are persons who may have information that Respondent may use to support
its defenses in this case:

1. Complainant (information regarding complaints to Respondent regarding the issues

raised in Complainant’s August 29, 2021 (ECN76833) complaint that are properly

' The December 8, 2023 Findings addressed issues raised by Complainant regarding 825 Stewart
Drive in complaints filed on August 29, 2021 (ECN76833) and November 2, 2021 (ECN78416).
However, the November 2, 2021 complaint is not at issue in this appeal because it addressed only
a claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

* Complainant also appears to seek review of claims under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and Clean Air Act, but any such claims were not timely raised in
her initial complaint and are thus not properly at issue. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 24.103, 24.105. To the
extent the ALJ decides to consider any of these claims, Respondent reserves the right to amend
these initial disclosures accordingly.

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
1 OALJ CASE NOo.: 2024-CER-00001
4134-7275-2462 OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-051
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4134-7275-2462

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 30 of 334

the subject of this proceeding (the “Complaints’’), and the reasons for the alleged
adverse action(s))

Yannick Bertolus (Hardware Engineering Vice President) (information regarding
termination of Complainant’s employment)

Aleks Kagramanov (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding
termination of Complainant’s employment)

Ekelemchi Okpo (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding the
Complaints to Respondent, the alleged adverse action(s), and Respondent’s policies)
Michael Steiger (Environmental Health and Safety Manager) (information
regarding the Complaints to Respondent and Respondent’s policies)

Jenna Waibel (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding the

Complaints to Respondent, the alleged adverse action(s), and Respondent’s policies)

Except for Complainant, all individuals identified above may be contacted through
Respondent’s counsel. Following discovery and receipt of additional information regarding the
nature of Complainant’s claims, additional witnesses may be identified, and Respondent reserves
the right to supplement this list accordingly.

Category 2: A copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents,
electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its
possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use
would be solely for impeachment.

The following are the descriptions by category of all documents and things that Respondent

currently has in its possession, custody or control that may be used to support its defenses:

The personnel file Respondent maintained on Complainant

Complainant’s compensation and payroll records

Documents regarding Complainant’s Complaints (as defined above) to Respondent
from March 2021 through Complainant’s termination of employment

Documents sufficient to show that Northrop Grumman is the responsible party for

the relevant Superfund site cleanup

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
2 OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NO.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 31 of 334

e Documents regarding Respondent’s policies and procedures in effect from March
2021 to Complainant’s termination of employment

e Documents regarding the termination of Complainant’s employment
To the extent these documents consist of electronically stored information, these documents are
located on servers, computers, and other electronic storage media, that are either (a) located at
Respondent’s corporate headquarters or in the possession of Respondent’s employees, or (b) in the
possession of Respondent’s outside counsel. To the extent any tangible documents or things on
these subjects exist in the possession, custody or control of Respondent, they are located at
Respondent’s headquarters and may be obtained through Respondent’s outside counsel.

Category 3: A computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing
party—who must also make available for inspection and copying as under § 18.61 the
documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on
which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of
injuries suffered.

Apple does not claim any damages at this time.

Dated: February 9, 2024 By: /s/Jessica R. Perry

JESSICA R. PERRY
Attorneys for Respondent Apple Inc.

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
3 OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
4134-7275-2462 OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-051
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Jperry @ orrick.com
mriechert @ orrick.com

1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
Telephone: +1 650 614 7400
Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401

kmantoan@orrick.com

The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Telephone: +1 415 773 5700
Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759

ASHLEY GJOVIK,
Plaintiff,
V.
APPLE INC..,
Defendant.

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 32 of 334

(Additional counsel on following page)
JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC

DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S INITIAL
DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(A)(1)

DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _~ Filed 02/24/25

KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)

kjuvinall @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Telephone: +1 310 633 2800

Facsimile: +1 310 633 2849

RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)

rbooms @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Telephone: +1 202 339 8400

Facsimile: +1 202 339 8500

Attorneys for Defendant
Apple Inc.

Page 33 of 334

DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES

[23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 34 of 334

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), Defendant Apple Inc. identifies the
following witnesses and documents, and makes the following initial disclosures.! Defendant makes
these disclosures based on information currently available to it at this time, following a good faith
inquiry in accordance with Rule 26. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement these
disclosures if and as any further information becomes available during discovery and to rely upon
such information as evidence in this action. Defendant makes the following disclosures to expedite
the discovery process and without waiving the Federal Rules of Evidence, including the protections
of the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege.
Defendant expressly reserves its rights under those privileges and protections. By making these
disclosures, Defendant does not concede that the disclosed evidence is relevant or admissible as
evidence at trial, and reserves the right to assert any and all evidentiary objections.

Further, the only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not subject to Defendant’s forthcoming
motion to dismiss—due on July 15, 2024—are those directly related to the allegedly wrongful
termination of Plaintiff's employment and/or alleged retaliation during the course of her
employment. Thus, Defendant identifies individuals likely to have discoverable information
regarding those factual allegations and claims clearly at issue, as well as documents, data
compilations, and tangible things that Defendant may use to support its claims or defenses.

Rule 26(a)(1)(A): The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each

individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to

' Defendant does not believe it is required to provide initial disclosures under FRCP 26(a) because
Northern District of California General Order No. 71: Initial Discovery Protocols For Employment
Cases Alleging Adverse Action (“GO 71”) applies. GO 71 “applies to all employment cases filed
in this court after February 1, 2018, that challenge one or more actions alleged to be adverse.” GO
71 by its terms is “intended to supersede the parties’ obligations to make initial disclosures pursuant
to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)” in applicable cases. Here, Plaintiff's case “challenge[s] one or more
[employment] actions alleged to be adverse” in her wrongful termination and whistleblower
retaliation claims. Defendant served its GO 71 disclosures on December 18, 2023 and
supplemented those disclosures with additional document productions on April 5, 2024 and May
15, 2024; to date Defendant has produced 418 documents totaling 1,549 pages pursuant to GO 71.
Plaintiff has indicated that she does not believe GO 71 applies to this case, and accordingly
Defendant makes these FRCP 26(a)(1) disclosures without conceding that they are required in this
matter. The parties met and conferred regarding topics set forth in the Standing Order for All Judges
of the Northern District of California: Contents of Joint Statement Management Statement on June
25, 2024.

|- DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

information.

1.

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 35 of 334

support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying the subjects of the

Subject to the preliminary statement set forth above, Defendant responds:

Plaintiff (information regarding complaints to Defendant, and termination of

Yannick Bertolus (Hardware Engineering Vice President) (information regarding
termination of Plaintiffs employment)

Aleks Kagramanov (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding
termination of Plaintiffs employment)

Ekelemchi Okpo (Labor Relations Business Partner) (information regarding
complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

Michael Steiger (Environmental Health and Safety Manager) (information
regarding complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

Jenna Waibel (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding

complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

Except for Plaintiff, all individuals identified above may only be contacted through
Defendant’s counsel. Following discovery and receipt of additional information regarding the
nature of Plaintiff’s claims, additional witnesses may be identified, and Defendant reserves the right
to supplement this list accordingly.

Rule 26(a)1)(B): A copy of, or a description by category and location of, all

1.

documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or
control of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses,
unless solely for impeachment.

Subject to the preliminary statement set forth above, Defendant responds:

E-mail communications concerning Plaintiff, complaints she made to Defendant
regarding perceived issues at 825 Stewart, and/or the termination of her employment

between Plaintiff and Yannick Bertolus, Antone Jain, Aleks Kagramanov, Antonio

-92- DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9.

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 36 of 334

Lagares, Ekelemchi Okpo, Helen Polkes, Dave Powers, Michael Steiger, Jenna
Waibel, and/or Dan West from March 1, 2021 to September 9, 2021.

E-mail communications concerning Plaintiff, complaints she made to Defendant
regarding perceived issues at 825 Stewart, and/or the termination of her employment
between or among Yannick Bertolus, Antone Jain, Aleks Kagramanov, Antonio
Lagares, Ekelemchi Okpo, Helen Polkes, Dave Powers, Michael Steiger, Jenna
Waibel, and/or Dan West from March 1, 2021 to September 9, 2021.

The personnel file Defendant maintained on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's performance reviews.

Documents relied on to make the decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment.
Policies relevant to the termination of Plaintiff’s employment.

Job descriptions for positions Plaintiff held.

Documents showing Plaintiff’s compensation and benefits.

Documents that are directly related to Plaintiffs termination.

These documents are in the possession of Defendant’s counsel.

Defendant reserves the right to supplement the categories of documents as more information
becomes available through the discovery process. By listing documents or categories of documents,
Defendant does not waive the right to object to discovery requests to which any document or
category of documents may be responsive.

Rule 26(a)(1)(C): Computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing

party.

Apple does not claim any damages at this time.

Rule 26(a)(1)(D): Any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an

lawsuit.

insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in
the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.

There is no applicable insurance policy that presently covers Plaintiff’s claims in this

3. DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC

Dated: July 9, 2024

4134-2858-2737 4

Document 174 Filed 02/24/25 Page 37 of 334

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

By:

MELINDA S. RIECHERT
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

-4- DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _~ Filed 02/24/25

(Additional counsel on following page)

JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
Jperry @ orrick.com

MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
mriechert@orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015

Telephone: +1 650 614 7400

Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)
kmantoan @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669

Telephone: +1 415 773 5700

Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759

Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 38 of 334

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ASHLEY GJOVIK, Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC

Plaintiff, DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S

V. PART 1, REQUEST FOR

Defendant.

PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
APPLE INC., DISCOVERY

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFP’S PART 1,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _~ Filed 02/24/25

KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)

kjuvinall @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Telephone: +1 310 633 2800

Facsimile: +1 310 633 2849

RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)

rbooms @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Telephone: +1 202 339 8400

Facsimile: +1 202 339 8500

Attorneys for Defendant
Apple Inc.

Page 39 of 334

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1

DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 40 of 334

Defendant Apple Inc. responds to Plaintiff Ashley Gjovik’s Part 1, Request for Production
of Phase 1 Discovery! (“Requests”), served on October 30, 2024, as follows:

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. L:

The case file from Defendant’s Employee Relations Case Management Platform concerning
Jenna Waibel’s investigation into Gjovik starting at or before March 2021 (or whatever it was coded
as when Waibel became involved in March 2021) through September 10 2021. (Including notes or
comments from people other than Waibel).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Defendant does not have any documents responsive to this Request because Ms. Waibel
never conducted an investigation into Plaintiff.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

The case file from Defendant’s Employee Relations Case Management Platform concerning
Jenna Waibel’s Investigation into Gjovik’s concerns starting in March 2021 through September 10
2021. (Including notes or comments from people other than Waibel).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information outside of the claims
properly at issue in the Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC’’) as explained in the Court’s October
1, 2024 Order: Count I — Wrongful Discharge; Count II — Labor Code §1102.5 9168, lines 9-25;
Count HI — Labor Code §6310; Count VI — Labor Code §232.5 9182; and Count VII — Labor Code
§96(k). See Dkt. 112 at 38-41. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine.

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks disclosure of a confidential internal

' On October 1, 2024, the Court limited discovery to “’Phase 1’ discovery (i.e., discovery needed
for the settlement conference) on Counts 1 [wrongful termination] and 3 [retaliation] (which Apple
did not contest at all in its motion to dismiss) and those parts of the retaliation claims above that
were not challenged or otherwise survived.” Dkt. 112 at 41. These Requests improperly seek
information about a number of issues and claims outside of that scope, which is not relevant to
Plaintiff's employment-related claims and for which discovery is thus not proper at this time.

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
-]- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 41 of 334

Employee Relations investigation that includes sensitive and private information about third
parties. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c).

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant did not maintain a case
file concerning Ms. Waibel’s investigation into concerns Plaintiff raised in an “Employment
Relations Case Management Platform.” Defendant interprets “case file” to mean the investigation
documents maintained by Ms. Waibel relating to concerns raised by Plaintiff. Defendant has not
identified any responsive, non-privileged documents as the investigation was conducted at the
direction and under the supervision of counsel. Defendant will produce a categorical privilege log.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

The case file from Defendant’s Employee Relations Case Management Platform concerning
Ekelemchi Okpo’s investigation into Gjovik’s concerns starting in July 2021 through September
10 2021. (Including notes or comments from people other than Okpo).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information outside of the claims
properly at issue in the 4AC as explained in the Court’s October 1, 2024 Order: Count I— Wrongful
Discharge; Count II — Labor Code §1102.5 §168, lines 9-25; Count III — Labor Code §6310; Count
VI — Labor Code §232.5 9182; and Count VII — Labor Code §96(k). See Dkt. 112 at 38-41.
Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this
Request to the extent it seeks disclosure of a confidential internal Employee Relations investigation
that includes sensitive and private information about third parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant did not maintain a case
file concerning Mr. Okpo’s investigation into concerns raised by Plaintiff in an “Employment
Relations Case Management Platform.” Defendant interprets “case file” to mean the investigation
documents maintained by Mr. Okpo relating to concerns raised by Plaintiff. Defendant has not
identified any responsive, non-privileged documents as the investigation was conducted at the
direction and under the supervision of counsel. Defendant will produce a categorical privilege log.

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
-2- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 42 of 334

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

The case file from Respondent’s Employee Relations Case Management Platform
concerning any investigation into Gjovik starting on August 4 2021 through September 10 2021.
(Including notes or comments from people other than Okpo).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information outside of the claims
properly at issue in the 4AC as explained in the Court’s October 1, 2024 Order: Count I— Wrongful
Discharge; Count II — Labor Code §1102.5 §168, lines 9-25; Count III — Labor Code §6310; Count
VI — Labor Code §232.5 9182; and Count VII — Labor Code §96(k). See Dkt. 112 at 38-41.
Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this
Request to the extent it seeks disclosure of a confidential internal Employee Relations investigation
that includes sensitive and private information about third parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant did not maintain a case
file regarding an investigation into Plaintiff from August 4, 2021 to September 10, 2021, in an
“Employment Relations Case Management Platform.” Defendant interprets “case file” to mean the
investigation documents related to Aleks Kagramanov’s investigation into Plaintiff posting
confidential documents on the internet. Defendant does not have any responsive, non-privileged
documents as the investigation was conducted at the direction and under the supervision of counsel.
Defendant will produce a categorical privilege log.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

All documents concerning the August 2021 “Issue Confirmation”, document for Plaintiff
[sic], and from document Plaintiff [sic], including drafts (with time stamps and/or metadata) and
associated emails or other communications, through Sept. 10 2021.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information outside of the claims
properly at issue in the 4AC as explained in the Court’s October 1, 2024 Order: Count I— Wrongful

Discharge; Count II — Labor Code §1102.5 §168, lines 9-25; Count III — Labor Code §6310; Count

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
-3- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 43 of 334

VI — Labor Code §232.5 9182; and Count VII — Labor Code §96(k). See Dkt. 112 at 38-41.
Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this
Request to the extent it seeks disclosure of confidential, sensitive, and private information about
third parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant understands this Request
to seek all documents concerning the August 2021 Issue Confirmation sent between Plaintiff and
Defendant, including drafts. Defendant will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents
located after a reasonably diligent search as they are kept in the usual course of business subject to

entry of an appropriate protective order in this matter.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

The Business Conduct system record for Complainant’s August 2021 Business Conduct
Complaint including any notes, updates, status, and/or resolution. Also any emails were sent by
Business Conduct about the Complaint through Sept. 10 2021.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

Defendant does not have any documents responsive to this Request because the Business
Conduct complaint that Gjovik filed in August 2021 (regarding a separate alleged conflict of
interest) is not related to Plaintiff's claims presently at issue in the 4AC and as defined in the Court’s
October 1, 2024 Order. See Dkt. 112 at 38-41.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

All indoor air testing results and reports, air test plans, cracked slab repair plans, cracked
slab inspection reports, cracked slab sealing reports, SSD/SSV maintenance reports, engineer
certifications of work performed, invoices, work orders, related to the CERCLA engineering
controls at 825 Stewart Drive from Jan 1 2021 through Sept 10 2021.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7:

Defendant objects to this Request because it seeks information outside of the claims
properly at issue in the 4AC as explained in the Court’s October 1, 2024 Order: Count I— Wrongful
Discharge; Count II — Labor Code §1102.5 §168, lines 9-25; Count III — Labor Code §6310; Count

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
-4- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 44 of 334

VI — Labor Code §232.5 9182; and Count VII — Labor Code §96(k). See Dkt. 112 at 38-41.
Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and it seeks information that

is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

Any status report, meeting notes, or other type of summary sent to or from Gjovik’s
management chain and/or Helen Polkes, Jenna Waibel, Ekelemchi Okpo, or Tony Lagares
concerning the August 19 2021 US EPA inspection of 825 Stewart Drive, from July 25 2021
through Sept. 10 2021.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

Defendant objects to this Request because it seeks information outside of the claims
properly at issue in the 4AC as explained in the Court’s October 1, 2024 Order: Count I— Wrongful
Discharge; Count II — Labor Code §1102.5 §168, lines 9-25; Count III — Labor Code §6310; Count
VI — Labor Code §232.5 9182; and Count VII — Labor Code §96(k). See Dkt. 112 at 38-41.
Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and it seeks information that
is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

All documents in possession of Gjovik’s management chain, Helen Polkes, Jenna Waibel,
Ekelemchi Okpo, Tony Lagares, Atone Jain, Michael Seiger, or Tom Huynh that concern both the
Plaintiff and the property at 3250 Scott Blvd, from Sept. 1 2020 through Spet. [sic] 10 2021.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

Defendant objects to this Request because it seeks information outside of the claims
properly at issue in the 4AC as explained in the Court’s October 1, 2024 Order: Count I— Wrongful
Discharge; Count II — Labor Code §1102.5 §168, lines 9-25; Count III — Labor Code §6310; Count
VI — Labor Code §232.5 9182; and Count VII — Labor Code §96(k). See Dkt. 112 at 38-41.

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
-5- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 45 of 334

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and it seeks information that
is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Any “safety plan” or “EHS plan” or “operations and maintenance plan” for 825 Stewart
Drive or 3250 Scott Blvd in place between Jan. 1 2020 and Sept. 10 2021.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Defendant objects to this Request because it seeks information outside of the claims
properly at issue in the 4AC as explained in the Court’s October 1, 2024 Order: Count I— Wrongful
Discharge; Count II — Labor Code §1102.5 §168, lines 9-25; Count III — Labor Code §6310; Count
VI — Labor Code §232.5 9182; and Count VII — Labor Code §96(k). See Dkt. 112 at 38-41.
Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Defendant also objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and it seeks information that
is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant understands this Request
to seek documents regarding Defendant’s voluntarily vapor intrusion mitigation program at 825
Stewart Dr. and/or 3250 Scott Blvd. Defendant has already produced all responsive documents
located after a reasonably diligent search between Defendant and Plaintiff during her employment

regarding Defendant’s voluntary vapor intrusion mitigation program at 825 Stewart Dr.: APL-

GAELG_00000530, APL-GAELG_00000556, APL-GAELG_00000560, APL-
GAELG_00000564, APL-GAELG_00000567, APL-GAELG_00000582, APL-
GAELG_00000591, APL-GAELG_00000621, APL-GAELG_00000664, APL-
GAELG_00000676, APL-GAELG_00000705, APL-GAELG_00000717, APL-
GAELG_00000771, APL-GAELG_00000775, APL-GAELG_00000798, APL-
GAELG_00000806, APL-GAELG_00000830, APL-GAELG_00000869, APL-
GAELG_00000878, APL-GAELG_00000946, APL-GAELG_00000948, APL-

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,

-6- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1

DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 46 of 334

GAELG_00000950, APL-GAELG_00000955, APL-GAELG_00000959, APL-
GAELG_00001186, APL-GAELG_00001190, APL-GAELG_00001200, APL-
GAELG_00001205, APL-GAELG_00001208, APL-GAELG_00001361, APL-

GAELG_00001377, APL-GAELG_00001391, and APL-GAELG_00001509.

Defendant is not producing any documents regarding the voluntary vapor intrusion
mitigation program at 825 Stewart Dr. that were not provided to Plaintiff during her employment,
as they are not responsive to Plaintiff's claims presently at issue in the 4AC and as defined in the
Court’s October 1, 2024 Order. See Dkt. 112 at 38-41. Nor is Defendant producing any documents
regarding 3250 Scott Blvd., as they are also not relevant to the claims properly at issue in the 4AC
and as defined in the Court’s October |, 2024 Order. See id.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

All documents or communications with Gjovik’s management chain, Helen Polkes, Jenna
Waibel, Ekelemchi Okpo, or Tony Lagares, concerning Complainant’s 2021 mid-year performance
review, dated from Jan 1 2021 through Sept. 10 2021.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

Defendant does not have any documents responsive to this Request because Defendant did
not conduct a mid-year performance review for Plaintiff in 2021.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

All documents or communications with Gjovik’s management chain, Helen Polkes, Jenna
Waibel, Ekelemchi Okpo, or Tony Lagares, concerning Complainant’s 2021 annual performance
review and compensation determination dated from Jan 1 2021 through Sept. 10 2021. This
includes the peer feedback received in the HR tool from Gjovik’s peers, and any drafts of the review
in that tool.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine.

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
- 7 - REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 47 of 334

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant will produce all
responsive, non-privileged documents located after a reasonably diligent search as they are kept in
the usual course of business. Defendant will produce a categorical privilege log.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

Any drafts, comments, or revisions of the termination letter and notice sent to Complainant
on Sept. 9 2021. (Please include timestamps when possible).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine.

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant has already produced all
responsive, non-privileged documents located after a reasonably diligent search: APL-
GAELG_00001143, APL-GAELG_00001176, APL-GAELG_00001166, APL-
GAELG_00001144, APL-GAELG_00001513, APL-GAELG_00001548, APL-
GAELG_00001538, and APL-GAELG_00001516. Defendant will produce a categorical privilege
log.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Any email discussion, meeting notes, or other documents between Plaintiff's management
chain, Human Resources, Employee Relations, or Global Security that involved planning whether
or not they would terminate Plaintiff, and how they would terminate Plaintiff dated from Jan. 1
2021 through Sept. 10 2021.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine.

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant has already produced all
responsive, non-privileged documents located after a reasonably diligent search: APL-

GAELG_00001516. Defendant will produce a categorical privilege log.

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
-8- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 48 of 334

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

Any documents, contracts, or agreements that Plaintiff supposedly signed, accepted, or
otherwise responded to related to the “Gobbler’/“Glimmer” app between Jan. 1 2016 and Sept. 10
2021. This includes any Informed Consent Forms and/or NDAs.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks disclosure of confidential and
proprietary Apple product information.

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant will produce all
responsive documents located after a reasonably diligent search subject to appropriate protections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Any emails or other documents, in possession of her management chain (David Powers,
Dan West, Yannick Bertolus, John Ternus, Tim Cook) or Human Resources/Employee Relations
(Helen Polkes and her management chain, Waibel and Okpo and their management chain)
discussing the Aug. 31 2021 “Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless you Work at Apple,” Verge
article, dated from Aug. 20 2021 through Sept. 10 2021.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Defendant objects
to this Request as overbroad because it seeks documents from custodians who were not involved
in the decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. For that reason, Defendant also objects to this
Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant limits this Request to
custodians that were involved in the decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment (who Defendant
has already identified for Plaintiff), including Yannick Bertolus, Megan Bowman, Aleks
Kagramanov, Ekelemchi Okpo, Joni Reicher, Jennifer Waldo, and Adelmise Warner. Defendant

will produce responsive, non-privileged documents located after a reasonably diligent search as

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
-9- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 49 of 334

they are kept in the ordinary course of business on a rolling basis. Defendant will produce a
categorical privilege log.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

Any responses transmitted from Apple to The Verge and/or the reporter Zoe Schiffer, about
the Apple Cares About Privacy, Unless you Work at Apple,” Verge article, in response to the
reporter’s request for comment prior to publication. (Including any responses after publication,
through Sept. 10 2021).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

Defendant understands this Request to seek communications from Defendant’s PR team to
The Verge and/or Zoe Schiffer. Defendant does not have any documents that are responsive to this
Request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

Whatever email or emails that Orrick referred to in their U.S. Dept. of Labor response in
2022, that were dated at or around July 20 2021, that Orrick says includes comments from Plaintiff
about a medical leave or administrative leave.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

Defendant has already produced the responsive documents: APL-GAELG_00001451 and
APL-GAELG_00001053.

Dated: November 29, 2024 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
By: /s/ Melinda S. Riechert
MELINDA S. RIECHERT
Attorney for Defendant
APPLE INC.

APPLE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S PART 1,
4129-4594-5941.10 - 10- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PHASE 1
DISCOVERY [23-cv-4597-EMC]
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilechd2én4 Aedton maiage 50 of 334

RE: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc 2024-CER-00001 Request for
Production, Set 1
From Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>

To legal@ashleygjovik.com

CC Mantoan, Kathryn G.<kmantoan@orrick.com>, Perry, Jessica R.<jperry@orrick.com>,
Booms, Ryan<rbooms@orrick.com>, Juvinall, Kate<kjuvinall@orrick.com>

Date Wednesday, June 19th, 2024 at 8:45 PM

We objected to that list for the reasons stated in our objections. If there are specific documents you
think are missing, let us what they are and which request you think they are responsive to.

“Apple’s response” refers to Apple’s response to your complaints.

Melinda Riechert

Partner

Orrick
Silicon Valley (¥)

T 650/614-7423
M 6507591929
mriechert@orrick.com

C
orrick

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 1/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drilechd2én4 Aedton maiage 51 of 334
From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 5:38 PM
To: Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>
Cc: Mantoan, Kathryn G. <kmantoan@orrick.com>; Perry, Jessica R. <jperry@orrick.com>; Booms,

Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com>
Subject: RE: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc 2024-CER-00001 Request for Production, Set 1

[EXTERNAL]

Hello,

| already provided the list of documents | am requesting. That list is in the request for production | filed May 15
2024.

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Wednesday, June 19th, 2024 at 8:22 PM, Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com> wrote:

Again we disagree. We are required to produce documents even if you already have them. We
have produced the documents Apple relied on to terminate your employment. We have
produced the personnel file. If there are specific documents you want that you did not receive
in the 1549 pages of documents we produced, you should send document requests asking
specifically for those documents.

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 2/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdiletha2én4 Aedton malage 52 of 334

Melinda Riechert

Partner

Orrick

T 650/614-7423
M 6507591929
mriechert@orrick.com

C
orrick

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 5:14 PM

To: Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>

Cc: Mantoan, Kathryn G. <kmantoan@orrick.com>; Perry, Jessica R. <jperry@orrick.com>;
Booms, Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com>

Subject: RE: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc 2024-CER-00001 Request for Production, Set 1

[EXTERNAL]

Hello,

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 3/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilechd2én4 Aedton maiage 53 of 334
| will be fling the motion to compel, will provide Apple's response, and note that Apple has said it will not
meet/confer further until the Motion to Dismiss is decided upon.

Please note - | disagree with your summary of documents provided to me thus far. As noted previously, the
majority of documents provided were documents | already had in my possession (such as email | sent or
received, or HR paperwork | filled out).

Further, the documents provided are not all documents in Apple's possession related to my complaints, or my
personnel file (the ER investigation records etc,; and Apple is still holding back NDAs and other documents
requested), nor has Apple provided a single document "supporting the decision to terminate my employment." |
am not certain what you mean when you say "Apple's response" but | am certain there are far more documents
than the ~10 you shared with me that mostly only span from March-May 2021, and almost no documents from
July-Sept, and none of which include EH&S deliberations between April-September.

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Wednesday, June 19th, 2024 at 7:59 PM, Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com> wrote:

Ashley,

We disagree with your email, including that Apple has violated the Court’s order to
participate in discovery and that Apple’s responses are in bad faith or otherwise
inappropriate.

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 4/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdileth2én4 Redon maiage 54 of 334

While Judge DeMaio has declined to rule on Apple’s motion to stay discovery pending a
ruling on the motion to amend, we disagree that means Apple must produce all documents
you seek in RFP Set One. Indeed, even though it is Apple’s position that there are no claims
at issue given the pending motion to dismiss, given the Court’s request that the parties
cooperate and as a showing of good faith, Apple produced 1,549 pages of documents
showing the complaints you made to Apple during your employment beginning in March
2021, Apple’s response, documents supporting the decision to terminate your employment,
your personnel file, etc. These documents are responsive to your August 29, 2021 complaint
and the December 10, 2021 case summary, which are the operative complaints while your
motion to amend is under review.

Once there is certainty about the pleadings, Apple can better determine what additional
documents are relevant and proportional to the needs to the case, and we can further meet
and confer at that time.

Thank you,

Melinda Riechert

Partner

Orrick
Silicon Valley @¥

T 650/614-7423
M 6507591929
mriechert@orrick.com

5/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drilethd2én4 Aedton maiage 55 of 334

C
orrick

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 4:14 PM
To: Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>

Cc: Mantoan, Kathryn G. <kmantoan@orrick.com>; Perry, Jessica R. <jperry@orrick.com>;

Booms, Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com>
Subject: RE: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc 2024-CER-00001 Request for Production, Set 1

[EXTERNAL]

Hello,

| have not received a response.

Please provide an update or | will proceed with filing the motion to compel.

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 6/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drilechd2én4 Aedton maiage 56 of 334
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Friday, June 14th, 2024 at 9:38 PM, Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)
<legal@ashleygjovik.com> wrote:

Hello,

Thank you for the meet/confer on this.

Because each of Apple's objections to each of my requests appears to include mostly the exact same
content (copy/paste), please consider the concerns noted to apply to requests 1-61.

A) Court Order

Specific to:

"Respondent is unable to determine what nonprivileged matters are “relevant” to any claims or defenses
that will proceed in this matter given the Court’s May 23, 2024 Order. At this time, it is unclear what (if
any) claims, and thus what defenses, will proceed and thus it is impossible to determine what matters
would be “relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” If Complainant’s Motion to Amend is denied and
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, for example, there would be no claims before this Court and
no discovery would be proper". - Apple's response

the response violates the court's order:

"the litigation schedule as set out in the Notice of Hearing issued on March 27, 2024, has not changed.
Until the Motion to Stay Discovery has been ruled upon, parties are expected to cooperate with each
other in the discovery process. Judge DeMaio declines Respondent’s request for a conference call at
this time.... Respondent will supplement this Response pursuant to 29 C.FR. § 18.53, if

appropriate, following resolution of which claims, if any, are properly before this Court. Discovery is
ongoing, and Respondent reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response." - DOL OALJ

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 7/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilechd2én4 Aedton maiage 57 of 334

Apple is currently expected to respond to my discovery requests under the CERCLA claim, regardless of
their motion to dismiss. As already noted, | have not requested anything related to 3250 Scott yet, and
am waiting for the motion to amend to be ruled upon.

B) Vague, Overbroad, Unduly Burdensome, Not Proportional

Respondent objects to this Request on the grounds that “[term]” and “[term]” lacks particularity and is
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. -Apple

This is a boilerplate objection. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is “vague, overly
broad, or unduly burdensome’ are, by themselves, meaningless. A party objecting on these bases must
explain the specific and particular ways in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly
burdensome.

The “vague, ambiguous or confusing” objection. Here again, absent more, this “objection” is useless.
The party objecting on these grounds “
is vague.” Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 491 (quoting Consumer Elec. Ass’n. v. Compras & Buys Magazine, Inc.,
2008 WL 4327253, at 2 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 18, 2008)). Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 491 (N.D.

Tex. 2014)

must explain the specific and particular way in which a request

The “overly broad and unduly burdensome” objection. See Fischer v. Forrest, 2017 WL 773694
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) at *3 (“[S]tating that the requests are ‘overly broad and unduly burdensome’ is
meaningless boilerplate. Why is it burdensome? How is it overly broad? This language tells the Court
nothing.”); Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, (N.D. Tex. 2014) at 490-91(“the party resisting
discovery [must] show how the requested discovery was overly broad, unduly burdensome, or
oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revaling the nature of the burden’).

“reasonably’ implies a requirement such categories be reasonably particularized from the standpoint of
the party who is subjected to the burden of producing the materials. Any other interpretation places too
great a burden on the party on whom the demand is made.” When faced with this objection, the meet
and confer process should be utilized to provide responding party with an understanding of what

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 8/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdiletha2én4 Redon maiage 58 of 334

documents the demand is seeking and, if necessary, narrow the scope of the specific category. Calcor
Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 CA4th 216

C) Not Relevant / Admissible Evidence

Respondent objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. -Apple

§ 18.401 Definition of relevant evidence. Relevant evidence means evidence having_any tendency to

make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable
or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

An objection that a discovery request is not relevant must include a specific explanation describing why
the request lacks relevance and/or why the requested discovery is disproportionate in light of the factors
enumerated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Further, Federal Rules provide that information within
this scope of discovery “need not be admissible in evidence” to be discoverable.

D) Burden/Expense

Respondent objects to this Request to the extent that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case the amount in controversy, the parties
resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues. -Apple

Objections that requests are “overly broad and unduly burdensome” are “meaningless boilerplate”
because that “language tells the Court nothing.” Fischer v. Forrest, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28102
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017),

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 9/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdileths2én4 Aedton maiage 59 of 334
Apple takes in $383B annual revenue. It's hard to believe Apple would be burdened by these requests

due to Apple's "resources."

E) Privilege_

Respondent objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privileges. -Apple

Objections based upon privilege must identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, as well
as identify such things as the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue, the sender and
receiver of the communication and their relationship to each other, among others.

You need to tell me what material there is that is being withheld under any of these privileges, and which
privilege you contend applies, so | may seek the assistance of the Court in resolving your claims of
privilege.

§ 18.51 (e) Claiming privilege or protecting hearing-preparation materials—(1) Information withheld.
When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged
or subject to protection as hearing-preparation material, the party must:

(i) Expressly make the claim; and

(ii) Describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed
—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable
other parties to assess the claim.

“The existence of the privilege and the applicability of any exception to the privilege is a question of fact
for the judge. The burden of proving that the attorney-client privilege applies to a communication rests
on the party asserting the privilege. This burden extends not only to a showing of the existence of the
attorney-client relationship but to all other elements involved in the determination of the existence of the
privilege, including (1) the communications were received from a client during the course of the client's
search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) the communications were
made in confidence; and (3) the privilege as to these communications has not been

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 10/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilechd2én4 Redon maiage 60 of 334

waived.” Commissioner of Revenue v. Comcast Corp., 453 Mass. 293, 303 (2009). Before asserting
the privileges or stating the documents don’t exist; counsel needs to review the documents (“diligent
search”) and speak to their client (“reasonable inquiry”) to determine whether or not the privileges are
applicable. See Scottsdale Ins. Co v. Superior Court (1997) 59 CA4th 263 Footnote 5.

Attorney client privilege is narrowly construed and not self-executing. Matter of the Reorganization of
Elec. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. (Bermuda), 425 Mass. 419, 421 (1997). See Attorney Gen. v. Facebook, Inc.,
487 Mass. 109, 122 (2021); District Attorney for the Plymouth Dist. v. Board of Selectmen of
Middleborough, 395 Mass. 629, 633-634 (1985).

Privileged material is already excluded from the scope of discovery under Civil Rule 26(b)(1) and a
generic assertion of privilege is, in and of itself, useless under Civil Rule 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). See Schultz v.
Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., 2016 WL 3149686, at*7 (D. S.D. Jun. 3, 2016) (“boilerplate ‘general objections’
fail to preserve any valid objection at all because they are not specific to a particular discovery request
and they fail to identify a specific privilege or to describe the information withheld pursuant to the
privilege”); Liguria Foods, 2017 WL 976626, at *11 (failure to provide privilege log renders privilege
objections ineffective).

To assert a privilege or work product protection, a party must create a privilege log that identifies each
document or communication being withheld, along with the basis for the claim. Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).
see also, C.C.P. §2031.240

“Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific
linkage with the documents does not satisfy the burden.” (Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu (9th
Cir. 2006) 447 F.3d 1172, 1184.)

F) Privacy Rights of Third Parties

Respondent objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the
privacy rights of third parties. -Apple

The right of privacy is protected by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution and the U.S.
Constitution [Griswold v. State of Connecticut (1965) 381 US 479] However, the protection is not

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 11/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilethd2én4 Aedton maiage 61 of 334

absolute. In each case, the court would carefully balance the interests involved—the claim of privacy vs.
the public interest in obtaining just results in litigation. See California Civil Discovery Practice, 4th
Edition, (CEB 2019) §3.157A citing Williamson v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal3d 829, 835; Hill v.
National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (1994) 7 C4th 1, 15; and Binder v. Superior Court (1987) 196 CA3d
893, 901 for the test that the court will use. Also, the court most likely will take the documents in camera
for a determination. See California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2019) §8:322
citing Schnabel v. Superior Court (Schnabel) (1993) 5 C4th 704, 714.

"Even when Sefic offered to accept redacted materials however, the company nevertheless consistently
failed to produce any documents in response. When objection is made only to part of an item, the
objecting party

should specifically identify that part, and make production of the remainder of the document; Marconi’s
response to the motion instead continued to assert the same blunderbuss objection without
acknowledgment of Sefic’s offer to accept redacted documents and without reference to legal authority
in support of its position." SEFIC v Marconi Wireless, US DOJ, Office of Chief Administrative Hearing
officer, OCAHO Case No. 06B000 (2007).

G) Trade Secret, Proprietary, Confidential

Respondent objects to this Request to the extent it seeks disclosure of confidential, trade secret, or
proprietary business information. -Apple

Which records do you contend are proprietary and confidential and why? You must at least tell me if any
responsive materials exist, so that | may seek the assistance of the Court in resolving your objection.

Trade secrets are already protected from disclosure through the IPA & NDAs | already signed. Trade
secrets and other truly confidential information can also be redacted.

The mere fact that documents are proprietary is not necessarily justification for confidentiality. For
example, a federal court in Kentucky rejected Home Depot’s argument that its training manuals and
standard operating procedures should be protected. (Mitchell v. Home Depot U.S.A. (W.D. Ky. Jun. 14,
2012) No. 3:11-CV-332, 2012 WL 2192279, *5.)

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 12/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilethd2én4 Aedton maiage 62 of 334

“Courts are generally unwilling to seal business information where the parties fail to explain why the
specific, urgent need for confidentiality overrides the public's right of access, or where the business
records are outdated or limited in scope” Tourangeau v. Nappi Distribs., 2:20-cv-00012-JAW, 14 (D. Me.
Mar. 14, 2022)

H) Overbroad

Respondent objects to this Request because it is overbroad as to time. -Apple

If there is an objection based upon an unduly broad scope, such as time frame or geographic location,
discovery should be provided as to those matters within the scope that are not disputed.

Generalized objections to an opponent's discovery requests are insufficient. See, e.g., Mancia v.
Mayflower Textile Servs. Co.,253 F.R.D. 354, 358 (D. Md. 2008) (" Boilerplate objections that a request
for discovery is overbroad and unduly burdensome .. . are improper unless based on particularized
facts." ) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Walker v. Lakewood Condo. Owners Ass.n,186 F.R.D.
584, 587 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (" Boilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to not
making any objection at all." ) Autoridad de Carreteras y Transportacion v. Transcore Atl., Inc., 319
F.R.D. 422, 427 (D.P.R. 2016)

“if an item were overbroad — | find that no item is overbroad — that fact would be no excuse for he
failure to produce those responsive documents that do concern the subject matter of the adversary
proceeding and would fall within the scope of a properly limited request.” In re E.J. Sciaba Contracting
Company, Inc., Case No. 03-20344-RS, Adversary Proceeding No. 04-1357, 4 (Bankr. D. Mass. Jan. 17,
2006)

|) Boilerplate Responses

Judge Bennett observes that no judicial jurisdiction in the United States “authorizes, condones, or
approves of this practice[.]” According to Judge Bennett, boilerplate objections are “obstructionist” and
this obstructionist discovery practice is a firmly entrenched “culture” in some parts of the country,

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 13/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilethd2én4 Aedton maiage 63 of 334
notwithstanding that it involves practices that are contrary to the rulings of every federal and state court
to address them. Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Labs, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35370 (N.D. lowa Mar.
13, 2017)

Cafaro v. Zois, 2016 WL 903307, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2016) (“Boilerplate objections may also border
on a frivolous response to discovery requests").

Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 482-85 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (“Counsel should cease and desist from
raising these free-standing and purportedly universally applicable ‘general objections’ in responding to
discovery requests.”);

Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v.
Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513 and may result in waivers of privilege per Burlington
Northern & Santa Fe Ry Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 408 F.3d 1142, 2005 WL 1175 922 (9th Cir.2005) [trial
court affirmed in holding boilerplate objection without identification of documents is not the proper
assertion of a privilege.]

J) Supplement Response

Objections that reserve the “right” to supplement responses. Parties are required to supplement their
responses under Civil Rule 26(e)(1). This “objection” is pointless. See Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 484.

K)_Partial Responses

§ 18.61 (b)(2)(iii) Objections. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit
inspection of the rest.

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF 6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 14/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilechd2én4 Aedton maiage 64 of 334
L) Truthfulness

Counsel must be careful not to assert objections to requests for production of documents (such as
through boilerplate objections) that do not exist or not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or
control. Such a response violates an attorney’s ethical duty under Bus & Prof Code §6068(d) to act
truthfully and, therefore, constitutes bad faith. See Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys. (1993) 13 CA4th 976,
991. The point of Bihun is that by asserting a privilege to a document the attorney impliedly represents
that the responding attorney has reviewed the document and contends that the privilege applies; if the
document does not exist or is not in the possession of the attorney, those implied representations are
made in bad faith.

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Friday, June 14th, 2024 at 7:53 PM, Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com> wrote:

Ashley

We disagree that our discovery responses are in bad faith, that we have violated the
court’s order to participate in discovery, and that our objections are not well taken.
Nevertheless, we are willing to meet and confer regarding your concerns. Please

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 15/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilechd2én4 Redon maiage 65 of 334
send us a list of your specific concerns about each of our responses and we will
provide you with our response to them.

Melinda Riechert

Partner

Orrick
Silicon Valley (vy

T 650/614-7423
M 6507591929
mriechert@orrick.com

C
orrick

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>

Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 4:42 PM

To: Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>

Cc: Mantoan, Kathryn G. <kmantoan@orrick.com>; Perry, Jessica R.
<jperry@orrick.com>; Booms, Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate

<kjuvinall@orrick.com>
Subject: RE: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc 2024-CER-00001 Request for Production, Set 1

[EXTERNAL]

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 16/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilechd2én4 Aedton maiage 66 of 334
Hello,

The discovery response send today is clearly sent in bad faith and | believe it directly violates the
courts order that Apple participate in discovery and cooperate with my requests.

The documents actually shared today appear to be just resending all of the documents Apple
previously sent me in the fake civil discovery.

The objections to overbroad or vague terms, even if true, are also in bad faith because | volunteered
numerous times to help clarify and narrow, and Apple never bothered to engage in that process.

| will be filing a § 18.57 motion to compel - probably Monday after | submit the amended civil
complaint. If Apple would like to avoid the motion to compel, I'm happy not to file it if Apple will
actually cooperate and produce documents by the deadline already in place.

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Thursday, June 13th, 2024 at 6:17 PM, Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)
<legal@ashleygjovik.com> wrote:

Thank you!

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 17/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drilechd2én4 Redon maiage 67 of 334

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Thursday, June 13th, 2024 at 6:15 PM, Riechert, Melinda
<mriechert@orrick.com> wrote:

Ashley,

Apple will timely respond to your Requests for Production, Set One.

Thank you

Melinda Riechert

Partner

Orrick
Silicon Valley ¢¥)

T 650/614-7423
M 6507591929
mriechert@orrick.com

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 18/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilechd2én4 Redon maiage 68 of 334

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:04 PM
To: Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>

Cc: Mantoan, Kathryn G. <kmantoan@orrick.com>; Perry, Jessica R.

<jperry@orrick.com>; Booms, Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate

<kjuvinall@orrick.com>
Subject: RE: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc 2024-CER-00001 Request for Production,
Set 1

[EXTERNAL]

Hello,

| never saw a response to this message, or the message from DOL OALJ about my pending
request for production / discovery.

| sent you my request on 5/15. 30 days after 5/15, starting 5/16, would be 6/15 (pushing to
Monday 6/17) for the deadline.

| just wanted to check in an ensure you're still working towards that deadline and plan to
respond to the request on time?

Again, let me know if you have any questions, or if there's anything | can do to clarify
requests.

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 19/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilethd2én4 Aedton maiage 69 of 334
Thank you,

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Wednesday, June 5th, 2024 at 3:11 PM, Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)
<legal@ashleygjovik.com> wrote:

Hello!

I've never done discovery before so maybe this is a weird offer, but | do want to make
things easier on Apple if | can -- and | Know my request included some stuff that will
probably include content Apple may consider ‘confidential.’ | believe the NDAs and IPA |
signed prior would cover my responsibilities with that kind of information, however, if it
would be less effort for Apple, I'd be open to visiting some Apple location or Orrick office
around here where | could directly review the more sensitive documents (ie that include
content about unreleased new customer products, budgets, etc) and then if there's
specific documents | decide | need copies of, then | can ask for those specifically.

| assume you'll want to do this sort of thing for the security camera footage too. I'm okay
with watching it on site, or over a screenshare, and then designating which sections
(start/end) | would like copies of, and | don't expect those EHS-related sections to contain
anything terribly confidential.

Let me know what Apple would prefer and the easiest way for me to get access to the
relevant records, but not over burden Apple with any confidentiality concerns.

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 20/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilechd2én4 Aedton maiage 70 of 334
Thanks!

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Wednesday, May 29th, 2024 at 8:54 PM, Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)
<legal@ashleygjovik.com> wrote:

Hello,

As mentioned several times in email, and in the NLRB charge, General Order 71
does not apply to our civil lawsuit.

For the US DOL OALJ case, Apple filed a motion to stay on May 22nd and it was
accepted to the docket.

The next day, on May 23rd, in an order dated May 23rd, Judge DeMaio wrote that “all
other pending matters before the court in this matter" "will be held in abeyance
until Complainant’s Motion to Amend has been fully ruled on."

Your motion to stay is a "other pending matter’ as it is a matter, and it is pending.

Please provide me more detail on what definitions you disagree with. Do you not view
the motion to stay as pending? and/or you do not see it as a matter?

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 21/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilethd2én4 Aedton maiage 71 of 334

Judge DeMaio also wrote that "Any changes fo the litigation schedule can be
addressed after any amended Complaint is submitted and responded to."

The March 27 2024 Order from Judge DeMaio started discovery under § 18.50

("any party may seek discovery at any time after a judge issues an initial notice or
order..."), and the schedule in Judge DeMaio's Order is still in effect, and your motion
to stay is requesting a change to the litigation schedule (to stop/pause/delay already
scheduled and initiated discovery).

The other events in the "/itigation schedule" per the 3/27 Order would be the end of
discovery, the prehearing statement, preparation of exhibits, and the trial. But neither
of us have filed a request to modify the schedule of any of these things. The only
event in the "litigation schedule" that one of us has requested to change the
schedule of is the start of discovery (requested by Apple).

Please provide more detail on why you believe this does not apply to Apple. Do you
not believe starting/stopping a phase of litigation is a change to the "schedule"? Do
you question whether staying/pausing a phase of litigation is a "change" from the
original plan?

Full quote: "the Court will allow Complainant to submit proposed amendments
t....Furthermore, all other pending motions before the Court in this matter, including
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judicial Notice, will be held in
abeyance until Complainant’s Motion to Amend has been fully ruled on. Any changes
to the litigation schedule can be addressed after any amended Complaint is
submitted and responded to." (5/23/24 Order)

If you feel confident in your prior assessment, | suggest we email the OALJ staff and
ask them to confirm your interpretation of the Judge's terminology. They have been
very responsive and it would save us all time to ask them directly.

-Ashley

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF 6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 22/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilecha2dn4 Redon maiage 72 of 334

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Wednesday, May 29th, 2024 at 8:29 PM, Riechert, Melinda
<mriechert@orrick.com> wrote:

Ashley,

We disagree that Apple’s motion to stay discovery is no longer at
issue; it is still properly before the ALJ.

Additionally, the ND Cal case and the OALJ case are two separate
cases with separate issues. If you would like to engage in a meet and
confer about Apple’s GO71 production in the ND Cal case, we are
happy to do that.

As for the OALJ case, any discussion about Apple’s document
production is premature because Apple has not yet produced any
documents. We can address any concerns you have after Apple has
produced responsive documents and you have had a chance to
review them.

Thank you,

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 23/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilethd2én4 Redon maiage 73 of 334

Melinda Riechert

Partner

Orrick
Silicon Valley ¢¥)

T 650/614-7423
M 6507591929
mriechert@orrick.com

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 7:55 AM
To: Mantoan, Kathryn G. <kmantoan@orrick.com>; Perry, Jessica R.

<jperry@orrick.com>; Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>;

Booms, Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate

<kjuvinall@orrick.com>
Subject: Re: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc 2024-CER-00001 Request for
Prouduction, Set 1

[EXTERNAL]

Hello Apple's lawyers,

| just wanted to close the loop on our prior email from last week. Last week | said
| planned to file an opposition to your motion to stay discovery, however, per
Judge DeMario's May 23rd order (quoted below), its my understanding that he is

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 24/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdileth2én4 Aedton maiage 74 of 334
not considering your motion to stay, and any changes to his prior order (that
already started discovery) will not be made until after he decides on the amended
complaint.

"...Furthermore, all other pending motions before the Court in this matter,
including Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judicial Notice, will be
held in abeyance until Complainant’s Motion to Amend has been fully ruled on.
Any changes to the litigation schedule can be addressed after any amended
Complaint is submitted and responded to." (5/23/24 Order)

Thus, | will not be filing an opposition because your 30 day deadline from 5/15 for
this request is still in place -- instead | will file a short notice about this when | file
the amended complaint.

| also wanted to sync on redactions. You already tried to start discovery in the civil
case (which | still object to), and after reviewing the documents you voluntarily
shared with me, | want to express my concerns about some of the redactions. A
few examples are below. These are just some examples - all of the documents
should be reviewed:

- APL-GAELG_00001248 | There are two large redactions labeled as
"Attorney Client Privilege" however neither Polkes (HR) or Waibel (ER)
are attorneys so ACP is not applicable

- APL-GAELG_ 00001285 | First names are redacted on several pages and
the names are important context. (there are a bunch of docs with this
issue)

- APL-GAELG_00001262 | The subject of a calendar invite between Polkes
(HR) and Waibel (ER) is partially redacted despite it being about my
safety concerns. This seems unjustified.

- APL-GAELG_00001254 | There is a 2-3 line redaction from an iMessage
exchange between Polkes (HR) and Waibel (ER) labeled Attorney Client
Privilege but there are no attorneys in the text message exchange.

- APL-GAELG_00001380 | An entire paragraph is redacted in an email
from Waibel (ERO to Lagares (ER) about me.

- andsoon

If it is more efficient for Apple, Apple does not need to generally re-send me
documents it already sent in formal discovery for other jurisdictions - but for this
first US DOL round, | do ask that Apple resend the documents it send prior in its

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF 6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 25/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drilethd2én4 Redon maiage 75 of 334

pseudo-civil-discovery so we have them established as formal discovery
documents for authentication. Hopefully you can review and correct the prior
redactions as needed prior to resending.

As noted in my request for production, I'm also asking for a redaction/privilege
log. There are many redactions of text that simply say "redacted. If there's a
standard way to classify Intellectual Property, Attorney-Client Privilege, etc.
please us that, or if not we can agree on some terms for clarification. If you insist
on redacting all email addresses and phone numbers, | ask that you notate that
its an email address or phone number in the redaction. |'m willing to compromise
on project code names and you can use a term like "project code name" or "NPS"
or something, but its not IP. I'd also prefer the reason for redaction be noted on
the document's redaction and also included in a log (like the US gov does with
FOIA), but at least having it in a log will help.

Thanks,

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Wednesday, May 15th, 2024 at 9:03 PM, Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal
Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com> wrote:

Hello Apple's lawyers,

Attached is my first request for production from Apple for the US Dept. of
Labor OALJ CERCLA case.

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 26/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdilethd2én4 Redon maiage 76 of 334

| look forward to a response within 30 days, as required by law.

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the
transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in
error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this
message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/www.orrick.com.

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information
about you. Please see our privacy policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn
about how we use this information.

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaainOiluDYF6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWSsF3Y64N8S yhFrDw== 27/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drilethd2én4 Redon maiage 77 of 334

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and
may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for
your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/www.orrick.com.

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you.
Please see our privacy policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this
information.

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a
communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and
please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit htto:/Avwww.orrick.com.

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see
our privacy policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a
communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this
message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit htto:/Awww.orrick.com.

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaain0iluDYF 6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWsF3Y64N8SyhFrDw== 28/29
6/20/24, 2:02AM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Dasatmentyhgdik@drdileths2én4 Redon maiage 78 of 334

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our
privacy policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a
communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from
your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit htto:/Avwww.orrick.com.

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy
policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication
privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you
in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/www.orrick.com.

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy
at https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.

https://mail.proton.me/u/0/inbox/loAOVpMhGqUu2xpyaain0iluDYF 6Ks2H8nZ6j2|JqxFojKjN94pi_sRpqLOOL-q-cpA2QMWsF3Y64N8SyhFrDw== 29/29
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _~ Filed 02/24/25

EXHIBIT B

Page 79 of 334
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 80 of 334

(Additional counsel on following page)

JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)

Jperry @orrick.com

MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
mriechert @ orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015

Telephone: +1 650 614 7400

Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669

Telephone: +1 415 773 5700

Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759

Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ASHLEY GJOVIK, Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S INITIAL
DISCOVERY UNDER GENERAL
Vv. ORDER 71

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _~ Filed 02/24/25

KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)

kjuvinall @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Telephone: +1 310 633 2800

Facsimile: +1 310 633 2849

RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)

rbooms @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Telephone: +1 202 339 8400

Facsimile: +1 202 339 8500

Attorneys for Defendant
Apple Inc.

Page 81 of 334

DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)

[23-cv-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 82 of 334

Defendant Apple Inc. responds to Northern District of California General Order No. 71:
Initial Discovery Protocols For Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (“Gender Order 71’’)
as follows:

Defendant provides these responses based on the information and documents currently
available to it, given that discovery in this action is ongoing. Nothing contained in these responses
shall in any way limit Defendant’s ability to make all uses at trial or otherwise of the information
or documents referenced herein or of any information, documents or other evidence that may be
discovered in the future. Defendant has made its best effort to respond accurately to each category,
but reserves the right to amend its objections and responses upon completion of its search for
responsive documents.

Defendant objects to each and every category to the extent that it seeks information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other
applicable privilege. If supplying any of the requested documents would result in waiving any
applicable privilege or objection based on any such privilege, Defendant objects to providing the
documents and will not do so. If Defendant inadvertently produces any documents falling within
any applicable privilege, Defendant does not intend to waive the applicable privilege.

Defendant objects to each and every category to the extent that it seeks documents and/or
information that is protected from disclosure by the rights of privacy of third-party non-litigants.

Defendant objects to each and every category to the extent that it seeks electronically stored
information (“ES?’) from sources that are not reasonably accessible because of undue burden and
expense. To the extent that any categories call for ESI from sources that are not reasonably
accessible without undue burden or cost within the meaning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(2)(B), or for which the burden or cost of retrieval and review would not be proportional to
the needs of the case (including where the burden or expense would outweighs its likely benefit),
Defendant will not supply or render such ESI.

Subject to and without waiving any of the above objections, and incorporating each of them
by this reference into each response below, Defendant responds to General Order 71 as follows:

_|- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 83 of 334

1. Production of Documents By Defendant

Category A:

All communications concerning the factual allegations or claims at issue in this lawsuit
among or between: (i) The plaintiff and the defendant; (11) The plaintiff's manager(s), and/or
supervisor(s), and/or the defendant’s human resources representative(s).

Response to Category A:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: The only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not presently subject to a pending motion to
dismiss are those directly related to the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment.
After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce, pursuant to a protective
order regarding the treatment of confidential information (“the Confidentiality Order’), non-
privileged communications concerning Plaintiff and the factual allegations or claims at issue in this
lawsuit directly related to her alleged wrongful termination, between Plaintiff and Yannick
Bertolus, Aleks Kagramanov, Ekelemchi Okpo, Dave Powers, Michael Steiger, Jenna Waibel,
and/or Dan West from March 1, 2021 to September 9, 2021. After a diligent search and reasonable
inquiry Defendant will also produce non-privileged correspondence concerning Plaintiff and the
factual allegations or claims at issue in this lawsuit directly related to her alleged wrongful
termination, between or among Yannick Bertolus, Aleks Kagramanov, Ekelemchi Okpo, Dave
Powers, Michael Steiger, Jenna Waibel, and/or Dan West from March 1, 2021 to September 9,
2021.

Category B:

Responses to claims, lawsuits, administrative charges, and complaints by the plaintiff that
rely upon any of the same factual allegations or claims as those at issue in this lawsuit.

Response to Category B:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: The only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not presently subject to a pending motion to
dismiss are those directly related to the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment.

The only complaints made by Plaintiff of which Defendant is aware that may be related to her

_2- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 84 of 334

wrongful termination claims in this lawsuit are certain administrative charges she filed with the
National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and with the United States Department of Labor
(“DOL”). Defendant will not be producing its responses to the NLRB Charges because the NLRB
cases are still open, and as a result the responses are not available to Plaintiff nor are they subject
to a FOIA request. See NLRB’ Freedom of Information Act Manual,

1727/march2008foiamanual.pdf, at 87 (stating that “[t]he FOIA is not intended to function as a

private discovery tool,” and citing NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978)
and Coastal States Gas Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 644 F.2d 969, 982 (3d Cir. 1981)). As for
Plaintiff's case before the DOL, to the extent that any factual allegations overlap, Defendant will
not be producing its response because on December 8, 2023, the DOL issued a finding of no cause
on Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff communicated to Defendant that same day her intent to appeal.
As of the date of this filing, Plaintiff’s time to appeal the DOL Secretary’s Findings has not yet run.

Category C:

Documents concerning the formation and termination, if any, of the employment
relationship at issue in this lawsuit, irrespective of the relevant time period.

Response to Category C:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will produce Plaintiff’s
personnel file, which includes her offer letter and termination letter.

Category D:

The plaintiff's personnel file, in any form, maintained by the defendant, including files
concerning the plaintiff maintained by the plaintiff’s supervisor(s), manager(s), or the defendant’s
human resources representative(s), irrespective of the relevant time period.

Response to Category D:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will produce Plaintiff’s

personnel file. No other files identified in Category D exist.

_3- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 85 of 334

Category E:

The plaintiff’s performance evaluations and formal discipline.

Response to Category E:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce, pursuant to a
Confidentiality Order, Plaintiff's performance reviews. Defendant will also produce the
termination letter related to Plaintiff.

Category F:

Documents relied upon to make the employment decision(s) at issue in this lawsuit.

Response to Category F:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce, pursuant to a
Confidentiality Order, non-privileged documents relied on to make the decision to terminate

Category G:

Workplace policies or guidelines relevant to the adverse action in effect at the time of the
adverse action. Depending upon the case, those may include policies or guidelines that address: (1)
Discipline; (i1) Termination of employment; (iii) Promotion; (iv) Discrimination; (v) Performance
reviews or evaluations; (vi) Misconduct; (vii) Retaliation; and (viii) Nature of the employment
relationship.

Response to Category G:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce policies relevant
to Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination of employment (the only issues/claims not presently
subject to a pending motion to dismiss), including the Confidentiality and Intellectual Property
Agreement that Plaintiff signed, and relevant portions of Defendant’s Business Conduct Policy and
EEO Policy. Defendant will produce its internal facing Misconduct and Discipline Policy pursuant

to a Confidentially Order.

_4- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 86 of 334

Category H:

The table of contents and index of any employee handbook, code of conduct, or policies
and procedures manual in effect at the time of the adverse action.

Response to Category H:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: The only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not presently subject to a pending motion to
dismiss are those directly related to the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment.
After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will produce the table of contents of its
Business Conduct Policy effective October 2020, which was in effect at the time of the alleged
adverse action at issue in this lawsuit (Plaintiff’s termination).

Category I:

Job description(s) for the position(s) that the plaintiff held.

Response to Category I:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: Defendant will produce job descriptions for the particular position(s) that Plaintiff held
if it is able to locate any after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry.

Category J:

Documents showing the plaintiff's compensation and benefits. Those normally include
retirement plan benefits, fringe benefits, employee benefit summary plan descriptions, and
summaries of compensation.

Response to Category J:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Defendant will produce, pursuant to a
Confidentiality Order, non-privileged documents showing Plaintiff's compensation and benefits
from during her employment with Defendant.

Category K:

Agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant to waive jury trial rights or to arbitrate

disputes.

_5- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 87 of 334

Response to Category K:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive documents exist.

Category L:

Documents concerning investigation(s) of any complaint(s) about the plaintiff or made by
the plaintiff, if relevant to the plaintiff’s factual allegations or claims at issue in this lawsuit and not
otherwise privileged.

Response to Category L:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: The only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not presently subject to a pending motion to
dismiss are those directly related to the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment.
After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will produce, pursuant to a
Confidentiality Order, responsive, non-privileged, non-work-product documents that are directly
related to Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination.

Category M:

Documents in the possession of the defendant and/or the defendant’s agent(s) concerning
claims for unemployment benefits unless production is prohibited by applicable law.

Response to Category M:

Subject to the preliminary statement and foregoing objections set forth above, Defendant
responds: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have any responsive
documents.

Category N:

Any other document(s) upon which the defendant relies to support the defenses, affirmative
defenses, and counterclaims, including any other document(s) describing the reasons for the
adverse action.

Response to Category N:

There is no operative answer on file. Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in

support of its defenses and affirmative defenses at the appropriate time after its answer is filed.

_6- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 88 of 334

Defendant’s investigation of Plaintiff's claims is ongoing and Defendant reserves the right to
amend this response, to supplement documents produced in support of this response, and to rely on
such information and documents as evidence in this action.

2. Production of Information By Defendant

Defendant has provided, to the best of its knowledge and ability at this time, complete and
accurate information required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A) and General Order 71. As set forth below,
Defendant reserves its right to supplement or delete from the responses below as more information
is obtained through the discovery process.

Category A:

Identify the plaintiff’s supervisor(s) and/or manager(s).

Response to Category A:

Linda Keshishoglou, Evan Buyze, and David Powers.

Category B:

Identify person(s) presently known to the defendant who were involved in making the
decision to take the adverse action.

Response to Category B:

Defining “adverse action” as the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, Yannick Bertolus
made the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.

Category C:

Identify persons the defendant believes to have knowledge of the facts concerning the
claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit, and a brief description of that knowledge.

Response to Category C:

Defendant believes the following individuals are likely to have discoverable information
relevant to facts regarding Plaintiff's claims for alleged wrongful termination of employment— the
only issues/claims not presently subject to a pending motion to dismiss—as alleged with
particularity in the pleadings:

1. Plaintiff (information regarding complaints to Defendant, and termination of

DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 89 of 334

2. Yannick Bertolus (Hardware Engineering Vice President) (information regarding

termination of Plaintiffs employment)

3. Aleks Kagramanov (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding

termination of Plaintiffs employment)

4. Ekelemchi Okpo (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding

complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

5. David Powers (SW Development Engineer Director) (information regarding

complaints to Defendant)

6. Michael Steiger (Environmental Health and Safety Manager) (information

regarding complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

7. Jenna Waibel (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding

complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

8. Dan West (Hardware Development Engineer Senior Director) (information

regarding complaints to Defendant)

Except for Plaintiff, all individuals identified above may only be contacted through
Defendant’s counsel. Following discovery and receipt of additional information regarding the
nature of Plaintiff’s claims, additional witnesses may be identified, and Defendant reserves the right
to supplement this list accordingly.

Category D:

State whether the plaintiff has applied for disability benefits and/or social security disability
benefits after the adverse action. State whether the defendant has provided information to any third
party concerning the application(s). Identify any documents concerning any such application or any
such information provided to a third party.

Response to Category D:

To Defendant’s knowledge, Plaintiff has not applied for disability benefits or social security
disability benefits. As a result, Defendant has not provided information to any third party

concerning any such application.

_g- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 90 of 334

Dated: December 18, 2023 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

By: /s/ Jessica R. Perry
JESSICA R. PERRY
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

_9- DEF.’S INITIAL DISCOVERY (GEN. ORDER 71)
[23-CV-4597-EMC]
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 91 of 334

From: Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com>

Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 1:29 PM

To: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)

Cc: Booms, Ryan; Riechert, Melinda; Mantoan, Kathryn G.; Perry, Jessica R.; Mahoney, Brian;

harryjohnson; kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com; mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com;
crystal.carey@morganlewis.com
Subject: RE: Gjovik v Apple | Requesting signed instruments under CLC § 432

Ashley,

As you know, the federal rules of civil procedure allow you to request these types of documents during
discovery after the Rule 26(f) conference occurs.

We are not aware of any statute governing contracts that allows you to seek these types of documents outside
of the formal discovery process. If you are referring to a specific statute, please send us the citation.

Best,
Kate

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 3:09 PM

To: Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com>

Cc: Booms, Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>; Mantoan, Kathryn G.
<kmantoan@orrick.com>; Perry, Jessica R. <jperry@orrick.com>; Mahoney, Brian <brian.mahoney@morganlewis.com>;
harry.johnson <harry.johnson@morganlewis.com>; kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com;
mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com; crystal.carey@morganlewis.com

Subject: RE: Gjovik v Apple | Requesting signed instruments under CLC § 432

[EXTERNAL]

FYI, | talked with two people at CalDOL DIR today about Section 432 and both said it applies to ex-employees of California employers.
I'm now waiting for written confirmation from the California Labor Commissioner's Office.

Ashley M. Gjovik
BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Thursday, December 14th, 2023 at 8:06 PM, Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com> wrote:

Thank you for the update. | received your email about Section 432. | find the legal analysis in the cases cited
questionable, and neither of the two cases are controlling, so | will be researching the topic further. | also plan to call
the CalDOL office to discuss it with them as well, so | will get back you later on my challenge.

| will also request a copy of the Face Gobbler ICF from Apple once more, now under contract law. Apple has cited
that alleged Gobbler ICF in their defense, and claim it is evidence supporting their decision to terminate me.
However, Apple has not provided me a copy of that document, and when | attempted to access that document prior
to my termination, | could not -- the prior link said it no longer existed. If | was to sign such a thing, it assumably had

1
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 92 of 334

obligations that lasted longer than 1 year, and thus statute of frauds is implicated. If there is no proof of signed
document, then there is no contract. Further, | will be arguing bad faith conduct by Apple, and further evidence of lack
of consent and lack of mutual assent, if they continue to refuse to provide a copy of the document they claim is
symbolic of my ‘consent’. Finally, without providing me even confirmation the document does even exist still, | will
also be treating the document as assumed to be non-existent in my amended complaint and opposition.

If my request is denied again, | will of course also be requesting the document in discovery.
Thanks,
-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik
BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Thursday, December 14th, 2023 at 7:18 PM, Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com> wrote:

Hi Ashley — confirming receipt of your email. We separately responded today
regarding your LC section 432 request and will follow-up regarding your request
under the CPRA.

Thank you,

Kate

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>

Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 6:35 PM

Cc: Booms, Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Riechert, Melinda <mriechert@orrick.com>;
Mantoan, Kathryn G. <kmantoan@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate <kjuvinall@orrick.com>;
Perry, Jessica R. <jperry@orrick.com>; Mahoney, Brian
<brian.mahoney@morganlewis.com>; harry.johnson
<harry.johnson@morganlewis.com>; kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com;
mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com; crystal.carey@morganlewis.com

Subject: RE: Gjovik v Apple | Requesting signed instruments under CLC § 432

[EXTERNAL]

Removing OMM who confirmed they're no longer on this either

Hello,

Contracts
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 93 of 334

First, since Gobbler is the crux of Apple's legal defense in this matter, I'd think that
the alleged Gobbler NDA would be easily on hand and it should only take a couple
days at most to send over. Its been 10 days now. Please send or confirm it no longer
exists.

CPRA

Second, the US DOL decision today (which | am appealing on both claims) appears
to make direct reference to my personal information that was on my personal iPhone
and personal iCloud account, including my discussions with non-employees on their
iPhones and my personal iPhone, which must have been collected by Apple, and
shared by Apple. Prior filings also reference my personal text messages (copied by
Global Security) and my social media posts. All of this is personal information.

Considering this, under the CPRA, | am requesting copies of my personal information
held by Apple including "where it came from, retention policies, and third-party
disclosures." Among more standard types of data, personal information also includes
“geolocation, biometrics, and internet activity" data. [see Morgan Lewis article]. This
also includes but is not limited to: "information collected and analyzed concerning a
consumer’s health... and sex life." [see Orrick article].

If Apple would like to deny the request for certain types of data, please provide
information on what exception they relied on to deny the request and for what
category of data they applied it.

| also opt out of the sale or sharing of that data, automated decision making based
on that data, and ask to limit the use/disclosure of that information.

That information includes, but is not limited to: "The CPRA also grants employees a
new right to limit use and disclosure of “sensitive personal information,” which is
defined to include (1) precise geolocation data, (2) racial or ethnic origin, (3) union
membership, (4) the contents of certain employee email and text messages, and (5)
biometric information." [see Morgan Lewis article].

Finally, | reserve my right to also request a deletion of that data.

| am filing this request as an ex-Apple employee, but also as someone with an active
business based in California who owns and uses Apple products, thus a standard
‘consumer.’
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 94 of 334

A business cannot discriminate against a consumer because the consumer

exercised any of the consumer’s California rights, unless the price or service
difference is reasonably related to the value provided to the business by the
consumer’s data. [see Orrick article].

Thank you.

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Sunday, December 3rd, 2023 at 11:08 PM, Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)
<legal@ashleygjovik.com> wrote:

Thank you for the update, MWE. Moving MWE to bcc.

Morgan Lewis - | now assume you are assigned to all five NLRB charges
(including the two open cases).

You guys should fix up your notices of appearance - it still shows MWE on most
of the NLRB case webpages.

If Morgan Lewis is not retained for some of the NLRB charges, please confirm,
and let me know if | should ask Apple who is, or if Apple is handling them directly,
or if you know who else is handling them if not you.

Thank you.

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 95 of 334

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Saturday, December 2nd, 2023 at 5:17 PM, Foster, Christopher
<Cfoster@mwe.com> wrote:

MWE does not represent any party in these referenced
matters.

Thank you,

Chris

CHRISTOPHER FOSTER

Partner

McDermott Will & Emery LLP 415 Mission Street, Suite 5600, San Francisco, CA 94105-2616
Tel +1 628 218 3826 Email cfoster@mwe.com

Biography | Website | vCard | Twitter | LinkedIn

* Admitted to practice law in California, Washington, and Idaho

From: Ashley M. Gjovik (Legal Matters)
<legal@ashleygjovik.com>

Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 9:18 AM

To: Foster, Christopher <Cfoster@mwe.com>;
McConnell, Julie <Jmcconnell@mwe.com>; Booms,
Ryan <rbooms@orrick.com>; Riechert, Melinda
<mriechert@orrick.com>; Mantoan, Kathryn G.
<kmantoan@orrick.com>; Juvinall, Kate
<kjuvinall@orrick.com>; jperry <jperry@orrick.com>;
Mahoney, Brian <brian.mahoney@morganlewis.com>;
harry.johnson <harry.johnson@morganlewis.com>;
kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com;
mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com;
crystal.carey@morganlewis.com; Eberhart, David R.
<deberhart@omm.com>

Subject: Re: Gjovik v Apple | Requesting signed
instruments under CLC § 432
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 96 of 334

Some people who received this message don't often get email from legal@ashleygjovik.com. Learn why this is important

[ External Email ]

+ OMM if they're still on this too

Removing Sayed at MWE who per O00 apparently left in Feb
'23 (@Chris, Ron left around that time too, and Julie is on
leave, so if there are others on your firm now on my NLRB
cases, please loop them in).

Can someone from one of these firms please at least confirm
receipt of my request? | sent this Tuesday and haven't heard
anything back from any of you.

If this request needs to be submitted directly to Apple, please
let me know - however y'all are representing Apple and I'm
supposedly supposed to go through you with my requests and
questions during litigation/adjudication.

It's unclear to me if the NLRB NDA adjudication is now
represented by both MWE and Morgan Lewis, or if Morgan
Lewis is only on the Cook email and my 1/10/22 witness
intimidation and witness retaliation charge, and MWE is still on
the NDAs and employment policies and 8/26 & 9/16/21 unfair
labor/retaliation charges. If someone can clear that up too
please, it would be appreciated.

| also don't know who Apple hired to represent them on the
California Dept of Labor cases but | assume that is moot now
that | rolled them into the federal civil suit.

Can we also do a roles and responsibilities matrix, maybe?

Thank you.

-Ashley
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 97 of 334

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Tuesday, November 28th, 2023 at 12:25 AM, Ashley
M. Gjovik (Legal Matters) <legal@ashleygjovik.com>
wrote:

Hello Apple lawyers,

| am requesting copies of all instruments |
signed (physical and electronic signatures)
relating to my obtainment and holding of
employment at Apple Inc.

This request is governed by California Labor
Code, Article 3, § 432. The litigation
exception to § 1198.5 does not apply to §
432.

| am requesting that the Face Gobbler
related instrument(s) be released first and
expeditiously, and not saved for a bulk
release with the others. If Apple does not
have a copy of any signed Face Gobbler
related instruments, | would like confirmation
of that fact and swiftly.

For all instruments, | am requesting to
receive records digitally, which should not be
an issue as almost all of them were signed
digitally. You can share the documents via
email attachments or via a shared document
repository as long as it allows me to
download them without alteration.

As we are over two years into this litigation,
I'd expect these records should already be
on hand, and as such | do not expect any
prolonged delays.

Thank you for your cooperation. Please let
me know if you have any questions.

7
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 98 of 334

-Ashley

Ashley M. Gjovik

BS, JD, PMP

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

This message is a PRIVATE communication. This
message and all attachments are a private
communication sent by a law firm and may be
confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information
contained in or attached to this message is strictly
prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error
by replying to this message, and then delete it from your
system. Our Privacy Policy explains how we may use
your personal information or data and any personal
information or data provided or made available to us.
Thank you.

Please visit htto:/Awww.mwe.com/ for more information
about our Firm.

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by I:
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immedie
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/~Avww.orrick.com.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 99 of 334

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https:/Awww.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

For more information about Orrick, please visit http:/Avww.orrick.com.

In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

(Additional counsel on following page)

JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
jperry@orrick.com

MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015

Telephone: +1 650 614 7400

Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)
kmantoan@orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669

Telephone: +1 415 773 5700

Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759

Attorneys for Respondent

Apple Inc.
ASHLEY GJOVIK,
Complainant,
V.
APPLE INC.,
Respondent.

4134-7275-2462

Filed 02/24/25 Page 100 of 334

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

OALJ Case No::
OSHA Case No.:

2024-CER-00001
9-3290-22-051

RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S INITIAL
DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO
JANUARY 19, 2024 NOTICE OF
DOCKETING AND 29 C.F.R. §
18.50(c)(1)

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NO.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)
kjuvinall@orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Telephone: +1 310 633 2800

Facsimile: +1 310 633 2849

RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)
rbooms@orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Telephone: +1 202 339 8400

Facsimile: +] 202 339 8500

Attorneys for Respondent
Apple Inc.

4134-7275-2462

Filed 02/24/25

Page 101 of 334

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NO.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 102 of 334

Pursuant to the January 19, 2024 Notice of Docketing and 29 C.F.R. § 18.50(c)(1),
Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Respondent’’) hereby submits the following Initial Disclosures
to Complainant Ashley Gjovik (“Complainant”). Apple makes these Initial Disclosures based upon
information currently available to it and reserves the right to supplement all disclosures as discovery
progresses. Apple makes these disclosures concerning the claims and defenses properly at issue in
OALJ Case No. 2024-CER-00001, which are limited to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9610 claim and
defenses addressed in the Secretary of Labor’s December 8, 2023 findings in OSHA Case No. 9-
3290-22-051.' See 29 C.F.R. § 24.100 et seg. (setting forth procedures required to make and appeal
determinations regarding alleged whistleblower retaliation under CERCLA)?

These disclosures are made without waiving the right to object on the grounds of
competency, privilege, relevancy and materiality, hearsay or any other proper ground and the right
to object on any and all grounds, at any time, to any discovery request or proceeding involving or
relating to the subject matter of these Initial Disclosures.

Category 1: The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each
individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that
information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the
use would be solely for impeachment.

The following are persons who may have information that Respondent may use to support
its defenses in this case:

1. Complainant (information regarding complaints to Respondent regarding the issues

raised in Complainant’s August 29, 2021 (ECN76833) complaint that are properly

' The December 8, 2023 Findings addressed issues raised by Complainant regarding 825 Stewart
Drive in complaints filed on August 29, 2021 (ECN76833) and November 2, 2021 (ECN78416).
However, the November 2, 2021 complaint is not at issue in this appeal because it addressed only
a claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

* Complainant also appears to seek review of claims under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and Clean Air Act, but any such claims were not timely raised in
her initial complaint and are thus not properly at issue. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 24.103, 24.105. To the
extent the ALJ decides to consider any of these claims, Respondent reserves the right to amend
these initial disclosures accordingly.

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
1 OALJ CASE NOo.: 2024-CER-00001
4134-7275-2462 OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-051
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4134-7275-2462

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 103 of 334

the subject of this proceeding (the “Complaints’’), and the reasons for the alleged
adverse action(s))

Yannick Bertolus (Hardware Engineering Vice President) (information regarding
termination of Complainant’s employment)

Aleks Kagramanov (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding
termination of Complainant’s employment)

Ekelemchi Okpo (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding the
Complaints to Respondent, the alleged adverse action(s), and Respondent’s policies)
Michael Steiger (Environmental Health and Safety Manager) (information
regarding the Complaints to Respondent and Respondent’s policies)

Jenna Waibel (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding the

Complaints to Respondent, the alleged adverse action(s), and Respondent’s policies)

Except for Complainant, all individuals identified above may be contacted through
Respondent’s counsel. Following discovery and receipt of additional information regarding the
nature of Complainant’s claims, additional witnesses may be identified, and Respondent reserves
the right to supplement this list accordingly.

Category 2: A copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents,
electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its
possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use
would be solely for impeachment.

The following are the descriptions by category of all documents and things that Respondent

currently has in its possession, custody or control that may be used to support its defenses:

The personnel file Respondent maintained on Complainant

Complainant’s compensation and payroll records

Documents regarding Complainant’s Complaints (as defined above) to Respondent
from March 2021 through Complainant’s termination of employment

Documents sufficient to show that Northrop Grumman is the responsible party for

the relevant Superfund site cleanup

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
2 OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NO.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 104 of 334

e Documents regarding Respondent’s policies and procedures in effect from March
2021 to Complainant’s termination of employment

e Documents regarding the termination of Complainant’s employment
To the extent these documents consist of electronically stored information, these documents are
located on servers, computers, and other electronic storage media, that are either (a) located at
Respondent’s corporate headquarters or in the possession of Respondent’s employees, or (b) in the
possession of Respondent’s outside counsel. To the extent any tangible documents or things on
these subjects exist in the possession, custody or control of Respondent, they are located at
Respondent’s headquarters and may be obtained through Respondent’s outside counsel.

Category 3: A computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing
party—who must also make available for inspection and copying as under § 18.61 the
documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on
which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of
injuries suffered.

Apple does not claim any damages at this time.

Dated: February 9, 2024 By: /s/Jessica R. Perry

JESSICA R. PERRY
Attorneys for Respondent Apple Inc.

APPLE INC.’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
3 OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
4134-7275-2462 OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-051
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

(Additional counsel on following page)

JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)

Jperry @orrick.com

MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
mriechert @ orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015

Telephone: +1 650 614 7400

Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669

Telephone: +1 415 773 5700
Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759

Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

ASHLEY GJOVIK,
Plaintiff,
V.
APPLE INC..,

Defendant.

Filed 02/24/25 Page 105 of 334

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC

DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S INITIAL
DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(A)(1)

DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)

kjuvinall @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C

Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: +1 310 633 2800
Facsimile: +1 310 633 2849

RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)

rbooms @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Telephone: +1 202 339 8400

Facsimile: +1 202 339 8500

Attorneys for Defendant
Apple Inc.

Filed 02/24/25 Page 106 of 334

DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 107 of 334

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), Defendant Apple Inc. identifies the
following witnesses and documents, and makes the following initial disclosures.! Defendant makes
these disclosures based on information currently available to it at this time, following a good faith
inquiry in accordance with Rule 26. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement these
disclosures if and as any further information becomes available during discovery and to rely upon
such information as evidence in this action. Defendant makes the following disclosures to expedite
the discovery process and without waiving the Federal Rules of Evidence, including the protections
of the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege.
Defendant expressly reserves its rights under those privileges and protections. By making these
disclosures, Defendant does not concede that the disclosed evidence is relevant or admissible as
evidence at trial, and reserves the right to assert any and all evidentiary objections.

Further, the only claims at issue in this lawsuit and not subject to Defendant’s forthcoming
motion to dismiss—due on July 15, 2024—are those directly related to the allegedly wrongful
termination of Plaintiff's employment and/or alleged retaliation during the course of her
employment. Thus, Defendant identifies individuals likely to have discoverable information
regarding those factual allegations and claims clearly at issue, as well as documents, data
compilations, and tangible things that Defendant may use to support its claims or defenses.

Rule 26(a)(1)(A): The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each

individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to

' Defendant does not believe it is required to provide initial disclosures under FRCP 26(a) because
Northern District of California General Order No. 71: Initial Discovery Protocols For Employment
Cases Alleging Adverse Action (“GO 71”) applies. GO 71 “applies to all employment cases filed
in this court after February 1, 2018, that challenge one or more actions alleged to be adverse.” GO
71 by its terms is “intended to supersede the parties’ obligations to make initial disclosures pursuant
to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)” in applicable cases. Here, Plaintiff's case “challenge[s] one or more
[employment] actions alleged to be adverse” in her wrongful termination and whistleblower
retaliation claims. Defendant served its GO 71 disclosures on December 18, 2023 and
supplemented those disclosures with additional document productions on April 5, 2024 and May
15, 2024; to date Defendant has produced 418 documents totaling 1,549 pages pursuant to GO 71.
Plaintiff has indicated that she does not believe GO 71 applies to this case, and accordingly
Defendant makes these FRCP 26(a)(1) disclosures without conceding that they are required in this
matter. The parties met and conferred regarding topics set forth in the Standing Order for All Judges
of the Northern District of California: Contents of Joint Statement Management Statement on June
25, 2024.

|- DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

information.

1.

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 108 of 334

support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying the subjects of the

Subject to the preliminary statement set forth above, Defendant responds:

Plaintiff (information regarding complaints to Defendant, and termination of

Yannick Bertolus (Hardware Engineering Vice President) (information regarding
termination of Plaintiffs employment)

Aleks Kagramanov (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding
termination of Plaintiffs employment)

Ekelemchi Okpo (Labor Relations Business Partner) (information regarding
complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

Michael Steiger (Environmental Health and Safety Manager) (information
regarding complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

Jenna Waibel (Employee Relations Business Partner) (information regarding

complaints to Defendant and Defendant’s policies)

Except for Plaintiff, all individuals identified above may only be contacted through
Defendant’s counsel. Following discovery and receipt of additional information regarding the
nature of Plaintiff’s claims, additional witnesses may be identified, and Defendant reserves the right
to supplement this list accordingly.

Rule 26(a)1)(B): A copy of, or a description by category and location of, all

1.

documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or
control of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses,
unless solely for impeachment.

Subject to the preliminary statement set forth above, Defendant responds:

E-mail communications concerning Plaintiff, complaints she made to Defendant
regarding perceived issues at 825 Stewart, and/or the termination of her employment

between Plaintiff and Yannick Bertolus, Antone Jain, Aleks Kagramanov, Antonio

-92- DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9.

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 109 of 334

Lagares, Ekelemchi Okpo, Helen Polkes, Dave Powers, Michael Steiger, Jenna
Waibel, and/or Dan West from March 1, 2021 to September 9, 2021.

E-mail communications concerning Plaintiff, complaints she made to Defendant
regarding perceived issues at 825 Stewart, and/or the termination of her employment
between or among Yannick Bertolus, Antone Jain, Aleks Kagramanov, Antonio
Lagares, Ekelemchi Okpo, Helen Polkes, Dave Powers, Michael Steiger, Jenna
Waibel, and/or Dan West from March 1, 2021 to September 9, 2021.

The personnel file Defendant maintained on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's performance reviews.

Documents relied on to make the decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment.
Policies relevant to the termination of Plaintiff’s employment.

Job descriptions for positions Plaintiff held.

Documents showing Plaintiff’s compensation and benefits.

Documents that are directly related to Plaintiffs termination.

These documents are in the possession of Defendant’s counsel.

Defendant reserves the right to supplement the categories of documents as more information
becomes available through the discovery process. By listing documents or categories of documents,
Defendant does not waive the right to object to discovery requests to which any document or
category of documents may be responsive.

Rule 26(a)(1)(C): Computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing

party.

Apple does not claim any damages at this time.

Rule 26(a)(1)(D): Any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an

lawsuit.

insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in
the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.

There is no applicable insurance policy that presently covers Plaintiff’s claims in this

3. DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: July 9, 2024

4134-2858-2737 4

By:

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 110 of 334

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

MELINDA S. RIECHERT

Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

-4- DEF.’S FRCP 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 111 of 334

(Additional counsel on following page)

JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
jperry @ orrick.com

MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
mriechert @ orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015

Telephone: +1 650 614 7400

Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669

Telephone: +1 415 773 5700
Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759
Attorneys for Respondent
Apple Inc.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
ASHLEY GJOVIK, OALJ Case No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA Case No.: 9-3290-22-051
Complainant,
RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S
V. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
APPLE INC.., AND PRODUCTION
Respondent.

APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL

OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)

kjuvinall @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C

Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: +1 310 633 2800
Facsimile: +1 310 633 2849

RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)

rbooms @orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

Telephone: +1 202 339 8400

Facsimile: +1 202 339 8500

Attorneys for Respondent
Apple Inc.

Filed 02/24/25 Page 112 of 334

APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL

OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Il.

Il.
IV.

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

Filed 02/24/25 Page 113 of 334

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........cecccecccceessecenteeteneeeeenecesaeeceneeenneeeeas 2
LEGAL STANDARD 2... eeeceeeeecesseecnscecesseeceseeessaeeeseecesaeccsaaeceaaeeeeaeeeseeesesaeessaesesaeeenas 4
A. Complainant Has Not Demonstrated the Relevance of the Documents She
Seeks Through Her Requests. ..........ccccccceccesssseseneccecceeeeeeseeaceceecceeeesesnneeeeeeeeeseeeeaaas 6
B. Apple Has Cooperated in Discovery, Producing Hundreds of Documents
Even Though their Discoverability is Unclear at This Stage of the Matter............ 6
C. Apple’s Objections Were Appropriate and Properly Tailored... eeeeeeeeseeeees 8

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 116 of 334

I. INTRODUCTION!

On May 15, 2024, Complainant served sixty-one (61) separate requests for production
(“Requests”) on Apple in this putative whistleblower retaliation case, seeking a sweeping range
of materials untethered to the needs of this case (if any claims survive the current round of motion
practice) —for example, all security footage from an office building where Apple rents space (825
Stewart) for a two-week period in August 2021 (Request No. 43); all badge access records for a
five-week period for that same building (Request No. 44); and every document concerning certain
maintenance issues for that building for a period of over nine years (Request No. 47). On June 5,
2024, this Court advised the parties (via email) that it was holding all motions other than
Complainant’s Motion to Amend “in abeyance,” and directed the parties to “cooperate with each
other in the discovery process” in the interim.

Apple has done so. It produced 418 documents spanning 1,549 pages in response to
Complainant’s requests for production despite its currently pending and potentially dispositive
Motion to Dismiss. Apple’s initial document production included a full range of documents that
might become relevant to Complainant’s CERCLA whistleblower retaliation claim if that claim
survives Apple’s Motion to Dismiss. Presently, Apple’s production exceeds what is proportional
to the needs of the case because the pleadings are not yet settled. Moreover, if the Court grants
the Motion to Dismiss, this case—along with Apple’s discovery obligations— would end.

Despite this good faith production, Complainant complains Apple has somehow “refused
to cooperate” by failing to immediately produce all the documents she seeks through sixty-one
sweeping requests. But it was Complainant who has refused to meet and confer in good faith
regarding the reasonableness and proportionality of her requests. Many of the Requests are not
relevant to Complainant’s CERCLA retaliation claim even if it survives. Others provide either no
time limits or unreasonable time limits wholly untethered to the alleged internal complaints on

which Complainant’s CERCLA retaliation claim is premised.

' On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issues its decision in Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, Case No. 22-859, 2024 WL 3187811. Apple is still evaluating
the potential relevance of that decision to this proceeding and submits this opposition without
prejudice to any rights or remedies Jarkesy may afford it.

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

-]- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 117 of 334

Discovery in this matter is not a free-for-all, open-ended opportunity for Complainant to
demand any and every document she may want from Apple; it should be conducted with an eye
towards the needs of this case and adjudication of the particular claims (if any) that would
proceed to hearing in this matter. Apple’s responses give due consideration to the discoverability
of the documents sought through each request and are proportional to the needs of this case at this
stage, especially given that the pleadings are still not settled and thus it remains uncertain to what
claims and allegations the assessment of relevance and proportionality must be tethered. This

Court should deny Complainant’s premature and unnecessary motion to compel.

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The procedural posture of this case—and the claims that currently are and are not at issue,
and the status of motion practice regarding the pleadings—is important framing within which to
consider the present motion. As this Court’s May 23, 2024 order made clear, “[b]ased on the
regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 24, the operative complaint in this matter is the August 29,
2021, online complaint filed before OSHA.” Order on Operative Complaint (May 23, 2024) (the
“May 23 Order’) at 1. On April 2, 2024, Complainant filed a motion to amend, seeking to add
additional legal claims, alleged protected activity, and alleged adverse actions beyond those in the
operative complaint; on April 16, 2024, Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss the lone claim that exists
in the currently operative complaint (i.e., a CERCLA whistleblower claim premised on alleged
retaliation for Gjovik’s various complaints related to alleged safety issues at Apple’s office
location in a building at 825 Stewart). Specifically, Apple moved this court for an order
dismissing the operative OALJ Complaint on the grounds that Complainant fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because (1) Apple is not a “Covered Person” under CERCLA
with respect to the site at issue; and (2) Complainant does not allege protected activity under
CERCLA.” Both motions are fully briefed and pending before the Court.

On May 15, 2024, Complainant served her sixty-one Requests on Apple, seeking wide-

* On April 30, 2024, Complainant filed a brief in opposition to Apple’s Motion to Dismiss. On
May 10, 2024, Apple filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss
(along with a copy of Apple’s proposed reply brief), and Complainant filed a motion for leave to
file a sur-reply.

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

-2- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 118 of 334

ranging information about not only her alleged complaints and the reasons for her termination but
also about various individuals whose relation to her is unclear and about myriad site inspections
dating back nearly a decade, over six years before she made the complaints that she alleges
prompted the termination of her employment. See Mot., Ex. A. On May 22, 2024, Apple filed a
motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its Motion to Dismiss. The Court then issued the
May 23 Order, permitting Complainant to “submit proposed amendments to the August 29, 2021,
online complaint” and Apple to respond, and stating that all pending motions would be “held in
abeyance until Complainant’s Motion to Amend has been fully ruled on.” Id. at 2.

On June 3, 2024, Apple sought clarity from this Court whether it would consider and rule
on Apple’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its Motion to Dismiss and requested a
conference to discuss the issue given that Complainant would soon be filing a new amended
complaint. This Court clarified via email on June 5, 2024, that “the litigation schedule as set out
in the Notice of Hearing issued on March 27, 2024, has not changed” (emphasis in original) and
directed both parties to “cooperate with each other in the discovery process” until the motion to
amend had been decided. The Court also directed Complainant to file her proposed amended
complaint (consistent with the May 23 Order) by the next day. Complainant missed her deadline
and instead filed her new proposed amended complaint the following day on June 7, 2024.

Consistent with the Court’s June 5, 2024 instructions, Apple responded to Complainant’s
Requests on June 14, 2024, and produced 418 documents. See Mot., Ex. B; Riechert Decl. §2.
While it is Apple’s position that discovery is not appropriate until a decision is made as to
whether any of Gjovik’s claims may proceed (and if so, which ones), Apple has produced
documents of potential relevance to the only claim in the operative complaint before this Court —
a CERCLA whistleblower retaliation claim. These documents include Complainant’s personnel
file, payroll records, stock records, leave of absence records, benefits records, job descriptions,
performance reviews, agreements and policies, termination letter and related emails, calendar
files, documents regarding Complainant’s complaints about vapor intrusion testing and exposure
at 825 Stewart and 825 Stewart’s status as a Superfund site, documents regarding the decision to

terminate Complainant’s employment and communications with the custodians that notified

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
-3- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 119 of 334

Complainant of her termination, communications between HR, communications between Apple’s
HR custodians and Apple’s EH&S custodians, communications between Complainant and all of
these custodians, communications between Complainant and the EPA, communications between
Complainant and her direct and skip-level managers, communications between these managers
and HR custodians, and communications between Complainant and other Apple employees. See
Riechert Decl. §3. Apple further agreed to meet and confer with Complainant as appropriate
regarding the scope of the requests following the Court’s ruling on Complainant’s motion to
amend and Apple’s Motion to Dismiss.

Upon receipt of Apple’s responses and production of documents, Complainant notified
Apple that she believed she was entitled to full discovery on all sixty-one Requests. Apple
attempted in good faith to engage with Complainant regarding specific documents she contended
were missing from the initial production, but Complainant refused. Instead, she repeatedly
referred back to her original Requests, dismissed all of Apple’s objections and proportionality
concerns out of hand, and filed the instant motion on June 19, 2024. See Mot., Ex. C

(correspondence between the parties between June 14, 2024 and June 19, 2024).

HiIl. LEGAL STANDARD

29 C.F.R. section 18.50, et seq. set forth rules about discovery for administrative hearings
before the OALJ. Parties may obtain discovery concerning any nonprivileged matter that is
“relevant to any party’s claim or defense,” subject to an ALJ’s limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 18.51(a).

However, a request for production “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or
category of items to be inspected,” and the receiving party is permitted in response to “either state
that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the
request, including the reasons.” Id. §§ 18.61(b)(1)(ii), (2)(ii).

The Court “must” limit discovery when “[t]he discovery sought is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient,
less burdensome, or less expensive,” as well as when “[t]he burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in

controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
-4- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 120 of 334

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” 29 C.F.R. § 18.51(b)(4)G), (i).
Discoverability under the operative rules is therefore expressly tethered to and governed by the
claims (and related defenses) at issue in the matter, which in turn inform “the needs of the case”
and the “issues” that would need to be resolved. “ALJs have wide discretion to limit the scope of
discovery and will be reversed only when such evidentiary rulings are arbitrary or an abuse of
discretion.” McNiece v. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., ARB Case No. 15-083, 2016 WL
7212569, at *5 (Nov. 30, 2016).

While the regulations generally address the scope and limits of discovery, they do not
specifically address motions to compel. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.50 et seq. “The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (FRCP) apply to situations not controlled by Part 18 or rules of special
application.” Blanton v. Biogen IDEC, Inc., ARB Case No. 2006-SOX-4, 2006 WL 3246815, at
*2 (Apr. 18, 2006). Under the FRCP, the moving party bears the initial burden of showing that
the requested information is relevant and that the opposing party’s response is inadequate or
incomplete. See, e.g., Campaign Legal Ctr. v. lowa Values, 2024 WL 81278, at *5 (D.D.C. Jan. 8,
2024); Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs, 343 F.R.D. 71, 80 (D. Ariz. 2022); Servicios Funerarios GG,
S.A. de C.V. v. Advent Int’! Corp., 2023 WL 7332836, at *2 (D. Mass. Nov. 7, 2023), aff'd, 2024
WL 2748348 (D. Mass. May 29, 2024); Packman v. Chicago Trib. Co., 267 F.3d 628, 647 (7th
Cir. 2001) (denial of discovery proper unless moving party can show “actual and substantial
prejudice resulting from the denial of discovery”). Only if the moving party establishes a need
for the requested discovery would the burden then shift to the party opposing discovery to show
why it should not be permitted. See id.; accord In re: Jiminez & Sons Landscaping, Inc., ARB
Case No. 2021-TNE-00019, 2021 WL 11714734, at *1 (Sept. 8, 2021) (only if moving party
makes “threshold showing of relevance” must opposing party and Court consider, inter alia,
“whether the burden outweighs the probative value”). Such a showing would be informed by the
considerations of proportionality and burden that the regulations outline, all of which tie back to
the needs of a particular case in light of the particular claims at issue.

///
///

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
-5- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 121 of 334

IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. Complainant Has Not Demonstrated the Relevance of the Documents She
Seeks Through Her Requests.

Complainant’s motion to compel makes no effort to satisfy her burden to show that any or
all of the documents she sought in her sixty-one Requests but has not received are relevant to this
matter. She likewise made no such effort in the meet and confer process, instead simply
reiterating her entitlement to everything and her contention that every one of Apple’s tailored
objections to particular requests must be improper. See Mot., Ex. C. Because Complainant has
failed to demonstrate the relevance of any particular document(s) sought, her motion fails even
absent consideration of Apple’s objections. See In re: Jiminez & Sons Landscaping, Inc., 2021

WL 11714734, at *1.

B. Apple Has Cooperated in Discovery, Producing Hundreds of Documents Even
Though their Discoverability is Unclear at This Stage of the Matter.

Complainant contends that Apple has “refuse[d] to engage in properly scheduled

99

discovery.” Mot. at 5. But Apple has engaged in a manner appropriate and proportional to the
needs of the case at this stage. The set of claims that will go forward in this matter—if any—
remains unsettled. Unless Complainant’s Motion to Amend is granted, the only claim at issue
will be a CERCLA whistleblower retaliation claim regarding alleged complaints about 825
Stewart; but Apple has argued that claim should be dismissed on the pleadings because
Complainant has not stated a claim under CERCLA’s particular whistleblower provision.>, When
the pleadings are unsettled, the scope of the claims and issues is unclear and a party responding to
discovery cannot reasonably determine whether the information sought is relevant or proportional

to the needs of the cases. See, e.g., Palmer v. Cognizant Tech. Sols. Corp., 2019 WL 9359775, at

*1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2019) (limiting discovery ordered with pending motion to where the parties

> As noted in prior submissions to this Court, Complainant separately filed an OSHA
whistleblower retaliation claim (on which DOL/OSHA found no merit following administrative
review); a SOX whistleblower retaliation claim (which Judge Chen of the Northern District of
California dismissed with prejudice); and state law whistleblower retaliation claims (at least some
of which will go forward in her federal case).

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

-6- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 122 of 334

could “mutually agree to engage in certain aspects of the discovery process,” because otherwise
“permitting discovery at this juncture may lead to premature and needless disputes regarding
Defendants’ discovery responses”). This is why courts routinely stay discovery pending
resolution of a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Ware v. BNSF Railway Co., ALJ Case No. 2020-
FRS-00063 (Mar. 5, 2021) (granting respondent’s motion to stay written discovery pending
resolution of motion to dismiss); Simkus v. United Airlines, Inc., ALJ Case Nos. 2018-SOX-
00035, 2018-SWD-00003 (Oct. 16, 2018) (same).* Requiring the parties to engage in
comprehensive discovery at this early juncture would not be an efficient use of resources,
including both those of the parties and this Court. See, e.g., Cima v. Wellpoint Health Networks,
Inc., 2006 WL 1064054, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2006) (“A ruling on [the pending motion to
dismiss] will necessarily result in greater certainty of what claims remain pending. It would be
wasteful for the parties to engage in extensive discovery prior to a ruling on the motion.”).

Here, the Court has not stayed discovery and has directed the parties to “cooperate with
each other in the discovery process” while the initial round of motions are pending. Apple has
done so. It produced 418 documents spanning 1,549 pages in response to Complainant’s

Requests that would be relevant to the operative complaint should it survive Apple’s Motion to

* See also Hilliard v. Cnty. of Henrico, ALJ Case No. 2018-NTS-00006 (Aug. 17, 2018) (staying
discovery because “if the Court grants Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, the discovery requests
will be moot’); Duran v. City of Porterville, 2013 WL 12430031, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17,
2013) (“[W]hen a case is still in the pleadings stage and a motion to dismiss is pending, a motion
to compel discovery is considered premature absent extraordinary circumstances.”); Morris v.
Barra, 2012 WL 4900203, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (“Given that this case is still in the pleading
stage, the Court finds that merits-based discovery is inappropriate at this time, as its relevancy is
outweighed by the burden and expense of production[.]’”); Thomas v. Felker, 2011 WL 2225133
(E.D. Cal. June 7, 2011) (“Plaintiff is apprised that any motion to compel will be found premature
until the court has issued its final ruling on the motion to dismiss[.]”); Duggan v. Astrue, 2010
WL 2035285 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2010); Nieves v. Just Energy New York Corp., 2020 WL
6720871, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2020) (granting motion to stay pending motion to dismiss
because discovery was “premature” and if motion to dismiss were granted “then discovery would
not occur’); Thaht Sin v. Mass. Dept. of Corr., 2012 WL 1570810, at *7 (D. Mass. May 2, 2012)
(“Because the stay was ordered pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, discovery will
proceed following the resolution of that motion in this order[.]”); Mayfield v. Bank of America,
N.A., 2010 WL 11647218, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2010) (denying motion to compel discovery
based on pending motion to dismiss and no answer on file).

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

- 7 - OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 123 of 334

Dismiss.” See, e.g., Nieman v. Southeastern Grocers, ARB Case. No. 2018-0058, 2020 WL
6117907, at *6 (Oct. 5, 2020) (1,100 pages of documents produced sufficient to demonstrate
reasons for termination); Powers v. Pinnacle Airlines, ARB Case No. 2005-SOX-65, 2005 WL
4889053, at *9-10 (July 19, 2005) (limiting discovery in whistleblower case under certain
environmental acts to employee’s complaints and termination and not the underlying acts
themselves). These documents include Complainant’s personnel file, payroll records, stock
records, leave of absence records, benefits records, job descriptions, performance reviews,
agreements and policies, termination letter and related emails, calendar files, communications
between Complainant and her managers and/or Apple’s HR and EH&sS representatives, and
communications between these representatives regarding Complainant’s complaints spanning
from the time Complainant made inquiries through her date of termination. See Riechert Decl. 93.
These documents reveal witnesses and dates, as well as Apple’s and other individual’s responses
to Complainant’s concerns. Id. Not only does the production include communications with
Complainant, but it also includes communications about her internal complaints among other
individuals. Id. There are also documents explaining the termination of Complainant’s
employment. Id. Given that it is unclear whether Complainant can even plead a viable cause of
action in this forum, Apple’s production is more than proportional to the needs of the case as it

currently stands. 29 C.F.R. § 18.51(b)(4)(ii1); see also Nieman, 2020 WL 6117907, at *6.

C. Apple’s Objections Were Appropriate and Properly Tailored.

Complainant also contends that Apple’s objections are “boilerplate, non-specific, and in

bad faith.” Mot. at 5. As argued above, absent a threshold showing of relevance as to particular

> That Apple has already produced these documents to Complainant in other proceedings also
alleging whistleblower retaliation (albeit under different statutes) is irrelevant to whether
Complainant’s motion to compel should be granted at this stage of this matter. Indeed, given that
Complainant has put her termination at issue in multiple different forums—alleging she was a
whistleblower, and that her termination was a result of protected activity, in each forum—it is
entirely unsurprising that documents that would be potentially relevant (and thus discoverable) in
one matter would be in another as well. Similarly, Complainant laments that Apple’s production
is deficient in part because (inter alia) it includes “communications she directly sent or received”
and thus “already has in her possession.” Mot. at 11. But Complainant’s decision to retain
documents related to her employment with Apple post-termination likewise has nothing to do
with Apple’s discovery obligations.

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

-8- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE No.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 124 of 334

documents sought, Complainant has not made even an initial showing of an entitlement to relief.
Nor does she make any effort to argue that any particular objections are improper as to any
specific request, instead broadly attacking any response that contained (inter alia) a relevance or
proportionality objection without meeting that objection as to particular categories of documents
(for example, Request Nos. 43, 44, and 47 cited above).

If this Court were to consider Apple’s objections and subsequent attempts to meet and
confer, it would see that Apple made good faith objections targeted to the specific Requests at
issue. There are no general objections in Apple’s response. Instead, Apple specifically addressed
each of Complainant’s Requests and asserted objections appropriate to the particular Request, as
well as noting where it was producing documents (and which documents) as well as its
willingness to meet and confer with Complainant including regarding “discovery limitations set
forth in 29 C.F.R. § 18.51(b)(4).”

Complainant broadly argues that everyone of Apple’s objections is “boilerplate.” Mot. at
5. They are not. “[C]Jopying and pasting an objection, by itself does not render that objection a
boilerplate objection” — particularly if multiple requests suffer from the same deficiencies and are
subject to the same objections. VeroBlue Farms USA Inc. v. Wulf, 345 F.R.D. 406, 419 (N.D.
Tex. 2021) (citing Amos v. Taylor, 2020 WL 7049848, at *7 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 1, 2020)). Rather
““[o]bjections are typically deemed ‘boilerplate’ when they are identical and not tailored to the
specific discovery request.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno, 2020
WL 5440050, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2020); Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 2013 WL 990918,
at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013). Here, Apple’s objections are tailored to each specific discovery
Request.

For example, Apple asserted relevance objections where appropriate given that the claims
(if any) that will go forward in this matter are indeterminate at present, as well where the
documents sought plainly bear no relation to the claims that could even conceivably be a part of
this action. For example, Request No. 61 seeks “[a]ll documents concerning 825 Stewart Drive
with Ronald Sugar between April 1 2021 through December 31 2021.” But Mr. Sugar was the

subject of Complainant’s complaint about conduct she characterizes as violative of SOX (and

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
-9- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 125 of 334

thus as related to her SOX whistleblower retaliation claim). See Riechert Decl. J§4, Ex. A (Dec.
10, 2021 Case Activity Worksheet). Complainant elected to “kick out” that claim to federal court
(where it was subsequently dismissed with prejudice); there is no legitimate basis to continue to
seek documents regarding Mr. Sugar in this forum.

As concerns privilege, Apple asserted that objection only as to those Requests that it
believes may seek the discovery of information protected by the attorney client privilege and/or
work product doctrine; for the remainder; Apple did not assert the objection. See Mot. Ex. B,
Responses to Request Nos. 43-55.

Apple likewise did not assert a third-party privacy objection to those Requests that did not
appear to seek third party information. See id., Responses to Request Nos. 1, 43. But as to others,
their express language appears designed to seek confidential information regarding and
communications with third parties. See, e.g., Mot. Ex. A, Request No. 31 (seeking “all
documents concerning” Apple and Northrup Grumman), 32 (seeking “all documents concerning”
Apple and Oaktree Capital, 33 (seeking “all documents concerning” Apple and Hines), 34
(seeking “all documents concerning” Apple and GI Partners), 35 (seeking “all documents
concerning” Apple and CalSTRS).

Many other Requests could be understood to seek confidential information regarding
third-party Apple employees, such that Apple appropriately objected. See, e.g., id., Request Nos.
2, 4, 8, 21-25. The California Constitution protects an individual’s privacy rights, and an
employer has a legal duty to protect its employees’ private information. See Belaire-West
Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 149 Cal. App. 4th 554, 558 (2007); Pioneer Electronics (USA),
Inc. v. Superior Ct., 40 Cal.4th 360, 370 (2007); Hill v. Nat’! Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th
1, 20, 40 (1994); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(v)(1) (employee personal information
including “professional or employment-related information protected under the California
Consumer Privacy Act of 2018”). That is precisely what Apple is doing here. Apple’s assertion
of that objection as to particular Requests was entirely appropriate.

Apple also appropriately objected to those Requests that appear to seek documents that

may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information. See, e.g., Mot. Ex. B,

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
- 10- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 126 of 334

Response to Request Nos. 40 (“All documents sent by or received by Antone Jain and concerning
825 Stewart Drive’), 41 (“All documents concerning EHS records and reports for 825 Stewart
Drive’); 42 (“All documents concerning indoor air test plans, testing, and results for 825 Stewart
Drive’); 49 (“All documents concerning the ‘Gobbler’ / ‘Glimmer’ Informed Consent Forms
and/or NDAs’’); 53 (“All documents concerning IRB review of the practice of scanning employee
ears’). Complainant has to date failed to engage in discussions regarding appropriate measures to
protect Apple’s confidential information in this matter, including entry of an appropriate
protective order. Particularly given that it is unclear what if any claims will go forward,
Complainant’s wholesale insistence on discovery of Apple’s confidential information without a
willingness to meet and confer regarding Apple’s concerns as to these specific Requests is not
well taken.

Apple did not object on vagueness grounds to those Requests that described with
sufficient particularity the information sought. See Mot. Ex. B, Responses to Request Nos. 1, 43,
44, 45,55. For the others, Apple objected and identified the vague and ambiguous language
contained in the Request in its response and objected to the extent it was intended to impose a
disproportionate burden on Apple, which Complainant could have attempted to address through
the meet and confer process had she chosen to engage. See, e.g., id., Responses to Request Nos.
10 (“[a]ll documents” and “off-boarding”’), 24 (“[a]ll documents” and “about Complainant and
Jenna Waibel”), 26 (“[aJ]ll documents” and “about Complainant’), 39 (“all documents” and
“concerning 825 Stewart Drive’).

Finally, Apple appropriately limited its objections regarding scope and overbreadth to
those Requests that are objectionable on those bases. For those Requests that are not overbroad
as to time, Apple does not assert an objection on that basis. See id., Responses to Request Nos. 1,
4,43,44,45. Other Requests are overbroad because they have no time restriction whatsoever and
are “unlimited in time.” See id., Responses to Request Nos. 2, 8, 10, 12, 16-18 32-35, 49-54.
Other Requests are overbroad because they seek information from after Complainant’s
employment ended, which bear no obvious relevance to evaluating whether she was terminated

for CERCLA-protected activities during her employment. See id., Responses to Request Nos. 3,

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
-11- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 127 of 334

5,6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 29. And still other Requests are overbroad because they seek documents pre-
dating when Complainant alleges in the operative August 29, 2021 complaint that she first made
protected complaints (i.e., before March 17, 2021). See id., Responses to Request Nos. 19-28, 30-
31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 56-61.

In sum, Apple’s objections were appropriately selected for and tailored to the specific
Request to which Apple was responding. Complainant’s refusal to acknowledge the validity of
any of those objections—while also failing to make any showing as to the relevance or

proportionality of the documents she seeks—is not a sound basis on which to grant her motion.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court deny Complainant’s

motion to compel.

Dated: July 3, 2024 By: W\Qhind Loco

MELINDA S. RIECHERT
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Attorneys for Respondent Apple Inc.

APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
-12- OALJ CASE No.: 2024-CER-00001
OSHA CASE NOo.: 9-3290-22-05 1
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 130 of 334

Ashley Gjovik vs.
Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
4|ASHLEY GJOVIK,

5 Plaintiffs,
Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC

6| vs.

7|APPLE INC.,

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Defendants.

OALJ 26(f£) MEET AND CONFER

TELEPHONIC MEETING

REPORTED BY:

Monday, April 1, 2024

ANGELA KOTT, CSR 7811
25; JOB NO: 10139539

Page 1
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 131 of 334

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.
Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
ASHLEY GJOVIK
2108 N Street, Suite 4553
Sacramento, California 95816
415.964.6272
Ashleymgjovik@protonmail.com

FOR THE DEFENDANT:
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
BY: MELINDA RIECHERT, Attorney at Law

KATHRYN G. MANTOAN, Attorney at Law

1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
650.614.7400
mriechert@orrick.com
Kmantoan@orrick.com

Page 2
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 132 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

PROCEEDINGS 10:33 a.m.

MS. RIECHERT: We're ready to go on the
record. We have a court reporter here and we are here
to talk about the 26(f) rules for the DOL.

And I thought it would be good if we started.

Do you have them in front of you, Ashley?

MS. GJOVIK: Yeah, I do.

MS. RIECHERT: All right. Great.

So the first one talks about initial
disclosures. And I think we agree that we're done
with that, right? We've each done our initial
disclosures.

MS. GJOVIK: And, yeah, I was going to look
at it again and see. I might need to amend a couple
details on the damages, but it looks like we have five
days after today to potentially do that.

MS. RIECHERT: And then the next one, the
basis of the claims and defenses.

I thought it would be helpful if you started
by telling us what you think the issues are that the
DOL is going to decide.

MS. GJOVIK: Yeah, so I didn't know before
this meeting -- I'm sorry. We're on the record?

MS. RIECHERT: Yeah.

Page 3
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 133 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

MS. GJOVIK: I didn't know before this
meeting of some of the details of my request for
amendment was the basis. I'm also unaware of the
details of OSHA's complaint, what they included and
what they did not.

So I'm also going to be motioning -- which
might be unnecessary -- but to add the adverse
employment actions I had previously complained of as
well as specific protected activity under CERCLA that
was not addressed in the determination.

The real center of my complaints are around
the cracked slab. The reporting the cracks to the
EPA, the EPA conducting the inspection on August 19th
due to my reports -- in their official
documentation it was because of my reports. But there
were a number of issues. And Apple apparently sealing
the cracks right after I was put on leave.

So that whole timeline of events I think is
the primary claims -- really goes to the CERCLA
claims, but there's also, as noted in the brief, a
number of other issues.

There was a the sub-slat de-pressurization
system concerns, the sub-slat ports. A number of
issues to do with the vapor intrusion mitigation

system, with very specific technical inquiries and

Page 4
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 134 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

feedback I gave Apple, and also then shared with EPA
and then forwarded back to Apple. The EPA then agreed
with me during the inspection.

So the protected activity under CERCLA, you
know, it started in, you know, mid-March, but what
seems like the -- the most critical time seems to be
in July, June and July, once the cracks were
identified and I started raising concerns specific to
the cracks and a duty to ensure there's oversight, and
being told there's not, and then us back and forth,
and again, leading to the inspection.

And then I definitely will also be raising
that Apple, I'm going to argue, went out of their way
to make sure I never found out there was an
inspection. And even in the responses to OSHA there
was no mention of the inspection, which is clearly
material. So I'm going to add that as an argument
under pretext for the adverse employment actions.

These are all things that I had in my claims
with OSHA. We have the hostile work environment,
which I complained of directly, and counsel addressed
in their answer even.

And the change in work -- losing projects
that were good for review, increase of projects that

were destined to fail. High increase in workload

Page 5
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Meet and Confer

Filed 02/24/25 Page 135 of 334

Ashley Gjovik vs.
Apple Inc.

overall. The leave with the not being able to go to a

training. Not being able to come back.

Then of course the -- I'm going to definitely

raise the two outreach attempts by employee relations,

Ekelemchi Okpo.
THE REPORTER: I'm sorry.

MS. GJOVIK: Ekelemchi Okpo

I didn't get that.

is his name.

MS. RIECHERT: Can you spell that?

MS. GJOVIK: Are you guys new?

MS. RIECHERT: The court reporter is new, and

she doesn't know all the names here.

to --

So she needs

MS. GJOVIK: Oh, right. Say Mr. Okpo,

O-k-p-o.
THE REPORTER: Thank you.
MS. GJOVIK: Sorry. You're
So Mr. Okpo reaching out to
3rd and September 7th, what appeared
pretext of giving me an update on my
then come to find out that was after

investigating me.

welcome.

me on September
to be under the
concerns, but

Apple started

So I'll definitely be interested in any kind

of documentation around what he was attempting to do.

My assumption was something negative

against me while

pretending to be addressing my concerns. So I'm

www.aptusCR.com

Page 6
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 136 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

interested in any documentation around that.

And then of course, the events leading up to
the outreach from -- I can't say his last name -- the
workplace violence investigator, Cragaminov something,
just the workplace violence.

The, you know, the events leading up to that.
The decision behind it, who made the decision, when
they made the decision.

And then also for pretext, of course, I'll be
very interested in any documentation around the things
I heard that were occurring aS soon as I was put on
leave, including all the staff meetings where they
talked about "the Ashley issue."

Dan West apparently going around -- D-a-n
W-e-s-t, supervisor Dan West -- saying he's planning
on talking about "the Ashley issue" at the October
all-hands, which is when I knew I was never coming
back in my opinion. And other communication that was
happening very early on in that period.

And also for -- I assume Apple is sticking
with their original defense. And if so, rebutting, of
course, the failure to cooperate. We're arguing I was
trying to cooperate and there's ample precedent of
requesting written communications in situations such

as that.

Page 7
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 137 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

But then also pointing out the Gobbler stuff
is not only protected, but other employees had already
spoken out in more detail and were not disciplined,
were promoted. Same thing for the ear thing. That
was already public.

So pointing out that that clearly wasn't --
you know, would have been fired anyways.

I think that's pretty much my summary.

THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. The "ear thing"?
E-a-r, thing?

MS. GJOVIK: The ear thing, e-a-r. Yeah,
Apple wanted to scan my ear canals and kept asking.
And I said please stop. And they said we fired you
because you told people we wanted to scan your ear
canals.

And I said, "That's weird."

THE REPORTER: And one more thing. The
"Gobbler stuff"?

MS. GJOVIK: So Gobbler, G-o-b-b-l-e-r. Face
Gobbler. It was an app that was taking pictures and
biometrics of faces whenever they were in front of an
iPhone camera.

And I complained about it and put pictures it
took of me without me like triggering it in my home

and complained about it. And Apple said that was

Page 8
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 138 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

secret, too.

MS. RIECHERT: Okay. That sounds like that's
pretty thorough. We, of course -- our defenses are
set forth in the decision of the investigator that
you're appealing from, so I think you pretty much
understand what our defenses are.

And with respect to your reguest to amend, we
would -- you know, I'm still looking into the e-mail
that you sent this morning, which I haven't had a full
chance to review yet, but we do think that you should
not be allowed to amend because it's barred by the
statute of limitations.

And you know, our belief that this case is
all about -- is retaliation. Was there a basis -- you
know, did the company retaliate, did the company fire
you because it retaliated against you because of your
complaints.

That's the only issue that we see is the
issue in the case.

MS. GJOVIK: Okay. So I encourage you to
look at the e-mails I sent and hopefully get back to
me soon. I'm planning on filing it tomorrow. For now
I'll put opposed, unless I hear otherwise.

But the precedence is extremely clear on

these cases once they're referred to the Office of

Page 9
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 139 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

Administrative Law judges, that the statute of
limitations applies to the adverse employment actions,
not the motive.

So there is a ton of precedent of people
adding additional claims later, especially when
there's new knowledge of a new motive they weren't
aware of at that time, sometimes during discovery and
later.

So there's no statute of limitations of the
protected activity. You know, employers always will
argue, you know, maybe it's too much temporal
proximity, or something like that. But ample
precedent of adding it on and allowing an
investigation during the OALJ proceedings.

MS. RIECHERT: So do you have any questions
about what our defenses are or the positions that
we're taking?

As I say, I think they are pretty clear from
the decision below and with respect to the statute of
limitations, and that the new claims are under -- that
you're trying to raise, we don't believe it's
appropriate to raise those new claims at this stage
and it would be barred by the statute of limitations.

MS. GJOVIK: You're saying that for the Clean

Air Act and the RCRA?

Page 10
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 140 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

MS. RIECHERT: Yes. And also, you know, we
also claim that you had an obligation to exhaust your
administrative remedies and that you did not timely
exhaust your administrative remedies under these new
claims you're trying to add.

MS. GJOVIK: Tell me more about that.

MS. RIECHERT: Yeah. So you're supposed to
file a claim, I think it's within 30 days of learning
of the basis for the retaliation. And we believe that
you knew that in February of 2023 and you didn't file
a claim within 30 days.

So that's one of the defenses asserted.

MS. GJOVIK: You're welcome to whatever
defenses you would like to, but again, I'm going to
encourage you to go read some of the notes I sent you.
The statute of limitations has nothing to do with
motive, other than retaliation.

So once you're aware of an adverse employment
action, that's when you file. It doesn't matter the
reasons why, other than you thought it was
retaliation. You can figure out the rest later.

Sometimes people just have like a feeling it
was retaliation. They go through discovery, they find
out, oh, it was a bunch -- so you're welcome to argue

it. I don't think it will be successful.

Page 11
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 141 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

I do have a lot of questions about Apple's
defense, actually.

Would you mind walking me through, like I
just did with my claims, to walk me through Apple's
plan on the defense.

MS. RIECHERT: Yeah, I mean, I think as I
said, I don't want to repeat everything that was said
in the Judge's order below.

But if you want to know what our defenses
are, we agree with the decision of the Administrative
Law Judge below -- yeah, of the investigator, excuse
me, below, that for all the reasons that he denied
your claim, those are our defenses to the claim. So
the claims that you had asserted before OSHA that we
knew about.

And then we have additional defenses to the
potential new claims, including the lack of exhaustion
and the statute of limitations.

MS. GJOVIK: Okay. I'm going to ask again,
one more time, if you wouldn't mind -- I mean, the
determination from OSHA now is moot and completely
irrelevant in the Office of Administrative Law Judge
case.

The decision was also very brief and

confusing and you probably read my response. So I was

Page 12
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 142 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

transparent with you and I walked you through an
overview of my claims.

I would appreciate it if you could please
walk me through your claims, not just saying "whatever
the investigator said."

MS. RIECHERT: Yeah, but that is our claim,
right?

So if you want to know what our claims are,
just read the investigator's opinion. That's a
summary of our claims. It doesn't -- we only have
half an hour today and it doesn't seem fruitful for us
to -- for me to just read through what the
investigator said.

MS. GJOVIK: So the rules in, you know,
reference to the Judge's order was for us to meet and
confer and discuss our claims and defenses.

Because that decision is irrelevant here, I
feel like you have not yet walked me through your
defenses for my CERCLA claim.

MS. RIECHERT: Right. But the point is, our
defenses are what's in the order below. I realize
this is a de novo hearing, but you can just look at
what the investigator below found. That's what our
defenses are.

Why do you need me to read the opinion of the

Page 13
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 143 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

investigator below to tell you what our defenses are?
That doesn't seem like it would be a fruitful use
of --

MS. GJOVIK: I'm asking you on behalf of
Apple to meet and confer with me and explain to me
Apple's defense plans related to this case, which so

far has just been "Go look at that order," which I'm
going to say just one more time, I don't think that's
sufficient.

I would appreciate a good-faith effort to
just -- you don't have to go as thorough as I did, but
at least summarize, I would appreciate.

MS. RIECHERT: Yes. Well, obviously, one of
the defenses is that you -- that was not the reasons
that you were fired from your job, the fact that you'd
made complaints.

And as you've said in your claim, the reasons
you were fired is for disclosing confidential
information that was, we believe, was confidential and
that you had no right to disclose and you did
disclose.

And so the primary defense of the claim is
that you were not in fact retaliated against for

filing your letters with the EPA about the cracked

slab.

Page 14
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 144 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

MS. GJOVIK: Is Apple going to acknowledge or
reference or say anything about the EPA inspection in
the --

MS. RIECHERT: The issue in the case is
whether you were retaliated against. So what action
did Apple take against you and why did it take those
actions. That's what the issue is in a retaliation
case.

You know, did you make a complaint? Were you
terminated? Was there a connection between the two?
Would you have been terminated anyway?

And then, of course, the other reason that we
Said you were terminated is for failure to cooperate
in the investigation. And I know you covered that in
your discussion as well. You think you did cooperate
and we think you didn't cooperate.

So those are really the two primary defenses
that we have to the claim, to why you were let go.

And again, I don't want to repeat everything that was
in the order below from the investigator.

MS. GJOVIK: Okay. So it sounds like you are
Saying to me, "We would have fired her anyways," but
not addressing any of the prima facie elements,
including the protected activity.

And I'm aware of how retaliation claims work.

Page 15
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 145 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

And this is a -- you know, we have discovery. We can
do depositions. We get to really dig into this stuff.
And these are topics I'm going to be
interested in. I'm kind of just interested, you know,

what is Apple's stance, if Apple knows, or am I
basically going to be asking these questions and
presenting to the ALJ during the hearing and Apple's
just going to sit there and say, "This is irrelevant.

We refuse to answer," because that's what I'm getting
from your answer right now?

MS. RIECHERT: No. I'm not -- you shouldn't
be getting that from my answer.

I agree that the question is, did you engage
in protected activity under CERCLA? And we either
will agree on that or we won't agree on that.

But that is one of the issues: Did you
engage in protected activity?

And then the second issue is: Were you
terminated? And the answer to that is yes, so we're
not -- don't need to dispute that issue.

And then were you terminated because you
engaged in protected activity?

And we say no, that's not why you were

terminated. You were terminated for revealing

confidential information and for not cooperating in

Page 16
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 146 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

the investigation.

And then the question is, you know, even
though you engaged in protected activity, would you
have been terminated anyway, even though you didn't --
you had engaged in protected activity?

So those we see are the legal issues or
the -- maybe legal and factual issues in the case.

Did you engage in protected activity? Was
adverse action taken in the sense that you were
terminated? And then, were you terminated because you
engaged in protected activity?

Or were there other reasons --

MS. GJOVIK: I'm sorry. The inspection I
think is absolutely key to two prongs of that test,
which is protected activity, and then the next is in
causation.

As you must be aware, the timing is
incredibly suspect of when I was removed from the
workplace shortly after Apple was notified of the
inspection. All of the EHS work that occurred
immediately after, starting the day I was removed.
And the EPA coming in and inspecting, making note of
freshly sealed cracks and citing a number of issues.

And then despite my direct inquiries as to

what the status of the office was, never ever being

Page 17
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 147 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

told that there was any kind of inspection and only
found out myself through FOIA to EPA.

So I think that is just like drenched in
pretext, in my opinion. And I will be leaning heavily
into that for the causation argument.

I'm interested if Apple has any kind of
defense related to that at all? And then especially
why it was omitted from the messages to OSHA during
that investigation.

Even, I'm going to argue, misleading
statements were made to make it sound like the EPA was
just gone after, like, June. And there was nothing
else. There were no issues.

When in fact, EPA said, "We're going to do
a -- you know, a federal inspection based on actual
disclosures. We're going to be there."

So it's very contrary to the position
statement that was filed, which is also, again,
another example of pretext.

MS. RIECHERT: Right. But the issue is, did
you make a complaint and was that complaint the reason
that you were let go?

And so we will either admit that you made the
complaint or not, and then that's just a factual

issue. Did you make a complaint? Was that the reason

Page 18
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 148 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Meet and Confer

Ashley Gjovik vs.
Apple Inc.

you were let go?

And so if you are saying the complaint you
made is the one you made to the EPA, then we can just
take that as your fact. And then we will show why you
were let go and that whether you made a complaint to
the EPA or not was not the reason.

So it's a very simple -- as you said, I think
during the hearing with the Judge, it's a really
Simple issue. It's a really simple case. And as I
think you said, it would just take less than a week or
a week to five days to get it tried. And we agree.
It's a very simple case.

MS. GJOVIK: Okay. So I'm just going to be
clear. Based on the things you're telling me now, and
based on the prior initial disclosures, if Apple later
decides they want to add some brand-new defense or
witness, I'm going to argue it should have been in the
initial disclosures and try to fight the introduction
of that evidence, the introduction of that witness.

Because the position I've been given right
now, which you're assuring me is in good faith and
what you plan to do, to me sounds unfeasible for an
actual -- so we can put a pin in that.

We do have a few more things to talk about.

So the motion -- yeah, it sounds like you are

Page 19

www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 149 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

set. You're going to oppose my motion, so I will note
"Opposed."

MS. RIECHERT: Just to be clear, I just got
your e-mail this morning. I haven't reviewed it in
detail and all the authorities that you cited in it.

But we've -- and I understand you're going to
file your motion tomorrow. So if we agree to your
motion, we'll let you know by tomorrow. And if not,
you should go ahead and file your motion.

MS. GJOVIK: Okay. I will plan to file at
5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time tomorrow if I don't
hear from you earlier, if that works for you.

MS. RIECHERT: Okay.

MS. GJOVIK: And then for your motion to
dismiss, I also sent a note at the end of that e-mail
just reminding, the statutory language is very clear
that the CERCLA statute covers all employees and all
employers for any proceeding.

And the only carve-out you can see when you
look at the desk aid and the additional OSHA materials
is sometimes public employees do not have coverage
depending on it, but it specifically says "all private
employers."

So I'm arguing -- or I'm interested what

Apple's argument is as to why CERCLA does not apply to

Page 20
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 150 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

them.

MS. RIECHERT: Yeah, so we just disagree with
your contention that it applies to all employers and
all employees.

So I think that you'll see that our position
is set forth in our motion to dismiss where we're
going to detail all of that.

MS. GJOVIK: Okay. Again, not very
straightforward or transparent on that. But assume,
unless you give me more information that is
compelling, that I also oppose that. So we oppose and
oppose.

And then the next step will be discovery
plan. Per the rules, discovery is going to start
after this call. And there's definitely a lot of
stuff I want to request, but I'm also very familiar
with the way Apple sometimes handles discovery in
litigation. So I want to work with Apple on this one.

I think it might be best if I start with some
very targeted requests, you know, stuff that should
not be confidential. Should not be complicated. It's
probably already on-hand, instead of some kind of
broad request.

And then from those items, I'm planning on,

you know, requesting specific things off of them,

Page 21
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 151 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

depending on how relative they are, how relevant, all
of that.

Does Apple have any position on their
preferred way?

Would they prefer a big bulk request or
would you be appreciative if I try to be kind of
strategic so there's less burden?

MS. RIECHERT: We will definitely be
appreciative if you're strategic. Just because,
obviously, discovery has to be focused on the issues
in this case, which is we have already gone through --
you've gone through them. We've gone through them.
So we know what the issues in the case are.

And so it needs to be super targeted on, did
you make a complaint and is that why you were fired.

And so as long as you can target those
particular issues, we will look at the discovery that
you send and we'll respond appropriately.

So you're talking about document requests,
are you?

MS. GJOVIK: Yes. For initial -- I would
like to delay my request for depositions until I have
a better idea of the evidence through discovery.

Again, to be thoughtful of people's time and

strategic.

Page 22
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 152 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

MS. RIECHERT: So we think that it's better
that we know what the issues in the case are going to
be before we do any of this discovery.

So for example, if our motion to dismiss is
granted, there's no need for discovery.

If your motion to amend is granted, then the
topics of the discovery will be much broader than they
would be if it's just the claims that were brought
before the investigator.

So it seems to make sense to us that we delay
until we get the issues in the case resolved before
doing discovery.

Does that make sense to you?

MS. GJOVIK: I understand what you're saying,
but I do not agree.

You know, if we add Clean Air Act and RCRA,
we're adding a whole other facility, a different
timeframe in addition to the current one. And my
argument is it was all together. All that retaliation
was about all three of them.

So anything related to that investigation
they were supposedly doing into my concern, any
investigation into me. Any of the weird
communications going on with legal and EHS and all

those folks, like all of that, I expect to cover all

Page 23
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 153 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

the categories.

Once the -- if my amendment or request is
granted, I expect to have additional targeted
questions specific to that facility that might not
have been included in the Superfund request, probably
stuff that occurred before the Superfund stuff started
going.

I also expect, again, for your motion to
dismiss to be denied. You could also -- as he
mentioned, the Judge mentioned, you can file that
motion at any time.

So basically, that would just be saying no
discovery at all because we might feel like filing --
you know, there's lots of things you could do, and I
don't want to pause discovery for that.

I've been waiting a very long time for this
to finally get going. I'm very excited to get going.
And as I mentioned, I want to act in good faith and
try to keep things strategic and work with Apple on
this one. So I'm excited to get going.

MS. RIECHERT: Right. But if the motion to
dismiss is granted -- and I know you don't think it
will be and we think it will be -- then there will be
no need for any discovery.

And so why does each side waste time on

Page 24
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 154 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

discovery on something that may never need to happen?

MS. GJOVIK: There is zero legal precedent
for your argument for the motion to be dismissed.

MS. RIECHERT: And I totally disagree.

MS. GJOVIK: I'm very confident that it will
not be granted.

MS. RIECHERT: Right. But we're confident
that it will be granted. So the Judge will decide
which of our confidences is best placed.

But there's no point in spending time on
discovery when, if we're right, the motion is granted,
and then there would be no need for discovery.

MS. GJOVIK: Again, you could say a lot to
drag it out and drag this whole process out. I think,
you know, to stick to our schedule and ensure we're
ready for the hearing and trial, starting discovery
early, there's no real, you know, harm.

I assume, again, if I'm doing very strategic
small things, this is stuff that's probably already
on-hand. It's probably already applicable to other
cases anyways. It doesn't seem like a huge burden.

And just pausing the basic procedures within
the case at any time Apple thinks it wants to file
some motion would be incredibly disruptive.

So I'm okay, again, like not doing any kind

Page 25
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 155 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

of broad, big request anyways at the beginning. So
I'm going to hold adamant that we stick to the
schedule and the rules as published and start our
discovery right away.

MS. RIECHERT: Okay. Well, our time is up
and both of us have other things to talk about.

Do you think we've covered the things we need
to do? It seems like we covered the things in the
Rule 26(f£) report. And we'll disagree on discovery.
And we disagree so far on the motion to amend.

And we'll just let the Judges decide
unless -- I'll let you know by tomorrow whether we've
changed our mind on your motions.

MS. GJOVIK: Okay. You said we have more
things to talk about? Did you mean you and me or --

MS. RIECHERT: No, I think we covered all the
things in the 26(f) report, is what I'm saying.

MS. GJOVIK: Okay. So with you disagreeing
on discovery, I believe, if you want to pause it, you
need to file a motion. Are you planning on filing a
motion on that?

MS. RIECHERT: I don't know. We'll have to
decide that. That's what -- that's the point of our
call today, was to find out if that was going to be an

issue or not. And it sounds like it is going to be an

Page 26
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 156 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.

Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

issue.

And so then we'll have to decide what we want
to do about it.

MS. GJOVIK: Okay. And again, I want to work
cooperatively with Apple on discovery. I know they
can get kind of contested. And, you know, I want --
there's information I need. So if there's feedback
about how to do the narrow reguest and what kind of
formatting.

Oh, and then is Apple going to request any
discovery from me? I didn't see anything listed that
seemed like it would be relevant.

MS. RIECHERT: Well, at this time I don't --

MS. MANTOAN: I'm sorry. This is --
(inaudible).

THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

(Inaudible)

MS. RIECHERT: I'm late for my call, but we
haven't decided because we don't think there should be
any discovery until after the issues are decided.

So I don't have any discovery planned right
now. But obviously, we'll look at your discovery and
then we'll make a decision on what to do about it.

MS. GJOVIK: All right. Sounds good. We

Should probably have a follow-up call after the

Page 27
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 157 of 334

Ashley Gjovik vs.
Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

1 | motions, assuming nothing is kicked out. I don't
2 | think it will be.
3 Thank you for the talk today.

4 MS. RIECHERT: Thanks a lot. Bye.

6 (Whereupon, the proceedings adjourned at 11:03 a.m.)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Page 28
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 158 of 334

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Ashley Gjovik vs.
Meet and Confer Apple Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, ANGELA T. KOTT, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter, hereby certify that the foregoing
proceedings were taken in shorthand by me, at the time
and place therein stated, and that the said
proceedings were thereafter reduced to typewriting, by
computer, under my direction and supervision;

I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties nor in any
way interested in the event of this cause, and that I

am not related to any of the parties thereto.

DATED: April 2, 2024.

ANGELA T. KOTT, CSR #7811

Page 29
www.aptusCR.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 160 of 334

mwe.com

Ronald Hoiland
Attorney at Law
rjholland@mwe.com
+1 628 218 3829

DOCUMENT: PART OF SCARLETT’S EVIDENCE FOR DISTRICT COURT 22CIV01704KCX
SUBMITTED BY SCARLETT FEB 15 2022 AS EVIDENCE AGAINST GJOVIK

(UNKNOWN / UNCLEAR REASONING BY SCARLETT FOR INCLUDING)
December 20, 2021

VIA EMAIL

Aleksandr L. Felstiner

Levy Ratner

80 Eight Avenue, Floor 8

New York, NY 10011

Email: afelstiner@levyratner.com

Re: Cher Stewart Settlement — Breach

Dear Alek:

As we discussed last week, it is Apple’s position that Ms. Stewart has breached the Confidential Settlement
Agreement and General Release (“Settlement Agreement”) reached between the parties in Case 32-CA-
282396. As you are aware, Ms. Stewart indicated a desire to leave Apple and requested severance. Apple
negotiated in good faith to facilitate her departure. Apple took Ms. Stewart at her word when entering
into this Agreement, with no knowledge that she was upon execution already in breach of her
commitments.

Prior to executing the Agreement, and unbeknownst to Apple at the time, Ms. Stewart had already
disclosed draft provisions of the Agreement to Nia Impact Capital. Thus, Ms. Stewart breached the
Agreement at the time of execution by having already improperly disclosed the parties’ negotiations
leading to the Agreement in violation of Paragraph 14. She also breached the Agreement at the time of
execution by falsely warranting that she had not previously disclosed any of the Agreement terms,
provisions or negotiations leading to the Agreement. Apple learned of Ms. Stewart’s breach the day after
she received the first settlement payment and notified you accordingly. Subsequently, Ms. Stewart
publicly admitted to breaching the Agreement, as Reuters reported on November 25, 2021: “Scarlett, who
left Apple last week, said she decided to go public with that information this week, in violation of the
terms of her settlement with Apple.” Since then, Ms. Stewart has continued to breach the Agreement,
including, but not limited to, repeatedly disclosing the Agreement’s terms, provisions, and amount of the
settlement payments. Most recently, she again breached her agreement on December 14, 2021 when she
commented on the amount of the settlement on Twitter. The above examples of breach are an illustrative
list of Ms. Stewart’s breaches and not intended to be exhaustive.

M C D erm ott 415 Mission St Suite 5600 San Francisco CA 94105-2616 Te! +1628 218 3800 Fax +1 628 877 0107

Wi | | & EF US practice conducted through McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 __ Filed 02/24/2
DOCUMENT: PART OF SCARLETT’S EVIDENCE FOR BisMICT COUR SICINUMKCX

SUBMITTED BY SCARLETT FEB 15 2022 AS EVIDENCE AGAINST GJOVIK
(UNKNOWN / UNCLEAR REASONING BY SCARLETT FOR INCLUDING)

Aleksandr L. Felstiner
December 20, 2021
Page 2

You are aware that the parties, through their respective counsel, mutually drafted Paragraph 4 of the
Agreement (Timing of Settlement Payment), which expressly conditioned settlement payments on Ms.
Stewart’s continued compliance with the Agreement’s terms and conditions and that any breach by Ms.
Stewart would result in nonpayment by Apple. Given that Ms. Stewart breached the Agreement before
any settlement payment was due, Apple was released of any obligation to make continued payments to
Ms. Stewart or her attorneys. Notwithstanding Ms. Stewart’s continuing breaches, the Agreement
continues to be in effect and Apple is preserving its right to seek liquidated damages for each separate
breach.

Sincerely,

Ronald Holland

McDermott
Will & Emery
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 162 of 334

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 32

APPLE INC.
Cases 32-CA-282396
and 32-CA-287038
32-CA-290101
CHER SCARLETT, an Individual

AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING

On October 30, 2024 an Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and
Notice of Hearing issued in Cases 32-CA-282396, 32-CA-287038, 32-CA-290101, based on
charges filed by Cher Scarlett,' an Individual (Charging Party or Scarlett), alleging that
Apple, Inc. (Respondent), is engaged in unfair labor practices that violate the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. This Amended Consolidated Complaint and
Notice of Hearing, which is based on these charges, is issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., and Sections 102.15 and
102.17 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, and alleges that Respondent has violated the
Act as described below.

(a) The charge in Case 32-CA-282396 was filed by Charging Party on September
1, 2021, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on September 2, 2021.

(b) The charge in Case 32-CA-287038 was filed by Charging Party on November

22, 2021, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on December 2, 2021.

1 Cases 32-CA-282396 and 32-CA-287038 were filed under a former name of the Charging Party and
therefore is corrected herein.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 163 of 334

(c) The charge in case 32-CA-290101 was filed by Charging Party on February

4, 2022, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on February 4, 2022.
2.

(a) At all material times, Respondent has been a California corporation with its
headquarters located in Cupertino, California (Respondent’s facility), and retail facilities
located throughout the United States, and is engaged in the development, manufacture, and
retail sale of consumer electronics and software and provision of customer service and
support for those electronics and software.

(b) In conducting its operations during the 12-month period ending May 31, 2022,
a representative period, Respondent, in conducting its operations described above in
paragraph 2(a), derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000.

(c) During the time period described above in paragraph 2(b), Respondent, in
conducting its operations described above in paragraph 2(a), purchased and received at its
Cupertino, California facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $5,000
directly from points outside the State of California.

3.

At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within

the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
4.

At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite
their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act or agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the

Act:
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 164 of 334

Tim Cook — Chief Executive Officer

Deirdre O’Brien — Senior Vice President

Jeannie Wong — Manager

Ali Stapleton — Manager/Slack Administrator

Mark Miller — Manager

Vu Vo — Director of Design for Manufacturing
Peter Mitchell — Manager

Meg Richardson — Manager

Michael Rennaker — Manager

RESPONDENT VIOLATES SECTION 8(a)(1) OF THE ACT BY
MAINTENAINING AN OVERBROAD RULE

5.

Since at least May 22, 2021, Respondent has maintained a policy titled, “Sales
Incentive Compensation Plan (“SICP”),” which outlines financial incentives for reaching
specific sales goals and states, inter alia:

(a) in the footer of each page: “Apple Proprietary and Confidential;” and

(b) under the section heading “Other Provisions,” “Apple considers this Plan to

be confidential and proprietary information.”
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 165 of 334

RESPONDENT VIOLATES SECTION 8(a)(1) OF THE ACT BY SELECTIVELY
AND DISPARATELY ENFORCING ITS SLACK? TERMS OF USE POLICY TO
INTERFERE WITH PAY EQUITY DISCUSSIONS
6.

(a) Since at least June 2, 2021, Respondent has maintained a policy titled, “Terms
of Use” (TOU) that governs employees’ use of Slack, which states, inter alia:
(1) “Slack is a collaboration and productivity tool provided to
[Respondent] users to conduct [Respondent] business. Slack channels are created for the sole
purpose of advancing the work, deliverables, or mission of [Respondent] departments and
teams.”
(ii) | Under the heading “Channel Use,” the TOU further states: “Slack
channels for approved [Respondent] Employee clubs and Diversity Network Associations

(DNAs) are permitted. Slack channels for activities and hobbies not recognized as

[Respondent] Employee clubs or DNAs aren’t permitted and shouldn’t be created.”

(b) About August 31, 2021, Respondent, through Slack Administrator Ali
Stapleton, via Slack, enforced its TOU selectively and disparately by denying an employee
request to create a Slack channel called #community-pay-equity, stating that Slack was to be
used for business purposes only, while permitting other employees to use Slack for non-

business purposes.

Slack is a business communication platform that allows individuals within a company to collaborate in an
organized manner via a virtual “workspace.” Within a workspace, Slack organizes conversations into
dedicated spaces called “channels.”

4
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 166 of 334

RESPONDENT VIOLATES SECTION 8(a)(1) OF THE ACT BY INTERFERING
WITH EMPLOYEES’ SECTION 7 ACTIVITIES BY PROHIBITING WAGE
SURVEYS AND OTHER PROTECTED ACTIVITES AND BY CREATING AN
IMPRESSION OF SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEES’ SECTION 7 ACTIVITIES
7.

(a) About March 2021, Respondent, by Manager Vu Vo, over a video call,
threatened an employee with unspecified reprisals if the employee discussed a performance
bonus that the employee had received.

(b) Respondent, through Manager Peter Mitchell:

(1) About May 12, 2021, told an employee not to speak to the press after
the employee communicated on social media about the employee’s workplace concerns and
after the employee was quoted in the press about those workplace concerns.

(11) About May 13, 2021, told the employee that the employee must notify
him (Mitchell) in advance if the employee wishes to speak to the press.

(it) About July 1, 2021, told an employee that he was upset that the
employee had not told him in advance that the employee would be talking to the press about
employees’ working conditions, including a group concern about remote work.

(c) About July 19, 2021, Respondent, through Employee Relations
Representative Meg Richardson:

(1) told an employee to remove the employee’s Tweet regarding how to
request continued remote work arrangements at Respondent’s facility; and

(11) sought the names of other employees that the employee had spoken
with concerning remote work.

(d) About August 10, 2021, Respondent, by Manager Mark Miller, in a telephone

call to an employee:
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 167 of 334

(1) created an impression of surveillance saying that he (Miller) and
others in Respondent’s senior leadership had seen the employee’s posts about pay equity on

Slack and that Respondent was monitoring those discussions;

(11) told the employee not to participate in the wage and pay discussions
on Slack or fill out the online wage survey that Scarlett had posted; and

(111) impliedly threatened the employee with unspecified reprisals if the
employee continued to participate in discussions about wages on Slack or participate in
Scarlett’s online pay equity survey.

(e) About August 15, 2021, Respondent, by Manager Michael Rennaker, in a
telephone call, told an employee that Respondent did not want employees talking about
wages and/or pay equity issues.

(f) In emails dated August 24, 25, and 30, 2021, Respondent, by Manager Jeannie
Wong, refused to meet with employees collectively about their concerns regarding
compensation and group concerns regarding data revealed by employee wage surveys and
insisted on meeting with employees in individual meetings.

(g) About August 26, 2021, Respondent, by Manager Jeannie Wong, in a WebEx
video conference meeting:

(1) interrogated an employee about why and how the employee got
involved with Scarlett’s pay equity survey and who else was involved; and

(11) impliedly threatened the employee with unspecified reprisals by
warning the employee that Slack was intended for Respondent’s business use only and that

the employee should be careful with what the employee shared over Slack.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 168 of 334

(h) About August or September 2021, Respondent, by Manager Mark Miller, in
a video call, impliedly threatened termination and/or other reprisals by telling an employee
to track the hours the employee spent on the wage survey project and to engage in protected
activities only outside of work hours, and specifically on weekends, in case Respondent tried

to discipline or discharge the employee for a drop in performance.

(1) About early-September 2021, Respondent, by Senior Vice President Deirdre
O’Brien, in a video posted to Respondent’s intranet, told employees to talk to their managers
or HR/People Business Partner if they had concerns about their pay.

RESPONDENT CONSTRUCTIVELY FIRES SCARLETT BY MAKING

CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT CONTINGENT UPON HER CEASING HER
SECTION 7 ACTIVITIES IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(a)(1) OF THE ACT

8.

(a) Since at least May 2021, and continuing to date, Scarlett engaged in concerted
activities, with or on behalf of Respondent’s other employees for the purposes of mutual aid
and protection, by, among other things, engaging in the following conduct:

(1) Scarlett Tweeted, spoke to media reporters, and engaged in Slack
discussions about workplace issues including, but not limited to, pay equity and
Respondent’s remote work policy.

(11) Scarlett participated in a conversation thread in Respondent’s Slack
channel called “Women in Software Engineering,” where other employees were discussing

concerns about sexism and gender discrimination in the workplace.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 169 of 334

(i411) In about the summer of 2021, Scarlett helped found the “Apple Too”
movement, an effort modeled after the “Me Too” movement,* to encourage her fellow
employees to share stories and create transparency around incidents of discrimination,
inequity, racism, and sexism they experienced in the course of their employment with
Respondent.

(iv) About August 4, 2021, Scarlett participated in an online pay survey
that a fellow employee of Respondent had created.

(v) About August 7, 2021, Scarlett created and posted an online pay
equity survey where Respondent’s employees could anonymously share information about
their wages, job levels, years of experience, and personal demographics in order to identify
potential pay disparities, and then posted the wage survey on her personal Twitter* account,
where some of Respondent’s employees followed her.

(vi) About August 7, 2021, Scarlett posted a link to the pay equity survey
in one of Respondent’s Slack channels, #talk-benefits, that some of Respondent’s employees
had previously attempted to use to discuss pay equity issues and conduct wage surveys.

(vil) About August 24, 2021, Scarlett and other Respondent employees
requested a group meeting with Respondent’s management to share group concerns
regarding data revealed by the wage surveys.

(viii) About August 26, 2021, Scarlett and other employees showed

Respondent’s HR Representative Jeannie Wong a presentation regarding the wage survey’s

> The “Me Too” movement is an awareness campaign centered on addressing sexual harassment and sexual
abuse of women in the workplace that grew to prominence in the fall of 2017.

4 “xX” formerly “Twitter” (2006-2023), is an online social media platform and microblogging service that
distributes short messages of no more than 280 characters.

8
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 170 of 334

methodology and results and the group’s finding that there was possible gender-based pay
disparity in some of Respondent’s departments.

(b) Since at least September 1, 2021, to about November 15, 2021, Respondent
made it known that Respondent was conditioning continued employment of Scarlett on her
abandoning Section 7 activities by:

(i) telling employees not to participate in Scarlett’s online pay survey;

(11) telling employees their participation in Scarlett’s online pay survey
was not condoned;

(ii1) — telling employees that participation in Scarlett’s pay survey could lead
to demotion and/or harm their careers and/or violate their employment agreements;

(iv) telling Scarlett’s former legal representative that Respondent’s
executives were having a headache from Scarlett’s Tweeting about them and therefore telling
Scarlett to stop; and

(v) repeatedly telling Scarlett to take medical leave and offering her a
severance agreement rather than addressing her requests for: a company-wide statement
clarifying employees’ right to discuss pay, to engage in protected concerted activities, to
freely speak to the press about workplace issues, and to access Slack to discuss pay and
workplace issues; and for a formal platform for Respondent to receive employee group
concerns.

(c) By the conduct described above in paragraph 8(b), Respondent caused the

termination of employee Scarlett.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 171 of 334

(d) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 8(b) and
(c) because Scarlett engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 8(a), and to
discourage employees from engaging in these or other protected concerted activities.

9.

By the conduct described above in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8, Respondent has been
interfering with, restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

10.

The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within the

meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDIES

11.

WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices described above
in paragraphs 5 through 8, the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to: (1)
physically and electronically post the Notice to Employees at all its facilities including, but
not limited to, posting on Respondent-sponsored Slack communication channels, intranet
portals, and by e-mail; (2) email a copy of the Notice to Employees to all its supervisors and
managers; (3) physically and electronically post the Explanation of Employee Rights poster
in the same manner as the posting of the Notice to Employees; (4) have a Board Agent
conduct a training session for its managers and supervisors on their obligations under the
Act, on work time, scheduled so as to ensure the widest possible attendance (by
videoconference or in person, at the discretion of the Regional Director); and (5) have a

Board Agent conduct a training session for its employees on their rights under the Act, on

10
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 172 of 334

work time, scheduled so as to ensure the widest possible attendance (by videoconference or
in person, at the discretion of the Regional Director).

WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices described above
in paragraph 8 the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to: (1) offer
employee Scarlett reinstatement to her former job position or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to Scarlett’s seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed; (2) send a letter to Scarlett apologizing for
constructively terminating her, expunge all Respondent’s records of such termination, and
inform her, in writing, that her termination has been expunged from Respondent’s records
and will not be used against her in any way; (3) make employee Scarlett whole for all losses
incurred as a result of the unfair labor practices described above, including for all pecuniary
losses incurred as a result of her unlawful termination; and (4) provide a neutral job reference
to all prospective employers with the correct job titles and positions of employee Scarlett.

WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices described above
in paragraph 5 the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to rescind the rules
described in all their forms, or revise them in all their forms, to make clear to employees, in
writing, that these rules do not interfere with employees’ right to engage in Section 7
activities for mutual aid and protection; to rescind all disciplines or terminations issued to all
employees pursuant to the unlawful rules; and to make all employees whole for losses
incurred as a result of being suspended or terminated pursuant to the unlawful rules.

The General Counsel further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy

the unfair labor practices alleged.

11
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 173 of 334

ANSWER REQUIREMENT

Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, it must file an answer to the Amended Consolidated Complaint. The

answer must be received by this office on or before November 14, 2024.

An answer must be filed electronically through the Agency’s website. To file

electronically, go to www.nlrb.gov, click on E-File Documents, enter the NLRB Case

Number, and follow the detailed instructions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability
of the answer rests exclusively upon the sender. Unless notification on the Agency’s website
informs users that the Agency’s E-Filing system is officially determined to be in technical
failure because it is unable to receive documents for a continuous period of more than 2 hours
after 12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the due date for filing, a failure to timely file the answer
will not be excused on the basis that the transmission could not be accomplished because the
Agency’s website was off-line or unavailable for some other reason. The Board’s Rules and
Regulations require that an answer be signed by counsel or non-attorney representative for
represented parties or by the party if not represented. See Section 102.21. If the answer being
filed electronically is a pdf document containing the required signature, no paper copies of
the answer need to be transmitted to the Regional Office. However, if the electronic version
of an answer to a Complaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature, then the E-
filing rules require that such answer containing the required signature continue to be
submitted to the Regional Office by traditional means within three (3) business days after the
date of electronic filing. Service of the answer on each of the other parties must still be
accomplished by means allowed under the Board’s Rules and Regulations. The answer may

not be filed by facsimile transmission. If no answer is filed, or if an answer is filed untimely,

12
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 174 of 334

the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion for Default Judgment, that the allegations in the
Amended Consolidated Complaint are true.

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., at the Oakland
Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board located at 1301 Clay Street, Suite
1510N, Oakland, California 94612, at a conference room to be determined, and on
consecutive days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be conducted before an
administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, Respondent
and any other party to this proceeding have the right to appear and present testimony
regarding the allegations in this Amended Consolidated Complaint. The procedures to be
followed at the hearing are described in the attached Form NLRB-4668. The procedure to

request a postponement of the hearing is described in the attached Form NLRB-4338.

DATED AT Oakland, California this 31st day of October 2024.

Christy Kwon

Regional Director

National Labor Relations Board
Region 32

1301 Clay Street, Suite 1510N
Oakland, CA 94612-5224

Attachments

13
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

Form NLRB-4338
(2-90)

Filed 02/24/25 Page 175 of 334

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NOTICE

Cases: 32-CA-282396
32-CA-287038
32-CA-290101

The issuance of the notice of formal hearing in this case does not mean that the matter cannot be disposed of by agreement of
the parties. On the contrary, it is the policy of this office to encourage voluntary adjustments. The examiner or attorney
assigned to the case will be pleased to receive and to act promptly upon your suggestions or comments to this end. An
agreement between the parties, approved by the Regional Director, would serve to cancel the hearing.

However, unless otherwise specifically ordered, the hearing will be held at the date, hour, and place indicated.
Postponements will not be granted unless good and sufficient grounds are shown and the following requirements are met:

(1) The request must be in writing. An original and two copies must be filed with the Regional Director when
appropriate under 29 CFR 102.16(a) or with the Division of Judges when appropriate under 29 CFR 102.16(b).

(2) Grounds thereafter must be set forth in detail;

(3) Alternative dates for any rescheduled hearing must be given;

(4) The positions of all other parties must be ascertained in advance by the requesting party and set forth in the request;

and

(5) Copies must be simultaneously served on all other parties (listed below), and that fact must be noted on the request.

Except under the most extreme conditions, no request for postponement will be granted during the three days immediately preceding

the date of hearing.

Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer
Apple, Inc.

One Apple Parkway

Cupertino, CA 95014

Email: tcook@apple.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Harry I. Johnson HI, Attorney

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

2049 Century Park East, Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90067-3109

Email: harry.johnson@morganlewis.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Mark L. Stolzenburg, Attorney

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP

110 North Wacker Drive Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606

Email: mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com

SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer
Apple, Inc.

One Infinite Loop

Cupertino, CA 95014

Email: tcook@apple.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Brian J. Mahoney, Attorney

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP

1701 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921

SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Kelcey J. Phillips, Attorney at Law
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

Email: kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

Julie McConnell Esq.
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
500 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Email: jmcconnell@mwe.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Cher Scarlett

11115 Champagne Point Rd NE
Kirkland, WA 98034

Email: lburgess@burgess-laborlaw.com

SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Filed 02/24/25 Page 176 of 334

Laurie M. Burgess, Attorney

Burgess Law Offices PC

498 Utah Street

San Francisco, CA 94110

Email: lburgess@burgess-laborlaw.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

Filed 02/24/25 Page 177 of 334

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 32

APPLE INC.
and

ICHER SCARLETT, an Individual

Cases: 32-CA-282396
32-CA-287038
32-CA-290101

Date: October 31, 2024

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF AMENDED CONSOLIDATED

COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING

|, the undersigned employee of the National Labor Relations Board, being duly sworn, depose and say
that on the date indicated above | served the above-entitled document(s) upon the persons at the addresses and
in the manner indicated below. Persons listed below under "E-Service" have voluntarily consented to receive
service electronically, and such service has been effected on the same date indicated above.

Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer
Apple Inc.

One Apple Parkway

Cupertino, CA 95014

Email: tcook@apple.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Harry I. Johnson HI, Attorney

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

2049 Century Park East, Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90067-3109

Email: harry.johnson@morganlewis.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Mark L. Stolzenburg, Attorney

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP

110 North Wacker Drive Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606

Email: mark.stolzenburg@morganlewis.com

SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer
Apple Inc.

One Infinite Loop

Cupertino, CA 95014

Email: tcook@apple.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Brian J. Mahoney, Attorney

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP

1701 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921

Email: brian.mahoney@morganlewis.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE

Kelcey J. Phillips, Attorney at Law
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

Email: kelcey.phillips@morganlewis.com
SERVED VIA E-ISSUANCE
2/19/22, 5:25PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC aphRocsnventrt AAhleymkithach MadiAi2hn | prhtagel 179 of 334

RE: status

From: Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov>
To: Ashley Gjovik <ashleymgjovik@protonmail.com>

Date: Wednesday, January 19th, 2022 at 2:00 PM

Ashley,
Thank you for providing the three attachments. I also received the zip folder you sent.

Below are responses to your questions:
e A)Are you able to let me know if Apple has responded yet? And if so, are you able to share their response so |
can respond to it if applicable/needed?
Apple has requested an extension to submit their position statement and supporting documentation.
Once I receive it, you'll be provided a copy. Then you will have an opportunity to do a rebuttal to
respond to Apple’s response. You'll have the option to provide a written rebuttal or we can do a
rebuttal interview via phone.
e B)Am| able to request anything from Apple (or to you to request from Apple) as part of a discovery-type
process?
The OSHA investigation doesn’t have a formal discovery process similar to court proceedings.
Instead of directly requesting documents from Apple, you can send me a list of items you believe
are pertinent to your complaint. It will be reviewed and a determination will made if the
document(s) are necessary for the investigation.

After your complaint has been pending with OSHA for more than 60 days, you have the option of
requesting an Expedited Case Process (ECP). ECP allows you to request that OSHA terminate its
investigation and issue a determination on your complaint. You will then receive a letter for your
appeal rights which enables you to take your complaint directly to an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ). The ALJ procedure has a formal quasi-judicial setting which includes processes such as
discovery. Please let me know if you’re interested in ECP or would like more information about the
process. Note this process is only applicable for your CERCLA and SOX complaints.

Regards,
Andrea Diangco (she/her)
Investigator

Whistleblower Protection Program
U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA

From: Ashley M. Gjovik <ashleymgjovik @ protonmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:54 AM

To: Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov>
Subject: RE: status

CAUTION - The sender of this message is external to the DOL network. Please use care when clicking on links and responding with
sensitive information. Send suspicious email to spam@dol.gov.

Hi,
Thank you! Hope you had a nice long weekend.

I'm attaching:

https://mail.protonmail.com/u/0/rOhZtjnN-WB23C3W ftSuQue7A NOskeg8rvxcknkm4LcSoOEvSuWS3mrEVBP8tiCqbfT3-ZwurpgFA ieqIzdfEg==/MhikKT7rFBnr... 1/3
2/19/22, 5:25PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC aphRocsnventrt AAhleymkihach MadaAi2hn | Prhtagel 180 of 334

e 1) CERCLA memo v2 (amended & expanded)

e 2) Retaliation & pretext memo v1

e 3) Timeline v5
I'm working on a remedies memo, but maybe it's too early for that. | *think* that's it. Please do let me know if you
need anything else from me & I'll be right on it.

Questions:
e A)Are you able to let me know if Apple has responded yet? And if so, are you able to share their response so |
can respond to it if applicable/needed?
e B)Am | able to request anything from Apple (or to you to request from Apple) as part of a discovery-type
process?

Thank you!

Ashley M. Gjovik, B.S., PMP

Santa Clara University School of Law

Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Class of 2022

Santa Clara University ACLU Club I&D Director & Environmental Law Society Outreach Chair
Human Rights & International Law Author: https://muckrack.com/ashleygjovik
ashleygjovik.com | +1°-415-964-6272 (Signal.app please)

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

Original Message
On Thursday, January 13th, 2022 at 8:58 AM, Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov> wrote:

Thank you for the update. I also received your email regarding complaint of unsafe work conditions.

Andrea Diangco (she/her)
Investigator

Whistleblower Protection Program
U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA

From: Ashley M. Gjovik <ashleymgjovik @ protonmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:06 PM

To: Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov>
Subject: status

CAUTION - The sender of this message is external to the DOL network. Please use care when clicking on links and responding
with sensitive information. Send suspicious email to spam @dol.gov.

I'm working on two things for you still.
I'm writing up a memo on the retaliation campaign and pre-text for the termination.

I'm also revising the CERLCA memo to note specific evidence and i'm extending to include events starting in Sept
2020 with Apple legal about another Superfund site that | think may have been relevant to all this.

Law school started up again & I'm swamped, but my goal is to get you both these by next Monday.

If you need anything else from me, please let me know!

Ashley M. Gjovik, B.S., PMP
2/19/22, 5:25PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC aphRocsnventpt AAhleymkihach MadaAi2hn | Prhtage! 181 of 334

Santa Clara University School of Law

Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Class of 2022

Santa Clara University ACLU Club I&D Director & Environmental Law Society Outreach Chair
Human Rights & International Law Author: https://muckrack.com/ashleygjovik
ashleygjovik.com | +1°415-964-6272 (Signal.app please)

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
2/19/22, 5:26PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC aphRocsnventrt AAhleymkithach adiAi2hn | Prhtagel 182 of 334

RE: status

From: Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov>
To: Ashley Gjovik <ashleymgjovik@protonmail.com>

Date: Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 3:51 PM

Apple is being represented by Orrick and their attorneys are Kathryn Manotoan and Jessica Perry.

Apple has requested an extension until February 9, 2022. Please keep in mind while there are timelines,
investigations vary in length of time depending on the complexity of the case.

The information you have provided is being reviewed. I will follow up if there any questions regarding the
information.

The investigation is still in the initial phase as OSHA is still waiting to receive Apple’s position statement.

Andrea Diangco (she/her)
Investigator

Whistleblower Protection Program
U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA

From: Ashley M. Gjovik <ashleymgjovik @ protonmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 2:29 PM

To: Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov>
Subject: RE: status

CAUTION - The sender of this message is external to the DOL network. Please use care when clicking on links and responding with
sensitive information. Send suspicious email to spam @dol.gov.

Hi Andrea! Thank you!

If Apple uses the same position statement they used for the NLRB case, then my retaliation/pretext memo should
cover most of their response, but I'll look forward to seeing their formal US DOL response and responding as
needed.

Are you able to share which lawyer(s) are representing Apple for this?

Also | see there's a deadline for for investigations to complete. Are you able to share how long of an extension Apple
asked for? And share if there's a point where the timer runs out and its default judgment if Apple's lawyers don't
respond?

Thank you for the info on evidence and the ALJ process. I'll think through for evidence -- but | think | want to see the
OSHA investigation process through, at least for now. I'm sure Apple will appeal to the ALUs anyways if you decide in
my favor so we can save that for later.

Also can you please confirm that you / your team are reading through the memos | send to review and consider next
to Apple's statements? Is there anything else | can do / provide to ensure OSHA WPP understand my position and
the events? Will y'all send any follow up questions so i can answer/expand if needed?

Can you please also confirm the stage we're in? It sounds like i already met prima facie with evidence for all four
statutes (i participated in protected activities under the three statutes, Apple did adverse actions to me, and there's
enough evidence to infer causation that the adverse actions were due to the protected activities). if so, it sounds like
Apple now needs to offer you some sort of non-discriminatory, legitimate reason(s) for all the adverse actions i noted
and provide enough evidence to support that "legitimate" reason was the primary/only reason for the adverse actions
2/19/22, 5:26PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC aphRocsnventrt AAhleymkthach adiAi2n | Prhtagel 183 of 334

- yeah? My pretext memo tried to counter that already, showing their reason is pretext, and that contributing factor
(SOX/CERCLA) & but for (OSHA) causation is met for the discriminatory factor leading to the adverse actions.

Hope all that makes sense. Thanks!

Thank you!

Ashley M. Gjovik, B.S., PMP

Santa Clara University School of Law

Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Class of 2022

Santa Clara University ACLU Club I&D Director & Environmental Law Society Outreach Chair
ashleygjovik.com | +1°415-964-6272

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

Original Message
On Wednesday, January 19th, 2022 at 2:00 PM, Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov> wrote:

Ashley,
Thank you for providing the three attachments. I also received the zip folder you sent.

Below are responses to your questions:
e A) Are you able to let me know if Apple has responded yet? And if so, are you able to share their response so
| can respond to it if applicable/needed?
Apple has requested an extension to submit their position statement and supporting
documentation. Once I receive it, you’ll be provided a copy. Then you will have an opportunity to
do a rebuttal to respond to Apple’s response. You'll have the option to provide a written rebuttal
or we can do a rebuttal interview via phone.
e B)Am| able to request anything from Apple (or to you to request from Apple) as part of a discovery-type
process?
The OSHA investigation doesn’t have a formal discovery process similar to court proceedings.
Instead of directly requesting documents from Apple, you can send me a list of items you believe
are pertinent to your complaint. It will be reviewed and a determination will made if the
document(s) are necessary for the investigation.

After your complaint has been pending with OSHA for more than 60 days, you have the option of
requesting an Expedited Case Process (ECP). ECP allows you to request that OSHA terminate its
investigation and issue a determination on your complaint. You will then receive a letter for your
appeal rights which enables you to take your complaint directly to an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ). The ALJ procedure has a formal quasi-judicial setting which includes processes such as
discovery. Please let me know if you’re interested in ECP or would like more information about the
process. Note this process is only applicable for your CERCLA and SOX complaints.

Regards,

Andrea Diangco (she/her)
Investigator

Whistleblower Protection Program
U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA

From: Ashley M. Gjovik <ashleymgjovik @ protonmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:54 AM

To: Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov>
Subject: RE: status
2/19/22, 5:26PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC aphRocsnventrt /hleymkithach MadiAi2n | Prhtage! 184 of 334

CAUTION - The sender of this message is external to the DOL network. Please use care when clicking on links and responding
with sensitive information. Send suspicious email to spam @dol.gov.

Hi,
Thank you! Hope you had a nice long weekend.

I'm attaching:

e 1) CERCLA memo v2 (amended & expanded)

e 2) Retaliation & pretext memo v1

e 3) Timeline v5
I'm working on a remedies memo, but maybe it's too early for that. | *think* that's it. Please do let me know if you
need anything else from me & I'll be right on it.

Questions:
e A) Are you able to let me know if Apple has responded yet? And if so, are you able to share their response so
| can respond to it if applicable/needed?
e B)Am| able to request anything from Apple (or to you to request from Apple) as part of a discovery-type
process?

Thank you!

Ashley M. Gjovik, B.S., PMP

Santa Clara University School of Law

Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Class of 2022

Santa Clara University ACLU Club I&D Director & Environmental Law Society Outreach Chair
Human Rights & International Law Author: https://muckrack.com/ashleygjovik
ashleygjovik.com | +1°415-964-6272 (Signal.app please)

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

Original Message
On Thursday, January 13th, 2022 at 8:58 AM, Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov> wrote:

Thank you for the update. I also received your email regarding complaint of unsafe work conditions.

Andrea Diangco (she/her)
Investigator

Whistleblower Protection Program
U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA

From: Ashley M. Gjovik <ashleymgjovik@ protonmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:06 PM

To: Diangco, Andrea - OSHA <Diangco.Andrea@dol.gov>
Subject: status

CAUTION - The sender of this message is external to the DOL network. Please use care when clicking on links and
responding with sensitive information. Send suspicious email to spam @dol.gov.

I'm working on two things for you still.

I'm writing up a memo on the retaliation campaign and pre-text for the termination.
2/19/22, 5:26PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC aphRocsnventrt /Ahleymkithach PadiAi2hn | Prhtage! 185 of 334

I'm also revising the CERLCA memo to note specific evidence and i'm extending to include events starting in
Sept 2020 with Apple legal about another Superfund site that | think may have been relevant to all this.

Law school started up again & I'm swamped, but my goal is to get you both these by next Monday.

If you need anything else from me, please let me know!

Ashley M. Gjovik, B.S., PMP

Santa Clara University School of Law

Juris Doctor Candidate & Public International Law Certificate Candidate, Class of 2022

Santa Clara University ACLU Club I&D Director & Environmental Law Society Outreach Chair
Human Rights & International Law Author: https://muckrack.com/ashleygjovik
ashleygjovik.com | +1°-415-964-6272 (Signal.app please)

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 186 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration
San Francisco Federal Building
90 76 Street, Suite 2650
San Francisco, CA 94103

Via UPS
December 10, 2021

Human Resources/Legal Department
Apple Inc.

One Apple Park Way

Cupertino, CA 95014

Complainant(s): Ashley Gjovik

Respondent(s): Apple Inc.

Case Number: Apple Inc./Gjovik/9-3290-22-051

Law/Statute 1: Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. $660

Law/Statute 2: | Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9610

Law/Statute 3: Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), 18 U.S.C.A. §1514A

Regulation 1: OSHA 11(c) Complaint Procedures: 29 CFR Part 1977

Regulation 2: EPA Complaint Procedures: 29 CFR Part 24

Regulation 3: SOX Complaint Procedures: 29 CFR Part 1980

Dear Sir/Madam:

This office has received a complaint filed by the above-named Complainant(s) against the above-
named Respondent(s). The complaint alleges retaliatory employment practices in violation of the
Law(s)/Statute(s) cited above. A copy of the complaint allegation is enclosed.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP) is
responsible for enforcing the anti-retaliation provisions of the law(s) cited above and will conduct its
investigation following the procedures outlined in the regulation(s) cited above. You may obtain a
copy of the law(s) and regulation(s) at: www.whistleblowers.gov. Upon request, a printed copy of these
materials will be mailed to you.

You have the right to be represented in this matter. If you choose to have a lawyer or someone else
represent you, please have that person complete and email to the investigator the enclosed Designation
of Representative form.

WPP will send most, if not all, future correspondence by email - this includes final disposition letters
that include time sensitive appeal rights.

WPP policy encourages the voluntary resolution of complaints. If you are interested in
settlement discussions and/or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), please contact the assigned
investigator.

This letter will confirm that Respondent(s) are responsible for retaining and maintaining all records,
documents, computer files, e-mail, correspondence, memoranda, reports, notes, tools, equipment,
objects, photographs, videotapes, digital video, tape recordings, digital recordings, voicemails and
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 187 of 334

recordings of radio and telephone conversations, and telephone and cellular telephone records, and all
other evidence relating to the above-captioned case. The failure of Respondent(s) to maintain and
retain such materials may result in court-imposed sanctions. As a party responsible for preserving
relevant evidence, you may wish to instruct all individuals with potentially relevant documentation to
affirmatively preserve and retain such documentation. You also may wish to suspend any routine
document retention/destruction policy that you may have, including email retention policies.

Please provide within 20 days a written account of the facts and a statement of your position with
respect to the allegation that you have retaliated against Complainant in violation of the law. Please
note that a full and complete initial response, supported by appropriate documentation, may help to
achieve early resolution of this matter. Your cooperation is critical so that all facts of the case may be
considered.

Please send documents to WPP electronically, if possible, using the investigator’s email address
below and also send a copy to all named parties listed below:

ASSIGNED INVESTIGATOR: COMPLAINANT(S):

(b) (7)(C) Ashley Gjovik

Whistleblower Protection Program Po
U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Santa Clara, CA 95050

300 Fifth Avenue, Room 1280 ashleymgjovik@protonmail.com

Seattle, THC 98104

If the information provided contains personal, identifiable information about individuals other than
Complainant, or business sensitive information, please remove this information before sending it to
Complainant.

Please be advised that any request of confidential or proprietary privilege in your submissions to
WPP must specifically identify each such privilege for which protection from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is made.

All communications and submissions should be made to the investigator, identified above.

Sincerely,

ate: 2021.12.10 09:46:55
-08'00'

For Ryan Himes
Assistant Regional Administrator

Enclosures: (1) Designation of Representative Form
(2) Alternative Dispute Resolution FAQ
(3) Copy of Complaint Allegation
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 189 of 334

Form NLRB-4701
(1-03)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

APPLE, INC.
Employer.
CASE NO. 32-CA-282142
And
ASHLEY GJOVIK
Charging Party.
XX] REGIONAL DIRECTOR [1] EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [1] GENERAL COUNSEL
Region 32 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1301 Clay Street, Room 300N
Oakland, CA 94612-5211

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY ENTERS APPEARANCE AS REPRESENTATIVE APPLE, ICN. IN THE ABOVE-
CAPTIONED MATTER.

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) BELOW:
Xx REPRESENTATIVE IS AN ATTORNEY

Xx IF REPRESENTATIVE IS AN ATTORNEY, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE PARTY MAY RECEIVE
COPIES OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS OR CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE AGENCY IN ADDITION TO THOSE
DESCRIBED BELOW, THIS BOX MUST BE CHECKED. IF THIS BOX IS NOT CHECKED, THE PARTY WILL
RECEIVE ONLY COPIES OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS SUCH AS CHARGES, PETITIONS AND FORMAL
DOCUMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 102.14 AND 102.113 OF THE BOARD’S RULES AND
REGULATIONS.

(REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION)

NAME: Ronald J. Holland, Christopher Foster, Syed H. Mannan

MAILING ADDRESS: 415 Mission Street, Suite 5600, San Francisco, California 94105

E-MAIL ADDRESS: rjholland@mwe.com, cfoster@mwe.com; smannan(@mwe.com

OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBER: 628-218-3800

CELL PHONE NUMBER: 415-999-4833 (Holland) FAX: 628-877-0107

SIGNATURE: J
(Please sign in ink.)

DATE: August 31, 2021
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 190 of 334

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION 32 Agency Website: www.nlirb.gov Download

1301 Clay St Ste 300N Telephone: (510)637-3300 NLRB
Oakland, CA 94612-5224 Fax: (510)637-3315 Mobile App

August 30, 2021

Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way
Cupertino CA 95014

Re: — Apple Inc.
Case 32-CA-282142

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed is a copy of a charge that has been filed in this case. This letter tells you how to
contact the Board agent who will be investigating the charge, explains your right to be
represented, discusses presenting your evidence, and provides a brief explanation of our
procedures, including how to submit documents to the NLRB.

Investigator: This charge is being investigated by Field Examiner ALEXANDER M.
HAJDUK whose telephone number is (510)671-3024. If this Board agent is not available, you
may contact Supervisory Attorney CATHERINE VENTOLA whose telephone number is
(510)671-3049.

Right to Representation: You have the right to be represented by an attorney or other
representative in any proceeding before us. If you choose to be represented, your representative
must notify us in writing of this fact as soon as possible by completing Form NLRB-4701, Notice
of Appearance. This form is available on our website, www.nirb.gov, or from an NLRB office
upon your request.

If you are contacted by someone about representing you in this case, please be assured
that no organization or person seeking your business has any "inside knowledge" or favored
relationship with the National Labor Relations Board. Their knowledge regarding this
proceeding was only obtained through access to information that must be made available to any
member of the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

Presentation of Your Evidence: We seek prompt resolutions of labor
disputes. Therefore, I urge you or your representative to submit a complete written account of
the facts and a statement of your position with respect to the allegations set forth in the charge as
soon as possible. If the Board agent later asks for more evidence, I strongly urge you or your
representative to cooperate fully by promptly presenting all evidence relevant to the
investigation. In this way, the case can be fully investigated more quickly.

Full and complete cooperation includes providing witnesses to give sworn affidavits to a
Board agent, and providing all relevant documentary evidence requested by the Board
agent. Sending us your written account of the facts and a statement of your position is not
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 191 of 334

Apple Inc. -2-
Case 32-CA-282142

enough to be considered full and complete cooperation. A refusal to fully cooperate during the
investigation might cause a case to be litigated unnecessarily.

In addition, either you or your representative must complete the enclosed Commerce
Questionnaire to enable us to determine whether the NLRB has jurisdiction over this dispute. If
you recently submitted this information in another case, or if you need assistance completing the
form, please contact the Board agent.

We will not honor requests to limit our use of position statements or evidence.
Specifically, any material you submit may be introduced as evidence at a hearing before an
administrative law judge regardless of claims of confidentiality. However, certain evidence
produced at a hearing may be protected from public disclosure by demonstrated claims of
confidentiality.

Further, the Freedom of Information Act may require that we disclose position statements
or evidence in closed cases upon request, unless an exemption applies, such as those protecting
confidential financial information or personal privacy interests.

Preservation of all Potential Evidence: Please be mindful of your obligation to
preserve all relevant documents and electronically stored information (ESI) in this case, and to
take all steps necessary to avoid the inadvertent loss of information in your possession, custody
or control. Relevant information includes, but is not limited to, paper documents and all ESI
(e.g. SMS text messages, electronic documents, emails, and any data created by proprietary
software tools) related to the above-captioned case.

Prohibition on Recording Affidavit Interviews: It is the policy of the General Counsel
to prohibit affiants from recording the interview conducted by Board agents when subscribing
Agency affidavits. Such recordings may impede the Agency’s ability to safeguard the
confidentiality of the affidavit itself, protect the privacy of the affiant and potentially
compromise the integrity of the Region’s investigation.

Correspondence: All documents submitted to the Region regarding your case MUST be
filed through the Agency’s website, www.nIrb.gov. This includes all formal pleadings, briefs, as
well as affidavits, documentary evidence, and position statements. The Agency requests all
evidence submitted electronically to be in the form it is normally used and maintained in the
course of business (i.e., native format). Where evidence submitted electronically is not in native
format, it should be submitted in a manner that retains the essential functionality of the native
format (i.e., 1n a machine-readable and searchable electronic format).

If you have questions about the submission of evidence or expect to deliver a large
quantity of electronic records, please promptly contact the Board agent investigating the charge.
If you cannot e-file your documents, you must provide a statement explaining why you do not
have access to the means for filing electronically or why filing electronically would impose an
undue burden.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 192 of 334

Apple Inc. -3-
Case 32-CA-282142

In addition, this Region will be issuing case-related correspondence and documents,
including complaints, compliance specifications, dismissal letters, deferral letters, and
withdrawal letters, electronically to the email address you provide. Please ensure that you
receive important case-related correspondence, please ensure that the Board Agent assigned to
your case has your preferred email address. These steps will ensure that you receive
correspondence faster and at a significantly lower cost to the taxpayer. If there is some reason
you are unable to receive correspondence via email, please contact the agent assigned to your
case to discuss the circumstances that prevent you from using email.

Information about the Agency, the procedures we follow in unfair labor practice cases
and our customer service standards is available on our website, www.nlrb.gov or from an NLRB
office upon your request. NLRB Form 4541, Investigative Procedures offers information that is
helpful to parties involved in an investigation of an unfair labor practice charge.

We can provide assistance for persons with limited English proficiency or disability.
Please let us know if you or any of your witnesses would like such assistance.

Very truly yours,

VALERIE HARDY-MAHONEY
Regional Director

Enclosures:
1. Copy of Charge
2. Commerce Questionnaire
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 193 of 334

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

APPLE INC.

Charged Party

and Case 32-CA-282142
ASHLEY MARIE GJOVIK

Charging Party

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF CHARGE AGAINST EMPLOYER

I, the undersigned employee of the National Labor Relations Board, state under oath that on
August 30, 2021, I served the above-entitled document(s) by post-paid regular mail upon the
following persons, addressed to them at the following addresses:

Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way
Cupertino CA 95014

August 30, 2021 Caroline Barker, Designated Agent of NLRB

Date Name

/s/ Caroline Barker

Signature
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

Filed 02/24/25

Page 190A efd3 4uoer 44 u.s.c 3512

INTERNET UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
— NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DO NOT WRITE IN Tas SPACE
CHARGE AGAINST EMPLOYER Case 08/26/2021
INSTRUCTIONS: 32-CA-282142
File an original with NLRB Regional Director for the region in which the alleged unfair labor practice occurred or is occurring.
1. EMPLOYER AGAINST WHOM CHARGE IS BROUGHT
a. Name of Employer b. Tel. No.
(408) 996-1010
Apple Inc.
c. Cell No.
f. Fax No.
d. Address (Street, city, state, and ZIP code) e. Employer Representative
g. e-Mail
One Apple Park Way
CA Cupertino 95014
h. Number of workers employed
200

Computer Hardware

i. Type of Establishment (factory, mine, wholesaler, etc.)

j. Identify principal product or service

subsections) 1

k. The above-named employer has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of section 8(a), subsections (1) and (list

of the National Labor Relations Act, and these unfair labor

practices are practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act, or these unfair labor practices are unfair practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of the Act and the Postal Reorganization Act.

--See additional page--

2. Basis of the Charge (set forth a clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practices)

Ashley Marie Gjovik

3. Full name of party filing charge (if labor organization, give full name, including local name and number)

Title:

1050 Benton Street #2310
CA Santa Clara 95050

4a. Address (Street and number, city, state, and ZIP code)

4b. Tel. No

4c Cell No

4d. Fax No.

4e. e-Mail
ashleygjovik@icloud.com

organization)

5. Full name of national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit (fo be filled in when charge is filed by a labor

By

6. DECLARATION

| declare that | have read the above charge and that the statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Ashley Marie Gjovik
Title:

(signature of representative or person making charge)

(Print/type name and title or office, if any)

08/26/2021 06:48:23 PM

Tel. No.

Office, if any, Cell No.

Fax No.

(date)

e-Mail

ashleygjovik@icloud.com

WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS ON THIS CHARGE CAN BE PUNISHED BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT (U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SECTION 1001)

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

Solicitation of the information on this form is authorized by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seg. The principal use of the information is to assist
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in processing unfair labor practice and related proceedings or litigation. The routine uses for the information are fully set forth in
the Federal Register, 71 Fed. Reg. 74942-43 (Dec. 13, 2006). The NLRB will further explain these uses upon request. Disclosure of this information to the NLRB is
voluntary; however, failure to supply the information will cause the NLRB to decline to invoke its processes.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 195 of 334

32-CA-282142 08/26/2021
Basis of the Charge

8(a)(1)

Within the previous six months, the Employer disciplined or retaliated against an employee(s) because the employee(s) engaged in
protected concerted activities by, inter alia, discussing wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment and in order to
discourage employees from engaging in protected concerted activities.

Name of employee disciplined/retaliated ae — Approximate date of
. Type of discipline/retaliation oe i.
against discipline/retaliation

Ashley Gjovik Forced on paid admin leave 08/04/2021

Substantial increase in workload
Ashley Gjovik 07/15/2021
&unfavorable work

Ashley Gjovik Reduction of supervisory responsibilities {05/06/2021

Ashley Gjovik Job reassignment 05/06/2021

employee feedback "warning" from
manager

Ashley Gjovik 03/22/2021

. Retaliatory, nonconsensual ER
Ashley Gjovik . og 04/09/2021
investigation

i, Constructive term; fail to resolve hostile wk
Ashley Gjovik env 04/29/2021

ER shared my ID with sexual harasser
Ashley Gjovik y 05/20/2021
w/out consent

, Manager insists | must return to unsafe
Ashley Gjovik 06/21/2021
work env

Ashley Gjovik Harassment from manager 06/28/2021

. Forced 2 submit ADA request due to
Ashley Gjovik 07/02/2021
unsafe work env

Ashley Gjovik Manager refuses to consider remote work |06/21/2021

Ashley Gjovik Withholding of work 07/28/2021

8(a)(1)

Within the previous six months, the Employer disciplined or retaliated against an employee(s) because the employee(s) engaged in
protected concerted activities by, inter alia, protesting terms and conditions of employment and in order to discourage employees
from engaging in protected concerted activities.

Name of employee disciplined/retaliated ae — Approximate date of
. Type of discipline/retaliation oe i.
against discipline/retaliation

Ashley Gjovik Forced on paid admin leave 08/04/2021

Substantial increase in workload
Ashley Gjovik 07/15/2021
&unfavorable work

Ashley Gjovik Reduction of supervisory responsibilities {05/06/2021

Ashley Gjovik Job reassignment 05/06/2021
mplo feedback "warning" from

Ashley Gjovik employes 1ee waming tr 03/22/2021

manager
Retaliatory, nonconsensual ER

Ashley Gjovik Notary ens 04/09/2021
investigation

, Constructive term; fail to resolve hostile wk

Ashley Gjovik 04/29/2021
env
ER shared my ID with sexual harasser

Ashley Gjovik y 05/20/2021
w/out consent
Manager insists | must return to unsaf

work env

Ashley Gjovik Harassment from manager 06/28/2021
Forced 2 submit ADA st due to

Ashley Gjovik reeeesuom request Cue 07/02/2021
unsafe work env

Ashley Gjovik Manager refuses to consider remote work |06/21/2021

Ashley Gjovik Withholding of work 07/28/2021

8(a)(1)

Within the previous six-months, the Employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act by maintaining work rules that prohibit employees from discussing wages, hours, or other terms or
conditions of employment.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 197 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration
San Francisco Federal Building
90 7 Street, Suite 2650
San Francisco, CA 94103

DESIGNATION of REPRESENTATIVE FORM
Please Complete The Information In The Boxes Below. Use Blue Or Black Ink.
Email or Fax This Form To The Assigned Investigator As Soon As Possible

Re: Apple Inc./Gjovik/9-3290-22-051

The undersigned is the authorized representative of the named party below in the above-
captioned matter.

Party’s Name Representative’s Name
(Type or print in the box below) (Type or print in the box below)
Apple Inc. Jessica R. Perry; Kathryn G. Mantoan
Representative’s Signature Street Address or P.O. Box
(Sign below) (Type or print in the box below)
Kol Unite 1000 Marsh Road
Date City, State, ZIP
(Type or print in the box below) (Type or print in the box below)
1/7/2022 Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone FAX
(Type or print in the box below) (Type or print in the box below)
(650) 614-7400 (650) 614-7401

E-mail Address (Type or print in the box below)

jperry @orrick.com; kmantoan @orrick.com

OSHA will email all correspondence including the Secretary’s Findings at the conclusion of this
investigation.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 198 of 334

Petition: Jan 31 2022
Order: March 1 2022 KING oo tL ED
Reverse of Order: Sept 26 2022 MOSINGTON

PETITION FOUND TO BE MERITL S$ 2222

SEA
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

CHER SWAN SCARLETT,

Petitioner/Respondent NO. 22-2-03849-7 SEA
V.
MANDATE OF SUPERIOR COURT
ASHLEY MARIE GJOVIK, ON RALJ APPEAL

Respondent/Appellant
Court of Limited Jurisdiction
No(s). 22CIV01704KCX

L BASIS
Pursuant to RALJ 9.2(c) and (d), the Clerk of the Superior Court shall transmit to the Court of Limited Jurisdiction
and to all parties a mandate, which is the written notification of the Superior Court decision on an RALJ Appeal.
The notification shall include as part of the final judgment. 2 summary of expenses allowed as costs pursuant to the
RALJ 9.3(a),(c), and (f). The costs listed below shall be collected bv tne Clerk of the Court of Limited Jurisdiction.
When the costs awarded include the Superior Court filing fee, it shall be coliected by the Clerk of the Court of
Limited Jurisdiction and forwarded to the Superior Court Clerk.

I. NOTIFICATION
Therefore, this is to certify that the order of the King County Superior Court of the State of Washington, filed on
September 26, 2022, became the decision terminating review of this court in the above-entitled case. This cause is
mandated to the King County District Court, East Division, Redmond Courthouse, from which the appea! was
taken, for further proceeding in accordance with the decision. A copy of the decision is attached.

ILL. DECISION
The decision of the JK} SUPERIOR COURT [_] COURT OF APPEALS [_] SUPREME COURT:

A. (| Affirms Reverses [] Modifies [| Dismisses [_] Denies [| Remands

B. The appeal was heard in Superior Court before the Honorable Andrea Robertson.

C. This Matter is remanded to the Court of Limited Jurisdiction.

Mandate on RAL] Appeal DOCKET CODE: MNDRLI
Auth RAL] 9.2(c) & (d}; RAL] 9.3(a), (c) & (f). 1L.2(a)
Eff. 09/01/2018
Filed 02/24/25 Page 200 of 334

FILED

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

APR 06 2022
KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT KCDC - East Division
Redmond

REQUEST FOR COURT RECORD
Requestor’s Information

Name: Scott Bride

Agency/Company: McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Address: 500 N. Capitol St. NW

State, City, Zip Code: Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 756-8467

Email: sbride@mwe.com

Full names of Parties. ee
Plaintiff: Cher Swan Scarlett
Defendant: Ashlie Marie Giovik

Fees
Certified Copies $5.00 to certify the first page of the document.
$1.00 per each additional page.
Regular Copies $0.25 per page if it is an electronic document.
$0.50 per page if it is not an electronic document.
Copy of Hearing $10 per CD or Thumb Drive
Recording of Hearin
3/1/2022 East Division, Redmond Yes |JNo
2/15/2022 East Division, Redmond Yes [lj No
2/1/2022 East Division, Redmond No

equest for Document(s) _

2 []Yes []No
4, (Yes [No

*Add an additional sheet for more documents.

Dated: April 5, 2022

Scott Bride

Requester’s Signature

You may submit your request in person via fax, or email. kcdc.webmaster@kingcountv.gov.
For additional information contact: 206-205-9200.

Internal Use Only:
Amount Due: $. 10,00—Payment Received;

Request for Court Records
KCDC — September 2017

es [_] No

Clerk initials E(C,
12/9/22,1:37PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Docun@ntid7ASationitilad W2/a4i25a Page 201 of 334

NIRBNationaltabor = Filed by Ashley Gjovik =

Home

Apple, Inc.

Case Number: 32-CA-282142
Date Filed: 08/26/2021
Status: Open

Docket Activity

Date |= Document

04/04/2022 Amended Charge Letter*

04/04/2022 Amended Charge Letter*

04/01/2022 Signed Amended Charge Against Employer*
08/30/2021 Initial Letter to Charged Party*

08/30/2021 Initial Letter to Charging Party*

08/26/2021 Signed Charge Against Employer*

The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Region Assigned: Region 32, Oakland, California

Issued/Filed By

NLRB - GC
NLRB - GC
Charging Party
NLRB - GC
NLRB - GC
Charging Party

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

FOIA Records

NLRB-2021-001319
NLRB-2021-001318

Related Documents

Related Documents data is not available.

Allegations

e 8(a)(1) Coercive Statements (Threats, Promises of Benefits, etc.)
e 8(a)(1) Concerted Activities (Retaliation, Discharge, Discipline)

Participants

Participant

Charged Party / Respondent
Legal Representative

Foster, Christopher
McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Charged Party / Respondent
Legal Representative
Holland, Ronald

McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Charged Party / Respondent
Legal Representative
Mannan, Syed

McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Charged Party / Respondent
Employer
Apple, Inc.

Address

415 Mission Street, Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA
94105

415 Mission Street, Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA
94105-2533

415 Mission Street
Suite 5600

San Francisco, CA
94105

Cupertino, CA
95014

Charging Party
Individual

Related Cases

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-282142

Phone

(628)218-3826

(415)590-5120

(628)218-3804

1/2
12/9/22, 1:37PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Docum@ntid /4ationftiled W2faMiRoSa Page 202 of 334

: , NLRB National Labor
Relations Board

Filed by Ashley Gjovik Snow

Home

Apple, Inc.

Case Number: 32-CA-283161
Date Filed: 09/16/2021
Status: Open

Docket Activity

Date |= Document

09/20/2021
09/16/2021

Initial Letter to Charged Party*
Signed Charge Against Employer*

The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Region Assigned: Region 32, Oakland, California

Issued/Filed By

NLRB - GC
Charging Party

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

FOIA Records

NLRB-2021-001374

Related Documents

Related Documents data is not available.

Allegations

e 8(a)(3) Discharge (Including Layoff and Refusal to Hire (not salting))
e 8(a)(1) Coercive Statements (Threats, Promises of Benefits, etc.)

Participants

Participant

Charged Party / Respondent
Legal Representative

Foster, Christopher
McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Charged Party / Respondent
Legal Representative
Holland, Ronald

McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Charged Party / Respondent
Legal Representative
Mannan, Syed

McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Charged Party / Respondent
Employer
Apple, Inc.

Charging Party

Individual

Related Cases

Related Cases data is not available.

Address

415 Mission Street, Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA
94105

415 Mission Street, Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA
94105-2533

415 Mission Street
Suite 5600

San Francisco, CA
94105

Cupertino, CA
95014

Most Popular Pages

Phone

(628)218-3826

(415)590-5120

(628)218-3804

Who We Are

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-283161

1/2
12/9/22,1:37PM Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Docun@ntid7ASationttilad W2/24i25a Page 203 of 334

NIRBNationaltabor = Filed by Ashley Gjovik =

Home

Apple, Inc.

Case Number: 32-CA-288816
Date Filed: 01/10/2022
Status: Open

Location: Cupertino, CA

Region Assigned: Region 32, Oakland, California

Docket Activity Items per page

Date |= Document Issued/Filed By
01/12/2022 Initial Letter to Charging Party* NLRB - GC
01/12/2022 Initial Letter to Charged Party* NLRB - GC
01/10/2022 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party

The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

FOIA Records

NLRB-2022-000532

Related Documents

Related Documents data is not available.

Allegations

e 8(a)(1) Coercive Statements (Threats, Promises of Benefits, etc.)
e 8(a)(1) Coercive Actions (Surveillance, etc)
e 8(a)(4) Discipline

Participants

Participant Address Phone
Charged Party / Respondent 415 Mission St (628)218-3829
Legal Representative Ste 5600

Holland, Ronald San Francisco, CA

McDermott Will & Emory LLP 94105-2616

Charged Party / Respondent Cupertino, CA

Employer 95014

Apple, Inc.

Charging Party
Individual

Related Cases

Related Cases data is not available.

Most Popular Pages

Who We Are

National Labor Relations Act
Cases & Decisions

Recent Charges & Petitions Filings
The Law

The Right to Strike

Case Search

Contact Us

Frequently Asked Questions

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-2888 16 1/2
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 204 of 334

GJOVIK LEGAL FILING IN SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL

Vv. EXHIBIT E: Apple Legal Memo about Messages between Petitioner &
Gjovik

C
orrick

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
+1 650 614 7400
orrick.com
Re: Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 9-3290-22-051
E. Ms. Gjovik Subsequently Admitted That She Disclosed le's Confidential

Information.

On September 15, 2021, a different Apple employee made another report to the Business Conduct Helpline
that Ms. Gjovik had publicly disclosed information about the Alpha study. The employee attached
screenshots of text messages they had exchanged with Ms. Gjovik dated August 20, 2021. In the text
messages, Ms. Gjovik admitted to disclosing confidential information about the Alpha study to Zoe
Schiffer, a reporter from The Verge:

I'm helping Zoe with the privacy article. | gave her [Alpha] details because that bothers me too ...
I'm even letting her include a few pics from [Alpha].

As discussed above. Ms. Gjovik's very involvement with the Alpha 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.

F. Ms_ Gjovik Made Other Various Claims

1. e Investigated Ms. Gjovik's Safe Concerns And Repeated
Encouraged Her to Raise Them.

Beginning in March 2021, Ms. Gjovik raised various concems about a vapor intrusion study in the Stewart
1 building in which she worked. In response, Apple met with Ms. Gjovik at least seven times to provide her
with numerous reports per her requests, encouraged her to report any further concerns she had to Apple's

* Zoe Schiffer, Apple Cares About Pnvacy, Unless You Work af Apple, The Verge (Aug. 30, 2021).

4161-3255-5828

“ Note: Petitioner is not even directly named

APPELANT BRIEF — APPENDIX: EXHIBITS
CASE NO. 22-2-03849-7 SEA
— PAGE 21 —

ASHLEY M. GJOVIK
PO BOX 119 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
(408) 883-4428
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 205 of 334

GJOVIK LEGAL FILING IN SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL
SEE ORRICK DOC ON PRIOR PAGE

Aug 20 2021 Text Messages (Petitioner & Gjovik, photos are of Gjovik)

Cher Scarlett

| gave all of this to Zoe as background. Some
engineering told her about it a while back too.

I'm helping Zoe with the privacy article. | gave
her Glimmer details because that bothers me
too

But I'm letting her use those pics of me for the
article

| have nudes in there too that ! think get
uploaded

To show just how invasive it is

i chose the pretty ones cause most are not

I'm even letting her include a few pics from
Glimmer saying its me as long as she removes
any app Ul and code/strings/numbers

Cher Scarlett

Omg you dont know about his

You're going to lose your goddman mind even
more

12:40 4 r=

Watch that video

APPELANT BRIEF — APPENDIX: EXHIBITS ASHLEY M. GJOVIK
CASE NO. 22-2-03849-7 SEA PO BOX 119 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
~ PAGE 22 - (408) 883-4428
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 207 of 334

rom (b) (7)(©)

Subject: Re: Important witness information regarding case #9-3290-22-051
Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 11:35:07 AM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2023-05-10 at 9.03.44 PM.png

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Labor. Do
not click (select) links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender

and know the content is safe. Report suspicious emails through the "Report

Phishing" button on your email toolbar.

Sorry, I missed one!
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 208 of 334

@: Ashley M. Gjovik

| still love #Apple products & brand. | 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.

Working at Apple in “normal" times, | walked in circles around their glass-walled
panopticon, only able to badge into select lockdowns (a constant reminder that
Apple has absolute control over my resources and access), and was immersed in a
culture where it is implicitly forbidden to critique Apple policies or even speak
openly to your coworkers with concerns about your employment & work
conditions, lest you upset the cronyism, ex-ClA/ex-FBl security teams, and other
“powers that be.” | realize now that during those times, | didn’t question a lot of
things that | should have. Not just the abuse | suffered, but also the constant
invasion of privacy — and perhaps those two things are linked.

There seems to be limitless ways Apple can access employee data and monitor us.
| recently shared how violating it felt for Apple to demand to copy & permanently
store my nudes for completely unrelated litigation. After the public outcry, |
questioned other policies & actions Apple had taken. The internal “Glimmer" app
had always troubled me, but | never voiced that concern, because inside we don’t
question the way things are or what we’re asked to do. But now, in the light of day,
considering everything Apple's already done to me, this app, the photos & data it
gathers, and how little we know about what it does with all of that — is deeply
troubling and | felt compelled to make it public. Apple's policy of “secrecy" should
not shield it from public scrutiny about human rights & dignity.

On May 12, 2023, at 11:23 AM, (Qe @RTC@) wrote:

Hello

I again apologize for the cold email, but in document house cleaning, I found
documents material to Ms. Gjovik’s case with DOL.

As I said previously, Ms. Gjovik’s exit plan was planned far in advance, before
any action she took in seeking to find whistleblower protection to intentionally get
fired or leverage a settlement.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 209 of 334

Ms. Gjovik had informed jill she had wanted to leave Apple in 2020 and started

talking to lawyers in January of 2021, which is proven by the messages she sent
Clem . - “45 . ~
in he screenshot below. Also shows Ms. Gjovik’s clear motive for a settlement

and refusal to engage in collective action.

<ashley-response-plan-nda.jpg><ashley-no-coalition.jpg><ashley-wants-to-use-
stories-for-settlement.jpg><Ashley-Jan-Feb.jpg>

<Screen Shot 2023-05-12 at 11.03.00 AM.png><Screen Shot 2023-05-12 at
11.01.53 AM.png><Screen Shot 2023-05-12 at 11.01.32 AM.png><Screen Shot
2023-05-12 at 10.59.54 AM.png><paid-exit-request.jpg>
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 210 of 334

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Report of Investigation

December 11, 2023

TO: Megan Eldridge, Supervisory Investigator

FROM: OS

CASE: Apple/Gjovik/9-3290-22-051

STATUTE(S): SOX, CERCLA, OSHA 11(c)
Complainant 1 Complainant 1 Representative
Ashley Gjovik None
Respondent 1 Respondent 1 Representative
Apple Inc. Jessica R. Perry
1 Apple Park Way Kathryn G. Mantoan
Cupertino, CA 95014 1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025
650-614-7400
jperry@orrick.com
kmantoan@orrick.com
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 211 of 334

Ashley Gjovik Sr. Engineer Program Manager See above. No

Witnesses Not Interviewed:

Name Job Title Reason Not Interviewed
Dan West Senior Director Sufficient information obtained to make

a determination.

Sufficient information obtained to make
a determination.
Sufficient information obtained to make
a determination.

Sufficient information obtained to make
a determination.

Sufficient information obtained to make
a determination.

Sufficient information obtained to make
a determination.

Sufficient information obtained to make
a determination.

David Powers Management Sufficient information obtained to make
a determination.

CP provided a list of potential witnesses
and government witnesses to interview,
but they were not interviewed because
sufficient evidence was obtained to
make a determination.

Fact Chronology (Chart):

Date Time Event Source Exhibit

02/2015 RP hired CP as an iOS Build Intake Interview 2-A
Engineer Project Manager at RP’s | RP Position Statement 4-A

Sunnyvale, CA location. (Fact)
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1/74

Filed 02/24/25

Page 214 of 334

8/20/21

CP sent a text message to another
employee revealing she disclosed
information about the Alpha study
to a reporter from The Verge.

Fact

Text Message

4-C,
pg. 24-38

8/28/21 CP tweeted details about a RP Position Statement 4-A
proprietary study RP was Screenshot of Tweet 4-C, pg.
conducting codenamed “Omega”. 12-14
(Fact)

8/29/21 RP received a formal complaint RP Position Statement 4-A
through its Business Conduct Hotline Complaint 4-C, pg.
Hotline that CP disclosed 16-17
confidential information about the
Omega study on Twitter. (Fact)

8/29/21 CP filed whistleblower complaint | Online Complaint 1-B
online. (Fact) Form

8/29/21 CP filed online complaint with DLSE Complaint 3-68
DLSE. (Fact)

8/29/21 | 4:44pm] CP filed online complaint with EPA | EPA Complaint 3-62

EDT to report environmental concerns.

CP claimed she was concerned for
the safety of employees because of
RP’s lack of due diligence
regarding the Superfund site.
(Fact)

8/30/21 | 8:37am] CP filed online complaint with CalEPA Complaint 3-69
California EPA. (Fact)

8/30/21 CP tweeted photographs and a Intake Interview 2-A
video of herself created by the RP Position Statement 4-A
Alpha application. CP also linked Article 4-B
an article by The Verge in which CP} Screenshot of Tweet |4-C, pg. 19
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1/74

Filed 02/24/25

Page 215 of 334

disclosed she participated in the
Alpha study. (Fact)

8/31/21

9/9/21

CP tweeted that she filed a
complaint with SEC. She also listed
other government agencies she

filed complaints with. (Fact)

CP’s Tweet

3-112,
pg. 36-28

CP filed a complaint with EEOC.

(Fact)

Email

3-141

9/15/21

Another employee made a report
to the Business Conduct Helpline
about CP disclosing information
about the Alpha study. (RP

assertion)

RP Position Statement

9/15/21

7:40pm

RP’s attorney issued a letter to CP | Letter

to remove images and video from

4-C,
pg. 41-42
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1/74

Filed 02/24/25

Page 216 of 334

her Twitter because it violates the
confidentiality and intellectual
property agreement she signed.
(Fact)

8:58pm

CP replied to RP’s attorney that she
disagreed the posts fall under
confidential and proprietary
information, but she removed the
two posts cited. (Fact)

Email

4-C,
pg. 50-53

_

ANALYSIS

| See Jn the Matter of Douglas Denneny v. MBDA, Inc., et al., ARB Case No.: 2018-0027 (January 8, 2021).

2 See Jn the Matter of Ed Slavin v. City of St. Augustine, Florida, et al., ARB Case No.: 07-002 (March 31, 2008).
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 222 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
An employer may proffer a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the challenged action. Commonly
asserted legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for taking an adverse employment action often include

™3 Examples of non-retaliatory reasons include:

insubordination and/or unsatisfactory performance.
e poor performance;
e inadequate qualifications for position sought;
e qualifications, application, or interview performance inferior to the selectee;
e negative job references;
e misconduct (e.g., threats, insubordination, unexcused absences, employee dishonesty, abusive or

threatening conduct, or theft); and

e reduction in force or other downsizing.

Apple cites none of these reasons.

Apple’s Allegations

“Failure to cooperate information during the Apple investigatory process”

The way Apple terminated Gjovik was highly irregular. On Sept 9 Gjovik received an email with
no subject line from an Apple employee she’d never heard of. As in Kolchinsky, it was clear that
Apple’s interrogator’s email to Gjovik on September 9" requesting to talk “within the hour” was purely
pretextual and simply additional furtherance of the conspiracy to remove Gjovik from the company due
to her protected activities and to hide the company’s unlawful activities. The interrogator’s email came
unexpectedly, without a subject line, and without any reasoning or explanation as to why Gjovik was
even being contacted.

Apple is accusing Gjovik of something that had no factual basis. Apple accused Gjovik of failing
to cooperate in an investigation when Gjovik 1) replied in only two minutes 2) said she was happy to
participate 3) reiterated minutes later she was happy to participate.

In the Thomas v. Arizona Public Service ERA Whistleblower case, the Dept of Labor court

found pretext when one of the proffered reasons for not promoting a whistleblower employee was he

™3 Richardson v. Petasis_ 160 F. Supp. 3d 88.pdf, 60 F. Supp. 3d 88, *118; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163484,

Page 266 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 223 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

9° 754

“lacked initiative and willingness to work overtime. However, later, the employer admitted there

were actually “no occasions for the employee to work overtime, therefore willingness to work overtime
was not a factor.”’°

Similarly, in the Adams v. Coastal Production Operators ERA Whistleblower case, the Dept of
Labor court found pretext where one of an employer’s proffered reason for firing a whistleblower
employee was “abandonment of his crew” when in reality, 1) the employer fired the employee before

the employee left the area, 2) the employer did not ask the employee to stay with the crew until a

replacement arrived, and 3) alternative transportation was available for the crew. ’>°

LAW OF CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS

The law governing corporate investigations includes employment laws governing employers'
ability to discipline and terminate employees for failure to cooperate in investigations, including both
substantive and procedural rights of employee.’>’ Employees do not always have a duty to answer
their employer's questions even about workplace conduct. ”® Employees may be required to cooperate,
at least if the employer had a formal policy requiring them do to so, but only in limited
circumstances. ’>?

In many countries, employers cannot use the threat of termination to pressure employees to
cooperate because employment laws either preclude such threats or impose procedural impediments

to employee discipline. °° Even when employees are obligated to cooperate, labor laws often

preclude employers from immediately threatening to fire employees who refuse to cooperate. Even

™4 Thomas v. Arizona Public Service Co., 89-ERA-19 (Sec'y Sept. 17, 1993).

™> Thomas v. Arizona Public Service Co., 89-ERA-19 (Sec'y Sept. 17, 1993).

16 Adams v. Coastal Production Operators, Inc., 89- ERA-3 (Sec'y Aug. 5, 1992).

7 Jennifer Arlen* and Samuel W. Buell, The Law Of Corporate Investigations And The Global Expansion Of Corporate
Criminal Enforcement, CORPORATE CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT, 93 S. Cal. L. Rev. 697 (May 2020)

8 Hans Van Bavel & Frank Staelens, Belgium, in The International Comparative Legal Guide

to: Corporate Investigations 2018 25, 29 (2d ed. 2018).

9 Code du travail [C. trav.] [Labor Code] art. L.1232-1 (Fr.). In Germany, employees may have a right to resist if the
employment agreement does not specify a right to cooperate or if the employee's personality rights preempt the employer's
right to information. See Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court] Sept. 7, 1995, 8 AZR 828/93 (Ger.). See

also Michael Kempter & Bjorn Steinat , Compliance - arbeitsrechtliche Gestaltungsinstrumente und Auswirkungen in der
Praxis [ Compliance - Employment-Related Design Instruments and Effects in Practice], Neue Zeitschrift fur Arbeitsrecht
[NZA] 1505, 1511 (2017).

760 See Restatement (third) of Emp't Law § 2.01 (Am. Law Inst. 2014); see Samuel Estreicher & Jeffrey M.

Hirsch, Comparative Wrongful Dismissal Law: Reassessing American Exceptionalism, 92 N.C. L. Rev. 343, 347 (2014).

Page 267 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 224 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
when termination for non-cooperation is possible, employers often cannot threaten termination until less
extreme forms of discipline, such as a formal warning letter or suspension, have failed, and, even then,
only in some circumstances. /°!

To justify termination, the employee's repeated refusal must provide the employer reasonable
grounds for concluding that the employee cannot be trusted in the future. The employer may be unable
to establish this if the employee is otherwise trustworthy and is not implicated in the offense, or if
the employer did not terminate other non-cooperative employees.’

Companies conducting internal investigations overseas may not be able to both threaten to

fire employees in order to induce them to talk and maintain confidentiality of investigative findings.’

71 Ror example, in Australia an employer must warn an employee prior to commencing procedures to fire him. See Estreicher
& Hirsch, supra note 69, at 359-60. Even then, termination will not be permitted if it is deemed harsh, unjust, or
unreasonable under the circumstances. See Mocanu v Kone Elevators Pty Ltd., [2018] FWC 1335 (Austl.). In England,
Wales, Germany, and Italy, companies are expected to proceed through stages, beginning with a warning, and moving to
more serious sanctions short of dismissal, before seeking dismissal. Employers may need to delay sanction until obtaining the
employee's justification. See Burgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code], §§622, 626 (Ger.) (employers should warn first,
unless a compelling reason justifies termination without notice); Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court], June 10,
2010, 2 AZR 541/09; Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht [Comment on Labor Law] P 198 (19th ed. 2019) (Ger.); Carlton
et al., supra note 137, at 179; Gianfranco Di Garbo et al., Italy, in Corporate Internal Investigations: Overview of 13
Jurisdictions, supra note 110, at 245, 270-71; Sebastian Lach et al., Germany, in The Practitioner's Guide

to Global Investigations, supra note 110, at 569; Joanna Ludlam & Henry Garfield, England and

Wales, inCorporate Internal Investigations: Overview of 13 Jurisdictions, supra note 110, at 105, 126-27; Carlton et

al., supra note 137, at 179; Burkard Gopfert et al., "Mitarbeiter als Wissenstrager" - Ein Beitrag zur aktuellen Compliance-
Diskussion [ Employees as Knowledge Carriers - A Contribution to the Current Compliance Discussion], Neue Juristische
Wochenschrift [NJW] 1703, 1707 (2008) (Ger.); Volker Rieble, Schuldrechtliche Zeugenpflicht von

Mitarbeitern [ Obligatory Witnessing of Employees], Zeitschrift fur Wirtschaftsrecht [ZIP] 1273 (2003) (Ger.).

762 Tn Germany and Austria, employers cannot reliably fire an employee for refusing to cooperate even when the employee
had a duty to do so. Employers must establish that termination is needed to protect the employer, and not as a punishment.
Failure to cooperate may not constitute adequate cause for dismissal if the employee is not implicated and has otherwise
proved trustworthy. See Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court] Oct. 23, 2008, 2 AZR 483/07, para. 32

(Ger.); see also Philipp Becker et al., Investigations in Germany, inCorporate Internal Investigations: An International

Guide, supra note 107, at 225, 263 (discussing Germany). Repeated failure to cooperate may provide cause for termination in
Germany if the employer sends the employee a formal warning letter and the employee commits a subsequent violation. Lach
et al., supra note 143, at 717. These substantive and procedural limitations on dismissal apply even if the employer has
concluded that the employee committed misconduct. Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court] Oct. 23, 2008, 2
AZR 483/07, para. 32 (Ger.). Repeated failure can justify termination in Austria if it provides evidence of untrustworthiness,
yet threat of termination is a last resort, and the employer's right to take such action must be found in a law, a collective
agreement, or a works agreement. Georg Krakow & Alexander Petsche, Austria, in Corporate Internal Investigations:
Overview of 13 Jurisdictions, supra note 110, at 1, 24-25, 33-34.

763 Indeed, some countries apply the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) to disciplinary procedures. In such
countries, a company's decision to sanction the employee for failing to cooperate may prevent the company from later
terminating the employee for the misconduct should the evidence reveal the employee was involved. In France, it appears
that an employer discovering misconduct or gross misconduct cannot sanction an employee unless the employer begins the
dismissal process within two months of becoming aware of the misconduct. Matthew Cowie & Karen Coppens, Multi-
Jurisdictional Criminal Investigations - Emerging Good Practice in Anglo-French Investigations, inThe International
Comparative Legal Guide to: Corporate Investigations 2018, supra note 139, at 4, 6. In Belgium, an employer who has

Page 268 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 225 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
Labor laws can also impose procedural burdens likely to dissuade companies from disciplining non-
cooperative employees, particularly when investigating misconduct of which the government is
unaware.
In Kolchinsky, a whistleblower began suffering retaliation shortly after protected activity, and
alleges that he was excluded from meetings, demoted and had his salary and bonuses reduced. Soon
after, he was transferred to a "support" role, a move that the plaintiff perceived as retaliatory and

detrimental to his future promotion prospects. Although the plaintiff asserted that he other wise

cooperated with the investigators, he declined to meet with the investigative team without his own

attorney present, and as a consequence, the defendant suspended him for failure to cooperate. The
plaintiff alleged in his SOX whistleblower complaint that this suspension amounted to constructive
termination, noting that his name was removed from the company's directory, he was forced to return all
company property, and was told that he would not be doing any work for the company again.’

The employer’s argument that the Complainant was suspended and later discharged solely
because he refused to meet with outside auditors to discuss issues the Complainant had raised without a
personal attorney present was not convincing. Rather, the ALJ found that the evidence established that
the "investigation" of the Complainant's complaints was orchestrated by the President/CEO and
Chairman, acting in concert with the outside auditors, in such a manner as to justify the Complainant's

termination. Thus, the purported "insubordination" of refusing to appear without a personal attorney

present was mere pretext.’

“APPLE'S SLEAZY SECRET POLICE”

In stark contrast to international labor standards, Gizmodo profiled Apple’s Global Security team

in 2009, illustrating how this “Worldwide Loyalty Team,” as they were called, “does KGB-style

received a credible allegation of misconduct against an employee whom he would like to discipline has only three working
days to inform the employee of the factual basis for dismissal and then to discuss it with the employee. The clock begins
running before the firm completes its investigation. Carl Bevernage, Belgium, in International Labor and

Employment Laws 3-1, 3-28 (William L. Keller et al. eds., 2009). In Italy, an employer seeking to terminate an employee is
required to provide written notice to the employee of his misconduct as soon as the employer detects a violation. The
employee has five days to reply. Only then may the employer decide whether to terminate, if warranted. Bruno Cova &
Francesca Petronio, Italy, in The European, Middle Eastern and African Investigations Review 2017 34, 37 (2017).

764 Kolchinsky v. Moody's Corp. , No. 10 Civ. 6840(PAC), 2012 WL 639162 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2012)
765 Welch v. Cardinal Bankshares Corp. , 2003-SOX-15 (ALJ Jan. 28, 2004),

Page 269 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 226 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

lockdowns [of employees] and Gestapo interrogations that end in suicides.” °° The team is an “internal
secret police team known for its network of informers, and ruthless, systematic pursuit of leakers.” ’°’
“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.”’®

The article explained that Apple held 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. Simultaneously, everyone is asked to
sign NDA's during the investigations, even though they already signed Apple NDAs to work there.” “©

Apple’s Global Security team is currently led by Thomas Moyer (who was indicted by Santa
Clara County in 2020 for “bribery” of local law enforcement).’”° 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, threatening to have the man deported if he did not
cooperate. ’”' Apple was also accused in 2010 of a violation of California's shield law with an illegal
search warrant, when they searched the home of a journalist, again looking for a prototype. 7’? Gawker
described Apple’s secret police as “sleazy.”

The Gizmodo article described Apple employee’s experience with this Gestapo 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.” 7”

766 Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader, Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-sleazy-
secret-police-lose-their-leader

767 Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader, Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-sleazy-
secret-police-lose-their-leader

768 Gizmodo, Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks, Dec 15 2009, https://gizmodo.com/apple-gestapo-how-apple-
hunts-down-leaks-5427058

7° Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader, Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-sleazy-
secret-police-lose-their-leader

™ The Washington Post, Apple’s head of global security indicted on bribery charges, Nov 24 2020,
https://www.washinetonpost.com/technology/2020/1 1/23/apple-sheriff-bribery/

™ Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader, Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-sleazy-
secret-police-lose-their-leader

772 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-20 10-04-27

3 Gawker, Apple's Sleazy Secret Police Lose Their Leader, Nov 4 2011, https://www.gawker.com/5856260/apples-sleazy-
secret-police-lose-their-leader

Page 270 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 227 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

Gjovik was not aware of any Workplace Violence team until this encounter. Upon reviewing
Apple policies, the only mention of “Workplace Violence” includes: “Workplace violence includes, but
is not limited to, physical aggression, verbal or written threats, stalking, or destruction of property” and
“As a manager, it’s your responsibility to help Apple provide a safe workplace. Promptly report any
potential threat or incident of workplace violence to your People Business Partner who will contact a
member of Apple’s Threat Assessment Team to assess the situation and determine appropriate action.”
It's entirely unclear why this team was contacting Gjovik if not to intimidate and threaten her. Gjovik
suspects, and has been quoted as such, that this “Workplace Violence team” is the latest version of the
“Worldwide Loyalty Team.” When Gjovik searched LinkedIn for the team name within Apple, the only
other employees who showed up was “executive security” and the employee who broke into the SF
man’s apartment in 2011.

Silicon Valley companies have stacked what they often call their “trust and safety” teams with
former police officers and national intelligence analysts. The industry’s intense focus on reputation can
lead their security units astray. ’”* When working for tech companies, private investigators have access
to more data, deal with far less red tape, and they have the ability to quickly cross jurisdictions and
borders. ’”> The “Pinkerton promise” is attractive to some Silicon Valley firms. The Guardian reported
on March 16 that Google and Facebook have both retained Pinkerton to monitor staff for leaks. “Among
other services, Pinkerton offers to send investigators to coffee shops or restaurants near a company’s
campus to eavesdrop on employees’ conversations, ’’ Olivia Solon reported. A Pinkerton representative
told Solon that the firm’s reach may not end with simply IP concerns. “Through LinkedIn searches, The
Guardian found several former Pinkerton investigators to have subsequently been hired by Facebook,

776

Google, and Apple, ” Solon wrote.

™4 The New York Times, EBay’s Critics Faced an Extreme Case of an Old Silicon Valley Habit, July 27 2020,
https://www .nytimes .com/2020/06/27/technology/ebay-silicon-valley-security-reputation html

™> The New York Times, EBay’s Critics Faced an Extreme Case of an Old Silicon Valley Habit, July 27 2020,
https://www .nytimes .com/2020/06/27/technology/ebay-silicon-valley-security-reputation html

76 The Guardian, They'll squash you like a bug': how Silicon Valley keeps a lid on leakers, March 2018,

https://www .theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/16/silicon-valley-internal-work-spying-surveillance-leakers ; The New
Republic, The Pinkertons Still Never Sleep, March 23 2018, https://newrepublic.com/article/147619/pinkertons-still-never-

sleep

Page 271 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 228 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

Further, as in Kolchinsky, Gjovik agreed to participate in the investigation, however noted the
prior retaliation and current government investigations and simply requested to keep discussion in
writing (similar to Kolchinsky requesting his lawyer be present), a far cry from “failure to cooperate.”
Gjovik was not aware of any Workplace Violence team until this encounter. Upon reviewing Apple
policies, the only mention of “Workplace Violence” includes: “Workplace violence includes, but is not
limited to, physical aggression, verbal or written threats, stalking, or destruction of property” and “As a
manager, it’s your responsibility to help Apple provide a safe workplace. Promptly report any potential
threat or incident of workplace violence to your People Business Partner who will contact a member of
Apple’s Threat Assessment Team to assess the situation and determine appropriate action.” It's entirely
unclear why this team was contacting Gjovik if not to intimidate and threaten her.
Apple’s Business Conduct policy simply stated “You are also required to fully cooperate in any Apple
investigation.” '"’ It said nothing about cooperation requiring no paper trail of what occurred. Gjovik

agreed to cooperate within two minutes of the request. Gjovik did not breach her requirement to

cooperate, regardless of whatever the requirement was even lawful under the circumstances. In fact,
only a month before, Gjovik was participating in a Business Conduct investigation into the possible
sanctions violation where she also 1) responded in two minutes 2) said she was happy to help. No

concerns were raised by Apple about that exchange. It’s unclear how this was different.

On Sep 9, 2021, at 2:08 PM, Aleks Kagramanov wrote:

Subject: [No Subject]

Hi Ashley,

This is Aleks Kagramanov from Employee Relations. We’re looking into a sensitive Intellectual
Property matter that we would like to speak with you about. We would like to connect with you
at as soon as possible today; within this hour, and you should see an iCal come through shortly.
We sincerely appreciate you prioritizing this call and being flexible. If you absolutely cannot
make this time, please propose a few other times for us to connect today. I wanted to send this
introductory email so you know who I am when I set it up. I can share more details when we
meet.

As part of Apple’s policy, your cooperation and participation is imperative. Thank you in
advance, and talk soon.

Best, Aleks Kagramanov, Employee Relations, AMR Threat Assessment & Workplace
Violence (TAT) Apple

TT Apple Inc, Business Conduct Policy, Rev Oct 2020 (Current)

Page 272 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 229 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

On Sep 9, 2021, at 2:10 PM, Ashley Gjovik wrote:
Hi Aleks! Happy to help! Please send any questions / updates via email so we keep everything
written please. I will respond via email as quickly as I can. Thanks!

On Sep 9, 2021, at 2:27 PM, Ashley Gjovik wrote:

FYI, I forwarded your email & my reply to the investigator on my NLRB case so he’s aware
you just reached out to me the day before my Affidavit is supposed to be taken.

This feels a little like witness intimidation, etc...

On Sep 9, 2021, at 2:50 PM, Aleks Kagramanov wrote:

We are investigating allegations that you improperly disclosed Apple confidential information.
Since you have chosen not to participate in the discussion, we will move forward with the
information that we have, and given the seriousness of these allegations, we are suspending
your access to Apple systems.

Best, Aleks Kagramanov, Employee Relations, AMR Threat Assessment & Workplace
Violence (TAT) Apple

On Sep 9, 2021, at 3:07 PM, Ashley Gjovik wrote:

Hi Aleks,

As mentioned, I’m definitely willing to participate in your investigation. I only asked that the
discussion be kept to email — I said nothing about not participating in the discussion at all.

I offered to help via email to ensure we have a documented record of our conversations
considering everything that’s currently going on with my investigation and my complaints to
the government.

I have been speaking out about work conditions, about workplace safety, concerns about
discrimination & retaliation, and about concerns about intimidation and corruption (as reported
to the government in public record).

I’m very concerned about what you are calling “serious allegations.” Can you please provide me
additional detail on what these allegations are? And when you say move forward, are you
simply suspecting my access to Apple system? Or are you doing something more — and if so
what?

Your email is very unexpected and I’m caught quite off guard if this is a real issue. I’d like the
opportunity to remedy any actual issues. Please let me know what the issues are so I can make a
good faith attempt at that.

In the meantime, without any additional context or effort to communicate with me in email, this
really does feel like intimidation and additional retaliation and I will consider it as such.
Best,-Ashley

Date: September 9, 2021 at 6:54 PM

Subject: Employment Status

To: Ashley Gjovik

From: Yannick Bertolus (VP)

Hi Ashley, Please see attached.

ATTACHMENT: Re: Termination of employment

Page 273 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 230 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Apple has determined that you have engaged in conduct that warrants termination of
employment, including, but not limited to, violations of Apple policies. You disclosed
confidential product-related information in violation of Apple policies and your obligations
under the Intellectual Property Agreement (IPA). We also found that you failed to cooperate and
to provide accurate and complete information during the Apple investigatory process. Your
access to Apple systems has been suspended as of today and your employment will terminate on
September 10, 2021. You will receive your final pay which will include regular pay through
your termination date, all accrued unused vacation pay and any ESPP contributions made in the
current period.

“ Ashley M. Gjovik
Hey #Apple, "This feels a little like witness intimidation. |
let @NLRB know." Love, Ashley

Clutches panic button & Mace while still laying on floor
pondering the brutality of U.S. capitalism...

>) Ashley Marie Gjovik
+? Re:
Details

FYI, | forwarded your email & my reply to the investigator on my NLRB case so he’s aware you just
reached out to me the day before my Affadavit is supposed to be taken.

This feels a little like witness intimidation, etc...

Ashley M. Gjovik

rile linkedin.com/in/ashleygjovik/ | muckrack.com/ashleygjovik

2:33 PM - Sep 9, 2021 - Twitter Web App

“Disclosure of confidential product-related information ”

Page 274 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 231 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

An employee has a duty to obey the employer's lawful and reasonable orders within the scope of
the contract of employment.’”® If the employer's order is reasonable and lawful, the claimant’s willful
disobedience, without justification, would constitute misconduct. ’’”? However, Congress, the state
legislature, and the courts have recognized that not every demand of an employer is a lawful one,’®°
even if the employee originally agreed to comply with such a demand.’*! Noncompliance with an
employer's order (or rule) is justified if the order (or rule) is unreasonable or unlawful.’ Disobedience
to unlawful demands does not constitute insubordination.’*? This exception may apply even if the
illegality of the rule has not been established by any court before the refusal to obey.’**

The Restatement makes clear: information regarding an employer's illegal activities is not a trade
secret.’ Further, information regarding an employer's illegal activities is not protectable by means of
restrictive covenant. ’*° Facts relating to actual, alleged, or potential violations of the law are generally
not protectable trade secrets. An employee's agreement not to disclose such information may, in some
situations, be unenforceable as against public policy.’*’ The Restatement also says, “if information is
known generally to the public or widely in the employer's industry, or is readily obtainable by others
through proper means, it is not a trade secret.” 7°8
Compliance is not required if the order is unreasonable, including if: the employee has a

reasonable and good-faith doubt of the authority of the individual issuing the order; compliance would

impose a new and unreasonable burden on the claimant; the rule does not relate to or affect the

™8 Tabor Code section 2856; May v. New York Motion Picture Corporation (1920), 45 Cal. App. 296, 187 P. 785, 788).

9 California EDD, Misconduct MC 225: Insubordination

780 Labor Code sections 222.5, 552, 922, 923, 1101, 1102, 1196, 1198, 1199, 1250, 1252, 1292 to 1294, 1350 to 1351, 1391
to 1393, 1420, and 2855; Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. section 141; Lockheed Aircraft
Corporation v. Superior Court (1946), 28 Cal. 2d 481, 171 P. 2d 21, 166 A.L.R. 701; Fort v. Civil Service Commission
(1964), 61 Cal. 2d 331, 38 Cal. Rptr. 625, 392 P. 385; Bowling v. Unemployment Insurance Commission (1966), Circuit
Court of Lester Co., Civil Case No. 1725, reported in 4 Commerce Clearing House Unemployment Insurance Reporter,
"Kentucky," paragraph 8285),

78! Civil Code section 1676; Labor Code section 2855; DeHaviland v. Warner Brothers Pictures (1945), 67 Cal. App. 2d 255,
153 P. 2d 983; Liberio v. Vidal (1966), 240 Cal. App. 2d 273, 49 Cal. Rptr. 520; Heaps v. Toy (1942), 54 Cal. App. 2d 178,
128 P. 2d 813).

782 California EDD, Misconduct MC 225: Insubordination

783 Douglas Santos v Standard Stations Inc, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Benefit Dec No 75- 69-
1743, Precedent Benefit Decision No P-B-66 (1975)

784 Parrish v. Civil Service Commission (1967), 66 A.C. 253, 66 Cal. 2d ___, 57 Cal. Rptr. 623.

785 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 8.02, Definition of Employer's Trade Secret, Comment

786 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 8.02, Definition of Employer's Trade Secret, Comment

787 REOC v. U.S. Steel Corp., 671 F. Supp. 351, 358 (W.D. Pa. 1987); Chambers v. Capital, 159 F.R.D. 441, 444 1995);
EEOC v. Astra, Inc., 94 F.3d 738, 745 (1st Cir. 1996)

788 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 8.02, Definition of Employer's Trade Secret, Comment

Page 275 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 232 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

employer's business interests; or if the employee reasonably and in good faith believes compliance
would result in a violation of the law, objects or makes a reasonable effort to object to the employer, and
the employer makes no reasonable effort to explain the basis for the order to the employee.’*? On the
contrary, examples of “reasonable rules” including showing up for work, performing work to the best of
one's ability, obeying a reasonable employer order and refraining from fighting or sleeping on the job.’”°

As previously discussed, Apple is notorious for oppressing & silencing their workforce. An
opinion piece was written by Anil Dash about the issue. Dash 1s “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.’”! 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’11 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 prevent information
from being spread is an organization at war with itself. Civil wars are expensive, have
no winners, and incur lots of casualties.’””
Apple clearly did not listen.

GJOVIK DID NOT VIOLATE HER IPA WITH APPLE

Less than four hours later after her accounts were suspended on Sept 9, Gjovik received an email
notice that she was being terminated. According to the termination letter, Gjovik “disclosed
confidential product-related information in violation of Apple policies and [her] obligations under the
Intellectual Property Agreement (IPA). [The Company] also found that [she] failed to cooperate and to
provide accurate and complete information during the Apple investigatory process.” The letter took

Gjovik by surprise, considering that she had not disclosed any information in violation of the IPA, and

789 92 CCR § 1256-36. Discharge for Misconduct -Insubordination; California EDD, Misconduct MC 225: Insubordination
9 California EDD, Misconduct, https://www.edd.ca.gov/UIBDG/Misconduct_MC_5.htm

1 EFF, Anil Dash, https://www.eff.org/about/staff/anil-dash

™ Anil Dash, Apple: Secrecy Does Not Scale, Anil Dash, https://anildash.com/2009/07/3 1/apple_secrecy_does_not_scale/

Page 276 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 233 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

considering that she offered her assistance in the investigatory process. The rationale for Gjovik’s
termination was pretextual. Not only did Gjovik did not disclose any information in violation of the
IPA, but Apple knew that her disclosures were not violations of the IPA.

Apple’s reasons for terminating Gjovik are pretextual and in no way could be proven with clear
& convincing evidence that Apple would have taken the actions it did to Gjovik in the absence of
Gjovik’s protected activities. First, Apple’s reasons for the termination do not explain the reasoning for
the hostile work environment, change in work responsibilities, sham investigations, construction
termination, suspension, or other adverse action that occurred before the events Apple points to. Next,
Apple has not taken negative actions against others who did similar actions as Gjovik, with the only
difference being Gjovik’s protected conduct. Further, substantial, compelling evidence points to
forbidden animus and retaliatory motive in Apple’s actions against Gjovik starting in the spring of 2021.

As noted in Kinzel, if animus is found for one adverse employment action, that animus may be

imputed upon other adverse action happening in close temporal proximity. /?°

In August and September 2021, Gjovik expressed public concerns about Apple Inc’s surveillance
of employees, including an internal iPhone application which took photos and videos whenever it
thought it saw a face and shared the data with Apple engineering teams. Gjovik saw the images her
phone was capturing of her, including: her naked, her in bed, her in the bathroom, her friends if near her,
at the doctor’s office, personal documents in the background, etc.

Numerous federal and state labor laws protect employee’s ability to speak out about work
conditions and labor issues. All of the information shared by Gjovik was about work conditions, safety
concerns, labor concerns, and other protected activities. Even the implied, supposedly “legitimate”
reasons for Gjovik’s termination are themselves protected statements with Gjovik expressing concerns
about Apple’s surveillance, intimidation, and intrusive personal data collection of its employees.

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.’* A California court wrote that an employer claiming a whistleblower had “unclean hands”

3 Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc. Supreme Court of Alaska June 25, 2004, Decided Supreme Court No. S-10190, No.
5820

M4 (See **334 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)

Page 277 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 234 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
in the case before them, “brings to mind the image of Prefect Louis exclaiming his shock at hearing
gambling was occurring at Rick's American Café while counting his winnings in the movie

Analysis: Privacy
Privacy 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.’”° 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.’””?/

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.” 18

While a California employee sacrifices some privacy rights when he enters the workplace, the
employee's privacy expectations must be balanced against the employer's interests.’”’ Privacy, like the

other inalienable rights listed first in our Constitution, is at least as fundamental as the antitrust statutes

in Tameny or the perjury statutes in Petermann. The right of privacy is unquestionably a fundamental

™ Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino, 17 Cal.App.5th 352 (2017)

™6 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.

7 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corporation (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1034.

8 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corporation (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1034.

™ Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 1088

Page 278 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 235 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
interest of our society.°°° California accords privacy the constitutional status of an inalienable right, on a
par with defending life and possessing property. °°!
While plaintiff could contractually agree not to assert his 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 .°°?

If the intrusion violates the right to privacy, it is illegal whether or not it is pursuant to an
agreement. If pursuant to such an agreement, the agreement would be unenforceable because it would be
against public policy. 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." °°
In California, it is a misdemeanor to invade someone else’s privacy by using a device to view
someone inside a private room (PC 647j1) or secretly photographing someone in a private room (PC
647)3). Under federal law, it is a crime to “capture an image of a private area of an individual without
their consent and when the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”°** Further, California
Labor Code 435(a) states that “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, unless

authorized by court order.”

Apple’s Position on Privacy

Apple says, “Apple believes that privacy is a human right.’”®”’Apple’s website says, “Privacy is

a fundamental human right. At Apple, it’s also one of our core values. Your devices are important to so

many parts of your life. What you share from those experiences, and who you share it with, should be up

to you. 8%

8° Rulon-Miller v. International Business Machines Corp. (1984) 162 Cal. App. 3d 241, 255 [208 Cal. Rptr. 524], quoting
City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 879, 882 [178 Cal. Rptr. 435].

8°! 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].

80? Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d at p. 670 (1988)

803 Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 1088

8°4 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (2018)

805 Apple Inc, iCloud security overview, https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT 202303 (Last Checked Mar 23 2022)

806 Apple Inc, Privacy, https://www.apple.com/privacy/ (Last Checked Mar 23 2022)

Page 279 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 236 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

Robert McKeon, Apple’s “data hungry” “Gobbler” user study manager, write in a public article
about Apple Face ID development, “As a democratic republic, we expect to have privacy as a lack of
privacy is tied to tyranny. The founding of our nation was opposed to tyranny, at least ideologically,
even though we have had some major issues with the subject.’”8°”

On April 24 2019, McKeon posted on LinkedIn an article about privacy, Personally identifiable
information (PII) & his work developing Face ID at Apple.®°? McKeon wrote that despite running user
studies that gathered personal data for years, that he “ did not participate in having [his] data
collected.”’ He said he “was an anomaly for other researchers. [He] didn’t feel comfortable with it, and
data collection was voluntary. Not everyone was happy with the concept that [he] would ask for
people’s help but wouldn’t help [himself]. I was stubborn in my belief that I didn’t feel the system was
private enough. I didn’t want my picture in research papers either.... [he] then went on to collect 4,600
3D face scans of ~500 subjects.” McKeon concluded, “Privacy is an essential component in the

company’s DNA.” 8°

CRITICISM

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.”*!° 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.”*!!

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

807 https://towardsdatascience .com/face-recognition-3d-face-recognition-from-infancy-to-product-209 126575b56
808 https://www linkedin.com/pulse/privacy-machine-learning-pii-robert-mckeon-aloe/

809 https://towardsdatascience .com/face-recognition-3d-face-recognition-from-infancy-to-product-209 126575b56
$10 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

811 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

Page 280 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 237 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
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 to today’s disclosures it seems that contrary to Apple’s statement, no end

was put to the recording of Apple’s users.®!?

Privacy in Employment

The Restatement explains that Employees have protected interests, including “the privacy of the
employee's person (including aspects of his physical person, bodily functions, and personal possessions)
as well as the privacy of the physical and electronic locations, and the privacy of the employee's
information of a personal nature.” °'? An employer may have liability for a wrongful intrusion tort if the
intrusion is highly offensive to a reasonable person in the circumstances. *'* The test looks to (1) the
intrusion upon seclusion or solitude (2) committed in a highly offensive manner. *!>

An employee has a protected privacy interest against employer intrusion into: (1) the employee's
physical person, bodily functions, and personal possessions; and (2) physical and electronic locations,
including employer-provided locations, as to which the employee has a reasonable expectation of
privacy. An employer intrudes upon an employee's protected privacy interest under this Section by such
means as an examination, search, or surveillance. °!°

An employee has a protected privacy interest in the employee's physical person, private physical
functions, and personal possessions. This includes the employee's body, bodily fluids, and other bodily
by-products. An employer's job requirement that an employee provide a urine sample as part of a test for

unlawful drug use is an intrusion into a protected privacy interest. An employer observing an employee

812 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

813 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law § 7.02, Protected Employee Privacy Interests

514 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law § 7.02, Protected Employee Privacy Interests, Comments

815 § 652B Intrusion Upon Seclusion

816 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law § 7.03, Protected Employee Privacy Interests in the Employee's Physical
Person and in Physical and Electronic Locations

Page 281 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 238 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
engaged in private physical functions in a bathroom stall is an intrusion into a protected privacy

When it comes to personal property or locations that the employee owns or has access to outside
of the workplace, employees will generally enjoy the same expectations of privacy against employer
intrusions as they do with respect to other third-party intrusions. The reasonableness of those privacy
expectations will be a function of the nature of the location, the ease of observation or interference by
others, and the likelihood of the intrusion. Even though the employee might not expect an employer to
intrude into nonworkplace locations, the employee cannot expect a greater level of freedom from
intrusion by the employer than by the general public. By the same token, the employer is not privileged
to intrude upon an employee's privacy outside the workplace simply because the employer is otherwise
pursuing a legitimate business interest. °'®

In order for employees to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the absence of express
policy allowing employee private activity in a particular location, the location must itself be one that is
customarily treated as private. The office bathroom is the quintessential example of a work location that
is generally treated as a private place. Other places often treated as private include lockers, desks,
private offices, and the break room. °!

The employer is subject to liability under this Section for violating an employee's protected
autonomy interest recognized in only if the employer lacks a reasonable and good-faith belief that
exercising the personal autonomy interest interferes with the employer's legitimate business interests. °°
The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing that is contained in every employment agreement and
implicit in every employment relationship recognizes that "by entering into an employment relationship,
each party to the relation-ship undertakes a duty to cooperate with the other party in realizing the

" 821

common purpose of their contractual relationship. If the employer discharges an employee because

517 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
518 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
519 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
820 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
821 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

Page 282 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 239 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
of protected conduct, beliefs, or affiliations without showing the justification required, the employer
prevents the employee from performing the employment agreement for reasons unrelated to the
requirements of the employment relationship itself.$”

This protection for autonomy is as a default rule. Because it is not established as a common-law
tort, it is best addressed as a matter of contract. The default rule recognizes a sphere of protection. The
purpose is 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. *3

TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PROTECTION AGAINST WRONGFUL EMPLOYER INTRUSIONS INTO
PROTECTED EMPLOYEE PRIVACY INTERESTS

An employer who discharges an employee for refusing to consent to a wrongful employer
intrusion upon a protected employee privacy interest under this Chapter is subject to lability for
wrongful discharge in violation of well-established public policy.’ There are areas of an employee's
life in which his employer has no legitimate interest. An intrusion into one of these areas by virtue of the
employer's power of discharge might plausibly give rise to a cause of action, particularly when some
recognized fact of public policy is threatened. **° When an employee alleges that his or her discharge
was related to an employer's invasion of his or her privacy, if the court determined that the discharge
was related to a substantial and highly offensive invasion of the employee's privacy, that the discharge
violated public policy. **°

The employer cannot discharge employees for refusing to waive a nonnegotiable or nonwaivable

right. When an employee successfully refuses to submit to an employer's wrongful intrusion into

822 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

823 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

84 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law > Chapter 7- Employee Privacy and Autonomy

§ 7.07, Discharge in Retaliation for Refusing Privacy Invasion

825 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)

826 963 F.2d at 623. See also Twigg v. Hercules Corp., 406 S.E.2d 52, 55 (W. Va. 1990) ("[I]t is contrary to public policy in
West Virginia for an employer to require an employee to submit to drug testing, since such testing portends an invasion of an
individual's right to privacy.").

Page 283 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 240 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
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. °’

The common law is the source for these privacy protections. Courts have also pointed to federal
and state constitutional privacy provisions, as well as to federal and state legislation, as additional
sources of the public policy underlying employee privacy claims. The purposes of the public-policy
cause of action are furthered by enabling the employee to protect his or her personal interests by
refusing the intrusion and to resist an employer policy or action that is likely to affect other employees
and the public interest. °°

Privacy protections are generally the result of a balance among employee privacy interests,
employer business interests, and public interests in safety. This policy is critical to the proper
enforcement of common-law privacy protections. It is similar to the antiretaliation provisions in many
employment-law statutes. Antiretaliation provisions protect employees who exercise their rights under
the statutes. The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted statutes protecting employees claiming
retaliation for exercising statutory rights*”? The decisions recognizing protection against wrongful
discharge for privacy violations typically balance the employee's privacy interests and the interests of

the employer and society .®*°

827 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law > Chapter 7- Employee Privacy and Autonomy

§ 7.07, Discharge in Retaliation for Refusing Privacy Invasion, Comment

828 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law > Chapter 7- Employee Privacy and Autonomy

§ 7.07, Discharge in Retaliation for Refusing Privacy Invasion, Comment

829 See Kasten v. Plastic Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011) (FLSA antiretaliation provision applies to oral as well as written
complaints); LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011) (Title VII antiretaliation provision prohibits retaliation against the fiancé of an
employee who engaged in protected conduct); County 129 S. Ct. 846 (2009) (Title VII protects against retaliation for
speaking about discrimination in an internal investigation) ; See generally Richard Moberly, The Supreme Court's
Antiretaliation Principle, 61 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 375, 378 (2011). For an insightful discussion of the need for protection
against termination based on a refusal to consent to invasions of privacy, see Pauline T. Kim, Privacy Rights, Public Policy,
and the Employment Relationship, 57 Ohio St. L.J. 671 (1996).

830 See Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc., 963 F.2d 611, 623 (3d Cir. 1992) (applying Pennsylvania law; noting that other
courts have "balance[d] the employee's privacy interest against the employer's interests" in determining whether there was a
proposed invasion of privacy); Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 768 P.2d 1123, 1135 (Alaska 1989) (holding that the
right to privacy "must yield when it interferes in a serious manner with the health, safety, rights and privileges of others or
with the public welfare"); Gilmore v. Inc., 878 P.2d 360, (Okla. 1994) (balancing the employee's concerns against the
employer's legitimate interests in a drug-free workplace); Eagle Point Oil Co., 609 A.2d 11, 20 (N.J. 1992) ("[A]lthough
employees have a right to be protected from intrusions of privacy, we must also consider the competing public interests in

Page 284 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 241 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
Courts have recognized an action for violation of privacy rights even when the employee
ultimately agrees to submit to the challenged procedure, either through termination in violation of public
policy or through a violation of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing..8°! Numerous courts
have recognized that discharge based on an employee's refusal to consent or submit to an invasion of

their privacy rights is actionable as a violation of public policy®*”

Apple Cares about Privacy, Unless You’re an Apple Employee

safety. To constitute a 'clear mandate of public policy' supporting a wrongful-dischar ge cause of action, the employee's
individual right (here, privacy) must outweigh the competing public interest (here, public safety)."); Twigg v. Hercules Corp.,
406 S.E.2d 52,55 (W. Va. 1990) (permitting an employer to compel testing as a condition of employment "based upon
reasonable good faith objective suspicion of an employee's drug usage or where an employee's job responsibility involves
public safety or the safety of others").

831 See, e.g., v. Inc., 878 P.2d 360, 366 (Okla. 1994) (holding that an employer's demand that the employee "undergo a drug
test to continue his at-will employment status may be viewed as so intrusive by itself as to meet the nonconsensual element
of this test"); Luck v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 267 Cal. Rptr. 618 (Ct. App. 1990),

832 vy. Nabors Alaska Inc., 768 P.2d 1123, 1130 (Alaska 1989) (finding that "there is a public policy supporting the protection
of employee privacy" and that "[v]Jiolation of that policy by an employer may rise to the level of a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing"); Perks v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 611 F.2d 1363, 1366 (3d Cir. 1979)
(holding that "a cause of action exists under Pennsylvania law for tortious discharge" if the discharge resulted from a refusal
to submit to a polygraph examination); Cordle v. General Hugh Mercer Corp., 325 S.E.2d 111, 117 (W. Va. 1984) (holding
that termination for refusal to submit to a polygraph test was a wrongful termination in violation of public policy); Cort v.
Bristol-Myers Co., 431 N.E.2d 908, 912 n.9 (Mass. 1982) (applying Mass. G.L. ch. 214, § 1B; "[I]n the area of private
employment there may be inquiries of a personal nature that are unreasonably intrusive and no business of the employer and
that an employee may not be discharged with impunity for failure to answer such requests."); id. at 915 (Abrams, J.,
concurring) (endeavoring to "explicitly state the opinion's underlying premise: that an employee at will has an action for bad
faith discharge if an employer discharges the employee for failure to provide private information"); Hennessey v. Coastal
Eagle Point Oil Co., 609 A.2d 11, 19 (N.J. 1992) (finding that "existing [New Jersey state] constitutional privacy protections
may form the basis for a clear mandate of public policy supporting a wrongful discharge claim"); Borse v. Piece Goods Shop,
Inc., 963 F.2d 611, 626 (3d Cir. 1992) (applying Pennsylvania law; holding that "dismissing an employee who refused to
consent to urinalysis testing and to personal property searches would violate public policy if the testing tortiously invaded the
employee's privacy"); Health Center v. Court of Co., 52 Cal. App. 4th 1234, 1244 (Ct. App. 1997) ("An action for wrongful
termination of employment in violation of public policy may lie if the employer conditions employment upon required
participation in unlawful conduct by the employee."); id. at 1245 (holding that "the constitutional right to privacy [in
California] forms a sufficient touchstone of public policy to support [a] wrongful discharge claim"); Twigg v. Hercules Corp.,
406 S.E.2d 52, 55 (W. Va. 1990) (finding that mandatory drug testing violated the state's public policy concerning the
employee's right of privacy).

Page 285 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 242 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

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 | Aug 30, 2021, 12:33pm EDT

September 15 Emails from Apple Lawyers

September 15, 2021

From: David R. Eberhart, O’Melveny & Myers LLP
To: Ms. Ashley Gjovik

Subject:

File Number: 600 ,000-3 (Apple Inc.)

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:

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.

833 WayBack Machine | Internet Archive:
https://web.archive .org/web/202 10829034222/https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/143 1824501457633283

Page 286 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 243 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

The second is the image contained in the following tweet:

The related video is located here:
https://volume-

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. I am available to discuss this matter at any time. If you are
represented by counsel in this matter, please identify your counsel.

Gjovik Reply to Apple Lawyers

Hello David, I hope you’re well. Thank you for your email. I disagree that the posts fall under the
definition of confidential or proprietary information, but in an effort to resolve the matter amicably, I've
removed the two Twitter posts you cited, as requested. As for the video hosted by Vox, I do not have the
power to delete it as Vox is in control of their own servers, not me. I am talking others about your
request and someone will get back to you related to the Vox hosted video.

September 16 Email from Apple Lawyers

8:49pm
David Eberhard with O’Melveny & Myers

“T look forward to further information about Apple’s request to remove the video.

In the meantime, I note that there are additional tweets that also contain the same or similar images from
confidential Apple-internal user studies:

https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/143238 1395955900416 85
https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/143238 1497370034184 836

Please remove those images from any public location, remove any similar images, and refrain from
further public disclosures of the same or similar information.

834 WayBack Machine | Internet Archive:
https://web.archive .org/web/202 10830182052/https://twitter.com/ashley gjovik/status/1432400 136471072769
835 WayBack Machine | Internet Archive:
836 WayBack Machine | Internet Archive:
https://web.archive .org/web/202 10830170723/https://twitter.com/ashley gjovik/status/143238 1497370034184

Page 287 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 244 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Gjovik Reply to Apple Lawyers

Hi David, Again, I disagree that the posts fall under the definition of confidential or proprietary
information, but in an effort to resolve the matter amicably, I've removed the two Twitter posts you
cited, as requested.

October 6 2021: Cease & Desist sent to Apple

From: David L. Hecht, Partner

To: David R. Eberhart, O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Cc: Erika Heath, Esq. Ashley M. Gjgvik

Date: October 6, 2021

Re: Ashley Gjévik

Dear Mr. Eberhart,

I represent Ms. Gjovik. I am in receipt of your letter dated September 15, 2021 and subsequent email
communication with my client. Going forward, please direct all such correspondence to me.

As you are aware, Ms. Gjovik has already complied with your September 15, 2021 demand to remove
certain images from some of her Twitter posts. However, I write regarding the inappropriateness of your
requests, which may comprise copyright misuse. While I understand that Apple is not opposed to taking
aggressive litigation postures (and indeed has a history of doing so), I remind you of your ethical duties
as an attorney regarding the assertion of claims that have no basis in fact or law.

Your September 15, 2021 letter alleges that Ms. Gjovik violated the Confidentiality and Intellectual
Property Agreement with Apple dated January 31, 2015 (the “IPA”). You are incorrect. The IPA does
not cover the images/video that Ms. Gjovik posted. For example, you take issue with Ms. Gjovik’s post
of screenshots of an automated email sent to Ms. Gjovik from “Ask,” “an internal survey solution.” The
email itself was not marked as confidential. Further, there is no suggestion in the email that the in-
person study referenced in the email was restricted to Apple employees or that its existence was
confidential. The content of the automated email also contained nothing that could be considered secret
or otherwise proprietary: there was no disclosure of the content, methodology, identity of any
participants in the survey (other than Ms. Gjovik), or any of the survey’s findings. The posted image of
the email merely noted what was already known to the public: Apple was conducting 3D scans of
human ears to “collect representative ear geometry data across age, gender, and ethnic groups” and to
benefit “audio research efforts and better our understanding of ear geometry variance.” It is no secret
that Apple has been scanning a wide range of human ears to perfect its various AirPods products. In fact,
Apple’s Vice President of Product Marketing, Greg Joswiak, spoke publicly about the 3D ear scans over
a year ago:

“We had done 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.”

See Jeremy White, The secrets behind the runaway success of Apple’s AirPods, Wired (September 5,
2020), available at https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-airpods-success.

Accordingly, Ms. Gjovik cannot face restriction in disclosing a non-confidential email about the mere
existence of a survey concerning 3D ear scanning (scanning that Apple had already publicly disclosed

Page 288 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 245 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

much earlier) sent to her during the period in which Apple put her on administrative leave. Apple’s
demand for Ms. Gjovik to remove such content appears, therefore, to be pretextual.

Your September 15, 2021 letter and subsequent email communication also takes issue with image/video
that you contend “were generated by a confidential internal Apple application during confidential
Apple-internal user studies.” Apple holds no copyright to these images, which were not authored by a
human. As you are aware, United States copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor’’ that
“are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because
copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,” Apple would be unable to
register any of the images or video generated by the “Glimmer” app since a human being did not create
the work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53,58 (1884). Apple therefore cannot
allege infringement of any copyright by Ms. Gjgvik.

To the extent Apple argues that the images taken by the Glimmer app are confidential, they are not
marked as such. You also have not alleged how mere images of Ms. Gj@vik, in her home, taken by the
Glimmer app, on Ms. Gjovik’s own phone, could quality as confidential and/or proprietary information
under the IPA. For example, your letter fails to acknowledge that the images posted were (a) taken by an
automated process running on Ms. Gjevik’s own iPhone and (b) captured her own likeness and portions
of her living space. There can be no doubt that Ms. Ms. Gj@vik is permitted to post to the public her
legitimate concerns about images of her, in her home, captured by an automated process, on her own
phone. Additionally, your letter fails to acknowledge that beyond the non-proprietary images Ms. Gj@vik
posted, she intentionally rendered unreadable any conceivably non-public information when posting
these otherwise non- proprietary images. Your claims of any violation of the IPA based on the posting of
these images appear, therefore, to have no basis in fact or law.

Given Ms. Gjovik’s removal of the content you referred to, coupled with the infirmities of your
intellectual property claims in the September 15, 2021 letter, we consider this issue closed, and expect
that Apple will immediately cease sending any further inappropriate demands.

Sincerely, David L. Hecht, Hecht Partners LLP

Page 289 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 246 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

The Face “Gobbler”

Apple tells customers, “Privacy is incredibly important to Apple. ... Face ID data doesn’t leave
your device and is never backed up to iCloud or anywhere else.”*?’ On April 24 2019, McKeon posted
on LinkedIn an article about privacy, Personally identifiable information (PII) & his work developing
Face ID at Apple.®** Robert McKeon, Apple’s “data hungry” “Gobbler” user study manager, explains
what PII is in a public article about Apple Face ID development, “PII covers any data that could be
linked back to the original subject just by having that data or some combination of data. Face images
are inherently PII data. Some times data is PII because when combined with other subject information,
you could determine the subject's identity. The resulting issues with Face ID is clear, but with health
data, it may not be obvious to everyone. For example, if I participate in a user study, and some health
issue is discovered. If my health insurance company gets a hold of that data, maybe they would increase
my rates. I'm not sure what they would do with that data, but people have been known to misuse data

and PII data before.” **°

Surveillance Laws

FEDERAL

Under the NLRA, employers may not monitor or surveil employees participating in protected
concerted activities. In a recent decision by a National Labor Relations Administrative Law
Judge, Boeing Corporation was instructed to cease and desist from: creating the impression that its
employees protected concerted activities are under surveillance & interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. *4°
The potential for secret video surveillance may itself constitute an intrusion even if the

employees have no direct evidence that they were ever captured on video. *4! Intrusion is created by the

potential for a hidden camera to record or transmit private images and did not require proof that the

837 Apple, About Face ID advanced technology, https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208 108

838 https://www linkedin.com/pulse/privacy-machine-learning-pii-robert-mckeon-aloe/

839 https://towardsdatascience .com/face-recognition-3d-face-recognition-from-infancy-to-product-209 126575b56

840 Gov Docs, More video surveillance in the workplace. But is it legal?, https://www.govdocs.com/can-employers-use-
video-surveillance-monitor-workers/

841 Hernanez v.Hillsides Inc., 211 P.3d 1063 (Cal. 2009

Page 290 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 247 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
camera was in fact used in such a manner. **” Purpose relates to the result desired by the actor; motive is
his subjective reason for desiring the result. Neither purpose nor motive must be proven to show intent.
If the videotaping was an act of volition and the resulting exposure of the girls was the expected or
natural consequence of that act, intent has been proved.5*
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. **4 Convictions result in fines and/or up to one year of prison.

CALIFORNIA

The California state Constitution guarantees the privacy of its citizens in the workplace, schools,
government buildings and other property. 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.®* Further, California Penal Code section 647j PC makes it a crime for a
person 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.**° A conviction is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6

months in jail and/or a fine of up to $1000.34”

Gjovik’s General Concerns about Surveillance

In August 2021, Gjovik expressed public concerns about Apple Inc pressuring its employees to

participate in invasive data collection procedures, including scans of ears/ear canals which Gjovik

842 Koeppel v. Speirs, 808 N.W.2d 177 (Iowa 2011),

843 Koeppel v.Speirs Co., 383 S.E.2d 2, 7-8 (S.C. Ct. App. 1989) Johnson v. Allen Inc., 211 P.3d 1063, 1079 (Cal. 2009)
844 18 U.S. Code § 1801 - Video voyeurism, https://www.law .cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1801

845 California Labor Code § 435, Contracts and Applications for Employment,

https://leginfo .legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB &sectionNum=435.#:~:text=435

846 California Penal Code Section 647(j) PC, Criminal Invasion of Privacy in California,

847 California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 647, https://codes .findlaw .com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-647 html

Page 291 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 248 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
believed could capture data about employees which could then be used for biometric identification and
surveillance.

Around lam on September 9 2021, the day Gjovik was fired, Gjovik was tipped off that Apple
may be surveilling her through her work and personal devices. Gjovik posted publicly about her
concerns at 12:06 AM including “Any reason Apple wouldn't be reading my [personal] iCloud email
and iMessages?’’ To which members of the Info Sec community assured Gjovik Apple was doing that
and more. Gjovik immediately began removing her data from Apple’s servers.

Bizarrely, two hours later, at 2:27 AM Sept 9 2021, a self-declared “burner” Twitter account, with
zero posts or “likes” ever, sent her a direct message accusing her of making a claim that was “verifiably
incorrect and complete misrepresentation of facts."848 The user claimed that when Gjovik posted she
found the Crystal Brown v Apple lawsuit, and said Apple settled (which Apple did), she was
“unequivocally misrepresenting facts, most likely with malicious intent.” The user said, “as someone
attending law school, you should have known better.” This user would later contact GJOVIK again on
January 9 2022 accusing her of committing a federal crime. Gjovik asked the user to identify themself.
The user refused and instead urged her to talk to her lawyer about 18 U.S. Code § 1512, a law Gjovik
previously posted publicly she plans to pursue a charge against Apple for violating. It is under
information and belief this user was an agent of Apple or acting on Apple’s direction attempting to
intimidate Gjovik to stop posting about her surveillance and privacy concerns. Gjovik even responded
on Jan 9, saying hi to “Apple Legal” and asking them to leave her alone. The user then deleted it’s

account.

Apple’s Face Gobbler App

Apple formally announced Face ID on September 12, 2017.5? Apple Platform Security
published the following on Apple’s website, “Face ID provides intuitive and secure authentication

enabled by the TrueDepth camera system, which uses advanced technologies to accurately map the

848 @Guybrus55626232, see screenshots
849 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

Page 292 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 249 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

geometry of a user’s face. Face ID uses neural networks for determining attention, matching, and

Privacy concerns quickly arose after launch, with articles in Nov 2017 covering privacy experts
concerns about the privacy of biometrics gathered/stored by Face ID.*°! Concerns were raised by
American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Democracy and Technology and others. The Verge
attempted to reassure customers in 2017, saying Apple “won ’t send faceprint data to the cloud, which
means your face data stays on your phone,” *°* however Apple was asking employees to frequently
upload their “faceprint data” to Apple and with apple’s MDM profiles and other security tools, it’s
doubtful whether the data would even need to be “uploaded” or if Apple already had access. However,
even for customers who supposedly had privacy of their face data, the Verge wrote, “that’s not an
absolute assurance. Apple could always break from that playbook in some way they haven’t discussed,
or hackers could make some incredible new breakthrough. ” ®°?

Verge went on to say, “Soon, millions of people will be enrolled into Face ID, giving Apple
control over a powerful facial recognition tool. In the current system, that data stays on phones, but that
could always change. The hashing would make it difficult for anyone other than Apple to use the data,
but there’s no real limit on what they use it for, particularly if they start to store information outside of
specific phones. On Twitter, privacy advocates worried about Face ID data being used for retail
surveillance or attention tracking in ads.... with one of the world’s most ambitious companies showing

off a powerful new toy, it would be foolish not to wonder what comes next.” **4

850 Apple, https://support.apple.com/guide/security/touch-id-and-face-id-security-sec067eb0c9e/web

851 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
852 The five biggest questions about Apple’s new facial recognition system,
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/12/16298 156/apple-iphone-x-face-id-security-privacy-police-unlock

853 The five biggest questions about Apple’s new facial recognition system,
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/12/16298 156/apple-iphone-x-face-id-security-privacy-police-unlock

854 The five biggest questions about Apple’s new facial recognition system,
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/12/16298 156/apple-iphone-x-face-id-security-privacy-police-unlock

Page 293 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 250 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Ashley M. Gjovik

- Follow Vv
@ashleygjovik

Totally normal. Nothing weird about any of
this. Just the video/photos my internal
#Apple iPhone captures of me while I'm not
paying attention, and stores on device, and
also maybe uploads too?

volume-

assets.voxmedia.com/production/773 ...

855

855 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400 136471072769
https://web.archive .org/web/202 10830182052/https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400 136471072769

Page 294 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

Filed 02/24/25 Page 251 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

The Verge @ @verge

MOP Apple cares about privacy, unless you work at Apple
theverge.com/22648265/apple...

Ashley M. Gjovik
@ashleygjovik

Follow

We’re learning about #Apple’s long
history of systemic oppression &
retaliation against employees when
employees express concerns about
discrimination, harassment, & other
abuse. Why wouldn’t Apple try to use
our data & their internal surveillance

. Ashley M. Gjovik

ie) Apple cares about privacy, unless you work at Apple
theverge.com/22648265/apple...

Follow v
@ashleygjovik

#Apple’s Global Security team of ex-
U.S. intelligence employees includes ex-
NSA, ex-FBl, ex-military, and ex-Secret
Service workers.

“Very little is know about the way it
operates.”

Why wouldn’t they use this internal
data?

infrastructure against us?

theoutline.com/post/1766/leak ...
vice.com/en/article/3aq ...

an
9:35 AM - 30 Aug 2021 9:35 AM - 30 Aug 2021
1 Retweet 4 Likes & it} re re] eI 1 Retweet 4 Likes 66 BP ) @
> 1 ti 2 4
2 Ashley M. Gjovik 856 857

“ The Twitter Posts Apple’s Lawyer’s Demanded That Gjovik Delete *

856 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432381395955900416
857 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/143238 1497370034184

Page 295 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 252 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

& Zoe Schiffer © m & Q wv

Overall Score: -0.448044091463089
# of Frames Displayed: 9/15
Face ID Result: Success

i think the best response is prob just this
face i made

and htere's one topless in those pics i sent... so you can say, indeed an
employee saw the app was taking pics of them naked
Aug 20 12:51pm WG

i was hoping it woud! have caught a more flattering view... but whatever...
Aug 20 12:51pm ©

i feel like you might be on the floor right now
Aug 20 12:53pm ©

Lmao this is my face the entire time I'm writing this article
Aug 20 12:53pm

Page 296 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 253 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

« Zoe Schiffer ©) Ch & a VY

im also changing my mood about maybe letting you use one of the pics it took
of me

Aug 20 12:59pm ©

one of the least awful ones maybe
Aug 20 12:59pm ©

but remove any code / #s etc
Aug 20 12:59pm

a photo of me is not Apple IP
Aug 20 12:59pm ©

especially a photo fo me drunk making pirate faces
Aug 20 1:00pm &

Hahahha
Aug 20 1:00pm

Your call but it def like illuminates how invasive this is
Aug 20 1:00pm

So you just Imk
Aug 20 1:00pm

And say which one you're ok with and I'll get the team to redact
Aug 20 1:00pm

righhhhht like did you watch the video is ent
Aug 20 1:08pm ©

omfg
Aug 20 1:08pm ©

“ Gjovik’s conversations with Zoe Schiffer, The Verge journalist, on August 20, 2021 planning for the
article. Gjovik was concerned about retaliation from Apple for mentioning anything about the app,
especially providing pictures, but was concerned enough about the intrusion of privacy to go forward.
She wanted people to take her concerns about the app seriously and thought the best way to do that was
to show how invasive it is.

Page 297 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 254 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Gjovik: I think the best response [to this app] is probably just this face I made. There’s
one topless in those pics I sent... so you can say, indeed an employee saw the app was

taking pics of them naked.

Gjovik: I feel like you might be on the floor right now.

Journalist: LMAO this is my face the entire time I’m writing this article

Gjovik: I‘m also changing my mood about maybe letting you use one of the pics it took of
me, but remove any code or numbers. A photo of me is not Apple IP; especially a photo of

me drunk making pirate faces.”

Journalist: [The photos] definitely illuminates how invasive this [app] is. Say which one

you’re okay with and I[’Il get the team to redact.

Aug 20 2021

On August 3 2017, Robert McKeon emailed an unknown list of employees, including Gjovik
about the Gobbler/Glimmer user study. He said mentioned requirements for participation (having a
specific device and disclosure), then installing the Gobbler app. McKeon wrote, “Then, as you
continue to use your device, use the Gobbler application to periodically upload data that has been
logged.’’ The email went on to say, “To participate, please take the time to download the ICF (Informed
Consent Form) from the Attaché link below and review it. Please select the ICF for the Country/Region
you work: ” listing the USA, Brazil, Tel Aviv, and the EU but not France or Germany.

McKeon wrote, “We have instituted an electronic ICF process, where shortly, you will
receive an email from (address) asking you to complete your registration with Gobbler where you will

be asked to confirm you have had an opportunity to review this ICF. This will enable you to use

Page 298 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 255 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
Gobbler to upload data.” He said they started a documentation page that employees can reference for
help, tips and tricks, but that employees had to be “whitelisted” to participate. McKeon then wrote, “In

terms of data collection, we want more. The algorithm uses deep learning and the more data the

better.” McKeon wrote that the Gobbler algorithms are “hungry for data.” McKeon added, “For

uploading data: all data that has your face in it is good data.”

GJOVIK DID NOT RESPOND OR ACT ON THE EMAIL; IT WAS A WEIRD EMAIL

On Aug 7 2021 Gjovik received an email from ssp_usg@apple.com with a subject line “Social

Hour Study: You're Invited!,” and in the body of the email saying “Come join us! We look forward to
seeing you there!” The email appeared to be a mandatory social event, though Gjovik was confused that
the email said not to attend if she was "taking photosensitizing medications or have any known

Pphotosensitizing medical conditions.’’ Gjovik promptly accepted, assuming it was expected of her.

NOTHING IN APPLE’S INVITE SAID IT WAS ABOUT FACE ID/GOBBLER/GLIMMER

Gjovik received another response right after from the same email, subject line “Social Hour
Study: Registration.” This time the email said it was from the “Sensor Software & Prototyping User
Studies Group.” The email said, “Hello there! Thank you very much for responding to our invite! .....
You will receive an iCal invite to the event shortly. If you prefer a different day/time than the one
scheduled, reply to this email or comment on iCal. Please arrive at MA3B Patio at your scheduled time.
Do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns regarding the study. See you soon!”
This again 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 and email sign the ICF
by registering your email and completing the short pre-study survey that will be sent.”” During Gjovik’s
time at Apple, she was forced to sign hundreds of agreements to get access to everything from offices,
conference rooms, documentation, and the basic to do her job, so she “signed” the ICF as requested

(they did say ‘please sign” after all.) As far as Gjovik can tell, she never received a confirmation she

Page 299 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 256 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
signed it, nor did she get a copy of the ICF, and when she tried to access the ICF®*® again in 2021 the

link went to page saying with an error message.

NOTHING IN APPLE’S RESPONSE SAID IT WAS ABOUT FACE ID/GOBBLER/GLIMMER

Gyjovik showed up to the “Social Event” as requested. It said to meet in a parking lot south of
Infinite Loop but still on Apple property. The temperature that day was very hot. As Gjovik approached
the destination, she 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 Gjovik in and told her to sit
at a picnic table until called. Gjovik was hot, dehydrated, and scared. Gjovik wanted to leave, but didn't
want to ask to leave, because then the armed guard might get upset or suspicious, so Gjovik waited.
They finally let in 4 or 5 employees. They open the first door of the gate, we go in, then they close the
outer gate and open the inner gate -- so no one on the outside could see in. The gate was locked.

Upon entering, the inside of the compound looked like a “luau” with four stations: a picnic table
in One quarter, then a bar next to it with a bartender wearing a Hawaiian shirt & a lei, then some kind of
game, and the final quarter had a few seats in a circle. There's was music playing in the background &
they were told to sit in the circle. The armed guard left and there were two guys left. The bartender guy
is at the bar. The other guy sits with us in the circle. Assumed both are Global Security members. The
bartender had an intense military mustache and also some sort of military tattoos on his arms. The guy
briefing the employees seemed like one of the NSA types, not Marines like the others. The NSA-type
guy provided the security briefing. Meanwhile, Gjovik wants out but is locked in a compound with 10ft
high gates, security cameras, and an armed guard. She wants to leave but thinks “/’m too young to

die.”

The NSA-type guy explains what we're doing, we're going to enroll in Face ID and we're going
to test it on iPhones with this Gobbler app 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 was

858 https://attache .apple.com/Attache Web/gdl?id=e8eb246f-9694-4¢ 1 e-859d-

Page 300 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 257 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
helping us set up the Gobbler accounts on the test phones. Then we have 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 goofy
face & take 10-20x pics, etc). He explained this testing was specifically because they were having
trouble with direct sunlight conditions, so even though they wanted to keep all testing in lockdowns,
they set up this compound in the 100-degree sun so we could do real world testing for them.

Gjovik was miserable and wanted to leave, so she did the testing because she wanted to escape
the compound. Gjovik knew one of the other employees there, Tim Altman, a QA Manager in Software
Engineering, and talked to him a little bit. When they were done, the guard unlocked the inner gate, then
had them step in, closed the inner door, and opened the outer door and let them out. After that, the
Gobbler app was always pre-installed and logged in on Gjovik’s iPhones, even if she changed phones.
Gjovik kept trying to log out and turn it off, but it would keep reopening and logging back in and
collecting more videos/photos.

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 customers.” ®°°
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” an “Some data should not be submitted from
certain regions.” Another internal page about Glimmer states, “Glimmer is an Apple Internal app which
helps gather valuable information for debugging Face ID enrollment and authentication issues.” That
page said, “For now, Glimmer is only available for Apple employees working in the United States.” The
page suggests uploading data from the app “captured in employee’s homes.” ®©

Apple’s internal “Face ID FAQ” page says “Users are encouraged to use Face ID in all places
Touch ID is replaced on iPhone X. This includes for unlock, the App Store and 3rd party apps.
Additionally, 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.” *°! It said the Gobbler data “can be

previewed and included in radars and/or donated otherwise via the Gobbler to help make the feature

859 https://confluence.sd.apple.com/display/DevPubs/Living+On
869 https://confluence.sd.apple.com/display/FID/Using+Glimmer
861 Apple, Face ID FAQ, https://confluence.sd.apple.com/display/FID/Face+ID+FAQ Page 1 of 3

Page 301 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 258 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
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. °°

It was extraordinarily unclear what data was being automatically uploaded, how and when. The
app & it’s documentation pages were unclear enough (in 2019 Gjovik saw notes that the app launches
automatically, and uploads data automatically, and/or uploads logs at 2am every morning) — but none of
this took into account whether the 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 Gjovik the app was taking photos/videos without any
notification, which made her think that Apple, if it wanted to, could activate her cameras and watch her
without her knowing at anytime as well.

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.”°® 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.” *°* Gjovik also saw in notes that the app was forbidden to be used
in Japan and China, but then at some point, they decided to gather some logs there anyways. The entire

thing seemed incredibly murky and concerning.

Gjovik was Deeply Disturbed by Apple taking Photos 24/7 of her Breasts, her in Bed,
her Using the Toilet, and other Inherently Private Things

An individual is protected from retaliation for opposing any unlawful practice. Protected
"opposition" activity broadly includes the many ways in which an individual may communicate
explicitly or implicitly opposition to perceived employment discrimination. The manner of opposition
must be reasonable, and the opposition must be based on a reasonable good faith belief that the conduct

opposed is, or could become, unlawful.°©

862 Apple, Face ID FAQ, https://confluence.sd .apple.com/display/FID/Face+ID+FAQ Page 1 of 3

863 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Glimmer usage

864 Apple, Face ID FAQ, https://confluence.sd.apple.com/display/FID/Face+ID+FAQ Page 1 of 3 ;
https://confluence.sd.apple.com/display/D22Software/ICF+Procedure+for+Gobbler

865 Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, August 01, 2016, https://plus .lexis.com/api/permalink/6ee6fa70-
59a5-4841-83f4-ffb9a 1 c6a4be/?context=1530671

Page 302 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 259 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

The opposition clause of Title VII has an "expansive definition," and "great deference" is given
to the EEOC's interpretation of opposing conduct.*® As the Supreme Court stated in Crawford v.
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, "'[w]hen an employee communicates to
her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in . . .a form of employment discrimination, that
communication’ virtually always ‘constitutes the employee's opposition to the activity.'" °°’

The opposition clause applies if an individual explicitly or implicitly communicates his or her
belief that the matter complained of is, or could become, harassment or other discrimination. The
communication itself may be informal and need not include the words "harassment," "discrimination,"
or any other legal terminology, as long as circumstances show that the individual is conveying
Opposition or resistance to a perceived potential EEO violation. *°* However, using the words
“harassment” or discrimination” hold weight, as seen in Ogden v. Wax Works, Inc., where there the
court found plaintiff "opposed discriminatory conduct" when she told her harasser, who was also her
supervisor, to stop harassing her.°®

The scope of the opposition clause is not limited to complaints made to the employer.
Complaints about the employer to others that the employer learns about can be protected opposition.°”

871

Although opposition typically involves complaints to managers,°”* it may be a reasonable manner of

opposition to inform others of alleged discrimination, including others outside the company including:

866 REOC v. New Breed Logistics, 783 F.3d 1057, 1067 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d
561,579, 580 n.8 (6th Cir. 2000)).

867 Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, August 01, 2016, Crawford, 555 U.S. at 276 (first emphasis
added) (adopting the Commission's position in the EEOC Compliance Manual, as quoted in Brief for the United States as
Amicus Curiae).

868 Okoli v. City of Balt., 648 F.3d 216, 224 (4th Cir. 2011) (ruling that it was sufficient to constitute "opposition" that
plaintiff complained about "harassment" and described some facts about the sexual behavior in the workplace that was
unwelcome, and that she did not need to use the term "sexual harassment" or other specific terminology); EEOC v. Go Daddy
Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that allegations need not have identified all incidents of the
discriminatory behavior complained of to constitute opposition because "a complaint about one or more of the comments is
protected behavior");

86° Ogden v. Wax Works, Inc., 214 F.3d 999, 1007 (8th Cir. 2000) (ruling that reasonable jury could conclude plaintiff
"opposed discriminatory conduct" when she told her harasser, who was also her supervisor, to stop harassing her).

870 B, Lindemann, P. Grossman, & C. Weirich, Employment Discrimination Law 15-20 (5th ed. 2012) (collecting cases).

871 Cf. Crawford, 555 U.S. at 276 (endorsing the EEOC's position that communicating to one's employer a belief that the
employer has engaged in employment discrimination "virtually always" constitutes "opposition" to the activity, and stating
that any exceptions would be "eccentric cases"); see, e.g., Minor v. Bostwick Labs., Inc., 669 F.3d 428, 438 (4th Cir. 2012)
(holding that plaintiff's meeting with a corporate executive to protest a supervisor's direction to falsify time records to avoid
overtime was FLSA protected activity).

Page 303 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 260 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

coworkers, legislatures, newspaper reporters, or “anyone else.”*’” Depending on the circumstances,

calling public attention to alleged discrimination may constitute reasonable opposition, provided that it

is connected to an alleged violation of the EEO laws. 8”

Opposition may include even activities such as
making informal or public protests against discrimination.’’”* Most opposition is “reasonable,” and
conduct must be extreme to become unprotected, such as committing or threatening violence to life or
property. *’> As with participation, a retaliation claim based on opposition is not defeated merely because
the underlying challenged practice ultimately is found to be lawful.*”°

On August 30 2021, Gjovik expressed OPPOSITION to/about her employer, Apple Inc, in
regard to Apple’s DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT against her, UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
and/or Apple’s unlawful INVASION into her fundamental, constitutionally protected PRIVACY

interests.

872 See Pearson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 723 F.3d 36, 42 (1st Cir. 2013) (observing that "there is no dispute that writing
one's legislator is protected conduct"); Conetta v. Nat'l Hair Care Ctrs., Inc., 236 F.3d 67, 76 (1st Cir. 2001) (ruling that
employee's complaints of sexual harassment to coworker who was a son of general manager was protected

opposition); Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 580 (6th Cir. 2000) (stating that "there is no qualification on .. .
the party to whom the complaint is made known," and it may include management, unions, other employees, newspaper
reporters, or "anyone else").

873 EEOC v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 1983) (observing that all actions of opposition to an
employer's practices constitute some level of disloyalty, and therefore in order to reach the level of being unreasonable, such
opposition must "significantly disrupt[] the workplace" or "directly hinder[]" the plaintiff's ability to perform his or her

job); EEOC v. Kidney Replacement Servs. No. 06-13351, 2007 WL 1218770, at *4-6 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (concluding that
medical workers engaged in reasonable opposition when they raised their sexual harassment complaints directly to the onsite
supervisor at the correctional facility to which their employer had assigned them, even though they were in effect raising a
complaint to their employer's customer).

874 Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 899 F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 1990); see also Crown Zellerbach, 720 F.2d at 1013-14 (holding
that employer violated Title VII when it imposed disciplinary suspension in retaliation for public protest letter by several
employees of an "affirmative action award" given to a major customer; reasoning that even though the letter could potentially
harm the employer's economic interests, it was a reasonable manner of opposition because it did not interfere with job
performance).

875 Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, August 01, 2016, https://plus .lexis.com/api/permalink/6ee6fa70-
59a5-4841-83f4-ffb9a 1 c6a4be/?context=1530671

876 Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 41 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[A] plaintiff [in an opposition case] does not need to
prove that the employment practice at issue was in fact unlawful under Title VII... [A plaintiff] must only show that she had
a "reasonable belief" that the employment practice she protested was prohibited under Title VII."); see also Berg v. La Crosse
Cooler Co., 612 F.2d 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 1980) ("Limiting retaliation protections to those individuals whose discrimination
claims are meritorious would 'undermine[] Title VII's central purpose, the elimination of employment discrimination by
informal means; destroy[] one of the chief means of achieving that purpose, the frank and non-disruptive exchange of ideas
between employers and employees; and serve[] no redeeming statutory or policy purposes of its own.'"). For this reason, if an
employer takes a materially adverse action against an employee because it concludes that the employee has acted in bad faith
in raising EEO allegations, it is not certain to prevail on a retaliation claim, since a jury may conclude that the claim was in
fact made in good faith even if the employer subjectively thought otherwise. Cf. Sanders v. Madison Square Garden, 525 F.
Supp. 2d 364, 367 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2007) ("[I]f an employer chooses to fire an employee for making false or bad
accusations, he does so at his peril, and takes the risk that a jury will later disagree with his characterization.") ; see also
supra note 18.

Page 304 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 261 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

GJOVIK’S TWEETS & INTERVIEW WERE OPPOSITION TO PRACTICES BELIEVED TO BE UNLAWFUL

Gjovik was interviewed by Zoe Schiffer at The Verge for an article about a topic that Gjovik has

been passionate about for over a decade: digital privacy. Gjovik had grown deeply disturbed by the

horrific lack of privacy for Apple corporate employees and was very happy to expose to the issue to the

public, as the anti-privacy policy for employees was a “feature” not a “but” 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. In the article that was published on August 30, Gjovik was quoted as saying / or

Schiffer summarized on the following topics:

Gjovik provided Apple’s “Employee Workplace Search & Privacy Policy” to Schiffer back in June and

Schiffer quoted it for the 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”

Gobbler/Glimmer

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 Gjovik, a senior engineering program manager

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

Page 305 of 380
Radar

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 262 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

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.

& Sysdiagnose

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, Gjdvik 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. 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. When sysdiagnose profiles are not included, employees have been known to post memes
calling out the omission.

Apple Legal taking Gjovik’s nude photos after she was unlawfully constructively terminated during

“Batterygate” in 2016, and she believes the nudes were taken as some sort of “collateral” threat:

The blurring of personal and work accounts has resulted in some unusual situations, including
Gjévik allegedly being forced to hand compromising photos of herself to Apple lawyers when
her team became involved in an unrelated legal dispute...... For other employees, however, the
mixing of personal and work data has already had real consequences. In 2018, the engineering
team Ashley Gjgvik worked on was involved in a lawsuit. The case had nothing to do with
Gjovik 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. Gj@vik 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 Gjovik’s photos, they did not want her to delete any messages. During an in-
person meeting, Gjdvik 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.

Page 306 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 263 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Apple was contacted several days before the article was published for comment, with the Verge

giving Apple insight to the high level topics to be covered. The Verge reported in the article: “Apple did

not respond to a request for comment.”

Gjovik’s own Twitter Posts on Aug 30-31 about the Article & her Disclosures Included:

- 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. °”

- 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? °°

- Cult: “great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work.” Information control:
“encourage spying on other members” Behavior control: “instill obedience’**°

- [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 abuse.

Why wouldn’t Apple try to use our data & their internal surveillance infrastructure against

Like cases of refusing polygraph tests, it doesn’t matter if the employee agreed to take the tests
when signing the employment contract, the employee has a statutory right to deny requests for
polygraph tests. An employer citing a rule that conflicts with statutorily protected right will not establish
disqualifying misconduct. Gjovik is a whistleblower protected by California & federal public policy &
anti-retaliation laws. Apple’s reasons for Gjovik’s termination were so farfetched and pretextual, a
detailed article was written about exactly that, titled “Apple Wanted Her Fired. It Settled on an Absurd
Excuse.”** The article explained the background of Gjovik’s whistleblowing at her Superfund office as

clearly the actual reason for Gjovik’s termination.

8” The Verge, APPLE CARES ABOUT PRIVACY, UNLESS YOU WORK AT APPLE,
https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id

878 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/143238 1777658613762;

8” https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432383062273191937

880 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432382993046200323

882 Gizmodo, https://gizmodo.com/apple-wanted-her-fired-it-settled-on-an-absurd-excuse- 1847868789

Page 307 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 264 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

><

L ASHLEY M. Gu@viIk
@ashleygjovik

| still love #Apple products & brand. | 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.

Working at Apple in “normal” times, | walked in circles around their glass-walled
panopticon, only able to badge into select lockdowns (a constant reminder that
Apple has absolute control over my resources and access), and was immersed in a
culture where it is implicitly forbidden to critique Apple policies or even speak
openly to your coworkers with concerns about your employment & work
conditions, lest you upset the cronyism, ex-ClA/ex-FBl security teams, and other
“powers that be.” | realize now that during those times, | didn’t question a lot of
things that | should have. Not just the abuse | suffered, but also the constant
invasion of privacy — and perhaps those two things are linked.

There seems to be limitless ways Apple can access employee data and monitor us.
| recently shared how violating it felt for Apple to demand to copy & permanently
store my nudes for completely unrelated litigation. After the public outcry, |
questioned other policies & actions Apple had taken. The internal “Glimmer” app
had always troubled me, but | never voiced that concern, because inside we don’t
question the way things are or what we're asked to do. But now, in the light of day,
considering everything Apple's already done to me, this app, the photos & data it
gathers, and how little we know about what it does with all of that — is deeply
troubling and | felt compelled to make it public. Apple’s policy of “secrecy” should
not shield it from public scrutiny about human rights & dignity.

11:56 AM - Aug 30, 2021 - Twitter Web App
883 https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432416891201490946

Page 308 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 265 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Protected Concerted Activity

Under the NLRA, “concerted activity” must involve work-related complaint or grievance, further
some group interest, seek specific remedy or result, and be not unlawful or otherwise improper. °*4
Concerted activities are protected whether they take place before, after, or at the same time a demand is
made. ®*°If an employee acts with or on behalf of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of
the employee alone, in an activity for mutual aid or protection, which includes everything in which the
employees could be said to have a legitimate interest, then the employee engaged in a concerted
activity.88° Employees have the right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection
even though no union activity be involved or collective bargaining be contemplated.*°’ Employees have
a legitimate interest in acting concertedly in making known their views to management without being
discharged for that interest .58°

Amongst other protected activity, Gjovik was organizing with other employees around employee
surveillance & data collection concerns. Whether proven with temporal proximity to NLRB charge on
August 26", through a pattern of retaliation animus, or through a direct link if Apple cites the

surveillance application — Gjovik is a protected whistleblower.

[Placeholder: add more here later]

Messages between Cher Scarlett & Ashley Gjovik
- July 19 2021
o Gyovik: Has there been talk of a class action yet. Maybe you or I can reach out to a class
action firm and see “hey any interest in suing the shit out of Apple”
o Scarlett: The only thing I heard was via Zoe. I almost wish I needed to ask for
accommodations so I could be the one.
- July 20 2021
o Gjovik: [NYT article]
o Scarlett: Bugs me that no one will touch the disability stuff though.

884 Shelly & Anderson Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B. (1974), 497 F 2d 1200.

885 N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Co. (1962), 370 US 9,50 LRRM 2235.

886 Richard Venegas, Laminating Corporation of America, CUIAB, Case No. 78-1693, No. P-B-399

887 N.L.R.B. v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1948), 167 F 2d 983, 6 ALR 2d 408, cert. den. 335 U.S. 845, 93 L Ed
395,69 S. Ct. 68

888 N.L.R.B. v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1948), 167 F 2d 983, 6 ALR 2d 408, cert. den. 335 U.S. 845, 93 L Ed
395,69 S. Ct. 68

Page 309 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 266 of 334

O

O

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Gyjovik: I wonder if it was too nebulous about what’s actually happening with it for him
to tackle in a day. I brought it up with him too.
Scarlett: That’s probably it. I just don’t want to be erased.

- July 23 2021

O

O

OO0O00 0 0

Gjovik [NYT article] I guess if lam going for the jugular about Superfunds, there’s
probably no need to paint me as a wall flower....

Gyjovik: The EPA got back to me yesterday and it sounds like they’re putting Apple in a
time out

Scarlett: is that good

Gjovik: Very good. There are huge gaps and issues in Apple’s oversight of the building
and they’re being super dodgy about all of it. The guy in charge appears to have just
gotten fired. EH&S keeps telling me they won’t answer any more of my questions with
no explanation why. They found cracks in the floor where the chemicals could be coming
from but refuse to test the air for said chemicals until after they fix the floor etc. I also
realized a couple weeks ago that one of the Apple board of directors, Sugar, was CEO &
President of the company who created the chemical mess under my office, for like 10
years, and now he’s chairing Apple’s finance committee which I think would oversee
budget and stuff for clean ups like this. ve been trying to get the EPA to interrogate
everyone to find out what’s going on and they were dragging their feed, but finally gave
in to my yelling last night.

Scarlett: That’s awesome

Gjovik: I just really want people to stop trying to poison / murder me. Why is that so hard
to ask for

Scarlett: You would think that would be a given

Gyjovik: [Screenshot of Gjovik telling Okpo “I do have a hard stop at 1pm — I have a
lunch meeting with the Washington Post’’]. So this is where I’m at with Employee
Relations

Scarlett: Damn. How is WaPo going

Gjovik: Ugh these guys. Jack fell through with NYT. Reed is wishy washy with WaPo
Scarlett: ugh

Gjovik: Reuters reached out too though and CBS. Talking to them tomorrow.

Scarlett: [clapping emoji]

Gjovik: Zoe will quote me in her sexism piece. She was like should I keep it quiet you’re
talking to me still and I sent her that screenshot [with Okpo] and I’m like you’re good
Scarlett: Niceee. Oh I should ping her. I think I’m being underpaid.

Gjovik: Really really need to do do a salary spreadsheet thing. And we need dudes to
show theirs too. Nike did that and there was a massive lawsuit.

Gjovik: [screenshot of out of office message saying she’s on admin leave]

Scarlett: WHAT

Gjovik: Read above

Scarlett: I see. What the fuck

Gjovik: #Apple. I told him I wanted to take it tomorrow so I can share my info with the
other women and he sent me an email right after saying take it right now.

Page 310 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 267 of 334

O00 0

- Aug 13

O O

O00 0

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Scarlett: They cannot possibly think this is a good idea.
Scarlett: I tried to FaceTime you. I’m really freaking out.
Gjovik: Sorry was with Zoe. One sec.

Scarlett: oooh ok.

Scarlett: you have a lawyer right

Gjovik: I talked to tons of the since January but no one retained. My shits too
complicated for them. Because all this started with me saying stop poisoning me thing it
means it all hinges on a very niche area of law. They said wait until I get fired and then
we’ ll figure out the various area of law that apple violated & call back. I have been
working with a firm in LA since February but they never locked it down. They’ve been
looking over all the new evidence for a week and deciding if they’Il take me on. They’re
supposed to get back today.

Gjovik: What if some of us just started tweeting our salaries and levels and shit. Kind of
like an Apple age/sex/location but a fuck you to them for what they’re doing to you. You
think enough people would ble willing to make it public to make a statement at least? I
would.

Scarlett: Mmm idk

Gjovik: Apple S/B/R/L/L or whatever. Something in your back pocket. How are you
today?

Scarlett: Filing a report with business conduct [screenshot]

Gjovik: I gave your info to the Information, Wayne Ma, for the Slack piece. Also this is
happening, please feel free to share. [see screenshot below]

Scarlett: Do you think what’s happening to me counts as part of this? Or the women in
general

Gjovik: I mean they’re probably looking for sexism stuff but the pay equity is def that.
Scarlett: ya

Gjovik: And pay equity now = you. Congrats & condolences

Scarlett: Lmao

- Aug 17 1:44pm

O O

Scarlett: Shit is so wild. All of it. Draconian.

Gjovik: [screenshot of email from Gjovik about Apple skipping the line on vaccines]
Gjovik: When I keep saying “tip of the iceberg on Twitter” its less for Twitter and more
for Apple cause the shit they’re sitting on..

Scarlett: I mean for sure they know

Gjovik: Did I already tell you about the vaccine thing? There’s usually a bigger response
to that one. I’m trying to get Reed to write about the vax stuff too. I want them to dig and
see if they can find the draft contracts.

Scarlett: You didn’t.

Gjovik: Dec 7 2020 [screenshot] Dan Riccio SVP of Hardware was demoted and
reassigned less than | month after

Scarlett: What the fuck

Gjovik: [screenshot] Because of me... and Sr Director says “never occurred to me not to
believe you.”

Gjovik: Fuck you Apple ER

Page 311 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 268 of 334

O00 0

O O

O
O

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Scarlett: Thank you for reporting that too

Gjovik: Oh course, wtf is wrong with them

Scarlett: Disturbing. Truly.

Gjovik: I dedicate this one to you [screenshot of tweet yelling about Apple putting Apple
Confidential on everything |

Scarlett: Do you think you and I should be going through the same law firm?

Scarlett: Also [screenshot of Timnit Gebru Twitter account] Did not notice this

Gjovik: Lol she is actively plotting with me on Signal. And the Google WalkOut ladies
too. We’re about to do some shite.

Scarlett: Wait. Include me. Hello.

Scarlet: And for lawyer Zoe hooked me up with a NYC lawywer who is putting me on
retainer with no fee. Just % of winnings if lawsuit. I just feel so alone and islated. It
would be nice to be part of something bigger. And not feel so terrified.

Gjovik: omg girl ok give me 5min and I’Il call you

Scarlett: Lmao ok thank you

- Aug 17 7:32am

O
O

O

Scarlett: HOW DID YOU NOT TELL ME YOU GOT ISSUE CONFIRMATION
Scarlett: “Apple Confidential” — As if slapping that on anything makes it covered by
NDA

Gjovik: they might as well put all caps ASHLEY DON’T TWEET THIS ONE WE
MEAN IT THIS TIME

Gyjovik: Cause that’s all they’re saying.

- Aug 20 11:57am

O
O
O

Scarlett: So my lawyer wants to sue Apple

Gjovik: oooh!!

Scarlett: I sent them the complaint I sent to business conduct and they were pretty like
yes this is a slam dunk and idk what to do. I could proceed I guess and refuse to sign an
NDA. Even if that means no $$. Thoughts?

Gjovik: Hmmm yeah this is the tough part. Would you lawyer take the case if you say
you’d refuse to sign an NDA? That’s usually where I lose lawyers. If you haven’t asked,
Id ask. This is where you negotiation with your own lawyer — what you’re willing to
sign and not sign, how much §$ they’d take etc. they you both figure out if its even worth
going forward. Even if you don’t sue, you can still keep them in case Appl does
something to you, and then renegotiate the plan then

Scarlett: Signing and NDA is not in my agreement with them

Gjovik: Also if you do sue, are you willing to go through discovery and deposition and
all that with apple cause they’re notoriously awful

Scarlett: Contingency fee I negotiated to 40% which honestly is fine I don’t care
Gjovik: so is it worth making yourself be abused by them more for the end result. Maybe
it is maybe its not

Scarlett: I think it is to expose it. Because what have I really done here. They shouldn’t
have the power to abuse me.

Face Gobbling Comparators & Contrastors

Page 312 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 269 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Apple Platform Security
On Feb 18 2021, Apple Platform Security published the following on Apple’s website, “Apple

developed the facial matching neural networks using over a billion images, including infrared (IR) and

depth images collected in studies conducted with the participants’ informed consent. Apple then

worked with participants from around the world to include a representative group of people accounting
for gender, age, ethnicity, and other factors. The studies were augmented as needed to provide a high

degree of accuracy for a diverse range of users.” **°

Was Apple Platform Security fired?

An Apple Engineering Manager, i. led the Video Engineering Face ID teams for
years, and was DRI for the Gobbler/Glimmer app, and also posted prolifically & publicly about Apple &
Face ID internal strategy, for years. gy LinkedIn*” notes from March 2016 through Jul 2017, he
worked on Face ID on the iPhone X including “DOE [Design of Experiment] for multiple user studies,
“Engineering User Studies DOE, Collection, and Analysis.” J posted publicly that in 2018, he
worked on “Face ID / prototype data collection, logging analysis, DRI for Internal tools for Video
Engineering, Coordinated efforts for data collections to improve RGB Face Detector and Portrait
Mode, Engineering User Studies & Carry data plus Analysis ...”’ JJ posted publicly that in 2019
he worked on “Face ID internal logs processing pipeline and dashboard, Face ID exploration DOE and
analysis, Face ID internal logging analysis, Internal data collection app DRI, & 3D point cloud
analysis...”’ Finally, gg LinkedIn notes in 2020 his key projects included, “Face ID & People
Detection in Magnifier for blind and low-visibility users. ”

WE public LinkedIn and Medium posts have included much internal Apple information
stretching back to at least 2018 & his LinkedIn implies he’s been promoted and frequently given
increasing responsibility, despite his public disclosures. On July 2 2018, gM documented Apple’s

product development process and posted it on LinkedIn titling it “Chaos Inducted Prioritization.”*?! On

889 Apple Platform Security: Facial matching security, Published Date: February 18, 2021,
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/facial-matching-security-sece151358d1/web

Page 313 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 270 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Dec 26 2018, I posted on LinkedIn about an internal Apple study he lead which caused an
experimental feature to be “put on hold indefinitely.” °°?

On Feb 26 2019, gM posted on LinkedIn about his work on Face ID algorithms. He said, he
“worked on Design of Experiment for user studies, failure analysis, and deep net training.” iii
said, “There was a large list of unknowns because nobody had lived on a phone with Face ID. We had to
imagine how people would use the phone and in what ways different from Touch ID to see what data to
test. This involved designing the data collection, collecting the data, and analyzing it. We also did any
engineering studies requested by others and analyzed the resulting data to understand if we needed
more data.” EE wrote that in December he was working on “a large make-up study [he] had spent
months designing and doing small engineering studies to help support the DOE.” He said he, “found a
lot of incorrect labels from the big user study [he] designed. ...[He] fixed all the labels and finish the
analysis.” 8?

On Jan 9 2019, gm posted to LinkedIn an articled 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.” ** On May 13 2019, gM posted to LinkedIn about the work Apple did on Face ID,

that “Tons of data was being collected at the time to cover all the bases.” 8”

On Nov 17 2020, gM published an article to Medium titled “Face Recognition: 3D Face
Recognition from Infancy to Product.”®”° mm wrote, “Face ID was a huge project. On initial
launch, about 1,000 engineers were working on the entire hardware module, software, and
infrastructure....We collected an amazing amount of data. 1,000,000,000 images were collected as
announced in the Keynote. That’s a number difficult to imagine and not just the collection, but the
infrastructure and processing requirements to even train an algorithm on such a set of data.”

He wrote, “We all learned very quickly that data would solve almost any issue..... We weren’t
asked to limit our thinking to what was affordable or possible but to expand our thinking to what was

necessary to drive innovation. ” °°’

®°° https://www linkedin.com/pulse/thoughts-leavin ga aloe/

896 https://towardsdatascience .com/face-recognition-3d-face-recognition-from-infancy-to-product-209 126575b56
897 https://towardsdatascience.com/face-recognition-3d-face-recognition-from-infancy-to-product-209126575b56

Page 314 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 271 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Was the manager in charge of Gobbler fired?

Apple formally announced Face ID on September 12, 2017.5? However, details of Face ID were
“leaked” months prior. On July 30 2017, the Apple Release Mgmt team posted HomePod firmware
publicly which included unreleased product details in the code, including Face ID & iPhone X. The
press covered the leak, writing: “code indicates the existence of infra-red face unlock in BiometricKit,
which is the framework responsible for Touch ID. The code further suggests that Apple’s face unlock
feature will be able to detect partially occluded face and faces from various angles. The codename for
the project Pearl ID. The code also shows the iPhone 8 codename as D22.” °°

Face ID was further “leaked” on Sept 8 2017 when the to-be released iOS build was made
public. This leak was also covered by the press, writing: “Leaked iPhone & firmware reveals animated
emoji, Face ID, and updated AirPods. ” °° That leak also included “details on wireless charging and a
status bar update in iOS 11. According to the leak, the new facial recognition system will be capable of
substituting for Touch ID everywhere the current system is used, both unlocking the phone and
confirming purchases on iTunes, the App Store, and Apple Pay.””?! One outlet wrote, “Face ID appears
to be the official marketing name for what’s been referenced as Pearl ID, the facial recognition features
that will likely replace the Touch ID fingerprint recognition feature. ”’?°*

Gjovik was told by numerous people that both of those leaks came from her previous team in
Software Engineering, currently run by J (the guy who used to yelled at her and bring ammo
to work). Gjovik was told how the leaks happened (which she will not share here, but an testify if
needed). She was told both leaks were attributed directly to Jy J via his negligence, as well as

the negligence of (Gjovik’s previous director). Gjovik was told that a was

8°8 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

8° HomePod firmware seemingly confirms iPhone 8 front design & support for ‘Face ID’, Jul. 30th 2017 ,
https://9toSmac.com/2017/07/30/iphone-8-design-and-face-unlock-homepod-code/

°% Leaked iPhone 8 firmware reveals animated emoji, Face ID, and updated AirPods,
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/9/16280026/apple-iphone-face-id-animoji-features-leak

°°! iPhone X will unlock with facial recognition instead of the home button,
92 iOS 11 GM leak confirms D22 ‘iPhone X’ features: Portrait Lighting, True Tone Display, revised ,
https://9toSmac.com/2017/09/08/ios- 1 1-gm-d22-iphone-8 -details/

Page 315 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 272 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
demoted from a Director to a Senior Manager following the leaks and that ggg was given a 30-day
notice, directly by Tim Cook, to find a new job at Apple or else would be fired.

Apple accuses Gjovik of sharing information (that was already generally known about a feature
released to the public nearly four years ago and/or a topic protected by the California Constitution), and
using that to justify their egregious termination of Gjovik. Meanwhile, gg and J were
responsible for actually “leaking” actual “IP” to the public before a product announce but were not
fired . i] and I were also notorious for a history of bad behavior & discipline during their
Apple tenures. Not fired. The difference? gy and gg did not participate in protected activity.

ee AND gy WERE NOT FIRED.

During the 2017 announce of Face ID, Marketing VP Phil Schiller said, “To create Face ID we
worked with thousands of people across the world and the team took over a billion images” and with
that, “they developed multiple neural networks.” ?°° Schiller said, “the team even worked with
professional mask makers and make-up artists in Hollywood to prevent attempts to beat Face ID.” He

said, “these are actual masks used by the engineering team to train the neural networks.

Was Phil Schiller fired?

An Apple Senior Data Scientist, g°* currently includes on her LinkedIn profile that
during 2017-2019, she worked in Video Engineering on Face ID. She posted that her role included,
“(Face ID] Data Mining and Algorithm Retrospective Failure Analysis,” and she “Built internal
dashboard-based website for real-time monitoring of (Face ID) key metrics” amongst other duties. An
Apple Project Manager, g.’”? posted that she worked on Face ID Computer Vision in 2018, with
duties including:

- “Project Managed a highly confidential Face ID Special Project Task by coordinating and
documenting project requirement needs and worked cross-functionally with Video Engineering

°°3 Apple, Apple iPhone X - Full Announcement From Apple's 2017 Keynote,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umy1GN3rlJQ

905

Page 316 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 273 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

team, iPad Product Marketing manager, Face ID Algorithm engineers, and Apple’s Global
Security team to prep for on-site testing of new, unannounced iPad Pro in an industry-
specific facility before product launch.”

- “Ted special iPad Pro QA Mount study in select industry environments. Documented
findings by writing Special Report and presented to top Video Engineering leadership with test

findings, recommendations and Call to Action prep for product launch.”

Were I & BB fired?

There is plenty of “internal” Apple information available publicly online, seemingly without
Apple’s attempting to remove or redact it. For example, there is a wiki page dedicated to internal
software builds with screenshots, codenames, builds numbers.”° Another page details an internal
application used for “flashing iDevices” including mentions of an internal VPN app, source paths,
restore components & operations, and troubleshooting.”°’ Another page details internal and factory
firmware bundles and yet another discusses internal software updates. °°

Internal software and application details & screenshots have also been included in forums and
discussion threads.” Internal Apple applications are also available for download on archive.org.?!° A
2015 Business Insider article details the following internal applications: AppleConnect, AppleWeb,
Retail Daily Download, GKTank, Inferno, iPlano, MobileGenius, MobileRadar, Operator, Receipts, Red
Zone Mobile, Skybox, Switchboard, ToughFighter 2, & Unibox.?!! A wiki page, created in 2011 & last
updated May 2021, lists the names of over a hundred Apple internal apps, tools, and bundles including
apps like Glimmer, Magneto, Siri Debug, & LiveOn.?!* Many of the apps listed also link to detailed

°°6 The iPhone Wiki, Internal UI Builds, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/InternalUI_Builds

°°7 The iPhone Wiki, PurpleRestore, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/PurpleRestore

°°8 The iPhone Wiki, Internal Firmware, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Internal_Firmware; Internal OTA Updates,
https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Internal_OTA_Updates

°° Reddit, Apple Internal App,

https://web.archive .org/web/20220111143937/https://www.reddit.com/r/Apple_Internal/comments/sledzi/apple_internal_app
; BetaArchive, Apple Internal Apps, https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348551; Apple Park App,

*10 Archive.org, Various macOS Internal Applications, https://archive.org/details/macOSInternalApplications; Apple Internal
Apps, https://archive .org/details/troubleshoot-plan-genius-v-1.0

°!! Business Insider, Here are the secret apps that only Apple employees can use, Sept 29 2015,

*!2 The iPhone Wiki, Apple Internal Apps, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Apple_Internal_Apps

Page 317 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 274 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

descriptions & screenshots including: iOS Menu,?!? iTrack,?!* Radar,?!? Tap-to-Radar,?!®
Switchboard,?!” PurpleSNIFF,’!® Apple U,?!? & AppleConnect.?”°

The information currently publicly available about Apple’s internal tools must have been
provided by numerous current and ex-Apple employees. There is no news coverage or lawsuits to be
found of terminations of employees for sharing this type information, nor does it appear Apple has made
any effort to take the information down. In addition, this information doesn’t’ seem to be shared in
furtherance of any protected topics, contrast with Gjovik’s protected disclosures about employee

surveillance and intimidation.

Apple, the “Ear Canal Innovator”

Biometrics Laws/Policy

Facial recognition or "faceprinting" uses biological characteristics to verify an individual's
identity by extracting an individual's face geometry data in order to confirm a subsequent match of the
individual's face. Geometric attributes of faces include distance between the eyes, width of the nose, and
other features. Face geometry is a physiological characteristic and qualifies as a "biometric identifier.”?”!

Biometrics is "the science of automatic identification or identity verification of individuals using
physiological or behavioral characteristics." Traditionally, these physiological traits have included
digitally scanned fingerprints, digital photo analysis through facial recognition technology, iris scans,
and DNA. Increasingly, physiological identifiers that can be digitally captured, stored, and analyzed
include more experimental biometrics, including gait, skeletal bone scans, scars and tattoos, ear

shape and eyebrow shape, breathing rates, and eye pupil dilation, among other identifiers. 7?”

°!3 The iPhone Wiki, iOS Menu, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/IOS_ Menu

°14 The iPhone Wiki, iTrack, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/IOS_Menu

°!5 The iPhone Wiki, Radar, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Radar

°16 The iPhone Wiki, Tap-to-Radar, https://www ..theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Tap-to-Radar

*!7 The iPhone Wiki, Switchboard, https://www .theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Switchboard_(App_Store)

*18 The iPhone Wiki, PurpleSNIFF, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/PurpleSNIFF

*!9 The iPhone Wiki, Apple U, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Apple_U

0 The iPhone Wiki, AppleConnect, https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/AppleConnect_(Application)
921 Hazlitt v. Apple Inc., 543 F. Supp. 3d 643, 646 (S.D. Ill. 2021)

°?2 BIOMETRIC CYBERINTELLIGENCE AND THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT, 66 Emory L.J. 697

Page 318 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 275 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

Issues of biometric privacy have arisen with increasing frequency over the last several years
as biometric scanners have become cheaper and more prevalent. Though advocates have been sounding
the alarm about biometric privacy for decades, by 2018 even Microsoft was calling for greater regulation
of facial recognition technology. Along with this increased concern has come a wave of litigation
against technology companies that use facial recognition to identify people in photographs and
employers that use fingerprint biometric scanners for employee timekeeping. In the trenches of the
Northern District of California, for example, Facebook is facing more than $ 30 billion in potential
liability for violations of biometric privacy laws.?”

The Snowden disclosures reveal the increasing importance of biometric data as a component of
mass surveillance and a critical tool in intelligence gathering. There is currently a rapid expansion
of biometric databases among the intelligence community, the U.S. military, and in the public and
private sectors generally. ?** The legislature notes that the "overwhelming majority of members of the
public are weary of the use of biometrics when such information is tied to finances and other personal
information." This is because, unlike social security numbers and other personal
information, biometrics "are biologically unique to the individual so that once compromised, the
individual has no recourse, [and] is at heightened risk for identity theft." °*

An Applied Intelligence paper published in October of 2020 explained “that ears have a large
amount of specific and unique features that allow for person identification.”?”° The article explained,
“the human ear is a perfect source of data for passive person identification as it does not involve the
cooperativeness of the human whom we are trying to recognize” & “acquisition of a human ear is also
easy as the ear is visible even in the mask wearing scenarios.” °”’ The article stated tracking ear
biometrics “can be useful in identifying persons in a massive crowd when combined with a proper

surveillance system.” 97°

3 ARTICLE: From Identification to Identity Theft: Public Perceptions of Biometric Privacy Harms, 10 U.C. Irvine L. Rev.
107

4 BIOMETRIC CYBERINTELLIGENCE AND THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT, 66 Emory L.J. 697

2° Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc., No. 16 C 10984, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149604, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 15, 2017)

°°6 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/s 10489-020-01995-8

7 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/s 10489-020-01995-8

8 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/s 10489-020-01995-8

Page 319 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 276 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC. | COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

In 2021, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra declared that “Today’s facial recognition
surveillance technologies are discriminatory and dangerous.’’”’? Commissioner Chopra elaborated:
“With the tsunami of data being collected on individuals, we need all hands-on deck to keep these
companies in check. State and local governments have rightfully taken steps to enact bans, moratoria,
and other restrictions on the use of these technologies.” °°°

After decades of research of anthropometric measurements of ear photographs of thousands of
people, it has been found that no two ears are alike, even in the cases of identical and fraternal twins,
triplets, and quadruplets Ear can be easily captured from a distance without a fully cooperative subject
although it can sometimes be hidden by hair, muffler, scarf, and earrings. It is possible to use the
infrared images of ears to overcome the problem of occlusion of the ear by hair. **!

The potential cybersurveillance consequences of mass biometric data collection are not yet fully
known. What is known, however, is that mass biometric data storage and analysis can lead to multiple
unprecedented legal challenges as big data tools and new forms of cybersurveillance technologies place
increasing strain on existing privacy law doctrine.”** Studies have also found that generally, people not

comfortable with the next generation of biometric uses: using facial recognition.?*°

Apple’s Public Information About Ear Studies & Biometrics

On September 5 2020, Apple VP of Marketing , Greg Joswiak (“Joz”) was interviewed by Wired

about Apple AirPods.?*4 “We had done 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

°° U.S. Federal Trade Commission, In the Matter of Everalbum and Paravision,

https://www .ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1585858/updated final chopra statement _on everalbum_for
circulation.pdf ; https://twitter.com/chopracfpb/status/1348670577050005504

°30 U.S. Federal Trade Commission, In the Matter of Everalbum and Paravision,

https://www .ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1585858/updated final chopra statement _on everalbum_for
circulation .pdf

°31 3D Ear Biometrics BIR BHANU, HUI CHEN, Center for Research in Intelligent Systems, University of California,

Riverside, CA, USA , Springer

°32 BIOMETRIC CYBERINTELLIGENCE AND THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT

°33 ARTICLE: From Identification to Identity Theft: Public Perceptions of Biometric Privacy Harms, 10 U.C. Irvine L. Rev.

107

°°4 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

Page 320 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 277 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

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. ?*° 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. ‘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 AI/ML Research published a paper about internal studies they were
doing around biometrics (breath rate) and AirPods. ?*° The paper was further published in August 2021
with IEEE?’ & on Apple’s own website.”** “The paper hints at the integration of biometric health
sensors in headphones used while participating in sports. The company is ... [a] ear-canal innovator.“?°?

The 2021 paper notes, “data was collected from 21 healthy individuals from both indoor and

outdoor environments. Participants spanned the ages of 22 to 60 and were split fairly evenly between
genders. Several participants provided six pulse rate measurements per audio sample submitted, each of
which spanned a six-minute active period. All data was recorded using microphone-enabled, nearrange
headphones, specifically Apple’s AirPods.’ Apple noted, "In this paper, we take the first step towards
developing a breathlessness measurement tool by estimating respiratory rate (RR) on exertion in a
healthy population using audio from wearable headphones.” ?*° The study sounds like another “internal”

Apple user study.

°3> 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

°36 Estimating Respiratory Rate From Breath Audio Obtained Through Wearable Microphones, [Submitted on 28 Jul 2021],
https://arxiv .org/abs/2107.14028

°37 A. Kumar, V. Mitra, C. Oliver, A. Ullal, M. Biddulph and I. Mance, "Estimating Respiratory Rate From Breath Audio
Obtained Through Wearable Microphones," 2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in
Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), 2021, pp. 7310-7315, doi: 10.1109/EMBC46164.2021.9629661.

°38 Estimating Respiratory Rate From Breath Audio Obtained Through Wearable Microphones, August 2021,
https://machinelearning .apple.com/research/estimating-respiratory-rate

°° Can you ID me now? Apple les for ear- canal biometrics patent, Jan 28, 2022,,
https://www.biometricupdate.com/20220 1/can-you-id-me-now-apple-files-for-ear-canal-biometrics-patent

°40 Estimating Respiratory Rate From Breath Audio Obtained Through Wearable Microphones, August 2021,
https://machinelearning .apple.com/research/estimating-respiratory-rate

Page 321 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 278 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
In August of 2021, Patently Apple wrote that, “Apple began discussing integrating health
sensors into future sports-oriented headphones in a patent application that was published back in April

2009 and filed in 2008. To top it all off, in June of this year, Apple's VP of Technology talked about

health sensors on Apple Watch and possibly AirPods. ” %*!

Apple is currently hiring for a role, with a description posted on LinkedIn saying, “As part of the
Acoustics User Studies team, you will work closely with acoustic engineers and multi-functional
partners to design and conduct perceptual user studies for new audio feature development. You will
drive the entire end-to-end study cycle, from definition and scope of the study question to data analysis
and results delivery. Our team dives deep into emerging technical areas, such as spatial audio and
headphones technologies. Our Acoustics User Studies team drives the development of groundbreaking
audio technologies and products through acoustic and perceptual studies. We design and carry out
studies that influence hardware design, optimize software algorithms, and recommend engineering
requirements that are perceptually relevant. ”?”

On Dec 20 2020, press covered a new patent from Apple around AirPod biometrics.?*? Apple’s
patent filings describe a system for deriving biometrics using embedded biometric sensors on the
AirPods (Earbuds).?“* The patent captures waveforms associated with the cycling profusion of blood to
the skin, so multiple biometric parameters can be collected, including, for example, heart rate, blood
volume, and respiratory rate. By using LEDs that emit different wavelengths of light additional data can
be gathered, such as, for example, VO2 max (i.e., the maximal rate of oxygen absorption by the body).
A pulse oximeter in the area of the tragus is believed to be particularly accurate. The electrodes on the
earbuds can be configured to measure the galvanic skin response (GSR). A GSR can help determine the
amount of stress being experienced by the user at any given moment in time. Another use of this design
will lend itself well for measuring electrocardiogram (EKG) data or impedance cardiography (ICG)

related data. °°

°41 Apple's Machine Learning Research Team have Published a Paper on using Specialized Health Sensors in Future AirPods,
https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/202 1/08/apples-machine-learning-research-team-have-published-a-paper-on-
using-specialized-health-sensors-in-future-airpods .html

°42 Apple Perceptual Audio Evaluation Specialist, https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2975662157

°43 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/
°44 Patent number 10856068

*45 Patent number 10856068

Page 322 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 279 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

IT'S NOT A SECRET APPLE DOES USER STUDIES

Just searching LinkedIn for “Apple User Study,” numerous people and positions are returned
with detailed descriptions of the roles and projects. Apple is positioning that user studies are inherently
secret within Apple. On the contrary, with a quick search I found a role for a “Engineering Program
Manager - User Studies” that will “Drive user study related requirements (e.g. identify and recruit user
study participants, security and legal compliance, logistics, etc.), decision-making and integrity around
user study efforts.”**° I found a role for, “User Study Operations Manager - Sensing Technologies,
which will “Lead the team that plans and executes user studies and data collection for sensor and health
technology development and feature delivery. In this highly visible position, you will collaborate with
cross-functional and cross-discipline teams across Apple to execute on user studies ranging from small,
focused research studies to large-scale worldwide operations.” °*7

I found an employee listing his position as “User Study Facilitator at Apple,” with a description
of “Coordinating User Studies for Human Engineering - Physiology Team, Leading participant
appointments by communicating study requirements, privacy and legal compliance.” °** I found a role,
“Health Study EPM,” that will “Drive user study related requirements (e.g. identify and recruit user
study participants, security and legal compliance, logistics, etc.), decision-making and integrity around
user study efforts.”’°*? I found a role, “User Study Operations Manager - Sensing Technologies,” that
hints to future products saying “Our study operations have enabled Apple to ship new sensors, multiple
health features, and numerous Machine Learning (ML) solutions. But our ambitions are bigger still,
with much more to come.” ?°°

I found a role, “User Studies Operations Engineer, that will “will work closely with product
development team; designing, leading, executing, and monitoring large-scale studies in support of
algorithm development.”?>! I found a “Data Collection Facilitator - Learning and Education,” that will

“Conduct in-person user study sessions. Administer screening and consent forms, interview and debrief

participants, observe behavior, and administer complex testing protocols involving diverse hardware

%6 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2944349227
°47 https://www linkedin.com/jobs/view/2942922643
°48 Justin Fong, www.linkedin.com/in/justinf2108

https://www linkedin.com/jobs/view/2938 135938
°9 https://www linkedin.com/jobs/view/29 11203208
°°! https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2944339533

Page 323 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 280 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

and software.’”’”*’ I found a role, “LiveOn Program Manager,” that defines an entire team, “The LiveOn
team grew to enable unreleased products to be “lived on” by Apple employees outside of labs, networks
and campuses.’”>°

There’s more! I found a role, “ISE, System Experience — Senior User Studies Researcher,” that
will “develop and conduct Apple-internal in-person and remote user studies on iOS, iPadOS, and
macOS platforms and features.” ?°* I found a role, “(Human Factors Engineer — Audio,” that will
“Develop user study criteria and detailed methodology for projects which focus on product comfort and
span from formative to evaluative and qualitative to quantitative” & “Conduct user-centered research
and evaluation on a diverse user population utilizing experimental data and scientific publications,” and
that needs “Expertise with biometric data systems (eye tracking, EEG, GSR), Expertise with motion

capture systems, and Experience with photogrammetry.” °°

Gjovik was Deeply Disturbed by the Persistent, Increasing Requests to Image her Ear
Canals

On Aug 10 2018 Gjovik was invited to a “HE User Study” for “anthropometry HH” sent by two
employees who previous asked for photos of her ears, and discussed wanting to scan her ears. Gjovik
replied, “Hi, I’m sorry - but I need to cancel indefinitely. I really wanted to help with this, but I just
started part-time law school. I’m already underwater, and need to focus on my core work
responsibilities & school.” Gjovik assumed she’d be taken off the list for ear studies, if not all user
studies. ?°°

Then in 2021, while Gjovik was put on Admin Leave in August, she received three separate
emails asking to scan her 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 she’d be asked to review an ICF

°°3 https://www linkedin.com/jobs/view/294579795 1
6 Aug 10 2018, Gjovik to stephanie_juachon@apple.com, yifang_tsai@apple.com

Page 324 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 281 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
prior to taking a recruitment survey” and then another ICF for study participation. Gjovik did not
respond to any of the emails nor did she sign any of the ICFs. >’
Gjovik was disturbed by Apple’s lack of respect for its employee’s privacy. She also wondered if
Apple could be sending her these on purpose, since she already opted out, in order to harass her further.
The emails didn’t say Apple Confidential, nor did they include anything that appeared actually secret or
material. Regardless, Gjovik redacted them heavily since her only point was to protest an employer

pressuring its employees to gather such sensitive information (biometrics).

GJOVIK’S TWEETS WAS OPPOSITION TO PRACTICES BELIEVED TO BE UNLAWFUL

An individual is protected from retaliation for opposing any unlawful practice. Protected
"opposition" activity broadly includes the many ways in which an individual may communicate
explicitly or implicitly opposition to perceived employment discrimination. The manner of opposition
must be reasonable, and the opposition must be based on a reasonable good faith belief that the conduct
opposed is, or could become, unlawful.?*®

The scope of the opposition clause is not limited to complaints made to the employer.
Complaints about the employer to others that the employer learns about can be protected opposition.?”

Although opposition typically involves complaints to managers,”

it may be a reasonable manner of
opposition to inform others of alleged discrimination, including others outside the company including:

coworkers, legislatures, newspaper reporters, or “anyone else.’’26! Depending on the circumstances,

*°8 Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, August 01, 2016, https://plus .lexis.com/api/permalink/6ee6fa70-
59a5-4841-83f4-ffb9a 1 c6a4be/?context=1530671

°°? B, Lindemann, P. Grossman, & C. Weirich, Employment Discrimination Law 15-20 (5th ed. 2012) (collecting cases).

°69 Cf. Crawford, 555 U.S. at 276 (endorsing the EEOC's position that communicating to one's employer a belief that the
employer has engaged in employment discrimination "virtually always" constitutes "opposition" to the activity, and stating
that any exceptions would be "eccentric cases"); see, e.g., Minor v. Bostwick Labs., Inc., 669 F.3d 428, 438 (4th Cir. 2012)
(holding that plaintiff's meeting with a corporate executive to protest a supervisor's direction to falsify time records to avoid
overtime was FLSA protected activity).

°61 See Pearson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 723 F.3d 36, 42 (1st Cir. 2013) (observing that "there is no dispute that writing
one's legislator is protected conduct"); Conetta v. Nat'l Hair Care Ctrs., Inc., 236 F.3d 67, 76 (1st Cir. 2001) (ruling that
employee's complaints of sexual harassment to coworker who was a son of general manager was protected

opposition); Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 580 (6th Cir. 2000) (stating that "there is no qualification on .. .
the party to whom the complaint is made known," and it may include management, unions, other employees, newspaper
reporters, or "anyone else").

Page 325 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 282 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

calling public attention to alleged discrimination may constitute reasonable opposition, provided that it
is connected to an alleged violation of the EEO laws. ** Opposition may include even activities such as
making informal or public protests against discrimination.”°? Most opposition is “reasonable,” and
conduct must be extreme to become unprotected, such as committing or threatening violence to life or
property. As with participation, a retaliation claim based on opposition is not defeated merely because
the underlying challenged practice ultimately is found to be lawful.”

On August 28 2021, Gjovik expressed OPPOSITION to/about her employer, Apple Inc, in
regard to Apple’s DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT against her, UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
and/or Apple’s unlawful INVASION into her fundamental, constitutionally protected PRIVACY

interests.

“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.”

62 REOC vy. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 1983) (observing that all actions of opposition to an
employer's practices constitute some level of disloyalty, and therefore in order to reach the level of being unreasonable, such
opposition must "significantly disrupt[] the workplace" or "directly hinder[]" the plaintiff's ability to perform his or her

job); EEOC v. Kidney Replacement Servs. No. 06-13351, 2007 WL 1218770, at *4-6 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (concluding that
medical workers engaged in reasonable opposition when they raised their sexual harassment complaints directly to the onsite
supervisor at the correctional facility to which their employer had assigned them, even though they were in effect raising a
complaint to their employer's customer).

°63 Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 899 F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 1990); see also Crown Zellerbach, 720 F.2d at 1013-14 (holding
that employer violated Title VII when it imposed disciplinary suspension in retaliation for public protest letter by several
employees of an "affirmative action award" given to a major customer; reasoning that even though the letter could potentially
harm the employer's economic interests, it was a reasonable manner of opposition because it did not interfere with job
performance).

°64 Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, August 01, 2016, https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/6ee6fa70-
59a5-4841-83f4-ffb9a 1 c6a4be/?context=1530671

°©> Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 41 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[A] plaintiff [in an opposition case] does not need to
prove that the employment practice at issue was in fact unlawful under Title VII... [A plaintiff] must only show that she had
a "reasonable belief" that the employment practice she protested was prohibited under Title VII."); see also Berg v. La Crosse
Cooler Co., 612 F.2d 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 1980) ("Limiting retaliation protections to those individuals whose discrimination
claims are meritorious would 'undermine[] Title VII's central purpose, the elimination of employment discrimination by
informal means; destroy[] one of the chief means of achieving that purpose, the frank and non-disruptive exchange of ideas
between employers and employees; and serve[] no redeeming statutory or policy purposes of its own.'"). For this reason, if an
employer takes a materially adverse action against an employee because it concludes that the employee has acted in bad faith
in raising EEO allegations, it is not certain to prevail on a retaliation claim, since a jury may conclude that the claim was in
fact made in good faith even if the employer subjectively thought otherwise. Cf. Sanders v. Madison Square Garden, 525 F.
Supp. 2d 364, 367 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2007) ("[I]f an employer chooses to fire an employee for making false or bad
accusations, he does so at his peril, and takes the risk that a jury will later disagree with his characterization.") ; see also
supra note 18.

Page 326 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 284 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Hi Ashley!

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.

Coercion is not Consent

Companies can process personal data if they obtain either subjects' voluntary
affirmative consent to process data for the specific purpose intended or have a legitimate
justification. Companies generally cannot rely on blanket consent inserted in an employee contract or
handbook to justify either widespread monitoring. Broad consent arguably does not satisfy the GDPR's
requirement that the subject affirmatively consent to the specific purpose for which the data will be
processed. Consent also must be truly voluntary. As a result, 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.”®

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 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

°67 ARTICLE: THE LAW OF CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE GLOBAL EXPANSION OF CORPORATE
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT, 93 S. Cal. L. Rev. 697 May 2020

Page 328 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 285 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

not “freely given” where a “clear imbalance of power” between the data controller (i.e., employer) and
the data subject (i.e., employee) exists.”

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. 7°?

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. °”

On Jan 9 2019, McKeon posted to LinkedIn an articled called “Data Collection” about Face ID
development at Apple, where he wrote, “Some countries allow data like face images to be collected, but
the laws vary. The aim is to not be in any gray zone about data. Face images are considered Personally
Identifiable Information (PII), and in the past few years, especially since GDPR, governments have paid
particular attention to privacy. China, for example, doesn’t allow PII data to be exported. In the US, you
can generally collect PII data in public, but in Europe, you can not. Unlike the US, in France and

Germany, they don’t believe an employee can consent to a user study by their employer that collects

PII data because the simple employee/employer relationship is a form of coercion. Usually, there is

some compensation for a user study, but keep in mind, too much compensation could also be seen as

financial coercion.”

°68 Ts Employee Consent under EU Data Protection Regulation Possible?, Joseph J. Lazzarotti and Maya Atrakchi, February

27, 2018

°° Is Employee Consent under EU Data Protection Regulation Possible?, Joseph J. Lazzarotti and Maya Atrakchi, February
27, 2018

°70 Employee Monitoring (Germany), Resource ID: W-008-3362, HOLGER LUTZ AND SIMONE BACH, BAKER
MCKENZIE, WITH PRACTICAL LAW DATA PRIVACY ADVISOR

Page 329 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 286 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
The predominant view of the courts, is that consent is not effective if it is not freely given.?”!
Consent must be given freely and voluntarily to be valid." ?”* The general rule should be that an

employee does not voluntarily consent if the alternative is termination.?’> 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.?”*

CONTRACTS SIGNED BY GJOVIK DURING EMPLOYMENT WITH APPLE WERE COERCED BY APPLE

Multiple GDPR factors invaliding employee to employer consent are present here. First, when
Gjovik first responded to the initial email, she had no idea what she consented to/initiated., as it was
“vague or unclear.” Next, Gjovik has no “clear records to demonstrate they consented,” as no receipt
was sent and she 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 Gjovik 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 Gjovik’s performance reviews mentioning her
participation in these program, but also that barbed wire, compound with armed guards, too.

Next, apparently later some employees were given the option to use the app but not be
“whitelisted” so their PI would not be uploaded, but Gjovik 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 Gjovik apparently signed the ICF and after the Gobbler app was installed on her

°71 See Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 74 S.W.3d 634, 647 (Ark. 2002)

72 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).

°73 See Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc., 963 F.2d 611, 625 (3d Cir. 1992) (applying Pennsylvania law and stating that "an
employee's consent to a violation of public policy is no defense to a wrongful discharge action when that consent is obtained
by the threat of dismissal."); Leibowitz v. H.A. Wintson Co., 493 A.2d 111, 115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985) (employee release
authorizing polygraph test is invalid when employer requires employee to sign as a condition of continued employment);
Polsky v. Radio Shack, 666 F.2d 824, 829 (3d Cir. 1981) (applying Pennsylvania law and stating that "where an employee
can show compulsion under threat of job termination to sign a release from liability . . . , the employee need not show duress
to invalidate the release because it would contravene Pennsylvania's public policy");

°74 Frye v. IBP, Inc., 15 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1041 (D. Kan. 1998)

Page 330 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 287 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC. | COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
phone (surrounded by armed ex-military), she had no way to disable the app, nor was given anyway to
withdraw consent. Gjovik 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.” °°

While living on was often an actual responsibility of a role in Gjovik’s Software Engineering
team, she continued to feel pressure in Hardware Engineering as well. One example, in Gjovik’s 2019
annual performance review, Powers wrote, “She is an amazing bug finder. Everything she touches
seems to break. Said one person, “I’m impressed on ability to find bugs. It’s odd that she just goes about
her work yet finds so many panics/hangs on hardware that we say is solid.” It helps that she’s constantly
living on as many unreleased products as she can, and is diligent about filing bugs. Good stuff! “?”°
There were many comments like this.

In 2019, Gjovik was injured by her prototype iPhone. She notified the senior manager in Dan
Wests org who managed development iPhone quality, Reed Johnson, telling him her iPhone “flashed a
really bright white light” at her and that it “hurt her eyes.” Johnson asked her to report the issue to a
Safety team, which she did, and the team took the iPhone from her for failure analysis. The Safety team
never told her what happened, but their vague response after testing the device led Gjovik to believe the
lasers may have malfunctioned, burning her eyes. The Safety team did not offer any medical evaluation
or assistance for Gjovik. There was also no information provided if the “Glimmer/Gobbler” application
may have contributed to the injury. Gjovik still found no way disable the app. In fact, as discussed, even

after Gjovik was fired, Gobbler was still attempting to access her personal phone.

°”> Information Commissioner’s Office Consultation: GDPR consent guidance Start date: 2 March 2017 End date: 31 March
2017

°76 Apple Inc, Ashley Gjovik 2019 Annual Review

Page 331 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 288 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

€ iCloud Look Me Up

com.apple.vetap.thegobbler

After Gjovik was fired; on her fully personal iPhone

Unconscionability

A contract is unconscionable if one of the parties lacked a meaningful choice in deciding
whether to agree and the contract contains terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other party. ?””
Under this standard, the unconscionability doctrine “‘has both a procedural and a substantive element.”
The procedural element addresses the circumstances of contract negotiation and formation, focusing on
oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power. Substantive unconscionability pertains to the
fairness of an agreement's actual terms and to assessments of whether they are overly harsh or one-
sided.” °’8 A contract's substantive fairness “must be considered in light of any procedural
unconscionability” in its making. ?”? “The ultimate issue in every case is whether the terms of the
contract are sufficiently unfair, in view of all relevant circumstances, that a court should withhold
enforcement.” 98°

A procedural unconscionability analysis “begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one
of adhesion.” 7! An adhesive contract is standardized, generally on a preprinted form, and offered by

the party with superior bargaining power “on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.” °°’ The pertinent question is

°77 Sonic II, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1133.)

°78 (Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal 4th at p. 246.)

°79 Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899, 912 [190 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812, 353 P.3d 741]

°80 OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, 8 Cal. 5th 111, 125-26, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714, 725-26, 447 P.3d 680, 689-90 (2019)

°81 Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 113

°8? Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1237, 1245 [200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 7, 367 P.3d 6] (Baltazar); see Armendariz

Page 332 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 289 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
whether circumstances of the contract's formation created such oppression or surprise that closer
scrutiny of its overall fairness is required. °°?

“The circumstances relevant to establishing oppression include, but are not limited to (1) the
amount of time the party is given to consider the proposed contract; (2) the amount and type of pressure
exerted on the party to sign the proposed contract; (3) the length of the proposed contract and the length
and complexity of the challenged provision; (4) the education and experience of the party; and (5)
whether the party's view of the proposed contract was aided by an attorney.” °°*

Employees who have worked in a job for a substantial length of time have likely come to rely on
the benefits of employment. For many, the sudden loss of a job may create major disruptions, including
abrupt income reduction and an unplanned reentry into the job market. In both the prehiring and
posthiring settings, courts must be “particularly attuned” to the danger of oppression and

Both Ear Canal Scanning & the “Gobbler” Application are both Highly Offensive
to the Reasonable Person

The roots of American common-law privacy protections are generally attributed to the "right to
be let alone," which Warren and Brandeis described as "the right of determining, ordinarily, to what
extent [a person's] thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to others."?*° The tort of
wrongful employer intrusion upon a protected employee privacy interest is an application to the
employment relationship of the intrusion-upon-seclusion tort developed in Restatement Second, Torts §
652B and adopted by most jurisdictions. °°’ The intrusion tort runs against a person who "intentionally
intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another" if the intrusion would be

"highly offensive to a reasonable person." °°°

°83 See Baltazar, at pp. 1245-1246; Farrar v. Direct Commerce, Inc. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1257, 1267-1268 [215 Cal. Rptr.
3d 785].)

°84 (Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1348 [182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 235],
°8 Armendariz, at p. 115; see Baltazar, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1244; OTO, L.LC. v. Kho, 8 Cal. 5th 111, 126-27, 251 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 714, 726-27, 447 P.3d 680, 690-91 (2019)

°86 Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193, 195, 198 (1890)

°87 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 7.01, Employee Right of Privacy

°88 Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 7.01, Employee Right of Privacy

Page 333 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 290 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1

It applies not only to intrusions by those who have no preexisting relationship with the injured
person but also to unwarranted, offensive intrusions by parties who have ongoing contacts with each
other, such as those in the employment relationship. ?® In some states, courts have prohibited or
regulated certain methods of information collection through the public-policy tort.”?? The public policy
at issue in these cases is the common-law protection from privacy invasions or specific statutes
prohibiting certain invasions, such as anti-polygraph statutes. °?!

An employer is subject to liability for a wrongful intrusion upon an employee's protected privacy
interest if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances. ?””
The "highly offensive" test is derived from the intrusion-upon-seclusion tort as established in § 652B of
the Restatement Second, Torts. The intrusion has to be "a substantial one, of a kind that would be highly

offensive to the ordinary reasonable man, as the result of conduct_to which the reasonable man would

strongly object." 97

Responses to Gjovik’s disclosures included, but were not limited to:

“Excuse me WHAT’?
- “This is creepy. I don't have words to express what is running through my head.
- “Straight up abusive and creepy behavior how can deployed iOS devices even run stuff like
- “Whatttt” 9?”
- “What the hell....”?78

66995

°8° Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 7.01, Employee Right of Privacy

°° See Perks v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 611 F.2d 1363, 1366 (3d Cir. 1979) (holding that "a cause of action exists
under Pennsylvania law for tortious discharge" if the discharge resulted from a refusal to submit to polygraph examination, in
violation of Pennsylvania's anti-polygraph statute); Cordell v. General Hugh Mercer Corp., 325 S.E.2d 111, 117 (W. Va.
1984) (holding that termination for refusal to submit to polygraph test was a wrongful termination in violation of public
policy); Hennesey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., 609 A.2d 11 (N.J. 1992) (public policy provides restrictions on employer
drug testing); Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc., 963 F.2d 611, 626 (3d Cir. 1992) (applying Pennsylvania law; holding that
"dismissing an employee who refused to consent to urinalysis testing and to personal property searches would violate public
policy if the testing tortiously invaded the employee's privacy"); Baughman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 592 S.E.2d 824 (W. Va.
2003) (public policy prohibits drug testing of incumbent employees without good-faith objective suspicion of drug use or
safety considerations).

°°! Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 7.01, Employee Right of Privacy

°°? Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 7.06, Wrongful Employer Intrusions

*°3 Restatement Second, Torts § 652B, Comment d.; Restatement of the Law, Employment Law, § 7.06, Wrongful Employer
Intrusions, Comments

°° https://web.archive.org/web/20210830182052/https:/twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1432400136471072769

Page 334 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 291 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

- “Ah, but does the employee handbook say workers are human?” °?”

- “T've heard a manager say we don't have civil rights as employees” !°°

- “if anyone talks about apple privacy. show them this“ 10°!

- “No, just no.” 10

- This entire article is.. wow.

- Because privacy is a fundamental human right* * that you need to give up to work for the
company that cares so much about privacy. !0%

- [inserte su referencia a 1984 aquf] !°°

- This is terrible and so bothersome on many levels.

- Quel enfer... !°°7

1003

1006

No Warnings or Risk Mitigation

In in four years of Gjovik’s last role at Apple, Gjovik was responsible for ensuring
confidentiality, secrecy, and security compliance across David Powers organization as well as with Dan
West’s management team. Gjovik was looked to as a guide on Apple’s compliance policies on these
matters, and even developed a FAQ page for the organizations employees, working closely with New
Product Security and Software Security teams to write the content. Gjovik had to report her own
management to the New Product Security team (informally) several times for violating Apple’s
confidentiality rules including sharing details of highly secret new hardware and software projects with
those who were not “disclosed” on them per Apple policy and process. Gjovik was often looked to by
her teammates to weigh in on whether something was confidential or not.

As Apple notes in their position statement, Gjovik had access to an enormous amount of highly
sensitive, highly confidential internal information.

Ms. Gjovik Worked at Apple for Six Years in a Role That Furnished Her Access to
Highly Confidential Apple Product Information — Which She Agreed to Protect.

As a Senior Engineering Program Manager, Ms. Gjovik had access to proprietary and trade
secret information about unreleased products and features under development, which was
shared internally only with those who had a business need to know. !9%

°°” https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/143238 1235926499332

1000 hitps://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/143238 1235926499332

1003 https://twitter.com/verge/status/1432381006670147587/retweets/with_comments
1004 hittps://twitter.com/verge/status/143238 1006670147587/retweets/with_comments
1005 https://twitter.com/verge/status/143238 1006670147587/retweets/with_comments
1006 hittps://twitter.com/verge/status/143238 1006670147587/retweets/with_comments
1007 https://twitter.com/verge/status/143238 1006670147587/retweets/with_comments
1008 Apple’s US Dept of Labor position statement

Page 335 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 292 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor

ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT
CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 |

Up until a few hours before she was fired, Gjovik had access to future product roadmaps;
unreleased hardware/product design and configuration; future operation system source code; access to
all Research & Development finance ordering accounts at the company, including the executive
office;!©°? information on the manufacturing process and supply chain; competitive analysis; product
pricing information; product launch dates; marketing plans; customer feedback and usage trends; access
to future software features and projects; access to submit code to the OS releases and view what others
submitted.

Gjovik also worked for Apple Legal as an intern and project manager in the summer of 2019,
during which time (and probably still in September) she had access to all of Apple’s external software-
& hardware-related contracts (with Google, Intel, etc); legal strategy around SLAs; open-source
software usage, and employee legal training; and other confidential attorney work product. !°'°

Gjovik also worked in a role in 2016 managing software failure analysis for all of Apple’s new
product launches (iPhone, iPad, Mac, etc). In this role, Gjovik was given access to customer purchase
data; product sales data; marketing strategy; customer surveys responses; customer devices and logs;
AppleCare support call logs. Gjovik was invited to “closed door meetings” with members of the
executive team, to discuss the strategy to address highly sensitive customer hardware and software

failures.

Gjovik has not breached and will not breach her duty to keep the above information

confidential.

Despite Apple claiming they fired Gjovik for “leaking” confidential information, during those
10-12 days following her supposed “leaks,” Gjovik said, “the company made no attempt to keep her
from viewing any sensitive data. ‘I hadn’t lost any of my account access. I still had access to the next
four years of the Mac roadmap. I still had access to source code for future releases. I still had access to

concept review documents.’’'°'!! One would think if Apple actually thought Gjovik unlawfully leaked

1009 See Evidence Files: Email from/to Jackie Franks and Tammy Davis on March 9 2017
1019 Restatement Third, The Law Governing Lawyers § 109

Page 336 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 293 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
information, they would have removed that access immediately. Or sent some sort of warning.
Anything. But, there was nothing until an email with no subject line from a Workplace Violence
interrogator on Sept 9".

Gjovik understands her responsibilities under the IPA and has followed the agreement diligently,
and has also tried to ensure others do as well, including superiors. In Gjovik’s annual performance
review feedback to West about Powers in the fall of 2020, she wrote about continued concerns about
Powers following his IPA obligations:

“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. P’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.

Gyjovik was speaking of Powers behavior during the (non public) early phase of Apple’s transition from

Intel to Apple silicon for Mac computers (a verry, very secret phase of the project), and Powers frequent
deviations from explicit NPS instructions on the matter. Further, Gjovik had also expressed concerns
about West’s compliance with his IPA to Apple NPS in the past, including but not limited to when West
shared the entire future iPad development roadmap with his extended management team without
disclosures or need to know. Gjovik reported this issue to NPS and met with them to discuss it. To
Gjovik’s knowledge, no one followed up with West. (Come to find out, the Global Security manager
Gjovik had met with, Scott Nishi, used to manage executive protection at Northrop Grumman before

Another incident was when West wanted to allow all of his employees to bring their (non-
employee) families on site into the team’s secure lockdowns (a very unusual thing to do with Apple’s
secrecy policies, and West’s team working on prototype hardware). West and Powers were quite laisse-
faire about allowing family members to see internal product information, and only insisted the families
did not see “prototype hardware.” Gjovik argued with her managers fervently and influenced them to

ensure the family members did not see or have access to any internal product information.

1012 https://www linkedin.com/in/scott-nishi-96359 1 109/

Page 337 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 294 of 334

U.S. Department of Labor
ASHLEY GJOVIK V APPLE INC.!| COMPLAINT

CASE: APPLE INC./GJOVIK/9-3290-22-05 1
However, through the years, West and Powers continued to press on Gjovik that Apple’s secrecy

rules don’t apply to them.

IV. Pretext

In proving pretext, the complainant shows that the employer’s explanation is a 'phony reason.'!°!3
An employee may offer evidence "that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of
credence."!°'4 Without direct evidence of pretext, the plaintiff must prove pretext indirectly by showing
one of the following: (1) Defendant's explanation of Plaintiff's discharge had no basis in fact, or (2) the
explanation was not the 'real' reason, or (3) at least the reason stated was insufficient to warrant the
allegedly discriminatory action.'°!? The evidence may include, for example, suspicious timing, verbal or
written statements, comparative evidence that a similarly situated employee was treated differently,
falsity of the employer's proffered reason for the adverse action, or any other pieces of evidence which,
when viewed together, may permit an inference of retaliatory intent. '°'°

Adverse actions retaliatory can be found when the employer engages in a bad faith or a sham
internal investigation against an employee after the employee blew the whistle about conduct. Pretext
was found when a defendant launched investigation into allegedly improper conduct by plaintiff shortly
after she engaged in protected activity. !°'’ The offered reason for a termination “distracting other
workers” was found to be pretext when it was not mentioned in the termination notice and the employer
had two opportunities to stop the distraction but did not act. !°'8

Actions related to the continued processing of a complaint may remind an employer of its
pendency or stoke an employer's animus. Moreover, an opportunity to engage in a retaliatory act may

not arise right away. In these circumstances, a materially adverse action might occur long after the

'013 USDOL/OALJ Reporter (HTML) at 8, quoting Kahn v. U.S. Secretary of Labor , 64 F.3d 271, 277 (7th Cir. 1995),
citing Pignato v. Am. Trans Air, Inc. , 14 F.3d 342, 349 (7th Cir. 1994).; Gale v. Ocean Imaging , ARB No. 98 143, ALJ No.
1997 ERA 38 (ARB July 31, 2002),

1014 Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008); Cornwell, 439 F.3d at 1028 (quoting Texas Dep't of Cmty.
Affairs, 450 U.S. at 256)

'015 T enoir v. Roll Coater, Inc., 13 F.3d 1130, 1133 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Smith v. General Scanning, Inc., 876 F.2d 1315,
1319 (7th Cir. 1989)). Johnson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 260 F.3d 727, 732 (7th Cir. 2001)

1016 Ortiz, 2016 WL 4411434, at *34. Hossaini v. W. Mo. Med. Ctr., 97 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir. 1996)

1017 Hossaini v. W. Mo. Med. Ctr., 97 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir. 1996)

1018 Priest v Baldwin Associates, 84-ERA-30 (Sec'y June 11, 1986),

Page 338 of 380
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 296 of 334
IMPORTANT DATES:
Aug. 4 2021 - Apple puts Gjovik on indefinite administrative leave.

Aug. 12 2021 - Court decision in favor of employee in Schulze v. Apple (a different employment case with these
same attorneys).

Aug. 12 2021 - Gjovik files an EEOC complaint against Apple.
Aug. 12 2021 - Beezie Wacks (Twitter account) appears.

Aug. 21 2021 - Mel Nayer (Twitter account) appears.

Aug. 26 2021 - Gjovik files a NLRB charge against Apple.
Aug. 29 2021 - Apple claims it started investigating Gjovik.
Sept. 9 2021 - Apple fires Gjovik.

Sept. 15 2021 - Appleseed files a complaint and Apple’s counsel (OMM) email Gjovik to complain about her
social media posts.

Sept. 16 2021 - I’mPinkThereforel’ mSpam (Twitter account) appears.

Dec. 10 2021 - U.S. Dept. of Labor case docketed.

Jan. 7 2022 - Orrick files Notice of Rep. for Apple in the U.S. Dept of Labor case.
Jan. 10 2022 - Gjovik files third NLRB charge against Apple.

Jan. 10 2022 - FirstNameBunchofNumbers (Twitter account) appears.

Jan. 15 2022 - Further Parthing (Twitter account) appears.

Jan. 31 2022 - Appleseed sues Gjovik.

Feb. 5 2022 - Appleseed threatens Gjovik to withdraw testimony & evidence.
March 1 2022 - Gag order issued against Gjovik by the state of Washington.
March 4 2022 - Orrick files its position statement to U.S. Dept of Labor.

March 4 2022 - A law firm, assumably Orrick, picks up a copy of the gag order issued against Gjovik on March 1
2022.

March 2022 - Twitter accounts go inactive.

Nov. 14 2022 - Gag order against Gjovik is reversed following successful appeal.

Nov. 17 2022 - Orrick lawyers report Gjovik’s OSHA complaint to OSHA as “leaking.”

Jan. 23 2023 - NLRB finds in favor of Gjovik on the unlawful work policies & NDAs charges.

Jan. 26 2023 - Appleseed testifies against Gjovik to U.S. Dept of Labor.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 297 of 334

Beezie Wacks (@beezie_wacks)

Lt accountanalysis 60 Tweets Load More beezie_wacks Analyze
60 selected out of 60 retrieved Tweets. e C)
“Wee Beezie Wacks

60 350 2 186 0O
TWEETS FOLLOWING FOLLOWERS LIKES LISTED

Cetaphiliac

mj 2021-08-05, 00:26 (6 months ago)
ES 1423183498290941952
@® Sunnyvale, CA

Daily Rhythm

Sat
Fri
Thu
Wed
Tue
Mon

Sun

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Tweetvolume by Date Day of Week

10 po

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Aug 15 Aug22 Aug29 Sep05 Sep12 Sep19 Sep26 Oct03 Oct10 Oct17 Oct24 Oct31 Nov07 Nov14 Nov21 Nov28 Dec05 Dec 12

Tweet Type Language of Tweets Used Interface

_ Bxnown (3) “Twitter Web App (5)

eet (3)
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 299 of 334

¥ Beezie Wacks
"—™. @beezie wacks

Replying to @ashleygjovik

So basically, anyone who talks to you is gonna get outed on
any public forum you post to? Are you someone who can be
trusted, like ever? If you’re gonna be a lawyer, who has
attorney-client expectations, what client will trust you won’t
use their words against them later?

1:47 PM - Aug 12, 2021 - Twitter for iPhone

1 Quote Tweet

O Ll Y it, A Tip

Tweet your reply

Linda Dong & @lindadong - Aug 12
Replying to @beezie wacks and @ashleygjovik
You only follow 3 female apple employees

Oo td QO 5 a A Tip

More Replies

(Ge Secret Lair Arcade @LairArcade - Aug 12
7 Replying to @beezie wacks and @ashleygjovik
Who are you?

OD 1 tl GQ) 1 ‘t A Tip

y Beezie Wacks @beezie wacks - Aug 13
<~ You remind me of the babe!

O tl ) a A Tip
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 302 of 334

Beezie Wacks @beezie_wacks - Sep 10 eee

Or maybe she simply violated policies and truly believed she could get away with it.
#facts

O Tl Q a A Tip
Beezie Wacks @beezie_wacks - Sep 10 eee
Replying to @business

Apparently, “work” doesn’t mean what she thinks it means. And why did she have
nude photos on her work-issued phone?? #facepalm

QO 1 an) QO 3 it A Tip

x Liked by

Beezie Wacks
@beezie_wacks

Cetaphiliac
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 303 of 334

y Beezie Wacks @beezie wacks - Sep 10
: Did you ever notice that #ashleygjovik would block or disparage anyone who

disagreed with her and accuse them of bullying? #classicnarcissist #narcissist
#abuse #blockedbyashley

O Tl ) ar A Tip

Beezie Wacks @beezie wacks - Sep 10

#ashleygjovik how many times did you retweet your quotes about his
devastated you are to lose you job at the company you loved so much as a
G3-using child? Do you love yourself that much that you set a new bar for
narcissism? #ashleythenarcissist

O tT Q it; A Tip

y Beezie Wacks @beezie wacks - Sep 10

What’s been a travesty is seeing all the people who joined #ashleygijovik in her
narcissistic rage fest. What good has she done for humanity other than
demonstrate that behaving like a child in the Twitterverse gets you fired? Thanks
for the lesson!

0 Tl eg a A Tip

he Beezie Wacks

~ @beezie_wacks

What's been a travesty is seeing all the people who
joined #ashleygjovik in her narcissistic rage fest. What
good has she done for humanity other than demonstrate

that behaving like a child in the Twitterverse gets you
fired? Thanks for the lesson!

7:36 AM - Sep 10, 2021 - Twitter for iPhone

y Beezie Wacks @beezie wacks - Sep 10

What’s been a travesty is seeing all the people who joined #ashleygjovik in her
narcissistic rage fest. What good has she done for humanity other than
demonstrate that behaving like a child in the Twitterverse gets you fired? Thanks
for the lesson!

O im) Ly, a A Tip
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 304 of 334

Promoted Tweet

Beezie Wacks @beezie wacks - Sep 10

#ashleygjovik the world is both pandering to you and also reaming you. This
sounds about right. #narcissist #youdeserveit #coward

OD 2 oy) it, A Tip

Beezie Wacks @beezie wacks - Sep 10

#ashleygjovik was such a tool..used by others to make a point, and by her own
narcissistic ego to be flagellated by her inner child. It’s a very sad way to live.

O Tl e a A Tip

y _ Beezie Wacks @beezie wacks - Sep 11

Hey @ashleygyovik you went to law school and achieved a high GPA with such
diligence at @SantaClaraUniv So how supported were you at work? #ashleygyovik

O tl ©) a A Tip

-" Beezie Wacks

~ @beezie_wacks

@_shantini_ You're brilliant. About A: The company gave
her paid leave, she wasn't satisfied. She wanted an

investigation, she wasn't satisfied. Seemed like she
wanted to control her employer. #narcissist #toxic

4:38 PM - Sep 10, 2021 - Twitter Web App
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 305 of 334

Mel Nayer (@mel_nayer, Twitter)

> mel nayer @mel_nayer - 2h
) Replying to @mel_nayer @ashleygjovik and 2 others
| honestly don’t know how this went sideways after supporting you. | only

suggested taking the screenshots because people involved are getting death
threats and | thought that could undermine your case. Goodbye!

DO 4 4 Op) QO 2 it,

mel nayer
@mel_nayer

Replying to @ashleygjovik

| deleted the tweet. You should delete your screenshots
because | think I’ve proven the point that it was
reckless of YOU to share it because of how easy
identities could be compromised.

6:05 PM - Aug 21, 2021 - Twitter for iPhone

& Tweet your reply

Ashley M. Gjovik @ashleygijovik - 19s
& Replying to @mel_nayer

(>

Thank you for deleting the Tweet. No | will not be deleting the screenshots of
your Tweets. Also, if it does come out that you're working for Apple in some
way, you have not only threatened me, intimidated me, but you are also
pressuring me to destroy evidence. F all of that.

Oo tT 1 Q far i
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 306 of 334

‘mel nayer

Replying to @ashleygijovik

And I’m not telling you to destroy evidence. By all
means share them with ER, just not publicly where
people in your org could be put at risk.

6:20 PM - Aug 21, 2021 - Twitter for iPhone

mel nayer
@mel_nayer

Replying to @cherthedev and @ashleygjovik

| do not work for Apple or ER or such. Threats are
anecdotal. Posting screenshots of an active HR
investigation puts everyone involved at risk because a
search can be done on who these individuals are on
LinkedIn by the timeline and title shared.

11:54 PM - Aug 21, 2021 - Twitter for iPhone
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 307 of 334

>» mel nayer
@mel_nayer

Replying to @ashleygjovik

You are paranoid af, which | can understand, workplace
abuse causes serious trauma. | don’t work for Apple,
look me up. How exactly does a concern for the
identities of a confidential HR investigation
threaten/intimidate you? That was NOT my intention at
all.

12:24 AM - Aug 22, 2021 - Twitter for iPhone

& Tweet your reply

\ Ashley M. Gjovik @ashleygjovik - 23m
Replying to @mel_nayer
I'd be certain your tweets are indeed Apple backed trolling if you also
suggested "I consider EAP or medical leave" due to "my mental health
issues." That's Apple ER in a nutshell. %7
Also "look me up," 1st thing | did & the only Mel Nayer showing up is a well
known journalist.

. Ashley M. Gjovik @ashleygjovik - 22m
& Also, you say you're not an Apple employee but you sent me this telling me to
"check Slack," you mentioned the Directory app, and also the HR/ER specific
org chart tool...

\ mel nayer @mel_nayer - Aug 19

Hey, this is a fight worth fighting. Over the years I've met several female
Apple employees mention the same abuse and they stop short of reporting it
due to retaliation. Now they are speaking out because of you. Check slack!

O tl 3 @ i9 P,
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 308 of 334

mel nayer @mel_nayer - Aug 19
} Replying to @timnitGebru and @ashleygjovik

| am following/supporting her. | can’t help to think though, that if
#AshleyGjovik were Black Apple would have fired her weeks ago. White
women, even when they are victims of workplace abuse, are treated with a
level of privilege.

0 1 tl Qg Aur

O wt gO 4 it, A Tip

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

“% Ashley M. Gjovik @ashleygjovik - Aug 21, 2021
| think we both want #Apple to be successful, Beezie. Let's work together
instead of against each other. &

| Know it will be painful to reckon with the way things have been, but the
way things can be are worth the work. I'm willing to help Apple get there. |
hope you are to!

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

‘Ashley M. Gjovik
@ashleygjovik

Replying to @mel_nayer @tnare and @DavidPluskal

lf during the lawsuits we track down your account & see
you work/consult for Apple, then your note just now:
"people at Apple have been fired for sharing less" won't
age well. Then you're not "just trying to help," you are
actually threatening & intimidating a whistleblower

4:00 PM - Aug 21, 2021 - Twitter Web App

2 Retweets 18 Likes
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 309 of 334

Vallery Lancey @viiry - Aug 16 eee
| just looked this up. It still exists.

4 Ashley M. Gjovik @ashleygjovik - Aug 12

#Apple makes great products, & some workers have a great experience,
but some don't. Everyone who knows me at work knows I've dealt with
more abuse than anyone should have. (See: "Make Ashley's Life a Living
Hell"... & they really did). No one seems surprised | finally broke.

@ © @ 22892159: Make Ashley's Life a Living Hell ® v

Make Ashley's Life a Living Hell

Created > i -- September 28, 2015 at 10:22 PM

* SUMMARY

Discussion» Related Problems Related Tests
| fl think this one's on you.

Added to the problem's description

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
QO 14 tl 70 Y 293 it,
mel nayer @mel_nayer - 3h ove
InNOway condoning the workplace abuse @ashleygijovik is claiming. But this
is an ACTIVE @Apple investigation and the managers accused are now
receiving death threats. Stop sharing confidential info/screenshots that could
reveal identity of those involved. #ashleygjovik #apple

OD 1 ian) CO 1 ity

mel nayer @mel_nayer - 3h eos
After a search in org chart/directory , the identity of these managers is now

known and their lives are at risk.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 310 of 334

First Name (@FirstNa47437596)

FirstnameBunchofnumbers

m King District Court - Kedc

»ame: Gjovik, Ashley Marie - Respondent

FirstnameBunchofnumbers
@FirstNa47437596

@ me if you are being personally victimized by Ashley Gjovik and I'll post
screenshots of it here.

Joined June 2021

QO Following O Followers

Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes

4% Pinned Tweet
FirstnameBunchofnumbers @FirstNa47437596 - 14h
Since |'m not affiliated with any parties in any cases, I'm just gonna go
ahead and park her abusive tweets here, just in case anyone wants to
take action on their own behalf and others she is suing are forced to
delete proof of her bad behavior.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 312 of 334

Ll accountanalysis 120 Tweets Load More FirstNa47437596 Analyze

120 selected out of 120 retrieved Tweets. (2) ©
FirstnameBunchofnumber Daily Rhythm
@FirstNa47437596

123 O 0 1 0 sat i

TWEETS FOLLOWING FOLLOWERS LIKE LISTED Fri

Fuck Apple. Ashley's a bitch. Thu

@ 2021-06-24, 17:25 (8 months ago) Wed

ES 1408219697108058113

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Tweetvolume by Date Day of Week
20
30
15
20
10
July August September October November December 2022 February Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
Language of Tweets Used Interface
| Unknown (1) Biter Web App (5)
Quote)
Used Hashtags Hostnames of URLs
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 174

x

Retweeted by

FirstnameBunchofnumbers
@FirstNa47437596

| hate bullying.

FirstnameBunchofnumbers
@FirstNa47437596

| don't care about any company. I'm here for the personal

attacks.

9:32 AM - Feb 20, 2022 - Twitter for Android

0

Filed 02/24/25

Page 314 of 334
O

Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _~ Filed 02/24/25

FirstnameBunchofnumbers @FirstNa47437596 » Feb 13 “
A fun pack of unsubstantiated charges against all kinds of people.

Apple manager Ricky Mondello &
employees Cher Scarlett &
Shantini Vyas called me a liar,
predator, racist, inconsequential,
not a real whistleblower/activist;
& described my protected
activities as a vendetta, warpath,
perjury, fabricated nonsense,
misleading rhetoric, & misinfo.

O O

& Tip

Attn someone at @SantaClaraUniv: could you review the cyberbullying of
Cher Scarlett coming from the account of your law student @ashleyejovik?
Do you condone this behavior? Is this in line with the the terms of your
code of conduct?

Show this thread

She's also using @pugnaciouspoet - same MO - Cher-thamed account with
the same writing style

C1 th 1 it, & Tip

@santaclaralaw this is a bad case of cyberbullying by one of your students
that reflects poorly on your student body. Do you condone this?

4 Tip

Page 315 of 334
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 316 of 334

~Y Ashley M. Gjovik @ashleygjovik - 12h soe
Disturbing realization tonight. A couple months ago | was approached by

2 women w/ what appeared to be established accounts

They were armed with oppo research & way too much joint interest in me
They tried to bait me, but | didn't bite. They're blocked now

Plz be careful

QO 2 tQ QO 12 a

+", Mohammed S Hussain @m_s_hussain - 5h
| There are some real nasty folks out there...stay safe and take caution.

O 1 QO 1 it;

FirstnameBunchofnumbers
@FirstNa47437596

Replying to @m_s_hussain and @ashleygjovik

You really shouldn't encourage this. This woman is
mentally ill and going after anyone and everyone
personally. There's apparently a pending civil case
against her for it. Be careful who you associate with.

1:55 PM - Feb 13, 2022 - Twitter for Android
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 319 of 334

O FirstnameBunchofnumbers @FirstNa47437596 - Mar 2

> =D

Ashley M. Gjovik @

Apple & Northrop Grumman Safety Whistleblower
| Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc (SOX, CERCLA, OSHA,
CA DoL, & NLRB) | & Nolite te Bastardes
Carborundorum

© Gagged Gadfly n the Plutocracy
& linktr.ee/ashleygiovik EF Joined March 2021

1,692 Following 16.9K Followers

These Tweets are
protected.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 323 of 334

I'mPinkThereforel'mSpam @i_mspam - 14m

Replying to @B_Schmidt and @ashleygjovik

She's a senior manager at Apple and going on a tirade against them over
the ground beneath the building. What did she expect to have happen to
her?

01 td Q it A Tip

Bree Schmidt @B_Schmidt - 3m
Probably for Apple to not violate laws, but what do | know.

QO 1 am) y 1 it; A Tip

Ashley M. Gjavik @ashleygjovik - 1m
Hey Siri, how do you gather "direct evidence" to prove retaliation for
protected activities?

QO 1 td 01 it il A Tip

Bree Schmidt
@B_Schmidt

Replying to @ashleygjovik and @i_mspam

Love that one of their soam accounts admits Apple will
just fire you rather than address the problem. It’s cheaper
that way.

12:56 PM - Jan 30, 2022 - TweetDeck

QO 1 1 QO 3 it, lI A Tip

, Bree Schmidt @B_Schmidt - 45m
- Love that one of their spam accounts admits Apple will just fire you rather
than address the problem. It's cheaper that way.

QO 2 tl 1 yY 4 it, A Tip

I'mPinkThereforel'mSpam @i_mspam - 3m
Replying to @B_Schmidt and @ashleygjovik

Go smash some avocado on toast.

OD 1 1 oy) it; A Tip
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 324 of 334

I'mPinkThereforel'mSpam
@i_mspam

Replying to @B_Schmidt and @ashleygjovik

“The nail that sticks out, gets hammered.”

2:11 PM - Jan 29, 2022 - Twitter Web App

OD tl YQ a A Tip

Tweet your reply

Ashley M. Gjovik @ashleygjovik - 5s
Replying to @i_mspam and @B_Schmidt

Thanks, Jenna. I'll add that quote to the implicit & explicit threats of
violence section of the memo.

O YQ Q it il A Tip

Ashley M. Gjavik @ashleygjovik - Sep 16, 2021

The stories I've heard from retail are HORRIFIC. There needs to be a
reckoning... and it needs to start with #Apple retail and AppleCare. It
sounds like the things of nightmares over there. @

OD 2 td QO 2 it, A Tip

I'mPinkThereforel'’mSpam @i_mspam - Sep 16, 2021
You'll never work as an attorney

O 1 td QO 1 it, A Tip
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 325 of 334
CrissNovak (Reddit)

SS crissnovak + 4y ago « Edited 4y ago
Shantini is my hero, best take on “A” with over 200+ @s. ALOT seem to agree: entitled, obnoxious, toxic,
vindictive employee. To me, zero credibility. | would not even want to be on the same sidewalk with that. Why
Zoé continues to give "A" the time of day, | don't know, and I've lost all respect for her as a journalist. It's not
newsworthy, it’s a dumpster fire.

https://twitter.com/shantini/status/1433270352919072771?s=20
a1 © Reply Q Award @ Share

Ashley Gjovik fired by Apple.
| Discussion J

SO Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/apple.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 326 of 334

© r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjavik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak commented 4 yr. ago

Tweeting doesn’t make your story true. | need to hear both sides and | need to see facts before | make a
judgement. No doubt, her character was on display with those angry profanity ridden Tweets. Not someone
| would ever want to work with.

© r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gj@vik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak commented 4 yr. ago

Santa Clara University Law must be cringing. Prospective law students must be crossing that one off their
list. Lol

<—> 68 <> © Reply @ Share

© r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gj@vik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak commented 4 yr. ago

Good riddance. They should have fired her weeks ago.
G7 © Reply (> Share
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 327 of 334

© r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjavik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak commented 4 yr. ago

| think when the NLRB, EEOC slams the door on Karen's face because there's no case, we'll see more Twitter
tirades about how corrupt these agencies are. Dear Apple please don't pay her a fcking dime; awarding toxic
behavior will only perpetuate it. She needs to learn a hard lesson in life and gain some maturity.

—Q> 24 © Reply G Share

© r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjavik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak replied to newtothered 4 yr. ago

Exactly, she’s “badass” with a part-time Santa Clara JD, she’s going to get steamrolled lololol

Q 24 © Reply G Share

© r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjavik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak replied to GoneCollarGone 4 yr. ago

She was NOT a senior executive at Apple. Not even an engineer. She was a Sr. Program Manager. | think she
exaggerates her achievements/bio, which tanks her credibility right out the gate.

<—> 29 4 © Reply @ Share

© r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjavik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak replied to pood 4 yr. ago
And then when that didn't pan out for her, seems like she tried to do the same sht with Apple. The only

thing toxic in all of this is HER. | wouldn't hire this person. | wouldn't rent to this person. | sure as hell
wouldn't date this person. She needs serious help.

<> 26 4 © Reply @ Share
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174_ Filed 02/24/25 Page 328 of 334

r/apple « [deleted by user]

crissnovak commented 4 yr. ago

| honestly don't know a respectable lawyer that would go down this path with her, especially with all her
Tweets out there. If she really did leak IP, | think she’s basically screwed. Apple (w/it’s army of lawyers) can
sue her and it would be an easy win because it’s a simple breach of contract case. Her counter suit for
retaliation/harassment will be very challenging especially if her coworkers don't have her back. They may be
enjoying all that Apple $$$. Lawsuit would be chump change for Apple, but will certainly bankrupt her. I've
never seen anyone so intent on ruining their own reputation/livelihood and for what “likes”? From her
Tweets, | think she has this grandiose delusion that she’s some “badass”, but | think she comes off as a
Karen. Shame on the “journalists” (ahem Verge) that are exploiting her and just adding to her ruin. | think
what she needs is mental help; what she doesn’t need is people motivating her to dig an even deeper hole
she’s in. Sad

r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gja@vik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak replied to bartturner 4 yr. ago

A whistleblower of what illegal activities at Apple? Simply calling yourself a “whistleblower” doesn't absolve
you from your employment contract with Apple. She allegedly shared intellectual property, that’s an
immediate fire able offense. Good on Apple on this one. I'm actually impressed by the way they handled
her. Didn't stoop down to her level. They just left her alone to angry Tweet for months so she can expose
herself. Brilliant move by a brilliant company.

—Q 1c © Reply G Share

r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjavik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak commented 4 yr. ago

| so hope Apple, Northrop Grumman, Irvine Company sue her and teach her a lesson. | think She thinks she
going to get rich, but she’s going straight to the poor house. $300K + RSUs + healthcare + tuition
reimbursement all up in smoke for this nonsense. Go Ashley go!

—Q3d CO Reply G Share
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 329 of 334

© r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjavik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak replied to cherpxo 3 yr. ago

Lmao “familiar”?! Girl, you better know it solid or get Gjaviked! If you bring little value to Apple (can't code
your way out of a paper cup) they'll fire you for the slightest transgression. Apple is ruthless like that.

Qi) © Reply G Share

© r/apple « Apple fires senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjavik for allegedly leaking information

crissnovak replied to cherpxo 4 yr. ago

You seem to be Tweeting/Redditing a lot on company time, even that's enough to get you fired. Hopefully
you're not doing it on company devices.

0 SS © Reply G@ Share

© r/apple « [deleted by user]

crissnovak commented 4 yr. ago

Naeh, chubby side +baby teeth lol

© r/apple « Apple's fortress of secrecy is crumbling from the inside - The Verge
3 yr. ago

[removed]

© r/apple « Tim Cook says employees who leak memos do not belong at Apple, according to leaked memo

crissnovak commented 3 yr. ago

| feel like it's only a matter of time now before all of Zoé’s sources will get fired. Apple doesn’t mess around
and | think this is a message that they about to clean house. Hope it was worth it (FYI, I'm still preordering
the new iPhone)...Look at Gjavik, went from $300K+ plus RSUs (poof!) to a GoFund me. Keep blabbing to
Zoe, girls, it's clicks and money in her pocket while y‘all go bankrupt going up against Apple.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 330 of 334

Further Parthing (@one_more_time_2, Twitter)

“| accountanalysis 25 Tweets Load More one_more_time_2 Analyze
25 selected out of 25 retrieved Tweets. @ |
Further Parthing
@one_more_time_2
25 29 2 19 0

TWEETS FOLLOWING FOLLOWERS LIKES LISTED

When the paparazzi are your friends, it makes your enemies even sweeter.

lj 2022-01-15, 07:31 (25 days ago)
ES 1482374774881861632

Daily Rhythm

Sat
Fri
Thu
Wed
Tue
Mon

Sun

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Tweetvolume by Date Day of Week
15 15
Sat 15 Mon 17 Wed 19 Fri 21 Jan 23 Tue 25 Thu 27 Sat 29 Mon 31February Thu 03 Sat 05 Sun Mon Tue Wed
Tweet Type Language of Tweets Used Interface

Bei reply (1) Beitian Creole (1)
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 333 of 334

f

Further Parthing Follow )
11 Tweets
Ashley M. Gjovik @ashleygjovik - Feb 3

B. #Apple orchestrated an extensive propaganda & harassment
Campaign against me starting with damaging false accusations, &
numerous threats of retaliation, termination, litigation, blacklisting, &
violence. This is now part of my NLRB, US & CA DOL cases.

=—— Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc - Propaganda Campaig...
= Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc - Propaganda, Threats, &

Retaliation Campaign Evidence Report for US ...

OD 3 tT 9 OC 113 a | A Tip

qv Further Parthing @one_more_time_2 - 1m

| don’t think there's nice things in there, nor do your opinions of others
sound nice either. It seems hypocritical to make a 200+ NLRB complaint
but not share written inventory of those YOU have offended with your

words and actions.

O tT oy) it, A Tip

Further Parthing @one_more_time_2 - 5m

Now people will associate whistleblowing with this 200+ page NLRB
compiaint that is too saturated with bias. Your bias. It's unconscionable
how you shared so many names.

Further Parthing @one_more_time_2 - 6m

Replying to @ashleygjovik and @Apple

| hope you use your powers for good and not this pedantry of attacking
every minute bit of dissension. What a joke. You have only harmed
whistleblowing with your distracting tirades.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document174 _ Filed 02/24/25 Page 334 of 334

Further Parthing Follow )
20 Tweets

“Wy Ashley M. Gjavik @ashleygjovik - 7m
: Replying to @one_more_time_2 and @Apple
You're posting too quickly. Please slow down so | can WayBack Archive all
this bullshit you're spewing.

O 2 tT Q fu lI A Tip

Further Parthing @one_more_time_2 - 2m

Opinions are just opinions and ppl don't agree just like you call what |
wrote bullshit. | won't argue, you can think what you like! Sticks and
stones..but words won't hurt. Didn’t you learn that?

0 YQ Q ar A Tip

Further Parthing @one_more_time_2 - 3m

Replying to @ashleygjovik and @Apple

| am following your complaint becuz it is interesting. But the content is
just so overwhelming, it reads more like a high school letter about how

you didn’t like what others wrote about you. It is a waste of government
resources just to read it

O ty ) a A Tip

Further Parthing @one_more_time_2 - 11m
Replying to @ashleygjovik and @Apple
No, none of those are. But one can see how you think that is. There are

lots of people out there not in tech who read about you and then come
here and lurk and are appalled by your tweets.

QO 2 an) Q it, A Tip


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.417952.174.0.pdf

Size

18,352,604 bytes

SHA-256

f943b7f7950025e298eae5dbfedcb074bc7bc634579e36925e149c5e09bb482d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.417952.174.0.pdf

Original

www.courtlistener.com