Gjovik v. Apple Inc.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern
 District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ASHLEY M. GJOVIK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-04597-EMC
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS
Docket No. 301
Judge Westmore has been assigned discovery matters in this lawsuit. She held a discovery
conference with the parties on February 20, 2026. See Docket No. 288 (minutes). In the
conference, Judge Westmore simply said that (1) the parties were to meet and confer; (2) if Apple
believed Ms. Gjovik had violated the terms of the protective order, it would have to file a motion;
and (3) if Ms. Gjovik had violated the terms of the protective order, she might face a motion for
sanctions in the future.1 See, e.g., Tr. at 28, 71 (available at Docket No. 301-1). In spite of the
noncontroversial statements made by Judge Westmore, Ms. Gjovik has now filed “objections”
which the Court construes as a motion for relief from a nondispositve order of a magistrate judge.
See Civ. L.R. 72-2.
A magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive pretrial matter
may be modified or set aside only if "clearly erroneous or contrary
to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A
magistrate judge's factual determinations are reviewed for clear
error, a standard that allows the district court to overturn those
1 Ms. Gjovik admits that, although at one point in the proceedings, Judge Westmore directed Ms.
Gjovik to take down certain information, Judge Westmore subsequently clarified the process that
the parties should follow. See Mot. ¶ 23.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 303 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
factual determinations only when the court reaches a "definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Perry v.
Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). In
addition, a magistrate judge's legal conclusions are reviewed de
novo to determine whether they are contrary to law. Id.
FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220-LHK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85942, at *10 (N.D. Cal.
May 22, 2018). Here, Ms. Gjovik has failed to show either clear error or a ruling contrary to law.
For example, Ms. Gjovik complains about prior restraints on speech, but she does not
claim that the protective order on its face is unconstitutional. See Mot. ¶ 15. To the extent Ms.
Gjovik argues that the protective order as applied is unconstitutional, the Court does not agree.
Apple has a Rule 11 obligation to make confidentiality designations in good faith. Ms. Gjovik has
a means to object to allegedly improper confidentiality designations. The fact that disputed
confidentiality designations temporarily remain in place while Judge Westmore adjudicates the
issue of confidentiality does not deprive Ms. Gjovik of any due process or otherwise violate her
rights. The sealing does not prevent her from litigating her case.
At various points in her papers, Ms. Gjovik also seeks clarification of certain issues. If
Ms. Gjovik seeks clarification of what Judge Westmore ordered or stated, she should direct that
request to Judge Westmore.
Finally, if Ms. Gjovik takes issue with the sealing of Docket Nos. 282 and 283 (“notices”
filed by Ms. Gjovik), that should also be raised with Judge Westmore.
This order disposes of Docket No. 301.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 303 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2