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,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC (KAW)
ORDER DENYING APPLE’S MOTION
TO ENFORCE PROTECTIVE ORDER;
ORDER TERMINATING MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME AS MOOT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 294, 295
On February 20, 2026, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference to address
Apple’s allegations that Plaintiff was violating the stipulated protective order by publishing
deposition testimony that Apple had designated confidential. (2/20/26 Minute Entry, Dkt. No.
288.) During the conference, the Court informed the parties that they needed to comply with the
protective order, and that they were required to meet and confer before filing a formal motion.
(2/20/26 Tr., Dkt. No. 301-1 at 64:5-15.) The Court cautioned that the failure to adequately meet
and confer may result in the Court not considering the motion. Id. To further aid the parties, the
Court specified that “[t]he meet-and-confer should consist of the substantive discussion about all
of the designations and whether or not they are confidential or not.” (2/20/26 Tr. at 64:22-24.)
Despite the admonition regarding the meet and confer requirement, Apple filed the instant
motion to enforce the protective order without engaging in a meaningful effort to meet and confer.
Instead, defense counsel last attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff via email on February 18,
2026—two days before the telephonic discovery conference. (See Decl. of Melinda S. Riechert,
Dkt. No. 294-1 ¶ 5.) That does not satisfy Apple’s obligation to meet and confer prior to filing
this motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to enforce the protective order on that
basis.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 326 Filed 03/30/26 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
Notwithstanding, Plaintiff is advised that she is bound by the stipulated protective order,
including Section 6, which sets forth the method of challenging confidentiality designations.
(Stipulated Protective Order, Dkt. No. 235 at 5.) Thus, if Plaintiff has published information
designated “Confidential” by Apple, that information is considered Confidential until found
otherwise, and must be de-published until the Court resolves the pending motion to retain
confidentiality (Dkt. No. 304). To the extent that Confidential information has been posted on the
public docket in this case, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a stipulation to seal
those docket entries, and they shall file a stipulation within 7 days of this order. If the parties are
unable to agree, Apple may file an administrative motion to seal, and the Court will be inclined to
grant it.
Finally, The Court TERMINATES the motion to shorten time (Dkt. No. 295) as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2026
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 326 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 2