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 PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF AND DISCOVERY
SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 302
The discovery process in this case can only be described as acrimonious. On March 6,
2026, Plaintiff Ashley Gjovik filed a motion for declaratory relief and for discovery sanctions in
connection with Defendant Apple, Inc.’s confidentiality designations made pursuant to the
stipulated protective order. (Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 302.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Apple
sent its “unsigned, undated, unserved chart” in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(g)(1). Id. at 4-5. In filing this motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court strike the confidentiality
designations, find that Apple has waived all confidentiality designations in connection with
Plaintiff’s deposition transcript, and impose discovery sanctions. Id. at 5, 20-21. Rule 26 requires
that
[e]very disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery
request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney
of record in the attorney's own name—or by the party personally, if
unrepresented—and must state the signer's address, e-mail address,
and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that
to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief formed
after a reasonable inquiry[.]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). The failure to sign absolves other parties from acting on “an unsigned
disclosure, request, response, or objection until it is signed, and the court must strike it unless a
signature is promptly supplied after the omission is called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.”
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 334 Filed 04/02/26 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
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(2). Plaintiff brought the unsigned designations to Apple’s attention, and
Apple refused sign them. (Pl.’s Mot. at 11.) In opposition, Apple argues that confidentiality
designations are outside the scope of Rule 26(g)(2), because they are not discovery requests,
responses, or objections. (Def.’s Opp’n at 4.) The Court agrees.
Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff argues that Apple “certified” the confidentiality
designations in filing its motion to enforce the protective order (Dkt. No. 293), the Court
disagrees. Plaintiff’s circular logic that the designations are invalid and, therefore, the filed
motions (which were signed) “certify” them, rendering sanctions mandatory under Rule 26(g)(3)
is unavailing. Apple filed a motion in response to Plaintiff purportedly disseminating material
designated confidential, which it was permitted to do. Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff
argues that the confidentiality designations are improper or invalid, that issue will be addressed in
connection with Apple’s pending motion to retain confidentiality designations (Dkt. No. 304).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2026
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 334 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 2