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. 23-cv-04597-EMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DEADLINE
Docket No. 341
Currently pending before the Court is Apple’s motion to extend discovery deadlines.
Specifically, Apple asks that the Court extend fact and expert discovery deadlines by roughly 90
days for the limited purpose of allowing Apple “to complete third-party medical records
discovery, conduct an independent medical examination, and finalize expert reports relating to
Plaintiff’s medical condition.” Prop. Order at 1 (adding that the extension would not authorize
Ms. Gjovik “to propound an additional discovery on Defendant or any other third parties”).
Having considered the parties’ filings and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby
GRANTS in part Apple’s motion.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause standard
“‘primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking amendment.’” Lyles v. Dollar Rent a Car,
Inc., 849 Fed. Appx. 659, 660 (9th Cir. 2021). A court may also consider prejudice to the party
opposing modification but, if the moving party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. See id. at
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 345 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 4

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
661.
B. Good Cause
There is good cause for the extension sought by Apple – i.e., Apple has been reasonably
diligent in proceeding with discovery related to Ms. Gjovik’s medical condition. To be sure, Ms.
Gjovik seems to have identified the bulk of the medical providers in her initial disclosures served
in July and September 2024. See Perry Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; see also Perry Decl. ¶ 5 (noting that Ms.
Gjovik amended her initial disclosures in late February 2026). However, the Court did not set
discovery deadlines until January 2026, see Docket No. 274 (order), and, in the following month,
Apple filed a discovery motion seeking medical discovery – well in advance of the April 16, 2026,
fact discovery deadline and the May 28, 2026, expert discovery deadline. See Docket No. 276
(discovery letter). In late February 2026, Judge Westmore held that Ms. Gjovik’s medical records
were discoverable, see Docket No. 291 (Order at 2) (finding that Ms. Gjovik had put her medical
and mental conditions in controversy and therefore her medical records were discoverable), but
she directed the parties to meet and confer to see if they could reach agreement on an authorization
from Ms. Gjovik to release the medical records sought. If no agreement could be reached, she
directed Apple to issue subpoenas and, then, if the information could not be obtained through
subpoenas, Apple could seek ask her to issue an order compelling the medical providers to release
records based on a Court order. See Docket No. 291 (Order at 2).
Thereafter, Apple and Ms. Gjovik met and conferred for some two weeks but were unable
to reach agreement and thus Apple began to issue subpoenas starting in mid-March 2026. See
Perry Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. E (email exchange). It appears that one subpoena did not issue until April
6, 2026, but that seems to have been related to an issue regarding a proper address. See Docket
No. 343-1 (Gjovik Decl., Ex. A) (ECF Page 6). Apple has now received responses from some
medical providers stating that they will not produce medical records absent a signed authorization
from Ms. Gjovik or a Court order. See Perry Decl. ¶ 13 & Exs. G-I (responses to subpoenas).
Apple intends to ask Judge Westmore to issue an order to give to the medical providers, but, under
the discovery process recently established by Judge Westmore, Apple cannot seek relief until its
discovery brief is filed on April 30, 2026, which is past the discovery deadline of April 16.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 345 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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
Taking into account all of the above, the Court concludes that Apple has been reasonably
diligent such that its request for an extension is justified.
C. Prejudice
Having found good cause, the Court now considers whether an extension would prejudice
Ms. Gjovik or whether there are other considerations that would weigh against an extension.
Ms. Gjovik contends that Apple’s motion was improperly filed with this Court and not
Judge Westmore. See Opp’n at 1-2. She is incorrect. This Court issues case management
deadlines, not Judge Westmore. Apple still needs (and intends) to ask Judge Westmore to issue an
order so that it can obtain medical records from the health care providers.
Ms. Gjovik also suggests that Apple should have asked her for her medical records but
failed to issue any formal document request seeking such records from her. See Opp’n at 3; see
also Perry Decl. ¶ 9 (testifying that Ms. Gjovik had produced limited medical records). But Judge
Westmore has already held that Apple may issue subpoenas to the providers if the parties were
unable to reach agreement on an authorization from Ms. Gjovik.
Ms. Gjovik suggests that it is unfair for Apple to get an extension (to obtain her medical
records, to take an IME, and to finalize expert reports related to her medical condition) whereas
she cannot take any additional discovery. However, Ms. Gjovik has not identified why she needs
an extension and for what purpose.
Ms. Gjovik protests that Apple never disclosed an IME provider in its initial disclosures.
See Opp’n at 2. That is an issue that can, if needed, be raised with Judge Westmore.
The only issue remaining is whether a 90-day extension – as sought by Apple – is
appropriate. The Court finds that an extension of this length is difficult to accommodate given the
existing trial schedule. For example, under Apple’s proposal, expert discovery would close on
August 31, 2026; however, the final pretrial conference is set for September 22, 2026, which
means that pretrial filings are due by September 1, 2026, at the latest.
Given the existing trial schedule, the Court shall permit a (roughly) 60-day extension of
deadlines for the discovery identified by Apple. The new deadlines are set forth below. All other
deadlines (e.g., for summary judgment, the final pretrial conference, and trial) remain the same.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 345 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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
Prior Deadline New Deadline
Fact Discovery and IME
Cut-off
4/16/2026 6/30/2026
Opening Expert Reports 4/16/2026 6/30/2026
Rebuttal Expert Reports 5/7/2026 7/14/2026
Expert Discovery Cut-off 5/28/2026 7/31/2026
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part Apple’s motion. Discovery deadlines
are extended only with respect to (1) Ms. Gjovik’s medical records (from the health care
providers); (2) the IME; and (3) expert reports related to Ms. Gjovik’s medical condition. An
extension of roughly 60 days, not 90, is provided for.
This order disposes of Docket No. 341.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 8, 2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 345 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 4