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
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION RE
DISCOVERY DEADLINE
Docket No. 346
Previously, the Court granted in part Apple’s motion for an extension of discovery
deadlines. See Docket No. 345 (Order at 4) (extending discovery deadlines “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”). Now pending before the Court is a motion
filed by Ms. Gjovik in which she also seeks an extension of the fact discovery cut-off (which,
generally speaking, is April 16, 2026). Having considered the parties’ papers and accompanying
submissions, the Court hereby GRANTS in part Ms. Gjovik’s motion for relief.1
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
1 Ms. Gjovik also has a separate motion in which she seeks an extension for other discovery
matters. See Docket No. 347 (motion). The Court shall address that motion in a separate order.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 352 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 5

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
opposing modification but, if the moving party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. See id. at
661.
B. Deposition of Ms. Gjovik
Judge Westmore authorized a continued deposition of Ms. Gjovik, see Docket No. 327
(order), and this Court upheld her decision. See Docket No. 344 (order). The continued
deposition began on April 8, 2026, but Apple suspended the deposition after Ms. Gjovik testified
that she was sick and not well enough to proceed. The parties dispute whether, e.g., Ms. Gjovik
was sick on that day and/or whether Apple should have started the deposition given that Ms.
Gjovik gave it advance notice via email that she was sick. For purposes of the pending motion,
these disputes are not material. The only issue here is whether Ms. Gjovik’s continued deposition
may take place after the fact discovery cut-off of April 16, 2026.
Because the parties are in agreement that the continued deposition should take place after
the fact discovery cut-off, and neither party suggests a lengthy extension is needed, the Court shall
allow the continued deposition to take place after April 16. The deposition shall take place no
later than April 30, 2026. To be clear, a dispute about what parts, if any, of the deposition should
be designated as confidential is not a reason for the deposition not to go forward. Issues related to
confidentiality can be worked out with Judge Westmore, as necessary, after the deposition takes
place.
C. Deposition of Yannick Bertolus
Ms. Gjovik seeks to take the deposition of Mr. Bertolus who, apparently, was the Apple
employee who authored a communication related to her termination. Apple represents that Mr.
Bertolus is no longer an Apple employee, and there is no evidence to the contrary. It seems Mr.
Bertolus is not available for a deposition until April 17, 2026. The parties disagree whether Mr.
Bertolus could have been made available at an earlier date, but, similar to above, any such
disagreement is not material to the pending motion. The parties agree that Mr. Bertolus’s
deposition should take place on April 17, 2026, and, given that this is just one-day past the fact
discovery deadline, the Court shall permit the deposition.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 352 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 5

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
D. 30(b)(6) Deposition of Apple
Ms. Gjovik seeks to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of Apple past the fact discovery cut-off of
April 16, 2026. Contrary to what Ms. Gjovik suggests, this is an issue for this Court to resolve,
and not Judge Westmore.
Apple argues that a discovery extension should not be given because Ms. Gjovik has failed
to show good cause why she could not have taken the deposition before the discovery deadline.
The Court is not without some sympathy for Apple’s position. Although Ms. Gjovik maintains
that Apple is to blame for the deposition not moving forward, that position is not supported. For
example, Ms. Gjovik suggests in her declaration that she issued a deposition notice in August
2025, see Gjovik Decl. ¶ 20, but, notably, she did not attach to her declaration a copy of any
deposition notice. Apple has also provided an email from August 2025 where Ms. Gjovik states
her intent to take a 30(b)(6) deposition, see Perry Decl., Ex. L (email), but Ms. Gjovik never
provided a formal deposition notice at that time – including specific topics for the 30(b)(6)
deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (providing that a 30(b)(6) notice “must describe with
reasonable particularity the matters for examination”). The evidence of record indicates that Ms.
Gjovik did not identify any specific topics for Apple until April 1, 2026. See Perry Decl., Ex. M
(email).
That being said, Ms. Gjovik did effectively give notice of the 30(b)(6) deposition to Apple
on April 1, 2026 – or April 3, 2026, when she sent a subpoena to Apple by email, see Perry Decl.,
Ex. N (email) – and the 30(b)(6) deposition was noticed within the discovery deadline. (The
deposition was noticed for April 14, 2026.) The question thus becomes whether it was appropriate
for Ms. Gjovik to give Apple only 11 (or 13) days’ notice of the 30(b)(6) deposition – i.e., was this
“reasonable notice” as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(1) (“A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written
notice to every other party. The notice must state the time and date of the deposition . . . .”).
Apple contends it did not get reasonable notice.
The Federal Rules do not specify how many days of advance notice are needed to be
considered reasonable. See 7 Moore’s Fed. Prac. – Civ. § 30.20 (“The Federal Rules of Civil
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 352 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 5

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
Procedure do not require any particular number of days’ advance notice of a deposition.”). Nor do
this Court’s Local Rules. See id. (noting that “some courts have established a required number of
days’ advance notice). Some legal commenters have indicated that the prevailing practice is to
give the opposing side 14 days’ advance notice of a deposition. See Engage Healthcare
Communs., LLC v. Intellisphere, LLC, No. 12-cv-00787(FLW)(LHG), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
214569, at *7 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2017); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(5)(A) (providing that “[a] deposition
must not be used against a party who, having received less than 14 days’ notice of the deposition,
promptly moved for a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1)(B) requesting that it not be taken or be
taken at a different time or place – and this motion was still pending when the deposition was
taken.”). But courts have been willing to allow fewer than 14 days. See, e.g., D. Del. L.R. 30.1
(“Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, ‘reasonable notice’ for the taking of depositions under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6) shall be not less than 10 days.”); In re SanDisk SSDS Litig.,
No. 23-cv-04152-RFL (LJC), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84523, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2025)
(noting that “‘courts in this Circuit have found that a week to ten day[s’] notice is reasonable
where the party is seeking a deposition without the production of documents’”). Ultimately,
courts have stated that the degree of notice needed will vary depending on the circumstances. See
id. at *9; see also Moore’s § 30.20.
In the case at bar, it appears that Ms. Gjovik is seeking a deposition without the production
of documents. This suggests that a shorter period of notice is acceptable. On the other hand, Ms.
Gjovik identified 14 topics for the 30(b)(6) deposition – covering a fairly broad range of
information. This weighs in favor of a longer period for Apple to prepare. Because it is a close
call as to whether Ms. Gjovik gave Apple reasonable notice, the Court shall allow Ms. Gjovik to
take Apple’s deposition after the fact discovery cut-off of April 16, 2026, but it shall not change
the summary judgment briefing schedule, particularly in light of Ms. Gjovik’s prior
representations that she does not need additional discovery to proceed with summary judgment.
Ms. Gjovik has until May 14, 2026, to take Apple’s 30(b)(6) deposition. Because it
appears the parties will likely have a dispute about the deposition topics, the Court orders the
parties to immediately meet and confer regarding the topics. If they cannot reach agreement, they
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 352 Filed 04/14/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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
shall file a joint letter (no longer than three single-spaced pages) with Judge Westmore by April
21, 2026. This discrete discovery issue shall not be subject to the discovery process previously
established by Judge Westmore. See Docket No. 327 (order setting process for remaining
discovery disputes).
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part Ms. Gjovik’s motion.
This order disposes of Docket No. 346.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 352 Filed 04/14/26 Page 5 of 5