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 REGARDING APPLE'S
SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF'S
MEDICAL RECORDS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 276, 277
On February 10, 2026, Defendant Apple Inc. filed a discovery letter pertaining to
Plaintiff’s refusal to authorize the release of her medical records despite claims of severe
emotional distress. (Def.’s Letter, Dkt. No. 276.) Apple contends that they attempted to negotiate
the scope of the subpoenas with Plaintiff, including sending her drafts to which she promised
revisions to narrow the scope. Id. at 2. Plaintiff never provided the revisions. Id.
On February 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a response, in which she acknowledged that she was
claiming severe emotional distress, that her medical and mental conditions have been put “in
controversy,” and that Apple is entitled to damages-related discovery. (Pl.’s Letter, Dkt. No. 277
at 5.) Even so, she argues that Apple’s letter was premature because it has not served the
subpoenas. Id. She also contends that she reserves her right to object to scope and substance of
any subpoena Apple may serve, and that she cannot be forced to consent to a HIPAA waiver. Id.
Plaintiff is correct in that the Court will not make her consent to release her medical
records. (Pl.’s Letter at 5.) Plaintiff, however, is advised that she has placed her medical and
mental conditions at issue in this case and has, therefore, waived any privilege over her medical
records. See Bangoura v. Andre-Boudin Bakeries, No. C 12-3229 MMC DMR, 2012 WL
5349991, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (waived privilege based on seeking $600,000 in
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 291 Filed 02/23/26 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
emotional distress damages). The fact that Plaintiff has agreed to undergo an IME is of no
consequence. (See Pl.’s Letter at 1.) Moreover, the Court can order her providers to release her
records over her objection. See City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Superior Ct. In & For City &
Cnty. of San Francisco, 37 Cal. 2d 227, 232, 231 P.2d 26, 28 (1951) (“The patient-litigant
exception precludes one who has placed in issue his physical condition from invoking the
privilege on the ground that disclosure of his condition would cause him humiliation. He cannot
have his cake and eat it too.”)
Plaintiff raises other arguments that are unavailing. First, Apple is not required to
propound discovery on Plaintiff before or in lieu of subpoenaing medical records from her
providers. See id. at 3. Second, Plaintiff’s assertion that Apple should have no difficulty
subpoenaing medical records from wholly owned subsidiary AC Wellness Medical Group is not
well taken, because that entity is presumably bound by the same privacy requirements as other
medical providers. See id. at 4.
Finally, based on a cursory review, the Court takes no issue with Apple’s Attachment A to
the proposed stipulation. (Def.’s Letter, Ex. A at 9.) If those categories of medical records are
sought by way of subpoena, the Court is inclined to permit the discovery of same.
Accordingly, while the Court finds this dispute technically premature, since no subpoena
has been served, Plaintiff has put her medical and mental conditions “in controversy,” such that
her medical records are discoverable. The parties are ordered to further meet and confer regarding
executing an authorization to release the medical records sought. If Plaintiff refuses to authorize
release, Apple should subpoena the records, and, if it is unsuccessful, may file a discovery letter
and proposed order compelling Plaintiff’s medical providers to release her records based on this
order.
This resolves Dkt. Nos. 276 & 277.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2026
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 291 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 2