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 DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
MAGISTRATE ORDER
Docket No. 384
Pending before the Court is Ms. Gjovik’s motion for relief from an order issued by Judge
Westmore. See Docket No. 383 (MJ Order). Having considered Ms. Gjovik’s motion as well as
all other evidence of record, the Court DENIES her request for relief.
“When a magistrate judge issues an order on a non-dispositive matter, the district judge in
the case ‘must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.’” De Leon v. Clorox Co., No. 19-mc-80296-EMC, 2021
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34791, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2021). Ms. Gjovik has failed to show clear
error or a result contrary to law.
As one example,1 one of Ms. Gjovik’s arguments in Objection No. 2 is that Judge
Westmore erred in concluding that certain information was privileged because Apple was using
the privilege not only as a shield but also as a sword. That is incorrect. Apple is not claiming as a
defense that it made the decision to terminate Ms. Gjovik because counsel so advised. To be sure,
Apple may have consulted with counsel before making the decision to terminate. But that is
1 To be clear, the Court has considered all objections and all sub-arguments contained therein in
Ms. Gjovik’s motion. None has merit.
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 386 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 3

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
simply a fact that was disclosed as part of discovery. Apple has not indicated that it will argue to
the trier of fact (or the Court) that its decision to terminate was informed by communications from
counsel. See Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994)
(“Advice [of counsel] is not in issue merely because it is relevant, and does not necessarily
become an issue merely because the attorney's advice might affect the client's state of mind in a
relevant manner. The advice of counsel is placed in issue where the client asserts a claim or
defense, and attempts to prove that claim or defense by disclosing or describing an attorney client
communication."); Rask v. Fresenius Med. Care N. Am., No. 05-1267 (ADM/RLE), 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 118882, *16-17 (D. Minn. July 25, 2006) (“From the filings, the disputed
communications fall squarely within the confines of the attorney-client privilege. The Defendant
advises that, ‘prior to carrying out her decision to terminate Rask, Mitchell sought the advice of
corporate counsel’ for the purposes of seeking a legal opinion. The Plaintiff states that the
Defendant, by asserting an advice-of-counsel defense, waives the privilege. However, the
Defendant has not asserted such a defense in this action. Furthermore, this is not a case where
counsel was merely present at a meeting, in an attempt to invoke the privilege. Instead, on this
Record, the circumstances present a scenario in which the attorney-client privilege properly
attaches – a corporate employee seeks legal advice as to a corporate decision from in-house
counsel.”).
As another example, Ms. Gjovik argues in Objection No. 8 that, contrary to what Judge
Westmore stated in her order, Ms. Gjovik did not manually change the filing date of her discovery
motion, i.e., to make it appear that the motion was timely filed. See Docket No. 383 (MJ Order at
1 n.1) (“Plaintiff filed her opening brief on April 24, 2026 at 12:28 a.m., but she manually
changed the filing date to April 23, 2026, so it would appear to have been timely filed. Instead of
attempting to mislead the Court, Plaintiff should have left the actual filing date intact and filed a
separate administrative motion to ask for relief because it was only 28 minutes late. The Court
would have granted that relief, because Defendant did not suffer any prejudice due to the short
delay.”). Even if Ms. Gjovik is correct that she did not manually change the filing date, the relief
she seeks – striking of the relevant portion of Judge Westmore’s order – is not necessary. Judge
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 386 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 3

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
Westmore did not reject Ms. Gjovik’s discovery motion on the basis that it was not timely filed.
Accordingly, Ms. Gjovik’s motion for relief from Judge Westmore’s order is denied.
This order disposes of Docket No. 384.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 386 Filed 06/09/26 Page 3 of 3