Ashley M. Gjøvik

@ashleygjovik

A true-crime-podcast Twitter account dedicated to my whistleblower legal battle with Apple Computer. More at ashleygjovik.com Notes: lawyer but nothing's legal advice; actually autistic

156 Following786 Followers1,768 Posts

Bluesky

Is this your profile?Claim it and ashleygjovik.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· 24d

I visited Meadow Park at Santa Clara Square this week and noticed something that seemed kind of weird to me. It looks like a catch basin (maybe stormwater?) but with a ~two foot below-ground void above a rocky bottom; several inches of clear, standing water; freshwater worms; & a crab pincher?

Photo from 7/21/26 at the Santa Clara Square apartments in Santa Clara, California next to Meadow Park showing inside of drainage inlet and duct with standing water and possibly unusual biological activity

Photo from 7/21/26 at the Santa Clara Square apartments in Santa Clara, California next to Meadow Park showing sign that says "landscape improvements in progress" next to drain

Photo from 7/21/26 at the Santa Clara Square apartments in Santa Clara, California next to Meadow Park showing drainage cover

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· 24d

⚖️ My appeal of the U.S. District Court dismissal of my civil lawsuit against Apple was docketed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today! The case is Gjovik v. Apple, No. 26-4716 (9th Cir. 2026). My Opening Brief is due 10/14/26. The Court Listener page: www.courtlistener.com/docket/73664...

DOCKETING NOTICE
Docket Number:
26-4716
Originating Case Number:
3:23-cv-04597-EMC
Short Title:
Gjovik v. Apple Inc.
Dear Appellant/Counsel
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has received a copy of your notice of appeal and assigned the docket number above to your case.
Please include this docket number on every filing you submit and in any communication you have with the court about this case. If you are ordering any transcript from the lower court, please give the docket number to the court reporter right away.
Motions filed with the notice of appeal are not transferred to this court. You need to separately file on this court’s docket any motion that seeks relief from this court.
You must file a Disclosure Statement (Form 34) within 14 days of this notice if your case: (1) involves a corporation, association, joint venture, partnership, limited liability company, or similar entity; (2) is a bankruptcy case; (3) is a criminal case with an organizational victim; or (4) involves review of state court proceedings. See Ninth Circuit Rule 26-1.1.
Failure to timely file the opening brief may also result in your case being dismissed.
Please read the enclosed materials carefully.

TIME SCHEDULE ORDER
Docket Number:
26-4716
Originating Case Number:
3:23-cv-04597-EMC
Case Title:
Gjovik v. Apple Inc.
8/5/2026
Ashley M. Gjovik
Appeal Transcript Order Due
9/4/2026
Ashley M. Gjovik
Appeal Transcript Due
10/14/2026
Ashley M. Gjovik
Appeal Opening Brief Due
11/13/2026
Apple Inc.
Appeal Answering Brief Due
If there were reported hearings, the parties shall designate and, if necessary, cross-designate the transcripts pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 10-3. If there were no reported hearings, the transcript deadlines do not apply.
The optional reply may be filed within 21 days of service of the answering brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.
Mediation Questionnaire is available here. More information about the Mediation

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· 25d

My Ninth Circuit appeal will include Apple's four 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, three 12(f) motions to strike, & motion for summary judgment. I'll be asking Ninth Circuit to reinstate all of the claims in my 3rd Amended Complaint (below) & motions to amend: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 7/22/2026 at 4:48 PM and filed on 7/22/2026

Case Name:

Gjovik v. Apple Inc.

Case Number:

3:23-cv-04597-EMC

Filer:

Ashley M Gjovik

WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 06/24/2026

Document Number:

399

Docket Text:
NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Ashley M Gjovik. Appeal of Judgment, [390] (Pay.gov Agency Tracking ID 77457673167.) (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Payment Receipt)(Gjovik, Ashley) (Filed on 7/22/2026)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ASHLEY GJOVIK, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC, a corporation, et al,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC
Filed: September 7, 2023
District Judge: Honorable Edward Chen
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS:
A. The RICO Act,
18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), (c), (d)
B. Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower,
18 U.S.C. § 1514A
C. Dodd-Frank Act Whistleblower,
15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii)
D. Private Nuisance & Nuisance Per Se
Cal. Civil Code § 3479
E. Ultrahazardous / Abnormally Dangerous
Activities (California Strict Liability)
F. Bane Civil Rights Act,
Cal. Civ Code § 52.1
G. Ralph Civil Rights Act,
Cal. Civ Code § 51.7
H. Cal. Whistleblower Protection Act, Cal.
Labor Code § 1102.5
I. Retaliation for Filing Complaints,
Cal. Labor Code § 98.6
J. Retaliation for Safety Activities,
Cal. Labor Code § 6310
K. Termination in Violation of Public Policy
California Tamney claim
L. Breach of Implied Contract & Covenant of
Good Faith & Fair Dealing
M. Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED/NIED)
N. Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Business & Professional Code § 17200

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· 25d

Here's a video of the "view" as well:

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· 25d

Here's more photos of it - I was gagging looking at it. Regretted that I didn't bring the water quality tests with me this trip - thought I could just enjoy the scenery but then found myself wading through nonsense again like usual there. Santa Clara needs to clean this site up.

Overhead close-up of a lumpy, brain-textured olive-green algae mass floating in dark water, studded with pine needles and twigs. A beige-tan sediment streak and gray foam run along the right edge.

Close-up of a mounded algae mass at the water's edge on concrete, roughly a foot across. The surface is felted and yellow-tan where sun-exposed, with thick ropey cord-like strands running across it and darker olive-brown tangled material on the right.

Thick yellow-green algae mat pressed against the base of a gray concrete channel wall, floating in shallow clear water. White foam bubbles cover the water surface to the right.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· 25d

I visited Saratoga/San Tomas Aquino Creek yesterday next to Santa Clara Square & Apple's stupid skunkworks chip fab. There was this hot mess of green gunk growing in the culvert. Anyone have any idea what this stuff is? Is it safe for wildlife? Saw birds & fish wading through it.

Close-up of bright yellow-green algae in shallow sunlit water, formed into thick ropey strands coiled into whorls and folds, resting on a gray gravelly bed.

Wide view of a concrete flood-control channel under a blue sky with scattered clouds. A shallow braided stream runs down the middle, with bright yellow-green algae clumps scattered across the pale concrete bed and along the water's edge. A road bridge crosses in the background; redwoods and a chain-link fence line the left bank.

A brown mottled mallard, likely a female, stands on a dark patch in shallow water and dips its bill toward the surface, surrounded by lumpy yellow-green algae mats.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· Jun 24

On Thursday June 25 at 10 AM the US District Court in San Jose will hear my Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Gjovik v Apple, Santa Clara, Jenab et al about hazardous waste & toxic gas risks at the 3250 Scott Blvd chip fab. Press conf to follow. More info here: www.indybay.org/newsitems/20...

Infographic announcing a federal court hearing in San Jose concerning Gjovik v. Apple, City of Santa Clara, Jenab et al. The headline states that the court will hear a motion seeking removal of hazardous materials and toxic gases from Apple's semiconductor fabrication facility at 3250 Scott Boulevard in Santa Clara, based on allegations of an "imminent and substantial" danger to the public and environment.

The graphic includes the hearing date and time (June 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.), location (Robert F. Peckham Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 8), and notice of a press conference immediately afterward. It summarizes allegations involving hazardous substances including arsine, phosphine, chlorine, hydrofluoric acid, silane, and pyrophoric materials; references environmental claims under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and California public-nuisance law; and notes alleged impacts on nearby residences, parks, a playground, an urgent care clinic, places of worship, and a school. Additional sections summarize the plaintiff's allegations regarding EPA findings, toxic-gas incidents, and the requested relief, which seeks removal of hazardous materials while allowing continued non-industrial use of the property.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· Jun 20

🚨 Donation request! 🙏 Hi folks, I just received the final billing statement from the court reporter & transcription service for my depositions of Apple witnesses this year. Its a lot of money & I'm still insolvent/bankrupt so any donations to cover costs helps a ton. www.ashleygjovik.com/donate.html

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· Jun 16

The schedule for this year's SF LaborFest was just posted! I'm speaking on July 3 2026 about workplace safety, whistleblowing, and human rights in the workplace along with three other whistleblowers & workers. RSVP below & check out the month-long schedule below: laborfest.net/2026/event/w...

Whistleblowers, Injured Workers, OSHA, Workers Comp & Human Rights
July 3 @ 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm PDT
Free

Zoom event

The threat to workers who get injured or sick on the job is growing. The elimination of any oversight of health and safety on the job and the lack of OSHA inspectors and oversight of dangerous working conditions is epidemic. The introduction of AI is adding to this deadly mix and the series of explosions and deaths is escalating. At the same time the workers comp system has meant that workers have to become lawyers to get their injuries taken care of and many are permanently disabled because of the failure to get prompt treatment at all. This panel will look at the issues, struggles for justice and what workers and unions can do about this.

Speakers:
Ashley Gjovik – Apple Whistleblower
Jennifer Cruz – UCD Injured Worker
Becky McClain – Pfizer Whistleblower
Branton Philipps – Former Fremont Tesla Worker

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· Jun 10

🚨 Gjovik v Apple update!⚖️ On Thurs 6/11 there's a public hearing in my retaliation lawsuit against Apple (3:23-cv-04597) for my motion for Summary Judgment & Preliminary Injunction. It's ~2:30-3:30 PM in person at the federal courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Ave. Please attend if you can!

PUBLIC HEARING
Gjovik v. Apple Inc.
Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC · N.D. Cal.
WHEN
Thursday, June 11, 2026
2:30 PM
WHERE
U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco
Courtroom 5 · 17th Floor
Hon. Edward M. Chen presiding
HEARING ON
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· Jun 3

I deposed Apple as a biz (Rule 30B6) about my Superfund site office & Apple's secret chip fab. Apple sent their EH&S director to testify. Among other excitement, she insisted on unlawful speech rules about safety NLRB is already suing Apple abt & defended Apple turning my office into a gas chamber.

IV. Analysis and Commentary ↑
A. Legal Significance ↑
Legal Analysis
The testimony of Elizabeth Schmidt carries significant legal weight for several key claims and defenses in this litigation.
For the Plaintiff's whistleblower retaliation claim, the witness's confirmation of Apple's unwritten policy—that employee speech on safety must be "accurate" and "complete," and that only the EH&S department should make formal safety determinations—provides direct evidence of a potentially unlawful, restrictive speech policy that could be seen as having a chilling effect on protected activity (242:22-243:4, 243:18-243:21). This supports the argument that Apple's actions against the Plaintiff were retaliatory for her raising safety concerns that the company deemed incomplete or likely to "cause panic" (238:17-238:18).
Regarding workplace safety and premises liability (potentially under OSHA's General Duty Clause or state equivalents), Ms. Schmidt’s testimony undermines Apple’s defense that it was merely a tenant with no responsibility for site hazards. While she repeatedly stated that the landlord and Northrop Grumman were the responsible parties for the Superfund site's mitigation systems (47:9-47:16, 90:11-90:17), she also admitted that Apple’s own HVAC installation between 2015-2025 was done "without consideration for the location of the SSD vents," creating the re-entrainment hazard that the EPA later required to be fixed (177:17-177:23). This admission suggests Apple actively created a new hazard or exacerbated an existing one, which could establish a direct duty of care to its employees. Furthermore, her description of Apple's "voluntary" floor penetration surveys and sealing program demonstrates that Apple was aware of the slab's integrity as a potential exposure pathway and took direct action to control it, contradicting the assertion of no obligation (92:25-93:7).
Testimony Impact
The testimony significantly impacts the potential for liability. The admission that Apple…

the Plaintiff's complaints, damage her credibility and that of Apple (131:18-132:1, 151:7-151:12, 249:25-250:3). A fact-finder could infer that Apple is attempting to conceal its knowledge of the link between the Plaintiff's protected activity and the subsequent regulatory scrutiny, which strengthens the argument for retaliatory motive.
Finally, Apple's attempts to control the EPA's access and information through a rejected NDA and a blanket CBI claim could be portrayed as evidence of a corporate culture that prioritizes secrecy over transparency, even with regulatory bodies, lending credence to the Plaintiff's allegations of a cover-up (135:21-136:2, 144:6-144:15). The consent agreement for violations at 3250 Scott Blvd. further establishes a pattern of EH&S non-compliance (208:5-208:6).

V. Conclusion ↑
Recap of Critical Points
This deposition yielded several critical points for all parties. Most significantly, it was established through third-party documents that Apple’s own HVAC installation at 825 Stewart Drive was done “without consideration for the location of the SSD vents,” creating a re-entrainment risk for toxic vapors that the EPA required be mitigated (177:17-177:23). This directly contradicts Apple’s primary defense that it was merely a tenant and that all responsibility for environmental mitigation systems lay with the responsible party, Northrop Grumman (90:11-90:17, 159:7-159:11). The witness's testimony also confirmed Apple's unwritten policy that employee speech on workplace safety must be "accurate" and "complete," and that official safety determinations are the exclusive domain of the EH&S department, which directly supports the Plaintiff's claim of unlawful speech restrictions (242:22-243:4, 243:18-243:21). Furthermore, documentary evidence established that EPA inspections at both the 825 Stewart and 3250 Scott facilities were initiated as a direct result of the Plaintiff’s complaints, despite the witness’s repeated claims of ignorance on the matter (151:7-151:12, 249:22-250:3). Finally, the witness's credibility was weakened by numerous instances of being unprepared on core technical topics within her purview, as well as by direct contradictions, such as first acknowledging and then denying knowledge of an injury report for the Plaintiff's 2019 dizzy spell (61:9-61:10, 63:5-63:5, 108:8-108:9, 112:9-112:9).

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· Jun 1

Apple's retaliation against me in 2021 destroyed my reputation and my career, making it impossible for me to work professionally again. Now, I can't pay my bills or my debts. Today, the U.S. Dept. of Education agreed to settle my law school student loan debt ($81k) in my Ch. 7 bankruptcy ($143k)!

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT FOR JUDGMENT
DISCHARGING STUDENT LOAN INDEBTEDNESS
Plaintiff Ashley Marie Gjovik, and defendant United States Department of Education (the
“DOE”), by and through its counsel, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Massachusetts, (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby stipulate and agree that:
1. This adversary proceeding seeks a determination pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(a)(8) that plaintiff Ashley Marie Gjovik’s student loan obligations to the DOE are
dischargeable, in full, on the grounds of undue hardship.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 157 and 1334, and pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7001. This is a core proceeding as defined by

28 U.S.C. § 157(a)(2)(1). Venue of this adversary proceeding is appropriate in this court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1409.
3. On July 21, 2025, the plaintiff filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7
of Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts as
Case No. 25-11496-CJP.
4. On July 29, 2025, the plaintiff filed the Complaint that commenced this adversary
proceeding.
5. DOE has determined that sufficient evidence exists to find that the following
conditions are satisfied with respect to plaintiff Ashley Marie Gjovik and the Student Loan
Indebtedness: a) she presently lacks an ability to repay the Student Loan Indebtedness; b) her
inability to pay the Student Loan Indebtedness is likely to persist in the future; and c) she has acted
in good faith in the past in attempting to repay the Student Loan Indebtedness.
6. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate that excepting the Student Loan
Indebtedness from the Ashley Marie Gjovik’s bankruptcy discharge would impose an undue
hardship upon her within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).
7. The plaintiff has reviewed this stipulation and agrees with its content

For the reasons stated in the stipulation, plaintiff Ashley Marie Gjovik and defendant U.S.
Department of Education (the “DOE”), hereby request that the Court enter an order approving the
stipulation, and enter judgment, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), in favor of plaintiff Ashley
Marie Gjovik and against the defendant.
The plaintiff has reviewed this motion, the stipulation, and proposed judgment, and assents
to the relief requested.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 29

Conscious Spend just published a video discussing my legal dispute with Apple. It starts, quite on point, with: "I wish this was fake but one of the most valuable companies in the world has spent years trying to destroy the life of one woman..." True story. www.instagram.com/p/DYTUG2JulC...

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 29

The Summary Judgment hearing is June 11 2026 1:30PM at the federal courthouse in SF & open to the public. I'd love for folks to show up, let Apple's lawyers know people are paying attention to this fiasco, & generally just be witness to this trainwreck. Docket: www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772...

Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC
District Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION; & OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT
Under Cal. Labor Code 98.6, 1102.5 6310, &
the Tamney Termination in Violation of
Public Policy
Hearing:
Dept: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco
Date: June 11 2026 1:30 p.m.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND CONCURRENT SUBMISSIONS 2
III. EVIDENTIARY POSTURE 2
IV. APPLE'S STATED REASONS FAIL ON APPLE'S OWN ADMISSIONS &
CONTRADICTIONS 4
V. THE EAR-SCAN REVERSAL IS DISPOSITIVE 6
VI. THE GOBBLER/GLIMMER THEORY HAS SHIFTED AT EVERY STAGE, HAS
NO CURRENT ARTICULATED BASIS, AND IS ITSELF UNLAWFUL 7
VII. APPLE CANNOT RESCUE ITS DEFENSE THROUGH A “PARTIAL” SAMEDECISION ARGUMENT OR ANY OTHER SURVIVING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12
VIII. APPLE NOW CLAIMS REPORTING SEX CRIMES IS MISCONDUCT 13
IX. THE INVESTIGATION SHIELD-AND-SWORD FORECLOSES APPLE'S
DEFENSE ON ALL FOUR CLAIMS 14
X. DISPARATE TREATMENT 17
XI. THE CAT'S PAW STRUCTURE IS ESTABLISHED ON BERTOLUS'S OWN
ADMISSIONS 18
XII. THE PUBLIC-POLICY CONTEXT FORECLOSES APPLE'S
CONFIDENTIALITY DEFENSE 21
XIII. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED 22
A. The § 98.6(b)(1) presumption and the Ninth Circuit’s temporal-proximity
presumption attach and remain unrebutted 22
B. The direct-evidence framework forecloses McDonnell Douglas analysis 23
C. Apple’s waiver on additional retaliation grounds is independently
dispositive 24

VIII. APPLE NOW CLAIMS REPORTING SEX CRIMES IS
MISCONDUCT
30. Apple's MSJ identifies invocation of a criminal statute as misconduct; the
30(b)(6) admits the decisionmaker's confusion about the basic harassment-complaint subject
"would not have changed the decision," and admits West received corrective-action feedback for
the same conduct Plaintiff complained of. Fourth, the defense rests on circumstances Apple
manufactured — the texts Plaintiff was terminated for failing to produce were inaccessible
because Apple placed her on leave the day before she planned to retrieve them; the harassmentcomplaint confusion was the product of Apple's investigators' framing for Bertolus; the refusalto-cooperate was the product of Apple's manufactured demand for oral-only communications
during an active federal agency proceeding. Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1244-45 (9th Cir.
2000); Yanowitz, 36 Cal. 4th at 1052-53. The four-failure structure is itself the substantial
responsive evidence Loggins requires.
31. There are new instances of this following the prior filings. Bowman’s email
proposing to terminate the Plaintiff mentioned “redactions” and Apple's corporate witness was
not prepared to identify what "redacting" referred to in Bowman's email, did not speak with
Bowman before the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and could not articulate what specific texts

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 26

California EPA just closed my complaint about the disgusting pollution flowing into Saratoga/San Tomas creek around Scott Blvd -- & where I cited my Citizen Suit against Apple & Santa Clara -- because Santa Clara said there's no pollution occurring & CalEPA said: "sure, ok, you're not conflicted."

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 20

The transcription service I'm using for my depositions of Apple & its witnesses provides AI-generated summaries of key litigation strategy take-aways based on 0transcribed depo/exhibits. Based on my first day of the 30(b)(6) depo of Apple, the AI told Apple to settle with me because it's gonna lose.

For Defendant (Apple Inc.):
* Defense Strategy: Prepare to defend the significant inconsistencies in the stated reasons for termination, particularly the conflicting positions on the "ear scan" posts. Develop a strong argument for why the Plaintiff's request for written communication constituted a fireable offense, despite her pending NLRB charge and stated fears of misrepresentation.
* Damage Control: Formulate a strategy to argue that the decision-maker's factual confusion about the sous chef incident was immaterial to the termination decision, which rested primarily on the disclosure of confidential product information. This will be critical to preserving the credibility of the decision-making process.
* Privilege and Settlement: Prepare to vigorously defend the extensive use of attorney-client privilege. Given the weaknesses and contradictions exposed in the deposition, Apple should re-evaluate its litigation risk and settlement posture, as the evidence supporting the Plaintiff's pretext argument has been significantly strengthened.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 18

During "infamous 'Peptide Fridays'... employees injected themselves with gray-market compounds during breakfast in the office"; but it was "scrapped for being too flip." If yr boss asks to you to inject unregulated substances into your body at work, you need a union. sfstandard.com/2026/05/17/h...

San Francisco startups are pushing a hot peptide summer
Despite medical concerns and no FDA approval, startups are betting big on gray-market peptides.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 18

I spent an hour looking through the gravel - appears to be a city/county Public Works dump of aggregate gravel, assumably from local quarry/provider. Found hundreds of pieces of hydrothermal rock and crystals - ancient, sacred deep sea rocks, all dumped on the ground for people to walk on & ignore.

$A single rock on a pale surface, photographed in profile. The rock is medium gray-brown with a fine-grained texture and a series of nearly parallel dark vertical fractures running down one face, giving it a slightly striped or layered appearance. A small patch of pale yellowish-white material is visible on the upper surface. The rock has an irregular angular shape with one sharp pointed edge extending to the right.$

$Eight rocks arranged in two rows on a cream surface. Top row, left to right: a dark forest-green rock with a matte waxy surface, a gray-green rock with a pale blue-white crust on top, and a peachy-pink rock with a rough fractured texture. Bottom row, left to right: a small dark gray rock with white speckled inclusions, a uniform brick-red triangular piece, a pink rock densely speckled with white and gray rounded grains, a dark rock with pink and orange staining, and a small terracotta-red piece.$

A clear plastic container viewed from above, filled with about a dozen rocks in shades of dark olive-green, gray-green, and brown. Most pieces share a similar matte, weathered texture with rusty brown patches along edges and corners. One smaller piece near the top is distinctly purple-brown. Overall color palette is dark and earthy, dominated by greens and browns.

A dark plastic tray seen from above, filled with about fifteen angular rocks. All pieces share a similar black-and-white speckled pattern — dark mineral patches scattered through a lighter gray-white matrix. Textures range from sugary granular to vesicular (small holes and pits). A small bright yellow-orange lichen patch is visible on the rock at the top of the pile. Several pieces show a distinctly grainy, almost crystalline surface.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 18

Gravel on Guadalupe trail in Alviso is wild. Found pieces of red Franciscan chert (Mesozoic deep-sea skeletons), serpentinite (hydrated mantle rock), seafloor basalt w/ hydrothermal veining, & oxidized sulfide vein material. 100+ million years of plate tectonics, ground up, & thrown on the floor.

Five rocks on a cream surface, mostly teal and seafoam blue-green in color. Center-top: a vivid teal rock with fine-grained texture. Left: a smaller pale blue-green rock. Center: a rock with a teal upper portion and pale weathered base. Bottom: a dark green rock with bright white vein material running across one face. Right: a pale gray-white rock with a chunky pale-green crystal cluster filling a cavity. A black-and-white speckled rock is partially visible in the upper-left corner.

A clear plastic container holding about ten rocks of varied colors and textures. A bright mustard-yellow rock with dark angular cracks sits near the top. Below and around it: a pink-and-dark-green speckled rock, several dark gray rocks with pink and white speckled inclusions, a brown-orange piece with visible white quartz crystals in a small cavity, and dark purple-red rocks with lighter mineral grains scattered through a fine-grained matrix.

$Three rocks arranged on a cream surface. Top: a dark navy-black angular rock crisscrossed with a fine network of thin white veins. Bottom left: a larger rock with a warm tan and gray surface densely covered in a web of intersecting white mineral veins forming an irregular grid pattern. Bottom right: a deep burgundy-purple rock with smooth conchoidal fractures and a thin pale vein running diagonally across one face.$

About ten rocks arranged on a cream surface. Center: a striking bicolored rock, dark blue-gray and fine-grained on the upper portion, sugary bright white on the lower portion, with a clean boundary between the two. Surrounding it: dark gray-black rocks with prominent white vein networks, one piece showing parallel banded layering, and several pieces with mixed dark and pale mineral patches. Color palette is dominated by dark blue-gray, white, and pale tan.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 16

Here's part of the transcript from my deposition of Apple Inc last week. This was 5/12, with Apple's head of Employee Relations representing Apple (the corporation itself), & testifying that I was not fired for complaining about ear scans & nothing I posted about ear scans was confidential.

·1· BY MS. GJOVIK:
·2· · · · Q. Did Apple watch the video in "The Verge"
·3· article prior to terminating me?
·4· · · · · ·MS. RIECHERT:· Same objection.· And same
·5· instruction.
·6· BY MS. GJOVIK:
·7· · · · Q. Okay.· Did Apple see me linking to that "Verge"
·8· article in the social media posts I made prior to my
·9· termination?
10· · · · · ·MS. RIECHERT:· Same objection.· Same
11· instruction.
12· BY MS. GJOVIK:
13· · · · Q. Okay.· You also mentioned something about ear
14· scans.· Was one of the reasons that Apple terminated me
15· on September 9th, 2021, my complaints about ear scans?
16· · · · · ·MS. RIECHERT:· Objection.· Misstates the
17· testimony.
18· · · · A. That was not my testimony.
19· · · · Q. Did Apple believe that me posting about those
20· ear scans was me sharing Apple confidential information?
21· · · · A. What I've described before, I mentioned in the
22· studies that you had done, the ear scans one, the
23· concerns that were raised, then the Face ID.
24· · · · · ·Again, images that you had posted were
25· confidential.· You speaking about the ear scan or being

in the study was not the basis for your termination, and
·2· that by itself is not confidential.
·3· · · · Q. Okay.· Thank you.
·4· · · · · ·And then the ear scans, are you saying that the
·5· images I shared related to ear scans were confidential?
·6· You said images.· Can you clarify?
·7· · · · A. I'm talking about the images for Face ID which
·8· was the nature of your termination.
·9· · · · Q. Okay.· Was one of the reasons I was terminated
10· as of September 9th, 2021, related to ear scans?
11· · · · · ·MS. RIECHERT:· Objection.· Just asked and
12· answered.
13· BY MS. GJOVIK:
14· · · · Q. Apple previously filed things to the court
15· saying it was one of the reasons, and it appears to be
16· backtracking.· So it's very material, and I would like a
17· clear answer on this.
18· · · · · ·MS. RIECHERT:· You got a clear answer.
19· BY MS. GJOVIK:
20· · · · Q. What is the answer?
21· · · · A. It's on the record.
22· · · · Q. Is it no?· Is that the answer?
23· · · · A. I've already answered that.
24· · · · Q. Okay.· So, okay, let's go to the second bucket,
25· something about me refusing to cooperate

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 14

In August 2021, Apple Employee Relations & I drafted an "Issue Confirmation" of my pending complaints against Apple & what Apple was supposed to investigate. As you know, instead, Apple fired me & ruined my life. Want to see that final Issue Confirmation? www.ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/...

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 11

I'm reading the 2025 Applied Mat Superfund FYR (its next to SCSA & Apple's chip fab). There's drinking water only 3,500ft from where Apple's dumping tons of toxic waste into air/ground/water & aquifer supplies "much of the municipal drinking water in Santa Clara Co." semspub.epa.gov/work/09/1000...

1.3. Hydrology
The Site is located in Santa Clara Valley, California. Underlying the Site are sand and gravel
deposits which are permeable to water, interbedded with layers of silt and clay that are
impermeable and act as confining layers between water-bearing deposits. Groundwater flow is
generally to the northeast, towards San Francisco Bay.
There are three primary hydrogeologic zones beneath the Site: the A-zone, B-zone, and C-zone
(Figure 3). The A-zone is composed of sand and silty sand deposits and extends from 0 to 31
feet below ground surface (bgs) and is divided into two subsections (A and A2) separated by a
very thin aquitard (the A/A2 aquitard). A somewhat thicker aquitard (the A2/B aquitard)
separates the A-zones from the B-zone, which extends from 47 to 150 feet bgs and is composed
of permeable course-grained sediments. The A-zones and the B-zone are collectively
categorized as the shallow aquifers.
An aquitard of thickness ranging from 50 to 150 feet (the B/C aquitard) separates the B-zone
from the C-zone. Depending on the thickness of the B/C aquitard, the depth of the C-zone
aquifer ranges from 300 to more than 500 feet bgs. The C-zone aquifer is categorized as the
deep aquifer and is the source of much of the municipal drinking water in Santa Clara County.
The nearest drinking water supply well is located 3,500 feet upgradient to the southwest from
the Site

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 11

Remember when Apple blocked my lawsuit for 3mo because Apple bankrupted me? Apple sent discovery docs right before, let them expire, & hoped I forgot. I made Apple resend, got it today, & they're f'n wild. Ticket for Apple's final investigation into me included my EEOC/DFEH, NLRB/DIR, SEC complaints

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 11

Here's a peek at what it's like being deposed by Apple's Big Law partner attorneys (who are defending their own misconduct: retained 1mo before Apple fired me) over & over; & who dug themselves a hole by threatening me with gag orders over protected speech but then complain I'm now afraid to speak.

know, we have the right to designate things as
confidential.· You have the right to object.· And
then the magistrate judge will decide if those were
confidential or not.
· · A.· You designated whistleblower disclosures,
NLRB charges, me protesting criminal conduct by
Apple that Apple confirmed again by National
Institute of Health this morning is formally under
investigation for violating human research laws by
everything you're doing right now, all the motions
you filed, Melinda.· You are under investigation by
the federal government for violating human research
laws for the thing you're defending right now, and
you want to talk to me about stuff that you're
saying right now you may tag as confidential and
want months of gag orders against me about -- based
on Apple's unilateral unsigned designations claiming
stuff that is public protected crime victim
testimony is somehow secret and I should be
sanctioned, held in contempt, have my lawsuits
dismissed, and worse, for even protesting it.· And
now you want to talk for at least four more hours to
do even more of it and you're blaming me.
· · Q.· You brought this lawsuit.· We have not
sought to sanction you --
· · A.· Your client fired me --
· · · · (Simultaneous speakers.· Reporter
· · · · admonition.)
BY MS. RIECHERT:
· · Q.· You brought this lawsuit.· We have not
sought to sanction you.· We have not sought to hold
you in contempt.· We have simply sought to enforce a
protective order that you agreed to and signed and
then violated.
· · A.· You requested to have the entire lawsuit
dismissed based on that.
· · Q.· I have not seen a motion for Rule 11
sanctions --
· · A.· It was in a footnote --
· · · · (Simultaneous speakers.· Reporter
· · · · admonition.)
BY MS. RIECHERT:
· · Q.· Okay.
· · A.· Melinda, what do you want to do today?
· · Q.· I do not want to go forward if you are not
well enough to go forward because then the testimony
will not be -- you'll later claim that the testimony
was not valid.· So if you're not…

with all of the characterizations you've made, but
I'm not going to spend time doing that.· We will go
back to the magistrate and get a deposition at some
point.· But it's your lawsuit.· You've been ordered
to appear and you need to testify at some point.· If
it's not going to be today, you need to testify --
· · A.· I will testify at some point.· I want to
ask, though, are you going to seek -- when you say
go to the magistrate, are you going to seek
sanctions?· Are you going to say me trying to stop
right now is misconduct?· Because I can't handle any
more of that crap from you, Melinda.· We can do this
and I'll just cry for four hours as we go through
this.· I don't want you raising even more crap to
the court about this.
· · Q.· We have not sought sanctions against you
yet.· So what we want is for court orders to be
enforced, the court ordered you to appear for
deposition, and we will, if necessary, go back to
the court and get another order for you to
participate in the deposition.· But --
· · A.· Can we just schedule it in May right now?
· · Q.· I believe we have a discovery cutoff, but
we -- we can certain talk -- I don't want to do it
on the record -- and come up with a different date
to schedule it, but --
· · A.· Okay.· How about this?· You're refusing the
deposition of the corporation on the 14th.· Can we
just move it to the 14th?· I'm not going to be able
to force you into the room by the 14th anyways.
· · Q.· 14th?· I have a meeting on the 14th already,
so I cannot do it on the 14th.
· · A.· What about one of the half -- did you
decline that -- you declined Power's deposition?
· · Q.· No.· I think we are still going on Powers.
I have Power's deposition on the 15th from 8:30
to -- or 9:00 to noon, I think.
· · A.· Can we do a half day on one of those days
where I have the -- the other side of the half day
scheduled?
· · Q.· So either the 15th or the 14th?
· · A.· Yeah.
· · Q.· Okay.· I will check that out, and I will get
back to you by email.· And, meanwh…

give complete, accurate, honest answers today, the
answer is yes.· It's Apple's misuse of that
protective order.· It's inherently coercive and
creates stress on me so for me to say otherwise
would be false.
· · And if you're going to take this to the Court
the Court can't order me to not be intimidated and
chilled by Apple's abuse in the protective order.
· · They even said despite all of this to proceed
so I'm saying to proceed.· They said, like Judge
Tens said that I was rightfully concerned, but we'd
still proceed.
· · So for you to equate that to if I'm concerned
we can't proceed is even contrary to what the Court
said, Melinda.
· · So I say you should go ahead, ask your
questions, but we're going to have to sort out the
rest of this after.
· · Q.· All right.
· · But you -- I think I got you down as saying
that you are not able to give complete and accurate
answers today and that you're under duress.
· · Is that fair?
· · A.· That's correct.· That's fair.
· · Q.· Okay.
· · We're going to take a break and I'm going to
decide whether we're going to cancel this deposition
like we did the last one and go back to the Court to
get an order because I'm entitled to take a
deposition and I'm entitled to have a deposition
where you will be giving me complete, accurate and
honest answers to the questions and if you're not
able to do that then I cannot take your deposition.
· · A.· But, Melinda, if I can't do that because of
Apple's misuse of the protective order and them
refusing to say they won't use the protective order
during this deposition there's nothing the Court can
order.
· · They would order us to do exactly what we're
doing right now today and that's what they said.
They said that rightfully -- I'm rightfully
concerned about this, but I'd still sit and you'd
still question me.
· · So I believe under the Court order you're
supposed to question me and I'm not saying to stop.
I'm saying again to proceed, so if you bring it to
the Court to get a court order they're …

order me to not be intimidated.· They could revoke
the protective order.· That would resolve the issue.
Apple could voluntarily agree to not use the
protective order for this deposition.· That would
resolve this issue.
· · Can Apple agree to not use the protective order
for my testimony during this deposition which is
supposed to be about my harm so there is no reason
that should implicate the protective order?
· · Q.· Well, that depends on whether you give
information that's confidential or not.· I don't
know if you're going to provide --
· · A.· So the Court ordered us to proceed, even
with this open dispute, so we're supposed to
proceed.· It didn't order me to say that I won't be
intimidated or won't be concerned -- it said the
opposite actually -- so I don't think you can just
cancel it because you've intimidated me and then
order the Court to have me not be intimidated.
That's not right for the Court -- that's not -- and
legal issue so I'd say I think you should proceed.
· · You've asked to do this multiple times now.
I've agreed to do it multiple times.· You're the one
that keeps stopping it.
· · The major issue right now is an issue that
Apple and its counsel have created themselves and
I'm refusing to mitigate, reduce -- do anything
other than continue to threaten me with.
· · So I say just keep asking your questions.· You
delay more is just going to cost you and me more
money and delay things and waste time, unless you
agree to not use the protective order.· If you're
going to always use the protective order then
nothing changes other than you delaying and wasting
money and time.
· · ATTORNEY RIECHERT:· Okay.
· · Let's go off the record and I will determine
whether in light of the testimony you're given we're
able to proceed.
· · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at 11:19 a.m.
· · · · · (Off the record at 11:19 a.m.)
· · · · · · · (Resumed at 1:29 a.m.)
· · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· This is the beginning of
Media File No. 2.
· · We are back on the record at 11:29 …

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 9

Apparently they installed this bridge/notch between Alviso slough & SF Bay Pond A8 in order to reduce the amount of mercury that gets stirred up in the mercury-polluted Alviso slough mud/sludge. But when the tides flow, the mercury-rich slough looks like this & seems like it gets aerosolized?

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 8

The full settlement agreement at pages 15-20 here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 8

The BAAQMD just settled its six charges against Apple over air pollution at Apple's skunkworks chip fab next to Santa Clara Sq Apts. Apple's dumping toxic waste & deadly gases into air next to thousands of apts, 3 city parks, & playground for 10yrs+. Air Board fined Apple $129,000 & called it a day.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 8

After Apple's own lawyer became the new NLRB General Counsel, NLRB abruptly dismissed its complaint against Apple for unlawfully suspending & firing me. I appealed last fall. Today NLRB upheld the dismissal based on NLRB's "unreviewable final authority" to do whatever NLRB wants.

Dear Ms. Gjovik:
Your appeal from the Acting Regional Director’s September 25, 2025 Order
Withdrawing Certain Allegations of Consolidated Complaint, Order Partially Dismissing Charge
32-CA-282142, Order Dismissing Charge 32-CA-283161 (“Order”) has been carefully
considered, along with the additional evidence submitted. The appeal is denied.
Under Section 3(d) of the National Labor Relations Act, the General Counsel has
unreviewable final authority, which is “not only authority to decide whether to issue unfair labor
practice complaints, but also, in some circumstances, authority extending beyond the point at
which a complaint is issued,” including “a purely ‘prosecutorial’ decision to withdraw a
complaint, i.e., effectively a dismissal.” Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 (American Elgen), 306
NLRB at 982 (citing NLRB v. Food & Commercial Workers, 484 U.S. 112, 122-23, 125-26
(1987)). Here, the Acting General Counsel reviewed the cases and pursuant to his broad
prosecutorial discretion, decided not to continue the prosecution of certain allegations. As such
the Acting Regional Director’s Order withdrawing certain allegations from the consolidated
complaint, partially dismissing certain allegations in 32-CA-282142, and dismissing 32-CA-
283161 was a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See §102.18 of the Board Rules and
Regulations.
Certain allegations in charge 32-CA-282142, as identified in the Acting Regional
Director’s September 25, 2025 Order Severing Cases, Amended Complaint and Notice of
Hearing, remain with the Region for further processing.
Accordingly, the appeal is denied.

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 6

This is a Santa Clara County land use map circa1954. Green is agricultural. Santa Clara was still the Valley of Heart's Delight through the 1960s and even 1970s -- until corporations + DOD marinated the farmland in TCE and other chip fab waste. SF Bay Area RTC, www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet...

Ashley M. Gjøvik@ashleygjovik· May 3

California's groundwater well lab test reporting database indicated the contaminated groundwater under the Synertek Superfund site and under Apple's secret chip fab in Santa Clara were already migrating under the new Santa Clara Square Apartments extending the solvent plume.