Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD @ashleygjovik@mastodon.social
Public

12/x - But most of this comes back to Apple's use of "Protective Orders," & the local court's systemic refusal to comply with the US & Cal Constitution, Federal Rules, & Supreme Court requirements for issuing these POs. That's a single pt of failure!

Thats why I filed a rulemaking petition to the last month asking the Rules Committee to consider formally revising the Rules of Civil Procedure to prohibit what Apple & the court are doing with these POs

uscourts.gov/forms-rules/recor

Ashley Gjovik (26-CV-6) Download pdf, 907.85 KB Released on: February 23, 2026 Category: Suggestions Committee: Civil Rules Status: Pending consideration Rule or Form: Rules 26 and 83
Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD @ashleygjovik@mastodon.social
Public

13/x - Finally, if Apple manages to get a court order enforced against me with Apple's latest illegal NDA, I'll appeal to Ninth Circuit (who hates gag orders), & I'll have an opportunity to get a binding appellate decision that clarifies 1) courts cannot issue these Protective Orders just because big biz asks for one 2) there's a reason a full hearing and First Amendment analysis is required & 3) courts cannot use POs to nullify statutes providing affirmative rights (NLRA etc) to workers.

0
1
0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/116230186217641967 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)