Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 60 Filed 04/16/24 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`(Additional counsel on following page)
`
`JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
`jperry@orrick.com
`MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
`mriechert@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Telephone:
`+1 650 614 7400
`Facsimile:
`+1 650 614 7401
`
`KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)
`kmantoan@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
`Telephone:
`+1 415 773 5700
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 773 5759
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`ASHLEY GJOVIK,
`
`Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S REPLY IN
`SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR
`JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
`THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant.
`
`[F.R.E. 201]
`
`Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
`Dept:
`Honorable Edward M. Chen
`Judge:
`Date: May 16, 2024
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`4149-3401-9919
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S REPLY ISO RJN ISO MTD TAC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 60 Filed 04/16/24 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)
`kjuvinall@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone:
`+1 310 633 2800
`Facsimile:
`+1 310 633 2849
`
`RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)
`rbooms@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Telephone:
`+1 202 339 8400
`Facsimile:
`+1 202 339 8500
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`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
`
`
`
`
`4149-3401-9919
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S REPLY ISO RJN ISO MTD TAC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 60 Filed 04/16/24 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Apple’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 50; the “RJN”) is a straightforward request that
`
`the Court consider, in connection with Apple’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 48), two documents that
`
`are directly referenced and thus relied upon in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 47;
`
`“TAC”). Nothing in Plaintiff’s twelve-page opposition requires any contrary outcome.1
`
`Exhibit A to the RJN is Plaintiff’s own SEC Submission, which she previously submitted
`
`to this Court in connection with a separate Motion for Judicial Notice that she filed. See Dkt. 35 at
`
`¶¶12-13 (describing Exhibit 6 as containing “Gjovik’s SEC whistleblower tip filed on August 31
`
`2021” and arguing that judicial notice was proper “for the purpose of determining what statements
`
`the document[ ] contain[s]”); Dkt. 35-7 at pp. 3-21 (Exhibit 6, the SEC Submission). Exhibit B is
`
`Plaintiff’s Offer Letter governing her employment at Apple, which she signed and references the
`
`TAC. Compare TAC ¶13 (alleging Plaintiff worked for Apple beginning on Feb. 23, 2015), ¶234
`
`(alleging existence of “signed, written contract” that began her “employment relationship” with
`
`Apple) with RJN, Ex. B (Offer Letter with Feb. 23, 2015 start date). The TAC references Exhibits
`
`A and B and the contents thereof, and necessarily relies on these documents (by virtue of basing
`
`certain allegations on them). See, e.g., TAC ¶169 (referencing SEC Submission; “Gjovik filed an
`
`SEC whistleblower tip on August 31, 2021 …”); ¶234 (referencing Offer Letter; “Gjovik and Apple
`
`entered into an employment relationship in 2015 with a signed, written contract.”). Apple’s request
`
`for judicial notice is in line with well-established case law whereby courts take judicial notice of
`
`such documents in evaluating the sufficiency of the pleadings on a motion to dismiss. See, e.g.,
`
`Juster v. Workday, Inc., 2022 WL 3030530, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2022) (offer letter); Ansell
`
`v. Laikin, 2011 WL 3274019, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (SEC complaint); accord In re Google
`
`Assistant Priv. Litig., 457 F. Supp. 3d 797, 813-14 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (judicial notice of contract
`
`underlying breach of contract claims appropriate).
`
`1 The morning of April 16, Plaintiff filed three “declarations in opposition” to Apple’s pending
`Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, and Request for Judicial Notice. See Dkts. 55, 56, 57. The
`Court should not consider these untimely, improper filings in connection with the present matters.
`See Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 2019 WL 2579260, at *6 n.5-6 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2019)
`(declining to consider “additional, untimely declaration in opposition” filed by pro se party “on
`the day of [the] reply deadline”); Warrick v. Birdsell, 278 B.R. 182, 187 (9th Cir. Bankr. 2002)
`(pro se litigant not excused from requirement to understand and follow bankruptcy court rules,
`particularly in light of fact that she held law degree and also ran paralegal firm); Al-Ahmed v.
`Twitter, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 3d 857, 871 (N.D. Cal. 2022).
`
`4149-3401-9919
`
`
`
`APPLE’S REPLY ISO RJN ISO MTD TAC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`- 1 -
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 60 Filed 04/16/24 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s arguments against judicial notice are unavailing. Contrary to Plaintiff’s
`
`suggestion, there is no requirement that a party meet and confer before the routine act of requesting
`
`judicial notice in connection with a motion. See Opp. to RJN ¶5. Plaintiff next argues that Apple
`
`failed to provide what she deems adequate proof of the authenticity of documents she signed
`
`(including one she has previously offered to this Court (see id. ¶14) but provides no actual reason
`
`to contest their authenticity—nor could she, given that she alleged the existence of each in the TAC
`
`and was the author or signatory of each. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (emphasis added) (judicial
`
`notice proper where accuracy “cannot reasonably be questioned”). Finally, and contrary to
`
`Plaintiff’s opposition, Apple appropriately requested that the Court take notice of the content of
`
`Plaintiff’s own SEC Submission and the Offer Letter she signed, rather than accepting Plaintiff’s
`
`attempt to characterize these documents in the TAC without attaching them. Contrast Opp. to RJN
`
`¶¶22-28 with Moledina v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 3d 941, 946 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (citing
`
`Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977)) (“[T]he court may
`
`not assume the truth of allegations contradicted by … matters properly subject to judicial notice”).2
`
`The documents for which Apple seeks judicial notice are ones whose authenticity Plaintiff
`
`cannot reasonably contest, and which Plaintiff chose to reference in the operative complaint. They
`
`are relevant to assessing whether her allegations (including allegations contained in the documents
`
`she references in the TAC) state a claim. See, e.g., Dkt. 48 at 11, 13 (content of SEC complaint
`
`relevant to whether TAC alleges “protected activity” within the meaning of SOX or Dodd-Frank),
`
`23 (content of “written, signed contract” Plaintiff alleges governed her employment relationship
`
`relevant to whether TAC states a claim for breach of contract or derivative claims).
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`
`2 Alternatively, even if one or more of the prerequisites of judicial notice were not satisfied (as
`Plaintiff argues), such documents could properly be considered in connection with Apple’s
`Motion to Dismiss under the related doctrine of incorporation by reference. See, e.g., Juster, 2022
`WL 3030530, at *1 n.1 (quoting Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th
`Cir. 2018) (noting that the “incorporation-by-reference is a judicially created doctrine that treats
`certain documents as though they are part of the complaint itself[;] [t]he doctrine prevents
`plaintiffs from selecting only portions of documents that support their claims, while omitting
`portions of those very documents that weaken – or doom – their claims”).
`
`4149-3401-9919
`
`
`
`APPLE’S REPLY ISO RJN ISO MTD TAC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`- 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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 60 Filed 04/16/24 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of
`
`Exhibits A and B.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 16, 2024
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jessica R. Perry
`JESSICA R. PERRY
`Attorneys for Defendant 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
`
`
`
`
`4149-3401-9919
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`APPLE’S REPLY ISO RJN ISO MTD TAC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`