Thomas Joseph Goddard, proceeding without counsel, sued Apple Inc. for discrimination in what has become an increasingly unwieldy federal lawsuit. Goddard's latest attempt to amend his complaint included a 48-page motion with 334 pages of exhibits, alongside a proposed third amended complaint spanning 3,274 pages. The case involves claims under Section 1981, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and fraud allegations against the tech giant.
U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley struck Goddard's motion without prejudice, noting it violated Northern District of California Local Rule 7-2(b), which limits motions to 25 pages. 'The Court has repeatedly informed Plaintiff any proposed amended complaint must be stated in a reasonable number of pages to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2),' Corley wrote, referencing earlier warnings about Goddard's 2,183-page complaint being 'unreasonable.' The judge set a 100-page limit for any future amended complaint.
The court also denied four motions for immediate discovery filed by Goddard, finding he failed to comply with Federal Rule 26(d)(1) requiring parties to confer before seeking discovery and Rule 37(a)(1) mandating certification of good faith meet-and-confer efforts. Additionally, Goddard violated the court's standing order requiring parties to meet in person or via videoconference before filing discovery motions. The court denied as moot Apple's motion to strike various filings by Goddard.
The case will proceed on Goddard's remaining Section 1981, FCRA, and fraud claims, with an initial case management conference scheduled for April 29, 2026. The ruling highlights ongoing challenges courts face with pro se litigants who file voluminous, non-compliant pleadings, and demonstrates judicial efforts to manage case dockets while ensuring procedural compliance.