Arbitration Preliminary Conference – What Happened on the Record
Before the preliminary conference was held, the parties participated in JAMS’ standard rank-and-strike process for arbitrator selection. Each side was provided with a list of proposed neutrals and given the opportunity to rank preferences and strike candidates pursuant to JAMS procedure.
Following that process, the matter was assigned to Judge Dean S. Lum (Ret.) as the appointed Arbitrator. Judge Lum is a retired judge and now serves as a neutral through JAMS. His appointment followed the formal ranking and striking process and was not unilateral by either party.
PDFs of the Discovery Order, Initial Disclosure, First Discovery Set, Preservation Letter, are attached below.
Case Management Conference and Discovery Order (January 27, 2026)
The arbitration preliminary conference was held with the Arbitrator, Bobbi Edwards of Fisher Phillips LLP, and myself, appearing pro se.
This was the first formal conference in the arbitration proceeding.
Introductions and Initial Framing
At the start of the call, the parties introduced themselves.
When I stated that I was appearing pro se, the Arbitrator asked whether I had previously participated in arbitration. I answered that I had not, but that I had researched arbitration extensively and understood the procedural framework governing the matter.
The tone at the outset reflected what is often seen in legal forums, an assumption that a self-represented party may be unfamiliar with procedure. It was important to make clear from the beginning that I understood the rules and the structure of the proceeding.
“Describe Your Case in a Few Words”
Early in the conference, the Arbitrator asked each side to briefly describe the case, not to argue the merits, but simply to frame the dispute.
When asked, I stated:
This is a narrow wage claim and related penalties, consistent with the court’s prior order.
The Arbitrator then asked the defense whether that description was accurate.
Counsel for Respondents responded that it was not, and stated that I have “five to seven claims worth billions of dollars.”
There was a noticeable pause following that statement. The Arbitrator acknowledged the response but did not engage in merits discussion and instead moved the conference forward into scheduling.
Scheduling Discussion
The conference then shifted to logistics:
• Discovery limits
• Depositions
• Timeline toward hearing
• Dispositive motions
At multiple points during scheduling, Respondents attempted to expand the characterization of the dispute beyond a narrow wage claim. The Arbitrator redirected the discussion back to procedural management several times.
There appeared to be an expectation from Respondents that the case could potentially be resolved without full discovery. When discussing hearing dates, there was initial hesitation about committing to scheduling.
When asked about availability for a final hearing, I stated I would be available within approximately 3–4 months. That’s where I was very wrong!
The hearing was ultimately scheduled approximately one year out. December 8, 2026.
While that is a longer timeline than I proposed, the key point is that the hearing is now formally scheduled.
Dispositive Motions and Discovery
When discovery was discussed, Respondents indicated they believed the matter could potentially be resolved via summary disposition based on the existing record.
The Arbitrator responded by clarifying that while dispositive motions are permitted in arbitration, this is not federal court, and arbitration procedure is more flexible. He indicated that dismissal at this stage would not be appropriate without development of the record.
The Arbitrator formally ordered discovery to proceed.
It was clear from the discussion that Respondents would prefer to avoid full discovery. However, the Scheduling Order authorizes it.
Scope of Discovery
When asked how much discovery I anticipated needing, I stated:
• 10 document requests
• 10 interrogatories
• 1–2 depositions, depending on what payroll records show
When Respondents were asked about depositions, they stated they did not believe depositions would be necessary, but if taken, they would depose me.
The Arbitrator ordered:
• 10 interrogatories per side
• 10 requests for production per side
• 3 fact witness depositions per side
This provides structured but meaningful discovery parameters.
Arbitration Agreement Question
During discussion of scope, the Arbitrator asked Respondents whether the arbitration agreement was contained in the employee portal.
Counsel responded that they did not know and would need to check the record.
When it was my turn to speak, I clarified that the arbitration agreement is in the portal and that the court’s order addressing the scope of the arbitration is also part of the record.
The Arbitrator acknowledged and thanked me for the clarification.
Immediate Service of Discovery
The Scheduling Order was signed January 27, 2026.
That same day, I served:
• Initial disclosures
• 10 interrogatories
• 10 requests for production
All requests are narrowly tailored to payroll and wage issues, including:
• Dates of termination
• Final paycheck timing
• Payroll calculations
• Who made payroll decisions
• Who had knowledge of wage obligations
The full discovery requests are attached for review.
Under the Scheduling Order, Respondents’ disclosures and responses are due within 30 days.
Procedural Reality Going Forward
The arbitration is now formally in discovery.
Respondents have indicated a preference to resolve the matter without discovery. However, discovery has been ordered.
If objections arise, they will need to be addressed through motion practice within arbitration.
The hearing is scheduled.
Discovery is open.
The matter is moving forward.
Further updates will follow as deadlines pass and responses are received.
Payroll Provider Change During Discovery
Shortly after discovery was served, I was notified that Respondents were transitioning their payroll provider from ADP to Paycor.
The timing is notable. Discovery requests directed at payroll records were served on January 27, 2026. Within approximately one week, notice was given that the payroll system was being changed.
Because payroll records are central to this arbitration, I immediately sent a written preservation letter to Fisher Phillips requesting confirmation that all payroll data, metadata, backend records, and historical system information from ADP would be fully preserved and not altered, deleted, or migrated in a manner that would affect evidentiary integrity.
No written response was received.
During a separate meet-and-confer call in federal court, I raised the issue at the end of the call and asked whether the preservation letter had been received and whether the requested assurances would be provided. The response was brief and non-specific: I was told that “your documents have been preserved from the first moment this matter started.”
No written confirmation followed that statement.
The Scheduling Order now requires formal disclosures and production within 30 days. Preservation of payroll records—including data maintained in ADP prior to any transition—is essential to the integrity of the discovery process. Further updates will be provided once production is received.
Under the Scheduling Order, Respondents have 30 days from January 27, 2026 to serve their initial disclosures and to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production that were served the same day. The discovery requests are narrowly tailored to payroll records, termination dates, final wage calculations, and related documentation. Given the limited scope of the arbitration and the direct focus on payroll, production should be straightforward.
If objections are asserted or documents are withheld on relevance grounds, those disputes will need to be addressed through the arbitration process, including meet-and-confer discussions and, if necessary, a motion to compel. The Scheduling Order requires cooperation during discovery. Whether Respondents comply fully, partially, or resist production will become clear within this 30-day window. I will provide an update once disclosures and responses are received.