Most of what happens inside a private arbitration is never seen by the public. This post is different. I am publishing the complete email correspondence so readers can see for themselves what was said, how the discovery dispute was handled, and how the tone of the communications changed once I
Before You Read the Details This update follows the discovery dispute from my first Motion to Compel filed on March 30, 2026, through the present, including what was requested, what was produced, what was withheld, how the discovery scope changed, and how those issues were addressed before the Arbitrator. I’
After several months without a public update, there is a substantial amount of new information to share. Since April, much of the work has occurred behind the scenes through legal research, briefing, discovery, motion practice, and preparation across multiple proceedings. Rather than posting frequent incremental updates, I chose to focus
This order was issued on April 8, 2026 and is included here for clarity as the case continues to move forward. On April 8, 2026, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order responding to a March 31 letter submitted by Respondent DRVM LLC through its counsel, Fisher Phillips LLP. In
One of the main arguments being made in federal court is that arbitration provides full relief, that everything in this case can and should be handled there. But what is actually happening inside the arbitration tells a very different story. (go all the way down for their response to the
Shortly after the Department of Labor issued its March 17, 2026 Notice of Hearing—moving this case forward under both the Taxpayer First Act (TFA) and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)—Fisher Phillips for AMJ Services & Basil Management Trust through the Trustee Steven S. Dickert, filed their reply in
The First Amended Complaint in the Department of Labor proceeding has now been formally served, in full compliance with the Administrative Law Judge’s March 31, 2026 deadline. On March 31, I filed a status update with a proposed discovery plan in compliance with the Court’s order. That same
Back in November, the Department of Labor made it clear where this was going. They required initial disclosures and told us: A judge would be assigned This would move into a formal proceeding Now it has. On March 17, 2026, a judge was officially assigned: Administrative Law Judge Evan H.
It’s been a minute since my last update, and that’s because this is the stage where everything gets intense. The defendants—Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten—just filed their final reply asking the judge to dismiss my case entirely. This is their last word before the court decides what
I have now filed my official opposition in federal court against the motions filed by Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem Inc., Quten Research Institute LLC, AMJ Services LLC, and Steven S. Dickert as Trustee of Basil Management Trust. I also filed a declaration with 34 exhibits supporting that opposition.
The documents below include a 37-page Motion to Dismiss filed by Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem, Inc., and Quten Research Institute, LLC, along with sworn declarations from three senior executives submitted in support of that motion. In this filing, the three companies ask the U.S. District Court
Here is what just happened in the federal case regarding Faegre Drinker’s second request for an extension. The Background The original response deadline for Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten was set for February 11, 2026. That date was not random. It came from a negotiated compromise. Faegre Drinker initially asked