Behind the Private Arbitration Door: What a National Law Firm Put in Writing - The emails, the discovery tactics, the personal attacks, the deposition dispute, and the AI contradiction.

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 began challenging the scope of the discovery.

The previous update documented the discovery itself. This one documents what happened afterward—when I began trying to resolve the discovery and deposition issues directly with Fisher Phillips.

I am attaching the actual email correspondence so there is no need to rely on my characterization of what was said. The record shows my repeated requests for specific discovery deficiencies, specific requests, specific procedural authority, and reciprocal scheduling—and the responses from Fisher Phillips.

What begins as a discovery dispute quickly becomes much more personal in tone.

The complete email correspondence is attached below. I then explain the key exchanges, the context surrounding them, and why I believe the language and tactics matter. I encourage readers to read the correspondence for themselves and compare the actual emails with my explanation.

The Discovery Exchange

On August 10, after I served my discovery responses and objections, Fisher Phillips asked why I had not produced additional documents. I explained that the responsive, non-privileged documents within my possession, custody, or control had already been produced or filed in the arbitration, and asked them to identify any specific document or category they believed was missing.

Counsel then asked whether I intended to amend my responses following the Arbitrator’s denial of my Motion for Protective Order. I explained that my individual objections—including relevance, proportionality, overbreadth, burden, privilege, privacy, and confidentiality—were independently asserted to each request and were not dependent upon the outcome of the separate protective-order motion.

When Fisher Phillips again asked whether I had any additional responsive documents, I gave the same answer and asked them to identify the specific discovery they believed remained outstanding. I also stated that if they believed discovery concerning non-parties or matters involving other parties was relevant to the claims or defenses before the Arbitrator, they should identify the specific claim or defense to which that discovery was directed.

Then came the response from Stephen Scott, Fisher Phillips’ Regional Managing Partner:

“This is a yes or no question. We have discovery we want.”

He asked whether there was anything they could show me that would lead me to produce the requested discovery, or whether they should simply file a Motion to Compel. He then added:

“Your response does not require a chatgpt diatribe. Just a yes or no.”

I responded by asking again for the specific interrogatory or request for production, and the specific information or document they contended was outstanding. I also pointed out that if they were seeking discovery concerning other parties or matters outside the wage-related claims they had consistently identified as the scope of the arbitration, that was a broader scope issue requiring reciprocal treatment.

The response was:

“All the RFPs and ROGs as written.”

Counsel then stated that if I was only willing to produce based on my limitations, “then I have my answer.” The email continued:

“And to be clear you don’t have any privileged records, you do not have an attorney. If you’re withholding things we need to know.”

I again asked them to identify the specific request and specific information or document they believed was missing rather than referring generally to “all” discovery. I also stated that if they were expanding discovery beyond the wage-related issues they had consistently identified as the scope of the arbitration, that expansion needed to be addressed reciprocally.

Scott’s final response was:

“Thanks for confirming nothing will change your stance. I appreciate it.”

He then stated that he had simply needed to know that I was not producing the discovery they requested and that no conferral would help.

Then the Deposition Correspondence Began

The same day, DRVM served its Notice of Videotaped Deposition of me for September 8, 2026.

I did not refuse the deposition.

Instead, I identified the three fact-witness depositions permitted to each party under the Scheduling Order: Maged Boutros, Steven Dickert, and Vilma Veras. I explained why each witness had relevant knowledge concerning the wage dispute and proposed coordinating all four depositions within the September 25 discovery deadline.

The subsequent correspondence became increasingly contentious.

On August 11, Carmen Livengood wrote:

“You are making this more difficult than it needs to be.”

She also stated that the scheduling issue was something I would have understood better “if you had counsel.”

I responded that I was not refusing to participate in my deposition and was simply asking that all four depositions be coordinated within the same discovery period.

Scott then warned:

“If you no show to a noticed deposition that is ultimately your call. We will seek associated sanctions for you doing so.”

I continued proposing specific dates rather than refusing to participate. Eventually, I proposed a schedule that would complete all four depositions well before the September 25 deadline.

And Then Came the Email About AI

The most revealing part of this correspondence is that the dispute itself became an argument about my use of AI.

Scott wrote that my communications were “chatgpt responses” and described them as “ai filled vitriol.” He then stated:

“Email is a privilege that you lost.”

That is notable in the context of the discovery DRVM itself served.

DRVM had served an interrogatory specifically demanding extensive information concerning every instance in which I or anyone acting on my behalf used artificial intelligence in connection with virtually any matter at issue in the arbitration, including investigation, liability, damages, discovery responses, testimony, and evidence analysis. The interrogatory then demanded 12 separate categories of information for each use.

So the record now contains an unusual juxtaposition:

DRVM’s discovery demanded extensive disclosure concerning my use of AI. Fisher Phillips then characterized my communications as “chatgpt responses” and “ai filled vitriol.”

I will let readers compare those communications with the actual discovery requests and decide what they show.

The Correspondence Is the Record

These emails are being published in their entirety because the tone, sequence, and substance are difficult to appreciate through summaries alone.

They show repeated requests from me for specific requests, specific deficiencies, specific rules, and specific procedural authority, followed by increasingly generalized characterizations of my conduct and discovery position.

They also show that I repeatedly proposed concrete solutions—including reciprocal discovery and coordinated depositions—rather than refusing to participate in discovery. 

The AI Question They Once Said Had Nothing to Do With This Case

There is another part of this record that deserves to be placed alongside the recent communications.

In June 2025, after the arbitration had stalled over the lack of payment and was approaching the point where the proceeding could be closed out, I sought the appointment of Dr. Ryan Abbott as arbitrator because of his expertise in artificial intelligence and emerging technology, including his work on the JAMS AI Guidelines. This was not a request I made at the beginning of the arbitration; it came after the proceeding had effectively stalled and I was trying to move it forward.

Fisher Phillips initially formally objected to my request for an AI-qualified arbitrator. They later agreed to the requested arbitrator qualifications in an effort to resolve the dispute and avoid further federal litigation, but those qualifications were ultimately not honored. Fisher Phillips then returned to its original position, arguing that AI and emerging technology had nothing to do with the case and characterizing my insistence on those issues as an example of “bad faith litigation.” The contradiction is significant: they first objected to the AI-related qualifications, then agreed to them to resolve the federal dispute, and later argued that the very subject they had agreed was relevant had nothing to do with the case.

And the person signing that objection was Stephen M. Scott, the same Fisher Phillips partner who is now involved in the communications discussed above.

Scott’s June 27, 2025 letter to JAMS stated that Dr. Abbott’s AI expertise was “entirely untethered from the narrow issues presented here—namely, an uncomplicated Oregon wage dispute.”

The letter went further:

“This case does not turn on matters of algorithmic design, AI ethics, or emerging technology.”

Fisher Phillips therefore argued that an arbitrator’s AI qualifications had no relevance to the factual or legal questions before the arbitrator, and requested an arbitrator whose experience was instead focused on Oregon wage statutes, payroll practices, and penalty calculations.

That position was then repeated in DRVM’s federal response to my Petition to Compel Arbitrator Appointment.

The response characterized the dispute as “a narrow wage and hour claim under Oregon law” and argued that my insistence on an arbitrator with AI and emerging-technology experience had “no basis in the claims at issue.” 

The filing even expressly asked the Court to:

“Deny Petitioner’s Petition to Compel an AI-expert such as Ryan Abbott or Daniel Garrie as Arbitrator.”

And the filing was signed by Stephen M. Scott.

Fast-forward to 2026.

Now the same Respondent is serving discovery that specifically asks about AI.

Not merely whether I used AI.

The interrogatory seeks information concerning each instance in which I, or anyone acting on my behalf, used artificial intelligence in connection with virtually any matter at issue in the arbitration—including the facts alleged, events giving rise to claims or defenses, investigation, liability, damages, records, discovery responses, testimony, and analysis of evidence.

It then demands information including the AI tool or model, version, provider, date of use, person who used it, purpose of use, and other details.

And this isn’t occurring in a vacuum.

Remember within the current communications, Scott himself has repeatedly brought AI into the discussion, including characterizing my communications as “chatgpt responses” and “ai filled vitriol.”

So there is a remarkable progression:

2025:

AI has nothing to do with this case.

2025:

The case is an uncomplicated Oregon wage dispute.

2025:

An AI expert is irrelevant.

2026:

Tell us every instance in which you used AI in connection with the case, including your investigation, damages, discovery, testimony, evidence analysis, and other matters.

And then, in the correspondence:

AI is being invoked personally as a criticism of how I litigate.

That is the part I find particularly significant.

I originally argued that the nature of the dispute warranted an arbitrator who understood AI and emerging technology. Fisher Phillips fought that position on the ground that AI was irrelevant to the case. Their federal filing expressly described my AI-related arbitrator request as an attempt to inject irrelevant issues into the proceeding.

I obviously cannot rewrite the historical record and claim that their present discovery request proves my original position was legally correct. It doesn’t, by itself.

But it does create a striking contradiction in the record.

Because now, after spending substantial effort arguing that AI was irrelevant to the arbitration, Respondent itself considers my use of AI sufficiently connected to the proceeding to demand detailed discovery about it.

And that raises the obvious question:

If AI truly had nothing to do with this case, why is Respondent now conducting discovery into it?

That is also why the earlier arbitrator dispute deserves to be understood in its full context.

I wasn’t simply asking for an AI-qualified arbitrator because I thought AI sounded interesting.

I was arguing that the case involved technology-related issues and that those issues could become significant to the proceedings.

Fisher Phillips disagreed—strongly.

They wanted the matter treated as a conventional Oregon wage-and-hour arbitration and specifically advocated for an arbitrator with Oregon wage-and-hour experience instead.

Now the record has moved in an interesting direction.

The Respondent that fought hardest to characterize AI as irrelevant is now asking me to disclose the details of my AI use across the investigation, evidence, damages, discovery, testimony, and preparation of the case.

And that doesn’t necessarily prove that my original arbitrator-selection argument was correct.

But it certainly makes the original argument look far less unreasonable in retrospect.

The Arbitrator They Fought For vs. The Discovery They Are Now Seeking

For more than a year, DRVM and Fisher Phillips consistently argued that this was a narrow Oregon wage-and-hour case and that the appropriate arbitrator needed substantial Oregon wage-and-hour experience. They specifically argued that AI and emerging technology had nothing to do with the claims and opposed an AI-qualified arbitrator on that basis. 

Yet look at the discovery they are now serving.

The substantial discovery requests reach into AI and emerging technology, whistleblower activity and retaliation, other proceedings and parties, alleged fraud and misconduct, communications with government agencies and employees, criminal history, medical and emotional-distress information, financial circumstances, reputational harm, and the broader allegations involving other entities.

In other words, the very subjects they spent months arguing had nothing to do with this arbitration are now appearing throughout their own discovery.

They fought for a wage arbitrator because, according to their own filings, this case supposedly required nothing more than Oregon wage-and-hour expertise.

But the discovery they are now demanding looks nothing like a simple wage case.

That contradiction is one of the central issues documented in this update.

Why I Filed the SOX/TFA Retaliation Case

At this point, the issue is no longer simply what Fisher Phillips says this arbitration is about. The record shows what is actually happening in the discovery and in the communications surrounding it.

DRVM has repeatedly characterized this arbitration as a narrow wage claim. At the same time, it has resisted basic discovery into its own payroll records, resulting in two Motions to Compel. It asserted privilege over responsive information without producing the privilege log it had represented would be provided, and its subsequent production included materials I had already provided. Both Motions to Compel were ultimately denied without substantive explanations addressing the underlying deficiencies.

Then the direction of discovery changed.

DRVM served discovery reaching into whistleblower activity, retaliation, other proceedings, communications with government agencies and employees, criminal history, medical and emotional-distress information, financial circumstances, reputational harm, and extensive AI use.

And the tone of the communications surrounding that discovery matters too.

The correspondence includes demands that I simply answer “yes or no,” references to my use of AI as a criticism of my communications, statements that I should keep my emails concise, warnings about sanctions, and a statement that I could involve the Arbitrator even though it would “likely once again result in a ruling in our favor.”

There are also statements in the correspondence concerning my lack of counsel and comments about how I should be communicating as a pro se claimant. These communications occurred while I was attempting to obtain specific answers about discovery, scheduling, and the procedural basis for the positions being taken.

This is the context in which my separate SOX/TFA retaliation allegations must be understood.

My allegation is that the broader parties and interests involved in the underlying dispute are using DRVM and other entities as vehicles through which litigation tactics and retaliation are being carried out. I am not presenting that as an established judicial finding. It is the allegation I have made and the reason the separate retaliation proceeding exists.

And the issue is not simply that DRVM is defending itself. Parties are entitled to defend litigation.

The issue is the combination of the conduct: repeatedly characterizing the arbitration as a narrow wage case; resisting discovery into that wage case; changing positions regarding whether discovery was complete; asserting privilege without producing the promised privilege log; serving discovery into matters it has characterized elsewhere as unrelated; and then using increasingly adversarial communications while those issues are being litigated.

That combination is precisely why the retaliation allegations exist.

The discovery and correspondence now provide the record through which those allegations can be examined.

There is another question I cannot ignore.

If Fisher Phillips has successfully characterized this matter across three separate forums—including this arbitration—as nothing more than a narrow wage dispute, and has obtained rulings denying my Motions to Compel, declining to require the privilege log I sought, and denying my request for protection from the broader discovery, why is the scope of the litigation now expanding into all of these other subjects?

If this were truly nothing more than a narrow wage dispute involving a small wage entity, the breadth of this discovery raises a legitimate question:

Why is the litigation now reaching into whistleblower activity, retaliation, other proceedings, communications with government agencies and employees, other entities, alleged fraud, criminal history, medical and emotional matters, and AI?

Instead of becoming narrower after the case was repeatedly characterized as a simple wage matter, the discovery has become broader.

In my opinion, that raises the obvious question of whether there is something—or someone—on the other side of this dispute that is not being disclosed by the “small wage case” characterization.

And that question goes directly to the allegations in my separate SOX/TFA retaliation proceeding: that the litigation activity, entities, and conduct surrounding DRVM are part of a broader retaliatory effort connected to my whistleblower activity.

I am not claiming that this paragraph, by itself, proves who is directing anything. I am putting the conduct and the record together and asking the appropriate forums to examine the contradiction.

If the broader subjects truly have nothing to do with this arbitration, the record should explain why they are now the subject of such extensive discovery.

The Private Forum Problem

There is another part of this that cannot be overlooked: all of this is occurring inside a private arbitration proceeding.

Much of what happens there is not publicly visible unless the parties themselves put it on the record elsewhere. At the same time, in the public proceedings—including federal court and the Department of Labor—the position has been that this is merely a narrow wage dispute and that the broader allegations of retaliation and other conduct are irrelevant.

That creates an obvious problem of transparency.

The very conduct being characterized publicly as irrelevant is being litigated, investigated, and used as the subject of discovery inside a private forum that the public cannot independently see.

That is why I am putting these filings, discovery requests, orders, and emails on the record.

The public should be able to see the difference between what is being represented about this case in public proceedings and what is actually happening inside the private arbitration.

If there truly is nothing to these broader allegations, then the record should be able to withstand that scrutiny.

I am not asking anyone to simply believe me.

I am asking people to read the documents and compare what was said in each forum with what is actually happening in the arbitration.

For more than a year, we all have been told this was simply a wage case.

The record now shows a much broader discovery fight taking place behind a private arbitration door.

This is my effort to open that door and put the record where it can actually be examined.

The record now gives the reader the opportunity to make the comparison for themselves:

What was being said in one forum.

What was being said in another.

What DRVM told the Arbitrator this case was about.

And what DRVM is actually demanding from me in discovery.

That comparison is the reason I am putting the record out there.

This is the record. Read it for yourself.