DOL Update: Judge Refuses to Entertain Attempt to Narrow Whistleblower Case by Informal Letter

Jorden Hollingsworth

— 2 min read
Share

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 that letter, Fisher Phillips asked the Court to step in, clarify the claims, and address the scope of the case. The Judge made clear that requests like this must be made through a formal motion under 29 C.F.R. § 18.33(a), not through an informal letter.

Because they did not follow the required process, the Court did not consider or grant the relief requested.

(If you’d like to review the March 31 filing itself, it is available in the post “DOL: Amended Complaint Served — and What Happened Next” and on the SOX/TFA Retaliation page.)

For readers unfamiliar with legal procedure, this is significant. Courts do not make decisions based on informal requests. If a party wants to limit a case or challenge its scope, they must do so through proper filings, supported by legal arguments. Without that, the Court simply does not act.

The Court also confirmed that, in whistleblower cases, a complaint may be amended to include additional facts and legal claims, including claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The Judge noted that questions about timing, such as whether claims were raised within required deadlines, can be addressed later in the case if necessary.

The Court further noted that the Amended Complaint in this matter has been properly served on the parties through counsel.

What this means in plain terms:

  • The Court did not act on Respondent’s attempt to limit or narrow the case at this stage  
  • The amended complaint remains in place, including the full scope of claims asserted  
  • The case will proceed under the Court’s rules, with any challenges required to be made through proper motions  

The case moves into the next phase, where both sides are required to exchange information and documents relevant to the claims under the Court’s supervision.

This case also now proceeds in a forum specifically structured for whistleblower claims, with Court oversight and formal procedures governing how issues are raised and decided.

April 8, 2026

Read more

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

By Jorden Hollingsworth

They Called It a Wage Case — Then Asked for Everything Else Medical history. Criminal history. Other proceedings. Agency communications. Whistleblower activity. Retaliation. Even AI.

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’

By Jorden Hollingsworth