The Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply: Why It Matters Now More Than Ever, As Deepak Chopra Attacks A Federal Protected Whistleblower

Filing a Sur-Reply is rare. Normally, a motion, an opposition, and a reply complete the discussion. Courts only allow a Sur-Reply when the opposing side raises new arguments or introduces new evidence that could mislead the record if left unaddressed. That’s exactly what happened here, and that’s why this filing matters.

How Chopra’s Reply Crossed the Line

Dr. Deepak Chopra’s Reply in Support of Dismissal didn’t simply defend himself, it changed the narrative of the entire case. His Motion to Dismiss focused narrowly on personal detachment: claiming he had no connection to Oregon, no knowledge of the parties, and no involvement in the network of entities. But in his Reply, everything shifted.

He suddenly mirrored the same language, tone, and strategy used by DRVM, the dissolved and reactivated shell company that’s been at the center of this structure from the start. His reply adopted phrases straight from Fisher Phillips’ earlier filings: calling the case “word salad,” “a fishing expedition,” and “nonsensical.”None of those words appeared in his first motion. They appeared only after coordination became undeniable.

Instead of defending his personal position, Chopra began defending the structure itself, the very one under federal investigation. He argued as if protecting a unified enterprise, not as a disconnected individual.

Contradictions Between Chopra and DRVM

Chopra’s reply contradicted his own motion and exposed the coordination between him and DRVM in real time. While DRVM is trying to erase deadlines and defaults for all nine respondents, Chopra claims this isn’t a pharmaceutical case at all. DRVM admits connection; Chopra denies it. Yet both use identical language and attack the same person, the whistleblower who uncovered it.

Both downplay the IRS audit. Both dismiss verified evidence as “unauthentic.” Both rely on mockery instead of facts. And both aim to shift the Court’s attention away from corporate misconduct and toward the whistleblower personally.

This alignment shows how deep the coordination runs. Their filings contradict each other in facts, but they are unified in tone, intent, and defense, a collective effort to minimize, delay, and distort.

Why the Sur-Reply Was Necessary

My Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply explained exactly why this step was critical. Chopra’s Reply introduced entirely new arguments that were never part of his motion to dismiss. He tried to erase the IRS audit, deny the pharmaceutical connections, and claim this entire case was nothing more than a personal grievance or “wage claim.”

But the evidence says otherwise. The IRS has already assigned claim numbers, confirmed review under the Taxpayer First Act, and opened the door to a formal audit. The filings in this case include state-verified corporate documents, trust registrations, and paystub evidence connecting Sanofi, Chattem, Quten Research Institute, and the Boutros family, all to the same address network used by DRVM and Rita GP Partners LLC, co-managed by Deepak Chopra. 

These are not anonymous claims, they are verified exhibits reviewed by one of the most powerful agencies in the United States. Calling them “unauthentic” doesn’t just insult the record, it insults the federal process itself.

If verified state and trust filings held by the IRS can be called fake in court, then discovery is not just warranted, it’s mandatory. That’s the core of why the Sur-Reply matters.

The Current Posture of the Case

Right now, the judge has approved service on all nine respondents, confirming that the process was valid and lawful. Yet even after that, obstruction continues on the public docket.

• Five respondents are already past default.

• Two major corporate parties are actively avoiding service.

• One respondent is twisting the judge’s orders to erase deadlines that legally still stand.

• And now the most well-known respondent, Dr. Deepak Chopra, is attempting to speak for everyone, using his name and platform to convince the Court that the whistleblower is delusional and the case is “not about pharmaceuticals.”

The contradictions are everywhere. Chopra and DRVM are saying different things, yet using the same language, both trying to control the narrative, both defending the same structure, and both attacking the same person. That’s not coincidence. That’s strategy.

Why This Moment Exposes Everything

This motion and the resulting Sur-Reply expose what’s really happening: the same obstruction that defined arbitration has now followed into federal court. The same shell company used to hide corporate control is still being used to rewrite the record. What once happened in private is now visible in the open, in public filings, timestamps, and contradictions for anyone to read.

The record now reflects exactly what I warned from the beginning: the system is being manipulated in real time to protect billion-dollar interests, and every filing that tries to silence the truth only proves how real it is.

The Hypocrisy Behind the “Wellness” Brand

And perhaps the most disturbing part of all, Dr. Deepak Chopra is not an ordinary respondent. He’s a globally recognized public figure, a man who built an empire on messages of peace, truth, mindfulness, and moral integrity. He has millions of followers who look to him as a voice of wisdom and compassion.

Yet in federal court, that same man is attacking a federally protected whistleblower, mocking verified evidence, and using his legal filings to defend a structure connected to one of the most notorious pharmaceutical corporations in the world, Sanofi, a company repeatedly investigated for corruption, fraud, and unethical practices across multiple countries.

If Chopra’s public message is about consciousness and integrity, his actions in this case show the opposite. When faced with evidence that his name and business affiliations are tied to a corporate network under IRS review, his first response wasn’t reflection or accountability, it was to bash the whistleblower exposing it.

That’s not wellness. That’s hypocrisy on a global scale.

The Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply and the Sur-Reply itself now stand as proof, not just of legal obstruction, but of how deeply entrenched the system becomes when truth threatens power. And this time, it’s all happening on the record.