The SOX & TFA Retaliation Case

Department of Labor Whistleblower Proceeding

The Department of Labor whistleblower case has now progressed through several important stages since it was first initiated in August 2025.

The matter began when Plaintiff filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the Taxpayer First Act (TFA). After OSHA issued its findings, Plaintiff exercised his statutory right to object and request a hearing before the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). The case was formally docketed in November 2025, marking the beginning of administrative litigation under the Department of Labor’s procedural rules.

Since then, the proceeding has advanced significantly. In March 2026, the case was assigned to an Administrative Law Judge, discovery formally commenced, amended pleadings were filed, and the parties entered active motion practice. Since that time, the litigation has expanded to include discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and significant disagreements concerning the scope of the case and the evidence each party must produce.

This page summarizes the most significant developments in the Department of Labor proceeding, explains the purpose of each major filing and court order, and provides access to the underlying public documents. As additional filings and rulings are issued, this page will continue to be updated to reflect the current status of the litigation.

Let’s take a closer look at how the Department of Labor whistleblower case has progressed.

August–September 2025 – OSHA Declines Investigation; Plaintiff Requests Formal Dismissal

Shortly after the whistleblower complaint was filed, OSHA completed an initial review and notified Plaintiff that it intended to administratively close the matter rather than open a formal investigation. According to OSHA, the complaint did not appear to satisfy the requirements for investigation under the Taxpayer First Act because, in its preliminary view, there was no qualifying employer-employee relationship at the time of the alleged protected activity. OSHA advised Plaintiff that an administrative closure would end the matter without appeal rights, but that a formal dismissal would preserve Plaintiff’s right to seek review before the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges.

Rather than accept an administrative closure, Plaintiff requested that OSHA issue a formal dismissal so the legal issues could be reviewed by an Administrative Law Judge. OSHA honored that request and issued the Secretary’s Findings on September 9, 2025, allowing Plaintiff to file objections and continue the case through the Department of Labor’s administrative review process.

Plaintiff views OSHA’s initial position as noteworthy for another reason. The preliminary conclusion that the matter did not appear to involve a qualifying employer-employee relationship reflected, in Plaintiff’s view, the same underlying issue raised throughout the broader litigation: the IRS whistleblower claim numbers were assigned to Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem Inc., and Quten Research Institute—not to DRVM LLC or the other entities Plaintiff alleges functioned as payroll or employment shells. Plaintiff contends that this recurring question concerning the identity of the proper employer and responsible entities has become one of the central issues across multiple proceedings.

After issuing the formal dismissal, OSHA changed the reasoning that Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Taxpayer First Act, finding that the alleged adverse actions were not materially actionable under the statute. Plaintiff subsequently filed objections, arguing that OSHA applied the wrong legal framework by focusing primarily on the employment relationship and failing to properly evaluate the alleged post-whistleblower retaliation occurring after the IRS assigned claim numbers.

Related Filings

• Exhibit 33 – OSHA Proceedings (Complaint, Correspondence, Secretary’s Findings, and Appeal) (PDF)

This document is presented as Exhibit 33, the compilation prepared and submitted in connection with Plaintiff’s opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision. It brings together the complete OSHA administrative record—including the original whistleblower complaint, OSHA’s follow-up correspondence, the proposed administrative closure, the Secretary’s Findings, Plaintiff’s objections, and related communications—into a single exhibit. Together, these documents provide the procedural history of the case from the initial OSHA filing through its transition to the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges.

September 2025 – Secretary’s Findings Issued

On September 9, 2025, OSHA issued the Secretary’s Findings formally dismissing the whistleblower complaint. The Findings concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Taxpayer First Act. Although OSHA acknowledged Plaintiff’s allegations of post-employment retaliation, it ultimately determined that the alleged adverse actions were not materially actionable under the statute and dismissed the complaint while advising Plaintiff of his right to request a hearing before the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges.

Plaintiff disagreed with that conclusion and filed timely objections requesting a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. According to Plaintiff, the Secretary’s Findings focused primarily on the employment relationship and failed to properly evaluate the alleged retaliation occurring after the IRS assigned whistleblower claim numbers to Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem Inc., and Quten Research Institute. Plaintiff further argued that the Findings incorrectly minimized the significance of the alleged retaliatory conduct and applied an overly narrow interpretation of the protections afforded by the Taxpayer First Act.

The filing of those objections transferred the matter from OSHA’s investigative process into formal litigation before the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges, where the parties would be permitted to engage in discovery, file motions, present evidence, and ultimately receive an independent decision from an Administrative Law Judge.

November 2025 – Case Formally Docketed Before the Department of Labor

Following Plaintiff’s objections to the Secretary’s Findings, the matter was formally docketed before the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges. On November 14, 2025, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of Docketing, officially opening the case and placing it under the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Law Judges.

The Notice of Docketing marked an important procedural transition. Up to that point, the matter had been handled through OSHA’s administrative investigation. Once docketed, however, the case became an active adversarial proceeding governed by the Department of Labor’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. From that point forward, the parties were required to litigate the matter before an Administrative Law Judge rather than through OSHA’s investigative process.

The Notice also required the parties to exchange Initial Disclosures under 29 C.F.R. § 18.50. These mandatory disclosures identify the witnesses, documents, and categories of evidence each party may rely upon during the litigation and serve as the foundation for the formal discovery process that follows. As discussed below, the parties’ Initial Disclosures revealed substantially different views regarding the scope of the case, setting the stage for many of the disputes that would later arise during discovery and motion practice.

Related Filing

• Notice of Docketing (November 14, 2025) (PDF)

Initial Disclosures Reveal Fundamentally Different Views of the Case

Pursuant to the Notice of Docketing, both parties exchanged Initial Disclosures identifying the witnesses, documents, and information they believed would support their respective claims and defenses. Initial Disclosures serve an important purpose beyond simply exchanging documents. They require each party to identify, at the outset of the litigation, the witnesses, documents, and categories of evidence they reasonably believe support their claims or defenses. As a result, they often provide the first clear picture of how each side intends to litigate the case and establish a baseline against which later positions can be evaluated.

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures identified numerous categories of witnesses and documentary evidence relating to the alleged whistleblower retaliation, including the IRS and SEC whistleblower disclosures, employer identity, the alleged enterprise structure, arbitration proceedings, concurrent federal litigation, the July 1, 2025 payment, corporate registrations, and the alleged retaliatory conduct occurring after the IRS assigned whistleblower claim numbers. Plaintiff also identified multiple witnesses and categories of documents addressing those issues.

Respondent DRVM LLC’s Initial Disclosures, by contrast, primarily identified Plaintiff’s employment records, payroll documents, OSHA’s dismissal, and witnesses relating to Plaintiff’s employment and termination with DRVM LLC. Respondent expressly denied that Plaintiff suffered any damages as a result of any alleged wrongdoing, identified proof of the disputed payment that it characterized as resolving “the only cognizable claim” raised in the arbitration, and framed the proceeding largely as an employment and wage-related dispute rather than a broader whistleblower retaliation case.

According to Plaintiff, these disclosures revealed fundamentally different understandings of what the litigation was about from its earliest stages. Plaintiff contends that while his disclosures focused on post-whistleblower retaliation and the broader enterprise through which the alleged conduct occurred, Respondent’s disclosures continued to characterize the matter as a dispute arising primarily from Plaintiff’s employment with DRVM LLC and the payment of wages. Plaintiff argues that these competing views established the framework for many of the discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and procedural disagreements that followed throughout the litigation.

Related Filings

• Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures (November 20, 2025) (PDF)

• Respondent’s Initial Disclosures (December 5, 2025) (PDF)

An important aspect of this proceeding is that the same law firm, Fisher Phillips LLP, represents Respondent DRVM LLC here as it does in the related arbitration and other proceedings. Although Plaintiff’s protected IRS whistleblower disclosures and resulting claim numbers involve Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem Inc., and Quten Research Institute LLC, the Department of Labor proceeding has again been litigated primarily by DRVM LLC through Fisher Phillips. According to Plaintiff, this reflects the same recurring issue presented throughout the parallel proceedings: the entities Plaintiff contends are the focus of the protected whistleblower disclosures are not the entities actively defending the case, while DRVM LLC continues to serve as the principal litigating Respondent. Plaintiff maintains that this distinction is central to the questions of employer identity, enterprise structure, and responsibility that remain disputed throughout the litigation.

March 2026 – Administrative Law Judge Issues Scheduling Order

After the parties exchanged their Initial Disclosures, the case continued to progress before the Department of Labor. On March 17, 2026, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a comprehensive Scheduling Order formally placing the matter into active litigation under the Department of Labor’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

 The case was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Evan H. Nordby of the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges in San Francisco. Judge Nordby now presides over the proceedings, including discovery, motion practice, evidentiary issues, and the eventual hearing on the merits of Plaintiff’s whistleblower claims. 

Notably, the Department of Labor docket and Scheduling Order reflected that the proceeding would move forward under both the Taxpayer First Act (TFA) and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) whistleblower provisions. According to Plaintiff, the inclusion of the SOX designation is significant because Sarbanes-Oxley applies to publicly traded companies and certain related entities. Plaintiff contends that the Department’s decision to docket and manage the case under both statutory frameworks is consistent with his position that the alleged retaliation extends beyond DRVM LLC and involves the broader corporate enterprise identified in his whistleblower disclosures.

The Order established the framework governing the remainder of the proceedings. Among other things, it required the parties to meet and confer regarding discovery, submit a joint discovery plan, complete written discovery, supplement their disclosures as necessary, and comply with a structured schedule for dispositive motions, pre-hearing filings, and the eventual evidentiary hearing. The Order also expressly permitted amendments to the pleadings before the established deadline.

Unlike OSHA’s earlier administrative review, the Scheduling Order marked the beginning of formal litigation before the Administrative Law Judge. From that point forward, the parties were expected to actively participate in discovery, exchange relevant evidence, and litigate the merits of the whistleblower claims under the Taxpayer First Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

According to Plaintiff, the issuance of the Scheduling Order also marked the beginning of a series of procedural disputes concerning discovery, the scope of the case, and the parties’ respective obligations under the Court’s orders—issues that would continue to shape the litigation over the following months.

Related Filing

• Administrative Law Judge’s Notice of Hearing Order (March 17, 2026) (PDF)

March 2026 – Discovery Planning and the First Procedural Dispute

Following Judge Nordby’s Pre-Hearing Order, the parties were required to meet and confer and develop a discovery plan by March 31, 2026. Plaintiff initiated the process shortly after the Order was issued, circulated a proposed framework, and participated in a telephonic conference with Respondent’s counsel. After the conference, Plaintiff circulated revised language reflecting his understanding of the parties’ respective positions and repeatedly invited Respondent to identify any inaccuracies or supply alternative wording. Respondent objected to the proposed filing being characterized as a joint plan, maintained that discovery should remain limited to DRVM LLC, and indicated that it was not prepared to take broader positions until reviewing Plaintiff’s anticipated amended complaint.

Because the parties did not reach agreement before the Court’s deadline, Plaintiff filed a Status Report Regarding Discovery Plan. The filing asked the Administrative Law Judge either to establish a discovery schedule consistent with the existing deadlines or to hold a conference addressing the scope and timing of discovery. According to Plaintiff, this was the first significant procedural dispute concerning whether discovery would remain confined to DRVM LLC or extend to the additional entities, decision-makers, and post-whistleblower conduct alleged to be relevant to the TFA and SOX claims.

The Status Report includes two supporting exhibits. Exhibit A contains Plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan and sets out the parties’ competing positions regarding the scope of discovery, relevant custodians, document categories, the applicable timeframe, depositions, written discovery, privilege logs, and scheduling. Exhibit B contains the underlying meet-and-confer correspondence, documenting Plaintiff’s attempts to arrange the conference, circulate proposed language, and obtain Respondent’s substantive positions before the March 31 deadline. Together, the exhibits provide the full record of how the parties’ first discovery disagreement developed.

Related Filing

• Plaintiff's Status Report Regarding Discovery Plan, including Exhibit A and Exhibit B

Filed March 31, 2026 (PDF)

March 29, 2026 – First Amended Complaint Brings the Upstream Entities Directly Into the Proceeding

On March 29, 2026, before the amendment deadline established by Judge Nordby’s Pre-Hearing Order, Plaintiff served a First Amended Complaint asserting retaliation claims under both the Taxpayer First Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The amended pleading formally named Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem Inc., Quten Research Institute LLC, DRVM LLC, and Steven S. Dickert in his capacity as Trustee of the Basil Management Trust as Respondents. It alleged that those entities operated through an integrated enterprise involving centralized control over payroll, compliance, operations, financial decision-making, and litigation strategy.

The amendment was significant because it officially brought into the Department of Labor proceeding the upstream entities Plaintiff alleges are central to both the protected whistleblower disclosures and the resulting retaliation. The IRS claim numbers identified in the pleading were associated with Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten—not DRVM LLC. Plaintiff therefore alleges that the retaliation cannot be evaluated solely through the nominal employer when the protected disclosures themselves concerned the upstream corporate entities and the broader structure through which the workforce operated.

According to Plaintiff, Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten were not merely passive corporate affiliates. The amended complaint alleges that they benefited from the workforce, participated in or exercised control through the integrated enterprise, and acted directly or through agents and counsel in the coordinated litigation response that followed Plaintiff’s IRS and SEC disclosures. Plaintiff specifically alleges that overlapping counsel and aligned litigation positions were used across arbitration, federal court, and the Department of Labor proceeding to challenge his credibility, narrow the dispute to wages, obstruct access to relevant information, and discourage continued whistleblower activity.

The amended complaint further alleges that DRVM LLC continued to function as the principal litigation vehicle even though the protected disclosures and IRS claim numbers involved Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten. According to Plaintiff, DRVM repeatedly advanced litigation positions, disputed discovery, and characterized the controversy as a narrow wage matter, while the upstream entities either remained absent from certain proceedings or appeared through separate counsel to advance substantially similar arguments. The amendment therefore placed directly before the Administrative Law Judge Plaintiff’s theory that DRVM was being used to manage and defend litigation arising from conduct allegedly directed or coordinated at the enterprise level.

Plaintiff further maintains that the First Amended Complaint did not present a new or unrelated factual controversy. The core allegations had already been submitted to OSHA through the original August 2025 whistleblower complaint, the follow-up responses, and the objections to the Secretary’s Findings. Those earlier submissions identified the IRS and SEC disclosures, the roles of Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten, the alleged post-disclosure litigation conduct, the unsolicited payment, employer-identity concerns, and the broader enterprise structure. The amendment therefore did not create a different case; it formally organized the same underlying events into statutory claims under TFA and SOX and named the entities Plaintiff alleges were directly connected to the protected activity and resulting retaliation.

This distinction is important because the filing that initially moved the matter into the Office of Administrative Law Judges was primarily an objection to OSHA’s dismissal and a request for review, rather than a fully developed civil-style complaint setting out every respondent, statutory element, and theory of liability. Once Judge Nordby’s Pre-Hearing Order expressly permitted amendment of the pleadings, Plaintiff used that opportunity to place the existing factual allegations into a more complete legal framework, identify the asserted basis for TFA and SOX coverage, and formally bring Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten into the proceeding as named Respondents. In Plaintiff’s view, the amendment clarified and pleaded the case more fully; it did not introduce the relevant facts for the first time.

The amendment also clarified that the alleged adverse actions were not limited to Plaintiff’s termination or the payment of wages. It identified alleged financial interference during active proceedings, inconsistent or previously undisclosed evidence, coordinated litigation escalation, discovery obstruction, reputational attacks in formal filings, and efforts to restrict public discussion of the whistleblower disclosures. Plaintiff alleges that these events occurred after the April 8, 2025 IRS and SEC submissions and formed a continuing pattern that would deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected whistleblower activity.

The addition of the SOX claim was also important because the March 17 Notice of Hearing had already identified the proceeding as arising under both TFA and SOX. The amended complaint alleged that Sanofi’s position within a publicly traded corporate structure, together with the asserted roles of Chattem, Quten, DRVM, and affiliated entities as subsidiaries, contractors, subcontractors, or agents, brought the alleged conduct within the employee-protection framework of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Related Filing

• First Amended Complaint under the Taxpayer First Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Served March 29, 2026 (PDF)

March 31, 2026 – Respondent Seeks Clarification, Early Dispositive Motion, and Delay of Discovery

On March 31, 2026, Fisher Phillips submitted a filing titled Request for Information on behalf of DRVM LLC. The filing asserted that the Secretary’s Findings and Notice of Docketing referenced only the Taxpayer First Act, while Judge Nordby’s March 17 Notice of Hearing identified both TFA and Sarbanes-Oxley claims. DRVM therefore asked the Administrative Law Judge to identify the specific claims before the tribunal and to provide copies of the complaints underlying those claims. Respondent Request for Information.pdf

The filing also characterized Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as adding facts, parties, and claims that DRVM contended had not appeared in the earlier notices. According to DRVM, it could not determine the proper scope of its defense, evaluate discovery, or prepare a dispositive motion without further clarification from the Court. Plaintiff disputes that characterization, maintaining that the core allegations involving Sanofi, Chattem, Quten, the IRS and SEC disclosures, the unsolicited payment, arbitration conduct, and post-disclosure retaliation had already been presented during the OSHA stage and that the amendment simply placed those existing allegations into a complete TFA and SOX pleading.

Fisher Phillips further objected to Plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan as overly broad, potentially implicating attorney-client privilege and work product, and unrelated to the narrower retaliation allegations described in the Secretary’s Findings. Most significantly, DRVM proposed that discovery not begin until after the Administrative Law Judge ruled on an initial dispositive motion that DRVM intended to file by April 27, 2026. Under that proposed schedule, the parties would define the scope of discovery only if the case survived the dispositive motion.

According to Plaintiff, the filing attempted to reverse the sequence established by the Pre-Hearing Order. Judge Nordby had already authorized amendment of the pleadings, ordered the parties to develop a discovery plan, and set an August 2026 discovery deadline. Plaintiff contends that DRVM instead asked the Court to first narrow or dismiss the case and postpone examination of the records, decision-makers, affiliated entities, and alleged post-whistleblower conduct that the amendment placed directly at issue.

The filing therefore presented two related disputes to the Administrative Law Judge: whether the existing record provided sufficient notice of the TFA and SOX allegations, and whether DRVM could delay court-ordered discovery while pursuing an early dispositive motion. It also continued the broader disagreement over whether the proceeding should be confined to DRVM and the earlier wage-related dispute or encompass the alleged enterprise-level retaliation involving Sanofi, Chattem, Quten, and related actors.

Related Filing

• Respondent DRVM LLC’s Request for Information

Filed March 31, 2026 (PDF)

April 8, 2026 – Judge Nordby Rejects Informal Request and Directs Respondent to Follow Motion Practice

On April 8, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Evan H. Nordby issued an Order responding to DRVM LLC’s March 31 Request for Information. Judge Nordby did not decide the merits of DRVM’s arguments concerning the amended complaint, SOX coverage, or the proper scope of discovery. Instead, he addressed the manner in which Respondent had sought relief and made clear that any request for a court order must be presented through a properly filed motion under 29 C.F.R. § 18.33, supported by legal authority and any necessary declarations or other evidence.

The Order also questioned why Respondent had asked the Court to provide copies of Plaintiff’s filings. Judge Nordby noted that the docket reflected Plaintiff had certified service of his OALJ filings on Respondent through counsel and stated that the reason for requesting those documents from the Court was unclear. This directly addressed DRVM’s assertion that it had not received the underlying materials necessary to understand the claims.

Judge Nordby further confirmed that a whistleblower complainant may amend a complaint before the OALJ to add new factual allegations or claims. The Order explained that an amendment adding a claim, such as a SOX claim to a TFA proceeding, may raise questions concerning relation back and the applicable limitations period, but also recognized that whistleblower limitations periods may be subject to equitable tolling where the governing standard is satisfied. The Judge therefore did not strike the amendment or rule that the SOX claim was procedurally barred. Instead, he directed Respondent to review the governing procedural rules, Administrative Review Board decisions, and circuit authority and proceed accordingly.

According to Plaintiff, the Order was significant because it rejected an attempt to obtain substantive relief through informal correspondence and preserved the ordinary adversarial process. If Respondent wished to challenge the amended claims, seek dismissal, or postpone discovery, it would be required to file a formal motion that identified the legal basis for the requested relief and gave Plaintiff a full opportunity to respond. Plaintiff further views the Order as confirmation that amendment was procedurally available and that the questions surrounding SOX, relation back, timeliness, and equitable tolling had to be litigated through proper motion practice rather than resolved through a letter.

The Order therefore left the amended complaint in place and shifted the dispute into formal briefing. It also reinforced that the case would proceed under the Department of Labor’s procedural rules, with requests affecting the scope of the claims or the timing of discovery subject to motions, legal analysis, and an adversarial response.

Related Filing

• Order Regarding Respondent’s March 31 Request for Information

Issued April 8, 2026 (PDF)

April 20, 2026 – DRVM and Dickert Move to Dismiss the Amended Complaint

On April 20, 2026, Fisher Phillips filed a formal Motion to Dismiss on behalf of DRVM LLC and Steven S. Dickert, in his capacity as Trustee of the Basil Management Trust. The motion sought dismissal of the First Amended Complaint in its entirety, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state viable retaliation claims under either the Taxpayer First Act or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Notably, the motion was filed only on behalf of DRVM and Dickert, even though the amended complaint also formally named Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem Inc., and Quten Research Institute LLC as Respondents.

The motion advances several separate grounds for dismissal. First, Respondents argue that the SOX claim is untimely because Plaintiff did not expressly plead it until March 2026, more than 180 days after his December 2024 termination. They also contend that equitable tolling does not apply. Second, DRVM argues that it is not itself a publicly traded company or otherwise a covered entity under SOX. Third, Respondents contend that Plaintiff failed to allege actionable retaliation under either statute because his IRS and SEC disclosures occurred after his employment had ended and because the alleged post-employment conduct was not materially adverse.

The motion again places Plaintiff’s December 2024 termination at the center of the case. It argues that Respondents could not have retaliated against Plaintiff for protected disclosures that had not yet occurred when his employment ended and maintains that the only potentially actionable employment event was the termination itself. From that premise, the motion characterizes the subsequent payment, litigation conduct, discovery disputes, reputational statements, and efforts concerning Plaintiff’s public communications as nonactionable consequences of Plaintiff’s own continued litigation rather than independent acts of retaliation.

Plaintiff disputes that framing because the First Amended Complaint does not allege that the December 2024 termination was caused by the April 2025 disclosures. Instead, it alleges that separate retaliatory conduct began after Respondents learned of the IRS and SEC activity. According to Plaintiff, the motion repeatedly substitutes the earlier termination for the actual adverse actions pleaded in the amended complaint and then argues that causation is impossible because the termination preceded the protected activity. Plaintiff contends that this avoids the central question presented by the pleading: whether alleged threats, harassment, financial interference, litigation-based escalation, discovery obstruction, reputational attacks, and efforts to restrict public discussion may constitute post-employment retaliation under TFA and SOX.

The motion also relies heavily on OSHA’s September 2025 Findings, attaching them as Exhibit A and repeatedly quoting their conclusion that Plaintiff had not established a prima facie case and that the alleged adverse actions were not material. Plaintiff argues that this reliance is misplaced because the OSHA Findings were the very determination he timely challenged, and the case is now before the Office of Administrative Law Judges for independent adjudication rather than enforcement of OSHA’s preliminary conclusion. In Plaintiff’s view, Respondents effectively treat the appealed dismissal as though it were a binding merits determination, even though the purpose of the present proceeding is to permit the parties to develop the record, conduct discovery, and have the claims decided anew by the Administrative Law Judge. Plaintiff therefore contends that quoting the OSHA Findings throughout the motion does not resolve the disputed issues now before the tribunal and instead attempts to import the agency’s initial, nonfinal assessment into the case as if the appeal had already been decided.

The motion also continues a recurring position seen in the arbitration and federal litigation: that the broader controversy is fundamentally an employment and wage dispute involving DRVM LLC. It refers to Plaintiff’s arbitration and federal proceedings, emphasizes the payment of the disputed wage penalty, and portrays the later allegations as an effort to expand a terminated employee’s claims into broader accusations against affiliated entities. This substantially parallels the position taken elsewhere by Fisher Phillips and the pharmaceutical defendants, who have repeatedly argued that claims concerning fraud, employer identity, corporate structure, and whistleblower retaliation are attempts to transform a narrow wage dispute into a larger enterprise case.

There is also a notable tension between the motion’s characterization of the First Amended Complaint as presenting new allegations and the exhibits Fisher Phillips attached to its own filing. The motion includes Plaintiff’s original August 2025 OSHA complaint, which expressly identified DRVM, Quten, Sanofi, and Chattem and described alleged post-disclosure retaliation involving arbitration conduct, the unsolicited payment, digital suppression, and sanctions-related activity. According to Plaintiff, those attachments reinforce his position that the central factual allegations and upstream entities were disclosed from the beginning, even though the later amended complaint organized them more formally under TFA and SOX.

The filing also extends beyond legal argument and repeatedly addresses Plaintiff’s character and motives. It describes his allegations as arising from an “overactive imagination,” characterizes his filings across forums as vexatious and harassing, and asserts that government agencies and courts have been “inundated” with his actions. Plaintiff maintains that this mirrors the same litigation strategy challenged in the federal case and alleged as retaliatory in the amended complaint: reducing the dispute to a wage and termination matter while directing substantial attention toward Plaintiff’s credibility, motives, and manner of pursuing the claims.

According to Plaintiff, the motion also illustrates the continuing structural issue at the center of the DOL proceeding. DRVM argues that it is not covered by SOX because it is not publicly traded, while the amended complaint specifically named Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten and alleged that DRVM acted as a contractor, agent, intermediary, or litigation vehicle within the publicly traded enterprise. Plaintiff therefore contends that DRVM’s insistence that it is not independently covered does not resolve whether the alleged conduct falls within SOX through the upstream entities and agency relationships pleaded in the amended complaint. That question depends heavily on the disputed corporate relationships and control evidence that Plaintiff was simultaneously seeking through discovery.

The Motion to Dismiss therefore brought several recurring disputes into formal briefing: whether the alleged retaliation must be limited to employment actions occurring before termination; whether the SOX claim relates back or is subject to equitable tolling; whether DRVM and Dickert fall within the statutory framework through alleged relationships with a publicly traded enterprise; whether Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten were properly brought into the proceeding; and whether the alleged post-disclosure conduct is sufficiently adverse to support TFA and SOX claims.

Related Filing

• Respondents DRVM LLC and Steven S. Dickert’s Motion to Dismiss

Filed April 20, 2026 (PDF)

April 27, 2026 – Plaintiff Opposes the Motion to Dismiss

On April 27, 2026, before the motion was converted into one for summary decision, Plaintiff filed an opposition addressing Respondents’ arguments under the motion-to-dismiss standard. The opposition argued that the motion was procedurally defective, relied on materials outside the pleadings, and attacked a retaliatory-termination claim that the First Amended Complaint did not actually assert.

Plaintiff’s central position was that the case concerns alleged adverse actions occurring after the April 2025 IRS and SEC disclosures—not the December 2024 termination. According to Plaintiff, Respondents could characterize retaliation as “logically impossible” only by replacing the post-disclosure conduct pleaded in the amended complaint with a different theory centered on termination.

The opposition also argued that OSHA’s Findings were preliminary and nonbinding because the OALJ proceeding is de novo. It further challenged Respondents’ effort to isolate DRVM from Sanofi, Chattem, Quten, and the broader enterprise alleged in the complaint, maintaining that SOX coverage, agency relationships, corporate control, and the roles of the upstream entities presented factual questions requiring discovery.

Drawing comparisons to the federal litigation and arbitration, Plaintiff identified allegedly inconsistent positions concerning the scope of the DOL case, the identity of the relevant employer, and the July 2025 payment. The opposition emphasized Respondents’ arbitration statement that the payment was a litigation-strategy decision made by Steve Dickert at the direction of counsel, arguing that its purpose and effect could not be resolved at the pleading stage.

Plaintiff also argued that Respondents’ descriptions of him as vexatious, harassing, or driven by an “overactive imagination” were credibility attacks rather than legal analysis and were relevant to the broader pattern of alleged post-disclosure retaliation. The opposition requested denial of the motion, continuation of discovery, and leave to amend if the ALJ identified any pleading deficiency.

Because Judge Nordby later converted the matter into summary-decision practice and permitted supplementation, this opposition became the foundation for Plaintiff’s later evidentiary response.

Related Filing

• Complainant’s Opposition to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss

Filed April 27, 2026 (PDF)

May 2026 – Administrative Law Judge Converts the Motion Into a Motion for Summary Decision

After Plaintiff filed his opposition under the motion-to-dismiss standard, Judge Nordby converted Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss into a motion for summary decision because Respondents had attached and relied on materials outside the First Amended Complaint, including the Secretary’s September 2025 Findings and Plaintiff’s original OSHA complaint.

The distinction was significant. A motion to dismiss ordinarily asks whether the allegations in the complaint, assumed to be true, are legally sufficient to state a claim. At that stage, Plaintiff generally does not have to prove the allegations with evidence, and factual disputes ordinarily cannot be resolved against him.

A motion for summary decision—similar to summary judgment in federal court—applies a different and more demanding standard. The issue becomes whether the evidence shows any genuine dispute of material fact requiring a hearing. Plaintiff therefore could no longer rely only on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint. He had to identify the material facts that were disputed and support those disputes with declarations, exhibits, documents, and other competent evidence.

The conversion did not determine that the Secretary’s Findings were correct or give them binding effect. Those Findings were the preliminary decision Plaintiff had timely challenged to obtain a de novo proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge. Plaintiff maintained that they had no independent merits effect in the OALJ case. Respondents’ decision to attach and rely on them nevertheless introduced materials outside the pleadings, causing the motion to be evaluated under the summary-decision framework.

Judge Nordby’s Pre-Hearing Order required the party moving for summary decision to file separately numbered Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law identifying the material facts it claimed were undisputed. The opposing party was then required to submit a corresponding Statement of Disputed Facts and Conclusions of Law, identifying each disputed assertion and supporting the dispute with competent evidence. Facts properly supported by the moving party could otherwise be treated as admitted.

Respondents never filed the required Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Plaintiff was therefore not provided with a numbered list of the facts Respondents claimed were undisputed. Instead, he had to review the entire Motion to Dismiss, identify the factual assertions scattered throughout it, determine which assertions were material, and prepare his own statement explaining which facts were disputed and what evidence supported each dispute.

That process required Plaintiff to address factual questions concerning employer identity, SOX coverage, the relationships among DRVM, Basil Management Trust, Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten, Respondents’ knowledge of the IRS and SEC disclosures, the purpose of the July 2025 payment, and whether the alleged post-disclosure conduct was materially adverse.

The conversion also created a substantial discovery problem. Respondents were seeking judgment based on disputed facts while many of the records needed to test their assertions—including internal communications, decision-maker identities, payment calculations, corporate-control records, and information held by affiliated entities—had not been produced.

The same strategy appeared across the related proceedings. In arbitration, Respondent characterized the matter as a narrow wage dispute while resisting broader discovery into the payment and decision-makers. In federal court, Defendants relied on the same wage-centered framing to seek dismissal of fraud and concealment claims. Before the Department of Labor, DRVM and Dickert again sought an early dispositive ruling before discovery could examine the alleged enterprise-level retaliation involving Sanofi, Chattem, Quten, and their alleged agents.

Plaintiff therefore supplemented his original opposition with evidence, a declaration, exhibits, and a detailed Statement of Disputed Material Facts. His burden was no longer simply to show that the First Amended Complaint plausibly stated a claim. He had to demonstrate that genuine factual disputes existed and that those disputes required discovery and an evidentiary hearing rather than judgment based on Respondents’ version of events.

Related Filing

• Order Converting Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Into a Motion for Summary Decision (PDF)

May 2026 – Plaintiff Supplements the Record and Opposes Summary Decision

After Judge Nordby converted Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss into a motion for summary decision, Plaintiff filed a supplemental response supported by a sworn declaration, a Statement of 23 Disputed Material Facts, and 37 groups of exhibits. The filing expanded upon Plaintiff’s earlier pleading-stage opposition and addressed the more demanding summary-decision standard, under which Plaintiff was required to identify genuine factual disputes and support them with evidence rather than rely solely on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint.  

Because Respondents never filed the separately numbered Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law required by the Pre-Hearing Order, Plaintiff did not receive an organized list of the facts Respondents claimed were undisputed. He instead reviewed the Motion to Dismiss, extracted the material factual assertions appearing throughout it, and prepared a separate statement identifying the disputes raised by those assertions.

Plaintiff identified disputes concerning protected activity, Respondents’ knowledge of the April 2025 IRS and SEC disclosures, the reasonableness of the reported concerns, SOX coverage, post-employment retaliation, the relationships among the named entities, and the purpose and authorization of the July 1, 2025 payment. He also disputed Respondents’ recurring characterization of the controversy as merely a wage or termination dispute.

The sworn declaration set out Plaintiff’s factual account in detail, beginning with his employment in the Costco product-demonstration program and the different names and entities appearing across payroll, onboarding, workforce communications, and operational materials. It then traced his investigation into DRVM LLC, AMJ Services LLC, MK Marketing, Direct Demo, Basil Management Trust, Quten Research Institute, Chattem, Sanofi, and related operations. The declaration cited payroll records, state business filings, corporate records, arbitration documents, agency submissions, discovery responses, and filings from the parallel proceedings.

The response argued that the evidence supported a reasonable basis for Plaintiff’s April 2025 disclosures to the IRS and SEC. It cited the separate IRS claim numbers assigned to Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten, the later referral for audit review, and communications showing that Respondents and their counsel were informed of the disclosures shortly after they were submitted. Plaintiff maintained that this evidence created factual disputes concerning protected activity, knowledge, timing, and causation that could not be resolved through summary decision.  

The filing also compared Respondents’ positions across the DOL proceeding, arbitration, and federal court. Plaintiff argued that Respondents repeatedly described the controversy as a narrow wage matter while simultaneously addressing employer identity, corporate relationships, federal disclosures, public communications, and enterprise-level allegations in other proceedings. According to Plaintiff, those shifting characterizations reinforced that the scope and significance of the dispute remained contested rather than undisputed.

A central focus remained the July 1, 2025 deposit. Plaintiff presented evidence that he received the approximately $6,130 payment without advance notice, agreement, or accompanying payroll explanation and immediately placed his objection on the arbitration record. He contrasted Respondents’ reliance on the payment as resolving or mooting wage claims with their later description of it as a litigation-strategy decision authorized by Steve Dickert at the direction of counsel, and claimed privilege.

Plaintiff further relied on discovery responses indicating that individuals or entities beyond DRVM participated in, directed, authorized, funded, approved, or provided input concerning the payment, while Respondents declined to identify all participants. According to Plaintiff, those responses directly contradicted an effort to portray the payment as an isolated DRVM action and demonstrated why discovery into decision-makers, funding sources, agency relationships, and operational control remained necessary.  

The response argued that summary decision was premature because critical information remained within Respondents’ possession. That information included internal communications, the identities of payment participants, corporate and operational relationships, payroll administration records, and evidence concerning agency or contractor status within the Sanofi-related structure. Plaintiff maintained that Respondents could not seek judgment based on their own factual account while withholding the evidence needed to test that account.  

Taken together, the filings asked Judge Nordby to deny summary decision because the record supported competing inferences concerning protected activity, knowledge, causation, material adversity, SOX coverage, entity relationships, and Respondents’ asserted defenses. Plaintiff’s position was that those issues required completion of discovery and resolution by the factfinder at a hearing—not judgment based on Respondents’ characterization of the record.

Supporting Record

The filing was supported by 37 exhibit groups, containing payroll records, business registrations, arbitration materials, federal-court filings, agency submissions, IRS records, discovery responses, and communications concerning the July 2025 payment and the related proceedings.

Because of the size of the evidentiary record, the individual exhibits will be organized and published separately on the Exhibits page once production and preparation are complete. This page summarizes the principal evidence and arguments without attempting to reproduce all 37 exhibit groups within the case timeline.

Related Filings

• Complainant’s Response in Opposition to Respondents’ Motion for Summary Decision Filed May 2026 (PDF)

• Declaration of Jorden Hollingsworth in Support of Opposition to Summary Decision Filed May 2026 (PDF)

• Complainant’s Statement of Disputed Material Facts Filed May 2026 (PDF)

April–May 2026 – Plaintiff Serves Discovery and DRVM Responds With Broad Objections, Privilege Claims, and Limited Admissions

Shortly after Judge Nordby’s April 8 Order directed the parties to proceed under the OALJ rules, Plaintiff served his First Set of Discovery Requests on DRVM LLC on April 13, 2026. The requests included interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission directed to the issues already raised by the amended complaint: the July 1, 2025 payment, the identities of decision-makers, Respondents’ knowledge of the IRS and SEC disclosures, payroll and financial systems, entity relationships, and actions taken after the protected activity.

Plaintiff served discovery promptly because Respondents were attempting to dismiss the case before meaningful factual development had occurred. Based on the parallel arbitration, Plaintiff anticipated disputes over the same categories of information. In arbitration, DRVM had characterized the matter as a narrow wage dispute, denied broader knowledge or involvement, and resisted discovery into the July payment and the persons who authorized it. Plaintiff therefore sought to begin the DOL discovery process early enough to identify the relevant actors and obtain the records necessary to respond to Respondents’ anticipated dispositive motion.

The Most Significant Interrogatories

Several interrogatories went directly to the factual issues Respondents were asking the Administrative Law Judge to resolve.

Interrogatory Nos. 1–3 sought the identities of everyone involved in authorizing, calculating, issuing, or characterizing the July 1 payment, including the basis for calling it “full satisfaction of outstanding penalties.” DRVM did not identify those individuals. It asserted objections based on breadth, relevance, attorney-client privilege, and work product, while acknowledging only that DRVM made a payment on July 1 and that ADP was used for payroll processing.

Interrogatory Nos. 4–6 sought the persons and entities involved in payroll, compensation, communications, and decisions concerning Plaintiff after April 1, 2025. These requests were important because the amended complaint alleged that the challenged conduct involved more than DRVM acting alone. DRVM again objected on relevance, burden, third-party privacy, and privilege grounds and did not identify the requested decision-makers or outside entities.

Interrogatory No. 7 asked DRVM to describe its relationships with Sanofi, Chattem, Quten, Basil Management Trust, AMJ Services, Direct Demo, and MK Marketing—including shared ownership, personnel, systems, payroll functions, and actions affecting Plaintiff. DRVM did not describe those relationships and instead stated that the request required narrowing.

Interrogatory Nos. 8–10 sought the custodians, systems, and inter-entity communications holding relevant records. DRVM objected broadly but disclosed that it used QuickBooks for financial records and ADP for payroll. It did not fully identify who controlled the systems, whether they were shared across entities, or which persons possessed responsive communications.

The remaining interrogatories sought the participants in litigation and administrative decisions, the facts supporting DRVM’s contention that the July payment resolved claims, the persons who knew of the protected activity, preservation practices, and any monitoring of Plaintiff’s website or social-media activity. These requests were designed to separate genuinely privileged legal advice from the underlying nonprivileged facts: who acted, on whose behalf, when they acted, and what entities were involved.

Requests for Admission Produce Important Concessions

The Requests for Admission produced some of the most significant responses.

DRVM admitted that:

• it made or authorized the July 1, 2025 payment;
• the payment occurred after Plaintiff’s employment ended;
• no written agreement signed by Plaintiff stated that the payment resolved his claims;
• one or more persons or entities other than DRVM participated in, directed, funded, or authorized the payment;
• one or more persons involved were not DRVM employees; and
• DRVM used information, input, or direction from at least one other person or entity in determining, authorizing, or issuing the payment.

Those admissions were significant because DRVM was simultaneously attempting to isolate the case to DRVM, deny the relevance of upstream or outside actors, and obtain dismissal before discovery. The admissions confirmed that the payment did not result solely from an internal DRVM payroll process and that additional actors existed, even though their identities and roles were not disclosed.

DRVM also admitted using ADP for payroll processing, while resisting broader admissions concerning who maintained compensation records and whether responsive information was stored outside DRVM.

Requests for Production and Blanket Privilege Assertions

The Requests for Production sought the documents underlying the July payment, including authorization, calculations, approval, characterization, payroll entries, financial records, communications, and records identifying the decision-makers. They also sought communications concerning Plaintiff’s protected activity, public statements, and the relationships among the relevant entities.

DRVM asserted attorney-client privilege and work-product objections throughout the responses. It also relied repeatedly on objections that requests were vague, overbroad, burdensome, irrelevant, temporally unlimited, or directed to nonparties. In response to the request for the calculations supporting the payment, DRVM stated that no responsive nonprivileged documents existed. For several other requests, it either promised limited production, stated that no nonprivileged documents existed, or invited Plaintiff to narrow the request without identifying what responsive materials were actually being withheld.

The privilege assertions were particularly significant because the requests did not seek counsel’s legal advice. They sought the underlying facts: who authorized the payment, who calculated it, which entity funded it, what systems recorded it, and which participants acted outside DRVM. According to Plaintiff, DRVM used privilege objections as a broad barrier over factual categories that were central to its own defenses.

Knowledge Denials Versus the Record

Across the responses, DRVM frequently stated that it lacked sufficient information, required narrowing, or did not accept the premises embedded in Plaintiff’s requests. Yet the same responses acknowledged the existence of outside participants, outside input, ADP payroll systems, QuickBooks financial systems, and persons who were not DRVM employees.

According to Plaintiff, that tension was important. Respondents were asking the ALJ to accept their factual position that the case involved only DRVM, no actionable post-disclosure retaliation, and no relevant upstream participation. At the same time, their discovery responses confirmed that additional persons or entities participated in the most contested event in the case while withholding their identities and the underlying records.

This mirrored the dispute in arbitration. There, DRVM relied on the July payment as a defense while resisting discovery into how it was calculated and who authorized it. In the DOL proceeding, DRVM again sought an early dispositive ruling while objecting to the discovery necessary to test the same factual assertions.

Verification

The interrogatory responses were not initially accompanied by a sworn corporate verification. On May 20, 2026, Steven S. Dickert signed a verification under penalty of perjury stating that he had reviewed the responses and that they were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Fisher Phillips also submitted an attorney certification.

The later verification formally attributed the interrogatory responses to DRVM through Dickert, but it did not supply the identities, explanations, or records withheld from the original responses.

Significance

The discovery responses became important for two reasons. First, they supplied affirmative evidence that persons or entities beyond DRVM participated in the July payment. Second, they demonstrated that material information remained unavailable while Respondents were seeking judgment based on their own characterization of those same facts.

Plaintiff therefore maintained that the responses supported—not undermined—the need for further discovery. Questions concerning who acted, which entities were involved, how the payment was calculated, whether Respondents knew of the protected disclosures, and whether DRVM operated independently or through a broader structure could not be resolved fairly while the underlying facts remained withheld.

Related Filings

• Complainant’s First Set of Discovery Requests to DRVM LLC

Served April 13, 2026 (PDF)

• DRVM LLC’s Responses to First Interrogatories

Served May 13, 2026 (PDF)

• DRVM LLC’s Responses to First Requests for Production

Served May 13, 2026 (PDF)

• DRVM LLC’s Responses to First Requests for Admission

Served May 13, 2026 (PDF)

• Verification and Attorney Certification

Served May 20, 2026 (PDF)

May 2026 – Plaintiff Confers Regarding the Non-Appearing Respondents

By May 6, 2026, more than 30 days had passed since Plaintiff served the First Amended Complaint on Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem Inc., and Quten Research Institute LLC, but none had filed an appearance, answer, or other response in the OALJ proceeding. Plaintiff therefore contacted counsel from Faegre Drinker and Jackson Lewis, who represented those entities in the parallel federal litigation, to determine whether appearances or responsive pleadings were forthcoming before seeking an order requiring the entities to respond or show cause.

Although the inquiry was directed principally to counsel for the non-appearing entities, Fisher Phillips responded immediately. Fisher Phillips confirmed that it represented only DRVM LLC and Steven S. Dickert in his capacity as Trustee of Basil Management Trust and expressly stated that it did not represent Sanofi, Chattem, or Quten in the DOL matter or related proceedings. The response did not explain why the three served Respondents had not appeared or whether their federal counsel intended to respond on their behalf.

According to Plaintiff, the exchange further illustrated the divided litigation structure appearing across the related proceedings. Fisher Phillips was defending DRVM and the trust controlling it, while Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten were actively represented by separate national firms in federal court but remained absent from the DOL case in which they had been formally named and served.

Plaintiff initially advised that he intended to seek an order requiring the non-appearing Respondents to file responsive pleadings. He ultimately deferred that motion while addressing Respondents’ dispositive motion, the conversion to summary decision, and the developing discovery dispute. The May 6 correspondence nevertheless preserved the service and meet-and-confer record for a later motion requiring the non-appearing Respondents to appear, respond, or show cause.

Related Correspondence

• Meet-and-Confer Regarding Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten’s Nonappearance

May 6, 2026 (PDF)

May 2026 – Plaintiff Identifies Discovery Deficiencies and Respondent Refuses to Confer While Seeking Summary Decision

After reviewing DRVM’s May 13 discovery responses, Plaintiff sent detailed meet-and-confer correspondence identifying deficiencies in the interrogatory answers, document production, privilege assertions, missing verification, and failure to identify custodians, outside participants, and related entities. Plaintiff requested supplemental answers, clarification regarding the scope of DRVM’s document search, and a privilege log identifying materials withheld under attorney-client privilege or work-product protection.

The dispute was especially significant because DRVM’s Requests for Admission acknowledged that persons or entities beyond DRVM participated in, funded, authorized, or provided input concerning the July 1, 2025 payment. Yet the interrogatory responses did not identify those participants, and the production did not include the communications, calculations, authorization records, or funding information necessary to determine their roles.

Fisher Phillips responded that the discovery answers were substantive as served, argued that Plaintiff’s requested information exceeded the proper scope of discovery, and stated that any conference would occur only after the Court decided Respondents’ dispositive motion. Plaintiff then asked directly whether Respondents were refusing to meet and confer while the motion remained pending. On May 20, counsel answered: “That is correct.”

According to Plaintiff, that position created a direct procedural conflict. Respondents were asking the Administrative Law Judge to decide disputed questions involving knowledge, causation, corporate relationships, SOX coverage, and the July payment while refusing to confer over the discovery needed to test their factual assertions.

The dispute also closely mirrored what was occurring in arbitration. In both proceedings, DRVM relied on the July payment as a defense, asserted broad privilege and work-product objections, and resisted identifying the persons and entities involved in authorizing, calculating, directing, or funding it.

Respondent later transmitted an additional production in the DOL proceeding. According to Plaintiff, the production repeated the same pattern occurring in arbitration. After Respondent characterized previously produced materials as a supplemental arbitration production, Fisher Phillips transmitted substantially the same 23 pages minutes later for use in the DOL case.

Those materials largely consisted of an email wage thread authored by Plaintiff himself in January 2025, along with payroll records and documentation concerning the July payment. They did not include substantive internal communications or records addressing the alleged retaliation beginning after Plaintiff’s April 8, 2025 IRS and SEC disclosures.

Plaintiff viewed that mismatch as significant. Respondent continued denying or minimizing knowledge of the protected activity and resisting discovery into post-disclosure conduct while producing documents created before the protected activity—many of which Plaintiff already possessed because he had authored or received them himself. Calling those documents supplemental did not identify what Respondent knew after April 8, who participated in the challenged decisions, or what communications occurred in response to the disclosures.

The production also did not include payroll-provider instructions, overlapping-entity communications, internal payment calculations, or records identifying all persons responsible for authorizing, directing, or funding the July payment. Nor did Respondent provide a privilege log identifying the communications or documents withheld despite asserting privilege and work-product objections throughout its responses.

According to Plaintiff, the responses and recycled production demonstrated why summary decision was premature. Respondents sought judgment based on their own account of the facts while declining to disclose the internal records and decision-makers necessary to test that account.

The correspondence preserved Plaintiff’s efforts to resolve the deficiencies without court intervention and became part of the record supporting his later request to compel supplemental discovery.

Related Filings

• Plaintiff’s Discovery Deficiency and Meet-and-Confer Correspondence

May 18–20, 2026 (PDF)

• Respondent’s Supplemental Discovery Production

May 2026 (PDF)

This combined exhibit places the related discovery emails from both proceedings together in one document. The correspondence shows that Fisher Phillips stated in the arbitration that it had confirmed no privilege log existed, while continuing to assert attorney-client privilege and work-product objections over the underlying payment-related discovery. It also shows that, within minutes, counsel transmitted substantially the same 23-page production in the DOL proceeding even though the discovery there sought different information—particularly post-April 8, 2025 knowledge, retaliation, decision-makers, and communications concerning the protected disclosures. According to Plaintiff, the side-by-side timing and content illustrate that Respondent recycled the same pre-disclosure wage materials across forums without producing the distinct internal records requested in the DOL case.

• Consolidated Discovery Emails Showing No Privilege Log and Recycled Cross-Forum Production May 27, 2026 (PDF)

June 2026 – Plaintiff Moves to Compel Discovery Before Summary Decision

On June 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery supported by a sworn declaration and Exhibits A through G. The motion argued that Respondents were seeking summary decision on disputed questions of knowledge, causation, participation, corporate relationships, and the July 1, 2025 payment while withholding the discovery necessary to test their factual assertions.

The motion focused on a central contradiction in DRVM’s discovery responses. DRVM admitted that persons or entities other than DRVM participated in, directed, funded, authorized, or provided input concerning the July payment; that at least one participant was not a DRVM employee; and that DRVM acted upon information or direction received from another person or entity. Yet DRVM refused to identify those participants, explain their roles, or produce the communications and calculations underlying the payment.  

Plaintiff argued that the admissions were particularly important because Respondents had repeatedly relied on the same payment across arbitration, federal court, and the DOL proceeding. In different filings, Respondents had described it as satisfying the wage claim, providing complete relief, rendering claims moot, and constituting a litigation-strategy decision made by Steve Dickert at the direction of counsel. The motion contended that Respondents could not use the payment affirmatively while withholding the identities, business facts, and decision-making process behind it.

The motion also challenged DRVM’s repeated boilerplate objections. According to Plaintiff, Respondents broadly asserted that requests were vague, overbroad, burdensome, irrelevant, disproportionate, or privileged without explaining how those objections applied to the individual requests. Plaintiff argued that those generalized objections were inadequate where the discovery sought the identities of specific decision-makers and participants whose conduct was directly relevant to Respondents’ pending summary-decision arguments.

A separate portion of the motion addressed the failure to provide a privilege log. Respondents had asserted attorney-client privilege and work-product protection throughout their interrogatory, admission, and production responses, while Fisher Phillips separately confirmed in the arbitration that “there is no privilege log.” Plaintiff argued that without a log—or an unequivocal statement that no responsive material was being withheld—it was impossible for either Plaintiff or the ALJ to determine what documents existed, what had been withheld, and whether the privilege claims were valid.

Plaintiff further argued that counsel’s participation did not convert underlying facts into privileged material. Even where legal advice might be protected, the identities of participants, the existence of approvals, the source of funds, the calculation of the payment, the actions taken, and the business decisions implemented remained discoverable. According to Plaintiff, Respondents could not use counsel’s involvement as a blanket shield over the factual circumstances of conduct they had affirmatively placed at issue.

The motion also addressed Respondents’ production of largely preexisting or recycled materials. Plaintiff explained that the production consisted substantially of documents he had authored or already possessed, prior wage correspondence, payroll outputs, and materials previously transmitted in arbitration. It did not contain meaningful internal communications concerning the April 2025 disclosures, the payment participants, Respondents’ knowledge, or post-disclosure decision-making. Plaintiff therefore requested an order requiring DRVM to identify the custodians and systems searched and describe under oath the efforts made to locate responsive records.

Another section concerned Respondents’ use of Plaintiff’s website and social-media activity. Respondents had relied on specific online statements, videos, comments, and public disclosures to argue bad faith, harassment, improper motive, and litigation misconduct. Yet DRVM responded that it was unaware of any persons who monitored or reviewed that content. Plaintiff argued that these positions could not be reconciled: someone necessarily reviewed, evaluated, discussed, or relied upon the content before it was quoted in filings and used to request removal, corrections, or other relief.

The motion also challenged DRVM’s objections based on possession, custody, or control. Plaintiff pointed to DRVM’s admission that it had the practical ability to obtain information concerning him from at least one other person or entity. He also identified Steven Dickert’s overlapping roles as DRVM’s CFO, AMJ Services’ CFO, Trustee of Basil Management Trust, and Treasurer of Zena Nutrition. According to Plaintiff, those overlapping roles raised substantial questions about whether responsive information could reasonably be obtained across the related entities and systems.

Plaintiff certified that he had attempted to resolve the dispute without court intervention by sending a detailed deficiency letter and requesting supplementation. Fisher Phillips maintained that the responses were substantive as served and expressly confirmed that it would not continue meeting and conferring while the summary-decision motion remained pending. Plaintiff argued that this created an impasse and made court intervention necessary before the August discovery deadline. 

The motion requested an order requiring Respondents to identify all individuals and entities involved in the July payment and post-disclosure decisions; produce responsive communications, payroll records, calculations, instructions, and authorizations; provide a proper privilege log; disclose what materials had been withheld; and identify the custodians, systems, and payroll platforms searched. Plaintiff also requested that the ALJ defer consideration of summary decision until the compelled discovery was completed and Plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to review and use it.

The supporting declaration authenticated the discovery requests, DRVM’s responses, the meet-and-confer correspondence, Respondents’ cross-forum positions concerning the payment, the privilege materials, the social-media filings, and the representative production. The exhibit index organized that record into seven categories so the ALJ could compare the admissions, objections, litigation positions, and production side by side.  

Related Filings

• Complainant’s Motion to Compel Discovery

Filed June 9, 2026 (PDF)

• Declaration of Jorden Hollingsworth in Support of Motion to Compel

Filed June 9, 2026 (PDF)

• Exhibit Index

Filed June 9, 2026 (PDF)

June 2026 – Counsel Responds to Service of the Motion With a Dismissive Characterization

When Plaintiff served the Motion to Compel and its supporting declaration and exhibits on June 9, 2026, the service email simply identified each document, confirmed contemporaneous filing, and offered to resend any attachment that was incomplete or inaccessible. Fisher Phillips initially responded with administrative requests to update the service list by removing one staff member and adding two others.

Later that day, counsel sent an additional unsolicited response stating that the case remained in its early stages, that DRVM had participated in discovery in good faith, and that Plaintiff’s motion raised “numerous broad issues” that were “premature, unsupported, or not tied to any meaningful discussion” of specific deficiencies. Counsel further characterized the filing as “extensive motion practice” that was not an efficient use of the parties’ or the ALJ’s resources.

According to Plaintiff, the response was dismissive and appeared calculated to diminish both the filing and his efforts as a self-represented litigant. The email did not address the detailed deficiency letter, DRVM’s written refusal to continue conferring while summary decision remained pending, the admitted involvement of outside participants in the July payment, or the absence of a privilege log. Instead, it portrayed the motion as unsupported and inefficient immediately upon service, before Respondents filed their formal opposition.

Plaintiff viewed the tone as part of a recurring pattern in which documented discovery disputes were reframed as unnecessary motion practice, excessive litigation, or improper burden rather than addressed on their specific merits. The later opposition repeated many of the same characterizations, despite the motion being supported by DRVM’s own admissions, discovery responses, emails, and cross-forum filings.

Related Correspondence

• Service of Motion to Compel Discovery and Counsel’s Response

June 9, 2026 (PDF)

June 2026 – Respondents Oppose the Motion to Compel by Recasting the Documented Discovery Record

On June 23, 2026, DRVM LLC and Steven S. Dickert filed an opposition asking the Administrative Law Judge to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. The opposition did not merely defend particular objections. It broadly reframed Plaintiff’s discovery motion as a procedurally defective tactic intended to obtain information for other lawsuits, increase defense costs, and transform what Respondents again called a “narrow wage dispute” into claims against unrelated entities.

According to Plaintiff, those accusations substantially mischaracterized both the claims before the DOL and the documented discovery record. The discovery requests were directed to the alleged retaliation occurring after the April 8, 2025 IRS and SEC disclosures, including Respondents’ knowledge, the identities of decision-makers, the July 1 payment, post-disclosure communications, and the roles of persons or entities participating in the challenged conduct. Those same subjects were expressly placed at issue by Respondents’ own request for summary decision.

Respondents Claimed the Discovery Was Unrelated to the Retaliation Claims

Respondents argued that Plaintiff was not seeking discovery about any claim or defense in the case and that the July 1 payment was “wholly unrelated” to the SOX and TFA claims. They characterized the requests as an effort to support litigation in other forums.

Plaintiff maintained that this ignored the actual allegations and timeline. The First Amended Complaint identified the July payment as one of several alleged post-disclosure actions occurring after the protected activity. Respondents’ own opposition acknowledged that the amended complaint alleged financial interference, litigation-based escalation, discovery obstruction, reputational disparagement, and efforts to restrict discussion of protected activity.

The payment was therefore not being examined merely as an old wage transaction. The disputed questions included why it was made months after employment ended, why it was made without a signed agreement, who outside DRVM participated, what information or direction DRVM received, and whether its timing and use across the related proceedings were connected to the protected disclosures.

Respondents Said They Had Fully Explained the Payment

The opposition stated that Respondents had provided all documents and information within the scope of discovery and had explained the payment “formally, and informally, in every forum.” It also asserted that Plaintiff offered no authority or analysis supporting discovery into how the payment was calculated or who participated with counsel in formulating it.

According to Plaintiff, the written record showed the opposite. DRVM admitted that persons or entities other than DRVM participated in, directed, funded, authorized, or provided input concerning the payment; admitted that one or more participants were not DRVM employees; and admitted that DRVM acted upon information, input, or direction from another person or entity. Yet the interrogatory responses did not identify those participants or explain their roles.

The declaration supporting the opposition added a new substantive statement: that the payment “was made as a litigation strategy decision at the direction of counsel.” At the same time, counsel asserted that the communications underlying that decision were privileged.

According to Plaintiff, that statement increased rather than eliminated the need for discovery. It confirmed that the payment was not simply an automatic payroll correction and that a separate decision-making process occurred. Even assuming legal advice was privileged, the underlying facts—who authorized the payment, which entity funded it, who calculated it, what business action was taken, and which participants implemented it—remained central to the dispute.

Respondents Claimed Plaintiff Failed to Meet and Confer

Respondents’ principal procedural argument was that Plaintiff failed to conduct the required conference. They asserted that Respondents did not refuse to confer, that Plaintiff “deprived” them of an opportunity to discuss the dispute, and that they made every attempt to address the discovery concerns.

Plaintiff maintained that those statements were directly contradicted by the email record. After Plaintiff sent a detailed deficiency letter, Fisher Phillips stated that its responses were substantive as served and that a conference would occur only after the ALJ decided the dispositive motion. Plaintiff then asked expressly whether Respondents were refusing to confer while that motion remained pending. Counsel answered: “That is correct.”

The opposition attempted to overcome that written refusal by pointing to the later interrogatory verification and the 23-page document transmission. Respondents argued that these constituted a revised position and supplemental discovery requiring Plaintiff to restart the meet-and-confer process. But neither transmission invited renewed conferral, withdrew the prior refusal, addressed the identified substantive deficiencies, nor identified the outside participants whose existence DRVM had admitted.

Respondents Characterized a Verification as Substantive Discovery

Respondents emphasized that they supplied a signed verification on May 20 after initially serving unverified interrogatory responses. Their declaration described this as responsive action following Plaintiff’s deficiency letter.

Plaintiff maintained that the verification corrected only a formal defect. It placed Mr. Dickert’s signature behind the existing answers but did not add the missing names, communications, calculations, custodians, entities, or decision-making information requested. It therefore did not cure the substantive deficiencies that formed the basis of the Motion to Compel.

Respondents Characterized Recycled Materials as Responsive Supplementation

Respondents also asserted that they produced additional responsive discovery on May 27 and that Plaintiff improperly failed to confer afterward. The supporting declaration described the production as Bates-stamped pages DRVM 000001 through DRVM 000023 and emphasized the wage statement showing the July payment.

According to Plaintiff, this description omitted the contents and timing that gave the production its significance. The 23 pages were substantially the same materials Fisher Phillips had transmitted minutes earlier as purported supplemental discovery in the arbitration. They largely consisted of a January 2025 wage email thread authored by Plaintiff, payroll materials already available to him, and the July payment record.

They did not contain the internal post-April 8 communications requested in the DOL case, identify the persons or entities involved in the payment, show how the amount was calculated, identify who knew of the IRS and SEC disclosures, or explain what decisions occurred after the protected activity. Plaintiff therefore maintained that the production did not answer the distinct retaliation discovery served in the OALJ proceeding.

Respondents Said They Had Answered Substantively

The opposition stated that Respondents had substantively answered 20 interrogatories and 20 other discovery requests and were cooperative throughout the process.

The responses themselves, however, showed that many interrogatories received objections without the requested factual answer. Requests seeking the participants in the payment, persons with knowledge of protected activity, inter-entity relationships, relevant communications, decision-makers, and document custodians were answered with recurring assertions that they were vague, overbroad, irrelevant, disproportionate, duplicative, or privileged.

For example, Interrogatory No. 1 defined and asked for the participants in the July 1 payment. DRVM claimed the phrase “July 1, 2025 Payment” was vague and required narrowing, even though the same response acknowledged that DRVM made the payment. Interrogatories seeking persons with knowledge of the protected activity and persons involved in post-April 8 decisions were similarly met with objections rather than names.

Respondents Claimed No One Was Known to Have Reviewed Plaintiff’s Online Content

DRVM answered the interrogatory concerning Plaintiff’s website and social media by stating that it was “unaware of any persons responsive” to the request.

Plaintiff maintained that this was irreconcilable with Respondents’ documented filings. Fisher Phillips had reviewed, quoted, characterized, and relied on specific website postings and TikTok content, discussed Plaintiff’s statements and audience responses, and requested relief directed at removing or correcting online material. Someone necessarily located, reviewed, discussed, selected, and incorporated that content into the filings.

The issue was not whether counsel’s private legal advice was discoverable. It was whether Respondents could affirmatively use Plaintiff’s public communications as evidence while claiming no knowledge of any person who reviewed or acted upon them.

Respondents Relied Again on the Preliminary OSHA Findings

The opposition and accompanying declaration again attached and relied upon the Secretary’s September 2025 Findings, describing the TFA complaint as dismissed and emphasizing the preliminary conclusion that Plaintiff had not established a prima facie case.

Plaintiff maintained that this presentation omitted the procedural effect of his timely objections. The Findings did not become final; the matter proceeded to a de novo hearing before the OALJ, where the parties were permitted to develop and present a new evidentiary record. The Findings themselves stated that the ALJ would decide the case based on the evidence and arguments presented in the adversarial proceeding.

According to Plaintiff, Respondents repeatedly used the preliminary Findings as though they had already resolved the merits while simultaneously resisting the discovery through which the de novo record was supposed to be developed.

Respondents Recast the Arbitration Discovery Ruling

The opposition stated that Plaintiff had filed a similarly premature and unnecessary motion to compel in arbitration and that the arbitrator denied it.

Plaintiff maintained that this description omitted that the arbitration ruling denied relief without prejudice while discovery and supplementation were reportedly continuing. It did not determine that DRVM’s production was complete or that the payment-related information was irrelevant. Plaintiff was expressly permitted to renew the issue if the promised discovery was not provided.

According to Plaintiff, using that procedural ruling as proof that the DOL discovery motion lacked merit concealed the actual status of the arbitration dispute and the continuing failure to identify the payment decision-makers.

Significance of the Opposition

The opposition presented two fundamentally different versions of the record.

Respondents portrayed themselves as fully cooperative, the discovery as unrelated, the production as complete, the privilege claims as justified, and Plaintiff as refusing to confer. Plaintiff’s exhibits documented a written refusal to confer, admissions of outside participation, unanswered identification requests, no privilege log, recycled production, and continued reliance on facts and materials that Respondents would not permit him to investigate.

According to Plaintiff, the opposition therefore became important not only because it resisted discovery, but because it placed additional factual representations before the ALJ that could be tested directly against the emails, discovery answers, admissions, productions, arbitration orders, and Respondents’ own cross-forum filings.

Related Filings

• Respondents DRVM LLC and Steven S. Dickert’s Opposition to Complainant’s Motion to Compel Discovery

Filed June 23, 2026 (PDF)

• Declaration of Carmen M. Livengood and Exhibits A–D

Filed June 23, 2026 (PDF)

Current Status – Awaiting Rulings and Additional Time May Be Necessary

Respondents filed their opposition to the Motion to Compel on June 23, 2026. Under the OALJ procedure governing this case, Plaintiff does not have an automatic right to file a reply brief. Plaintiff must therefore await further direction from Administrative Law Judge Evan H. Nordby, including whether the ALJ requests additional briefing, permits a reply, schedules argument, or rules on the motion based on the existing record.

The present record includes Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, supporting declaration and exhibits, Respondents’ opposition, and counsel’s supporting declaration. Plaintiff maintains that Respondents’ opposition contains substantial factual and procedural mischaracterizations that can be compared directly against the written discovery responses, admissions, meet-and-confer emails, cross-forum filings, and production record.

At the same time, the discovery period is nearing its end. The March 17, 2026 Pre-Hearing Order required discovery to be completed by August 7, 2026 and set the hearing for December 3, 2026. According to Plaintiff, much of the discovery period has been consumed by Respondents’ dismissal efforts, broad objections, privilege assertions, limited production, refusal to identify admitted outside participants, and refusal to continue conferring while summary decision remained pending.

Plaintiff therefore anticipates that, if the case proceeds, a continuance and extension of discovery may be necessary. Plaintiff expects to seek time to obtain rulings on the pending motions, pursue third-party discovery and subpoenas, require the served but non-appearing Respondents to appear, conduct discovery directed to those entities and other participants, complete depositions, and review any compelled production before the hearing.

Plaintiff maintains that any request for additional time would result from the unresolved discovery disputes and delay in obtaining basic factual information—not from a lack of diligence.

Current Status: Awaiting the ALJ’s rulings and further direction. This section will be updated if additional briefing is authorized, the Motion to Compel or summary-decision motion is decided, or Plaintiff moves to extend discovery and continue the hearing.