Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01056/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01056-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

ThermoLife International, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs. 

Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

No. CV-11-01056-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court are the following motions: 

1. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Portions of Response Report 

and Areas of Testimony of Dr. Thomas Sox (Doc. 178); 

2. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Survey, Report and Testimony 

of James T. Berger (Doc. 181); 

3. Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Report, Response Report, 

and Testimony of Jim Prochnow (Doc. 190); 

4. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony and 

Opinions of Ron Epperson (Doc. 201); 

5. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Report and Testimony of Ryan 

Hornbuckle (Doc. 202); 

6. Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Testimony of 

Stephen Clarke (Doc. 205); 

7. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 203); 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 1 of 40
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8. Motion for Summary Judgment on Gaspari Nutrition Inc.’s Counterclaims 

(Doc. 206) by ThermoLife International, LLC; 

9. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Due to Gaspari Nutrition Inc.’s Intentional 

Destruction of Evidence and GNI’s Efforts to Conceal Its Wrongful Conduct (Doc. 216); 

10. Motion to Strike Declaration of Ted Willard and Portions of Reply That 

Rely on the Willard Declaration (Doc. 267) by Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.; 

11. ThermoLife’s Motion for Sanctions Due to Defendant’s Failure to Produce 

Relevant Documents in Discovery (Doc. 355); and 

12. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Certain FDA 

Statements (Doc. 319). 

In addition to considering the foregoing motions and the responses and replies 

thereto, the Court has considered ThermoLife International, LLC’s Supplemental Brief 

(Doc. 341) and Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Response (Doc. 360). 

The briefs and statements of facts alone come to 735 pages. With attachments, the 

paper reaches 35 inches and 84 pounds. But at the bottom of the 735 pages, 35 inches, 

and 84 pounds, there is no lawsuit. 

I. BACKGROUND 

ThermoLife International, LLC (“TLI”) and Gaspari Nutrition, Inc. (“GNI”) have 

been competitors in the business of selling dietary supplement products related to 

bodybuilding. Ron Kramer is the president of TLI. Rich Gaspari is the president of GNI. 

The United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulates both finished 

dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients under the Dietary Supplement Health 

and Education Act of 1994 (“DSHEA”), an amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (“FDCA”). 

In its First Amended Complaint, TLI alleges eleven counts, nine of which are for 

false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), which is § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham 

Act. TLI alleges that GNI has engaged in false advertising by marketing and selling its 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 2 of 40
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

products as “safe,” “natural,” “DSHEA-compliant,” and “legal.” The allegations concern 

four GNI products sold as dietary supplements: Novedex XT (sold January 2005 to 

October 4, 2010), Halodrol Liquigels (sold July 2006 to July 2010), Halodrol MT (sold 

September 2009 to April 2011), and SuperPump 250 (sold January 2005 to July 2010). 

The First Amended Complaint also alleges common law unfair competition and tortious 

interference with business and business expectancy. 

In its Counterclaim, GNI alleges unfair competition, trade disparagement, and, 

under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), false designations of origin, false descriptions, false 

advertising, and unfair competition. Among other things, GNI claims that TLI made 

false statements regarding GNI’s SuperPump 250, Novedex, Halodrol, and Vasotropin 

products. 

II. EXPERTS 

A. Legal Standard 

Trial courts must ensure that any and all evidence admitted is both relevant and 

reliable. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). Rule 702 of 

the Federal Rules of Evidence provides: 

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, 

experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an 

opinion or otherwise if: 

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge 

will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact 

in issue; 

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; 

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; 

and 

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the 

facts of the case. 

B. James T. Berger, TLI’s Consumer Survey Expert 

Mr. Berger’s expert report dated May 29, 2013, focuses on an Internet survey 

intended to determine if certain statements made by GNI in its advertising of Novedex 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 3 of 40
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

XT, Halodrol1 MT, and Halodrol Liquigels were material to a consumer’s buying 

decision. Mr. Berger reviewed pleadings and discovery provided to him by TLI and 

concluded that, although GNI’s advertising was worded in many different ways, when 

GNI’s advertising of Novedex XT, Halodrol MT, and Halodrol Liquigels “are viewed as 

a whole[,] you see that the defendant advertised these products as ‘Natural,’ ‘Legal,’ 

‘DSHEA-compliant’ and ‘Safe.’” Finding it impractical to test each specific statement, 

Mr. Berger’s survey was designed to determine whether statements that a product was 

“Natural, “Legal,” “DSEA-compliant,” “Safe,” and included clinically proven effect 

doses of raw materials affected consumers’ buying decisions. 

Mr. Berger’s report does not state when the survey was conducted or how survey 

participants were solicited, only that they were limited to males age 16 and over who had 

purchased Novedex XT, Halodrol MT, Halodrol Liquigels, or other testosterone-boosting 

supplements. None of the respondents could have been a current user of Novedex XT, 

Halodrol MT, or Halodrol Liquigels at the time of the survey because those products had 

not been sold for at least two years. The report makes no attempt to show that survey 

respondents were representative of potential consumers of GNI’s or TLI’s testosteroneboosting products. 

Each of 259 respondents was assigned to one of four surveys regarding one of the 

products he had purchased: 64 responded to Novedex XT questions, 65 responded to 

Halodrol MT questions, 63 responded to Halodrol Liquigels questions, and 67 responded 

to questions about other testosterone-boosting supplements. Each of the surveys related 

to the GNI products began with a paragraph stating that certain GNI products had been 

recalled and describing the product’s potential adverse reactions and harmful effects, 

such as decreased sperm production, infertility, aggressive behavior, adrenal 

insufficiency, kidney failure, liver dysfunction, shrinkage of the testes, and increased risk 

 1

 Mr. Berger’s report consistently misspells “Halodrol” as “Haladrol.” 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 4 of 40
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of heart attack, stroke, and death. The first question asked the respondent whether he was 

aware of this report of the potential side effects of the specific product. The survey also 

stated if a product was not DSHEA-compliant, it “wasn’t legal.” Subsequent questions 

had three multiple-choice responses, worded to obtain a response favorable to TLI. For 

example: 

In purchasing a dietary supplement, how important is it that 

the supplement contains ingredients that are legal: 

 Very important; I would never purchase a supplement 

I knew contained an illegal drug 

 Somewhat important; I would prefer to purchase a 

supplement that did not contain an illegal drug 

 Not important; in purchasing a supplement, I do not 

consider whether the product might contain an illegal 

drug 

If you were using a testosterone boosting supplement that was 

advertised as a natural way to trigger a potent and sustained 

physiological response and you were to discover the product 

used unnatural ingredients, what would be your reaction: 

 I would stop using the product immediately and not 

use any other testosterone boosting supplement 

 I would stop using the product immediately and seek 

out another product that was known to use “natural” 

ingredients 

 I would continue using the product 

The survey did not ask the respondents how likely they would be to purchase a 

product primarily because it claimed to be “natural, “legal,” “DSEA-compliant,” “safe,” 

and/or include clinically proven effect doses of raw materials. It did not ask whether 

respondents were more likely to purchase a product with such advertising instead of a 

product without such advertising. It did not ask how important DSHEA-compliance was 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 5 of 40
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

to their purchasing decisions, but instead stated that if a product was not DSHEAcompliant, it “wasn’t legal” and questioned whether they would purchase “an illegal 

drug.” The survey questioned whether respondents who had previously purchased 

testosterone-boosting products would have continued to purchase those products if they 

knew they were not safe, natural, and legal or would have chosen a product that actually 

was safe, natural, and legal. Because respondents already had used the products, it 

cannot be determined how their satisfaction with the effectiveness of the products 

influenced their responses regardless of any advertising. Thus, even if the survey sample 

had been representative of potential consumers, the questions were not designed to 

determine the materiality of advertising regarding whether a product was safe, natural, 

legal, and DSHEA-compliant. 

From the survey, Mr. Berger concluded: “Clearly, users of testosterone boosting 

supplements are very careful and mindful of the products they use. They want to make 

sure the products they use are: safe, legal, in compliance with U.S. regulations, contain 

“NATURAL” ingredients, deliver ingredients in the proper potency.” He also concluded 

that “an extremely high percentage of respondents that had previously taken one of the 

[GNI] products at issue in this lawsuit indicated [if] they were informed that [GNI’s] 

advertising was false, they would stop using the product and seek out another product in 

the same product line with advertised benefits.” From which Mr. Berger concluded: 

“This suggests that a substantial portion of [GNI’s] customers would have purchased a 

competitor’s product but for [GNI’s] false advertising.” 

Mr. Berger’s survey, report, and testimony are not based on sufficient facts or data 

and are not the product of reliable principles and methods. The survey was biased, and 

there is no evidence that the survey sample was representative of potential consumers. 

The survey questions were not designed to determine whether GNI’s advertising of 

Novedex XT, Halodrol MT, and Halodrol Liquigels as safe, legal, natural, and DSHEAcompliant was material to potential consumers’ buying decisions. Therefore, GNI’s 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 6 of 40
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Motion to Exclude Survey, Report and Testimony of James T. Berger (Doc. 181) will be 

granted. 

C. Dr. Thomas Sox, TLI’s Liability Expert 

In his expert report dated May 31, 2013,2

 Dr. Sox states that TLI engaged him to 

evaluate the veracity of GNI’s advertising and to provide opinions regarding whether 

GNI’s Novedex XT, Halodrol3

 MT, and Halodrol Liquigels were DSHEA-compliant and 

safe; whether Novedex XT was natural; and specific questions about whether TLI’s 

testing of certain products supports certain conclusions. GNI moves to exclude portions 

of Dr. Sox’s June 24, 2013 Report, which supplements his May 2013 Report and 

responds to GNI’s May 28, 2013 expert disclosures, and areas of Dr. Sox’s testimony. 

(Doc. 178.) 

1. Opinions Related to ETH and Vardenafil 

GNI contends that Dr. Sox’s opinions regarding ETH and Vardenafil were 

untimely produced for the first time in his June 24, 2013 Report (pages 9-11), and that the 

June 24, 2013 Report raises new matters, not merely a supplement to the May 2013 

Report. On May 15, 2013, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to extend expert 

disclosure deadlines, extending “the deadline for the party with the burden of proof to 

disclose expert reports” to May 31, 2013, and the deadline for response expert reports to 

June 24, 2013. (Doc. 144). TLI contends that on May 31, 2013, it disclosed Dr. Sox’s 

opinions that it intends to rely on in support of the claims for which it bears the burden of 

proof, and on June 24, 2013, it disclosed Dr. Sox’s opinions that it intends to rely on in its 

defense against GNI’s counterclaim. In reply, GNI contends that the initial scheduling 

order (Doc. 60) said that “the propounding party . . . shall provide full and complete 

 2

 The date underneath his signature is May 31, 2012, and his June 24, 2013 Report 

states that he previously submitted a report on May 28, 2013, but the date in the footer of 

his first report is May 31, 2013. 

3

 Dr. Sox’s report misspells “Halodrol” as “Haladrol.” 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 7 of 40
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

expert disclosures.” However, the May 15, 2013 Order uses the language agreed to and 

proposed by the parties, i.e., “party with the burden of proof.” 

GNI also contends that TLI is offering Dr. Sox’s opinions regarding ETH and 

Vardenafil to provide an affirmative defense, i.e., TLI’s statements about GNI’s products 

were true and therefore TLI is the party with the burden of proof. It need not be decided 

now which party bears the burden of proof and whether TLI’s disclosure of Dr. Sox’s 

opinions regarding ETH and Vardenafil was timely, because GNI had opportunity to 

address them in a rebuttal report by July 5, 2013, and questioned Dr. Sox regarding them 

in deposition. 

GNI further contends that merely the subject of ETH and Vardenafil was not 

timely disclosed before the close of fact discovery. Because the Discovery Master 

concluded that GNI had not satisfied its discovery obligations and ordered additional 

production that was not completed before the close of fact discovery, and the parties have 

been permitted to use the late discovery to supplement their briefing on all of the motions 

decided in this Order, Dr. Sox’s opinions related to ETH and Vardenafil will not be 

excluded for untimely disclosure. 

2. Opinions Regarding the Safety of GNI’s Products 

In his May 31, 2013 Report, Dr. Sox poses the question: “Are the results of the 

Willoughby and Ziegenfuss studies sufficient to substantiate a claim that Novodex4

 is 

safe?” He concludes: 

A well recognized procedure [Generally Recognized as Safe 

(“GRAS”)] is used to establish the safety of new dietary 

ingredients. The ingredients in Novodex XT have not been 

subjected to this procedure, and they cannot be safe. The 

Willoughby and Ziegenfuss studies were too small and too 

narrow in its subject base to establish the safety of the 

ingredients. . . . Indeed Gaspari Nutrition, Inc. admitted in its 

October 7, 2010 Recall-Firm Press Release, that Novodex XT 

 4

 Dr. Sox consistently misspells “Novedex” as “Novodex.” 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 8 of 40
- 9 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

could potentially cause a host of adverse events . . . . 

Furthermore, all evidence contradicts the safety claims made 

in Gaspari Nutrition Inc.’s advertising. Novodex XT was not 

safe. 

(Doc. 178-1 at 29.) In deposition, Dr. Sox conceded that the DSHEA does not require 

Novedex to be subjected to the GRAS procedure because Novedex XT is a dietary 

supplement, not a food additive. He explained that GRAS provides a means for being 

able to establish that a product is safe and is the current industry norm. But he does not 

provide any support for his conclusion that because the ingredients in Novedex XT have 

not been subjected to the GRAS procedure, “they cannot be safe.” Although he may 

opine regarding the sufficiency of GNI’s proof to support its claim that Novedex XT is 

“safe,” his report does not support his conclusion that Novedex XT “was not safe.” 

Regarding the Halodrol products, Dr. Sox poses the question, “Were the 

ingredients in Halodrol safe?” He states: “Halodrol contained steroidal ingredients such 

as 5-alpha (5-alpha-androstane-3,6,17-trione) and 6-OXO (4-androstene-3,6,17-trione).” 

Earlier in the report, Dr. Sox refers to “3,17-diketo-androst-1,4,6-triene (or ATD), an 

active ingredient in Novodex XT,” but he does not state that Halodrol contains ATD. 

(Doc. 178-1 at 7.) He opines: 

Published safety data, as required for GRAS status, 

apparently do not exist for ATD and 6-OXO. ATD and 6-

OXO were apparently never subjected to the well-established 

safety evaluation process that is used for determining the 

safety of new drugs, food ingredients, or food additives. . . . 

A new ingredient that has not been subjected to this wellestablished safety evaluation process cannot be considered 

safe. Given the potential for adverse effects on human health, 

ingredients not supported by data from such a process are 

probably best regarded as unsafe. 

(Id. at 30-31.) His recommendation that ATD and 6-OXO “are probably best regarded as 

unsafe” is not helpful to a jury that must decide whether GNI’s advertising that Halodrol 

is safe is, in fact, false. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 9 of 40
- 10 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dr. Sox states that ATC and 6-OXO are “putative aromatase inhibitors,” and he 

relies on a study of female breast cancer patients treated for five years with a prescription 

aromatase inhibitor. Because this study found a correlation between the prescription 

aromatase inhibitor and osteoporosis and cardiovascular events in women with preexisting atherosclerosis and increased cholesterol levels, he opines, “If ATD and 6-OXO 

was [sic] subjected to similar long-term testing in men, similar adverse effects might be 

noted.” In deposition, Dr. Sox admitted that the intended users of Halodrol were males 

and that he was not familiar with the labels on the Halodrol products, which warned that 

it was not to be used by persons under the age of 21, women, or people who have cancer 

or have ever had cancer. 

In his report Dr. Sox mentioned a study involving “elderly men,” but did not 

discuss its results. GNI contends that its products were not intended for “elderly men,” 

but the labels do not indicate an upper limit for the age of males for which the products 

are intended. 

In his May 31, 2013 Report, Dr. Sox concludes: 

Halodrol cannot be considered safe, since it contains 

ingredients which have not been demonstrated to be safe. . . . 

Given the lack of safety data for Halodrol, and the known 

side effects of compounds working by the same mechanism 

as ATD and 6-OXO, a reasonable and precautionary 

assumption is that it is not safe. 

(Id. at 30.) 

It would not be helpful to the jury to hear Dr. Sox’s opinion that GNI did not have 

sufficient research to prove that Novedex XT and the Halodrol products were “safe,” 

when the issue they would need to decide is whether, in fact, the products were “safe.” 

Dr. Sox’s conclusion that they are not “safe” is not based on sufficient facts or data or the 

product of reliable principles and methods. Moreover, the jury likely would be confused 

and easily misled without a standard for determining what is “safe.” 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 10 of 40
- 11 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Therefore, Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Portions of Response 

Report and Areas of Testimony of Dr. Thomas Sox (Doc. 178) will be granted. 

D. Ryan Hornbuckle, TLI’s Market Expert 

In his expert report dated May 31, 2012,5

 Mr. Hornbuckle states that TLI engaged 

him to evaluate how GNI’s Novedex XT, Halodrol MT, and Halodrol Liquigels products 

competed with certain of TLI’s products and to provide an opinion regarding whether, 

but for GNI’s false advertising, TLI’s testosterone-boosting dietary supplement products 

would have performed better in the marketplace. Mr. Hornbuckle’s report did not 

address GNI’s SuperPump 250, which competed in a separate category known as “preworkout products.” 

In deposition Mr. Hornbuckle testified that he had never previously conducted the 

type of market analysis he did for this case, and he created the methodology he used by 

relying on subjective factors based on personal experience. He described what he did as 

“a subjective analysis based on my experience.” Further, he said: 

[T]his is purely based on my history in the business being 

able to look at winners and losers, and also based on some of 

the traditionally frowned-upon things in the business, like—

by the consumer. For example, proprietary blends, things that 

are shrouded in proprietary blends tend to get lower marks 

from the—the consuming public, but not completely 

disregarded. 

To establish the market for 2005-2010, Mr. Hornbuckle began by identifying only 

products that were advertised in three random monthly issues, for each of the years 2005-

2009, of Joe Weider’s FLEX magazine and distributed by GNC. Next, he narrowed the 

list of products to include only those that “1) did not engage in false advertising, 2) only 

contained DSHEA compliant ingredients, and 3) were owned by companies/brands 

recognized for product authenticity and viewed by consumers as trustworthy.” To 

 5

 The date of 2012 could be a typographical error. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 11 of 40
- 12 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

narrow the list to products that would be eligible for dollars captured by falsely 

advertised items, he removed products that contained “banned, illegal, or otherwise 

unapproved dietary ingredients” (including Novedex XT and Halodrol Liquigels) and 

“brands or products not viewed as serious competitors.” In doing so, Mr. Hornbuckle 

relied on Mr. Berger’s survey and the conclusions of Mr. Berger and Dr. Sox. 

Using “the winnowed list from 2007, 2008, and 2009,” Mr. Hornbuckle then 

assigned weights to six products based on certain factors. For each of the three years, he 

gave positive weight to products that had a heavily advertised brand and negative weight 

to products that had a proprietary blend or “old technology.” For 2007, he gave negative 

weight to a product that had “unsubstantiated technology.” For 2008 and 2009, he gave 

negative weight to a product that had “Sarm technology.” He admitted that he could have 

used additional factors or criteria, such as product pricing, packaging design, and dosing 

instructions. And for the four factors he used, he testified that the weight he assigned was 

“arbitrary . . . a subjective thing.” 

Mr. Hornbuckle also reviewed website forum posts from Bodybuilding.com, 

which he concluded indicated that “consumers were very often making a choice between 

[TLI’s] Testosterone Boosting products and GNI’s Testosterone Boosting products.” Mr. 

Hornbuckle states the following conclusions: 

For the years 2006 to 2008—the years when GNI and [TLI] 

competed head-to-head on the GNC shelives—[TLI] would 

have received over 46% of GNI’s sales volume in 2006, 40% 

of GNI’s sales volume for 2007, and close to 42% of GNI’s 

volume in 2008. These numbers are the result of culling and 

weighting a list of the GNC advertised products that were 1) 

truthfully advertised, 2) contained DSHEA-compliant 

ingredients, and 3) were from trusted and authentic brands. 

The positive weight was added if products were heavily 

advertised (and devoid of false claims) as this would have—at 

least in the short-term—a favorable impact on sales, and the 

negative weight was subtracted for obscuring formulation 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 12 of 40
- 13 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

details or for using outdated or irrelevant technologies or 

ingredients. . . . 

. . . . 

If not for the false advertising of unapproved dietary 

supplements by [GNI], [TLI] would have undoubtedly 

performed better in the marketplace as a whole, and would 

have captured a conservative average of 42.7% of GNI’s sales 

volume from 2005 to 2010 in the Testosterone Booster 

category—a category where Halodrol and Novedex compete 

directly with [TLI] branded products . . . across the entire 

domestic Sports Nutrition marketplace. 

Mr. Hornbuckle also opined from experience that in any category of dietary supplements 

a leader typically emerges and earns a disproportionate amount of the market share as 

success for any dietary supplement makes that product more popular. Therefore, in Mr. 

Hornbuckle’s opinion, TLI’s increased sales likely would have made it a leader in the 

testosterone-boosting category and caused it to capture more than GNI’s sales. 

Mr. Hornbuckle’s report and testimony are not based on sufficient facts or data, 

not the product of reliable principles and methods, and likely to mislead the jury. He 

made up a methodology, excluded from consideration most of the products in the market, 

and gave the appearance of numeric accuracy by arbitrarily assigning weights to a few 

products based on his subjective feelings about what would affect consumers’ purchasing 

decisions. Moreover, TLI has not shown that Mr. Hornbuckle is qualified to opine 

regarding whether, but for GNI’s false advertising, TLI’s testosterone-boosting dietary 

supplement products would have performed better in the marketplace and what 

percentage of the market TLI would have captured. Therefore, Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s 

Motion to Exclude Report and Testimony of Ryan Hornbuckle (Doc. 202) will be 

granted. 

E. Ron Epperson, TLI’s Damages Expert 

In his expert report dated May 31, 2013, Mr. Epperson states that he was retained 

on behalf of TLI to review and analyze damages “in connection with” TLI’s claims for 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 13 of 40
- 14 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

false advertising, unfair competition, and tortious interference against GNI. Under 15 

U.S.C. § 1117(a), if liability is established under § 1125(a)(1)(B) for false advertising, 

subject to the principles of equity, a plaintiff is entitled “to recover (1) defendant’s 

profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action.” “In 

assessing profits the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant’s sales only; defendant 

must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). 

1. GNI’s Profits Related to the False Advertising of Novedex XT, 

Halodrol Liquigels, Halodrol MT, and SuperPump 250 

Mr. Epperson concludes that GNI’s gross sales revenues for Novedex XT, 

Halodrol Liquigels, Halodrol MT, and SuperPump 250 over the period of January 2000 

through December 2011 equals $92,203,999. He uses a period beginning in January 

2000 although TLI has alleged that GNI’s supplements competed with TLI’s products 

from 2005 to 2010, not 2000-2004, and does not allege that GNI made false statements 

about Novedex XT, Halodrol Liquigels, Halodrol MT, or SuperPump 250 before 2005. 

Mr. Epperson further concludes that GNI’s gross profits for these products over 

the twelve-year period totals $54,871,352 and “GNI’s disgorgement of profits related to 

the Violative Products equals $54,871,352.” But he provides no basis for his conclusion 

that all of GNI’s profits were causally related to its false advertising and therefore must 

be disgorged. 

Moreover, these totals include $60,276,376 in gross sales for SuperPump 250 and 

$28,728,210 in gross profits for SuperPump 250. Thus, Mr. Epperson includes 

$28,728,210 from sales of SuperPump 250 in the amount that GNI should disgorge even 

though TLI did not sell a competing product. Mr. Epperson gives no explanation for 

concluding that TLI was damaged by GNI’s allegedly false advertising of SuperPump 

250. 

2. TLI’s Profits Lost Due to GNI’s Alleged False Advertising 

Mr. Epperson also calculates TLI’s lost profits due to false advertising of Novedex 

XT, Halodrol Liquigels, and Halodrol MT. He excludes SuperPump 250 from this 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 14 of 40
- 15 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

analysis, apparently because no TLI product directly competed with SuperPump 250. He 

relies on Mr. Berger’s opinion that “approximately 63% of individuals who use 

testosterone boosting dietary supplements that were advertised as being legal and meeting 

safety stand[ar]ds, but were not legal or did not meet safety standards, would 

immediately seek out another product that met these requirements through the use of 

natural ingredients.” He also relies on Mr. Hornbuckles’s opinion that “between 43% 

and 60% of GNI’s sales of falsely advertised Violative Products would likely have been 

captured by ThermoLife.” 

As found above, Mr. Berger’s survey, report, and testimony are not reliable, and 

Mr. Hornbuckle’s report and testimony are not based on sufficient facts or data, not the 

product of reliable principles and methods, and likely to mislead the jury. Even if it were 

reasonable to assume that GNI’s customers would have made different purchasing 

decisions if they were told that Novedex XT, Halodrol Liquigels, and Halodrol MT were 

not DSHEA-compliant, “safe,” and “natural,” there is no basis for concluding that any 

specific percentage of them would have purchased TLI’s testosterone boosting products. 

Mr. Epperson concludes, “As such, of the $17,284,117 in profits GNI earned from 

the sale of the Violative Products that directly competed with ThermoLife products, lost 

profits to ThermoLife are reasonably estimated as ranging from $4,682,267 to 

$6,533,396.” 

For all of these reasons, Mr. Epperson’s opinions regarding disgorgement of 

GNI’s profits and TLI’s lost profits are not based on sufficient facts or data, are not the 

product of reliable principles and methods, and are likely to mislead the jury. 

F. Jim Prochnow, GNI’s Legal Expert 

In his expert report dated May 31, 2013, Mr. Prochnow states that he was engaged 

by GNI to analyze the allegations of the First Amended Complaint in the context of the 

DSHEA and the compliance and enforcement actions of the FDA with respect to the 

dietary supplements about which GNI allegedly made false statements. Mr. Prochnow is 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 15 of 40
- 16 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

an attorney whose practice focuses on regulatory affairs and litigation with an emphasis 

on food and drug law and advertising law. 

Mr. Prochnow’s Expert Report provides only his legal opinions. He opines that 

the First Amended Complaint “reflects and evidences a misunderstanding of what 

DSHEA requires of dietary supplement products and those who promote, label and 

manufacture them.” He also opines that the FDA’s public safety alert “is an informal 

unilateral Agency action that does not constitute: (a) an enforcement action necessitating 

a mandatory product recall, (b) a declaration that the product is an imminent hazard to 

human health, or (c) a determination that there is a ‘reasonable probability’ of permanent 

impairment of body structure or function in those other than ‘at risk consumers.’” 

Mr. Prochnow states that none of the terms “DSHEA-compliant,” “legal,” “safe,” 

or “natural” is defined by the FDCA or DSHEA, and he provides legal argument 

regarding how each term should be construed and applied here. He opines that “the 

meaning of the term ‘DSHEA-Compliant’ should be determined from the standpoint of a 

typical consumer,” but has no survey data regarding the standpoint of a typical consumer. 

Instead, he opines that “‘DSHEA-Compliant’ means nothing to almost all consumers 

because they are unaware of what ‘DSHEA’ means.” 

Mr. Prochnow’s June 24, 2013 Response Report responds to the report of Dr. Sox. 

Mr. Prochnow disagrees with Dr. Sox’s opinions regarding “natural,” “safe,” and 

“DSHEA-compliant” by providing legal analysis and argument. 

Although expert testimony may embrace an ultimate issue to be decided by the 

trier of fact, Fed. R. Evid. 704(a), an expert witness may not give an opinion on an 

ultimate issue of law. Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1016 

(9th Cir. 2004). Instructing the jury regarding the applicable law is the exclusive 

province of the court. Id. Moreover, Fed. R. Evid. 702(b) requires that an expert’s 

testimony be based on “sufficient facts or data.” 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 16 of 40
- 17 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Both Mr. Prochnow’s Expert Report and Response Report provide opinions on 

ultimate issues of law and nothing more. His opinions are not based on facts or data, but 

rather his legal interpretations. They invade the Court’s exclusive province to instruct the 

jury regarding the applicable law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the 

Expert Report, Response Report, and Testimony of Jim Prochnow (Doc. 190) will be 

granted. 

G. Stephen Clarke, GNI’s Damages Expert 

In his expert report dated May 31, 2013, Mr. Clarke states he was engaged by GNI 

to quantify damages in the form of lost profits from sales of its nutritional supplements 

following the May 25, 2012 publication of an article titled “Federal Judge allows 

ThermoLife to take SUPER DUMP on Gaspari.” He does not opine regarding damages 

that may have been caused by TLI’s actions prior to May 25, 2012. 

During his deposition, Mr. Clarke testified that he was not engaged to determine 

whether the publication of the article caused damages, but that he assumed causation. 

However, in a section of his expert report titled “Causation,” he states that publication of 

the May 25, 2012 “SUPER DUMP” article “caused GNI to lose sales.” 

Mr. Clarke observes that GNI’s sales increased every year prior to the posting of 

the article, whether considered by calendar year or June-May years, and declined 

following the posting of the article. He also observes that “the period from March to 

June 2012 was the only time in the company’s history that it recorded three consecutive 

months of decreasing sales,” but he does not explain what caused the decrease in sales in 

the two and a half months before May 25, 2012. 

He notes that GNI “weathered the storm” of the December 2007 through June 

2009 recession and calculates that GNI’s 3-month trailing average sales revenues 

increased by 175% from $2 million in December 2007 to $5.5 million in June 2009. 

Although Mr. Clarke does not opine regarding damages caused by TLI’s alleged false 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 17 of 40
- 18 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

disparaging statements made in September 2008 and early 2010, his observations 

regarding GNI’s revenues undermine GNI’s claims that those statements caused harm. 

Mr. Clarke’s qualifications as an expert are not challenged. But his testimony 

would not help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue 

because it is not limited to the particular task he was assigned, i.e., quantifying damages. 

He observes the correlation between GNI’s decline in sales revenues and the date the 

“SUPER DUMP” article was published and opines that the correlation establishes 

causation without any hard evidence. This testimony is likely to confuse and mislead the 

jury. 

Moreover, Mr. Clarke’s factual observations regarding the decline in GNI’s sales 

revenues the two and a half months before May 25, 2012, suggest something other than 

the publication of the “SUPER DUMP” article caused GNI’s sales to begin to decline. 

Further, his observations of GNI’s strong performance despite the recession suggest that 

GNI’s allegations of damage caused by TLI’s misrepresentations in 2008 and early 2010 

are unfounded. These observations may be helpful to the trier of fact, but would not 

serve GNI’s purpose in offering Mr. Clarke as an expert. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and 

Testimony of Stephen Clarke (Doc. 205) will be granted. 

III. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

A. Legal Standard 

Summary judgment is proper if the evidence shows there is no genuine issue as to 

any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party must produce evidence and show there is no genuine 

issue of material fact. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 

1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). If the burden of persuasion at trial would be on the 

nonmoving party, the party moving for summary judgment may carry its initial burden of 

production under Rule 56(c) by producing “evidence negating an essential element of the 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 18 of 40
- 19 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

nonmoving party’s case,” or by showing, after suitable discovery, that the “nonmoving 

party does not have enough evidence of an essential element of its claim or defense to 

carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz 

Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2000); High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. 

Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563, 574 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying the 

basis for its motion and those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which 

demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). When the moving party has carried its burden, the nonmoving 

party must produce evidence to support its claim or defense by more than simply showing 

“there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. 

v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To defeat a motion for summary 

judgment, the nonmoving party must show that there are genuine issues of material fact. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A material fact is one that 

might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. at 248. A factual issue 

is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party.” Id. 

On summary judgment, the nonmoving party’s evidence is presumed true, and all 

inferences from the evidence are drawn in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party. Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of North America, 815 F.2d 1285, 1289 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1104, 1117 (9th Cir. 2001). But the evidence 

presented by the parties must be admissible. LRCiv 56.1(a), (b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(e). Conclusory and speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is 

insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and to defeat summary judgment. Thornhill 

Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). “If a party fails to 

properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 19 of 40
- 20 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for 

purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. 56(e)(2). 

B. Undisputed Material Facts 

GNI sold Novedex XT, Halodrol Liquigels, and Halodrol MT as dietary 

supplements designed to increase testosterone levels. GNI sold SuperPump 250 as a preworkout dietary supplement to assist in the development of lean body mass. Neither 

Halodrol MT nor SuperPump 250 has been the subject of a recall. 

On January 15, 2010, the FDA issued a press release announcing that 

MuscleMaster.com, Inc., an unrelated third-party retailer, was conducting a voluntary 

nationwide recall of 17 dietary supplements, including Novedex XT and Halodrol 

Liquigels, that were sold between June 1, 2009, and November 17, 2009. The press 

release states the FDA advised MuscleMaster.com “of its concern that the Recalled 

Products may contain [] ingredients that are currently classified, or the FDA believes 

should be classified, as steroids.” It further states, “While MuscleMaster.com cannot 

independently confirm the FDA’s concerns that any one or more of the Recalled Products 

in fact contain these ingredients, MuscleMaster.com is undertaking this voluntary recall 

out of an abundance of caution and in deference to FDA’s stated concerns.” The press 

release states the possible harmful effects of using steroid-containing products include 

acute liver injury, shrinkage of the testes, male infertility, adverse effects on blood lipid 

levels, and increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and death. 

On October 7, 2010, the FDA issued a press release announcing GNI was 

conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of Novedex XT, a product marketed as a dietary 

supplement containing an aromatase inhibitor (“ATD”). The press release states that 

GNI “is conducting this consumer level recall after being informed by representatives of 

the [FDA] that 3,17-keto-etiocholetriene does not meet the definition of a dietary 

ingredient and therefore the product is in violation of provisions of the [FDCA].” The 

press release also states that GNI discontinued domestic sales of Novedex XT on October 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 20 of 40
- 21 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4, 2010. It describes potential adverse effects associated with the use of ATD as 

“decreased rate of bone maturation and growth, decreased sperm production, infertility, 

aggressive behavior, adrenal insufficiency, kidney failure, and liver dysfunction.” TLI 

has been aware of GNI’s use of ATD since at least February 2006. 

Turkesterone is a substance derived from the plant Ajuga Tukestanica that was 

included in SuperPump 250 since it was first sold. The formulators of SuperPump 250 

testified that there was turkesterone in SuperPump 250, although in an amount so small 

that it may not appear in tests. In January 2009, the formulation of SuperPump 250 was 

changed from .0005 milligrams of turkesterone per serving to 1 milligram per serving. In 

June 2006, TLI questioned GNI’s ability to obtain turkesterone. TLI claimed to have an 

exclusive agreement for the sale of turkesterone in the United States during the times that 

GNI sold turkesterone. 

At various times, the labels of Halodrol MT and Halodrol Liquigels listed as an 

ingredient 3,4 divanillytetrahydrofuran, which is a compound obtained from stinging 

nettles. The Halodrol MT label indicated that the 3,4 divanillytetrahydrofuran it 

contained was 95% pure. Although TLI alleges that it is not commercially viable for any 

dietary supplement manufacturer to use 3,4 divanillytetrahydrofuran that is 95% pure, 

GNI’s suppliers reported that the product they supplied was 95% pure. 

Many of the allegedly false advertisments about which TLI complains are internet 

bulletin board posts on Bodybuilding.com. On September 22, 2008, Mr. Kramer posted 

on Bodybuilding.com a statement that Mr. Gaspari “was a joke in this industry peddling 

protein from his garage.” Previously, in an interview with Bodybuilding.com in February 

2007, Mr. Gaspari stated that in 1999 he began selling product out of his car and used his 

mother’s garage and basement as his warehouse and office. On September 22, 2008, Mr. 

Kramer also posted that “Gaspari was a joke in this industry,” “knows nothing about 

supplements,” and “would be a personal trainer at 24 Hour Fitness” without Bruce 

Kneller. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 21 of 40
- 22 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TLI’s website has a forum moderated by “Truth Speaker.” In a series of forum 

posts beginning in January 2010, TLI discussed a press release by TLI and Anabolic 

Xtreme regarding “a potential problem with one of AX’s ingredients, 3,4 

divanillytetrahydrofuran. The press release states that TLI commissioned an independent 

lab to analyze the purity of the compound marketed as 95% 3,4 divanillytetrahydrofuran, 

which found that the product had less than 5% purity. The press release also states: 

While confident that the ingredient formerly known as 3,4-D 

“works,” due to the enormous amount of consumer feedback 

and the Mass-FX University study, the information provided 

from the results of ThermoLife’s independent market analysis 

of the compound has responsibly led AX to change its labels 

to identify the material as “a proprietary extract of the Urtica 

dioca plant” to comply with federal labeling regulations. 

In its posts on TLI’s website forum, TLI stated that if the ingredient were 95% pure, it 

would be white or very close to white and this ingredient is a brown powder. TLI further 

stated, “ALL the material in the market is nothing more than a crude nettle extract and 

NOT 95% of anything.” 

On April 6, 2012, TLI, represented as “Truth Speaker,” posted a forum message 

on the TLI website, attaching lab test results conducted on GNI’s Vasotropin. The post is 

titled “GASPARI selling SAW DUST???” The forum message claims that “independent 

lab test results” indicated that each tablet of Vasotropin contains 0.548 milligrams of 

nitrates, which TLI contends is ineffective: “A dose that will do NOTHING for anyone 

expecting a pump but may make Gayspari [sic] and the scammers that work for him rich 

and you a sucker!” GNI alleges that the post falsely suggests that nitrates are the key 

ingredient in Vasotropin. 

C. TLI’s Claims 

In its First Amended Complaint, TLI alleges that GNI made the following 

representations and they are false and/or misleading: 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 22 of 40
- 23 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1. All of GNI’s products are legal, do not contain illegal or banned substances, 

and are labeled in accordance with federal and state law. 

2. Novedex XT is DSHEA-compliant. 

3. Novedex XT is naturally occurring. 

4. Novedex XT is safe and “the safest.” 

5. Halodrol Liquigels and Halodrol MT are DSHEA-compliant. 

6. Halodrol Liquigels and Halodrol MT are safe. 

7. Halodrol Liquigels and Halodrol MT contain 95% 3,4-

divanillytetrahydrofuran. 

8. SuperPump 250 contains turkesterone. 

9. GNI’s products contain effective doses. 

(Doc. 38.) TLI also alleges claims of common law unfair competition and tortious 

interference with business and business expectancy. (Id.) 

1. False Advertising Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) 

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B): 

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or 

services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any 

. . . false or misleading description of fact, or false or 

misleading representation of fact, which . . . 

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents 

the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of 

his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial 

activities, 

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes 

that he or she is likely to be damaged by such act. 

To succeed on a false advertising claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff must 

prove: 

(1) a false statement of fact by the defendant in a commercial 

advertisement about its own or another’s product; (2) the 

statement actually deceived or has the tendency to deceive a 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 23 of 40
- 24 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

substantial segment of its audience; (3) the deception is 

material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing 

decision; (4) the defendant caused its false statement to enter 

interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely 

to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by direct 

diversion of sales from itself to defendant or by a lessening of 

the goodwill associated with its products. 

Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations 

omitted); accord TrafficSchool.com, Inc., v. Edriver, Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 828-29 (9th Cir. 

2011). 

a. No Private Enforcement of the DSHEA 

To prove any of its false advertising claims, TLI must demonstrate that GNI made 

a false statement of fact about one of GNI’s products. It may do so by showing that the 

statement was literally false or that the statement was literally true but likely to mislead 

or confuse consumers. GNI contends that TLI is attempting to privately enforce the 

DSHEA by asking the Court to determine whether certain products are “legal,” 

“DSHEA-compliant,” “naturally occurring,” and/or “safe” when the FDA has not made 

such a determination. 

Section 337 of the FDCA expressly bars private enforcement of the statute, which 

includes the DSHEA. 21 U.S.C. § 337(a). “Because the FDCA forbids private rights of 

action under that statute, a private action brought under the Lanham Act may not be 

pursued when [] the claim would require litigation of the alleged underlying FDCA 

violation in a circumstance where the FDA has not itself concluded that there was such a 

violation.” PhotoMedex, Inc. v. Irwin, 601 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2010). Further, 

“PhotoMedex teaches that the Lanham Act may not be used as a vehicle to usurp, 

preempt, or undermine FDA authority.” Pom Wonderful, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., 

679 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir. 2012). A plaintiff may not sue under the Lanham Act to 

enforce the FDCA or its regulations because it would undermine congressional intent to 

limit enforcement of the FDCA to the federal government. Id. at 1175-76. A plaintiff 

may not maintain a Lanham Act claim that would require a court to interpret ambiguous 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 24 of 40
- 25 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FDA regulations if the FDA has not done so. Id. at 1176. Where the FDA has not 

concluded that particular conduct violates the FDCA, a Lanham Act claim may not be 

pursued if the claim would require litigating whether that conduct violates the FDCA. Id. 

However, if an affirmative statement of FDA approval is required before a product can be 

marketed and no such approval has been granted, a Lanham Act claim could be pursued 

for injuries suffered by a competitor as a result of the false assertion that FDA approval 

had been granted. Photomedex, 601 F.3d at 924-25. 

Dietary supplements are considered “foods” for the purposes of the adulterated 

food provisions of the FDCA. 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff); Nutritional Health Alliance v. Food 

& Drug Admin., 318 F.3d 92, 98 n.5 (2d Cir. 2003). The FDCA grants the FDA 

jurisdiction over dietary supplements similar, but not identical, to its jurisdiction over 

foods. Nutritional Health Alliance, 318 F.3d at 98 n.5. The FDA is authorized to prevent 

adulterated products from entering the market. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Von Eschenbach, 

459 F.3d 1033, 1035 (10th Cir. 2006). Under the heading “Dietary supplement or 

ingredient: safety,” the FDCA authorizes the FDA to declare that a dietary supplement is 

“adulterated” if it meets certain criteria, but the FDA bears the burden of proof in seeking 

to have a dietary supplement declared adulterated. 21 U.S.C. § 342(f)(1). In contrast, the 

FDCA requires the manufacturer of a drug or device to bear the burden of proving that 

the drug or device is safe before it may be marketed. United States v. 5 Unlabeled Boxes, 

572 F.3d 169, 171 n.2 (3d Cir. 2009). Thus, a dietary supplement or ingredient is not 

determined to be unsafe, not DSHEA-compliant, and/or illegal until the FDA proves and 

declares the product to be adulterated. 

Plainly, judicial determination of the falsity of statements that certain dietary 

supplements are “legal,” “DSHEA-compliant,” and/or “safe” without a determination by 

the FDA would usurp or undermine FDA authority. Therefore, TLI’s Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 

and 6 are barred by 21 U.S.C. § 337(a). 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 25 of 40
- 26 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

b. Falsity of GNI’s Statements 

“To demonstrate falsity within the meaning of the Lanham Act, a plaintiff may 

show that the statement was literally false, either on its face or by necessary implication, 

or that the statement was literally true but likely to mislead or confuse consumers.” 

Southland Sod Farms, 108 F.3d at 1139. To be actionable under 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1125(a)(1)(B), a false statement must be more than mere puffery: 

“Puffing” is exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting 

upon which no reasonable buyer would rely and is not 

actionable under § 43(a). While product superiority claims 

that are vague or highly subjective often amount to 

nonactionable puffery, misdescriptions of specific or absolute 

characteristics of a product are actionable. 

Id. at 1145 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Thus, a statement that is 

quantifiable, that makes a claim as to the specific or absolute characteristics of a product, 

may be an actionable statement of fact while a general, subjective claim about a product 

is non-actionable puffery.” Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 

1053 (9th Cir. 2008). 

“Absent a clear and unambiguous ruling from a court or agency of competent 

jurisdiction, statements by laypersons that purport to interpret the meaning of a statute or 

regulation are opinion statements, and not statements of fact.” Coastal Abstract Serv., 

Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999). And statements of 

opinion are generally not actionable under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). Id. 

Because a dietary supplement or ingredient is not determined to be unsafe, not 

DSHEA-compliant, and/or illegal until the FDA proves and declares the product to be 

adulterated, GNI’s assertions to that effect were not false at the time they were made. 

Therefore, TLI’s Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 fail. 

TLI’s Count 3 alleges that GNI falsely advertised that Novedex XT “is the safest 

way to naturally cause positive anabolic effect,” is a “natural vehicle,” contains “naturally 

occurring anti-aromatase inhibiting compounds,” and “has been shown to increase natural 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 26 of 40
- 27 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

production.” TLI also alleges that GNI stated, “When was the last time you could get 

these kind of effects from a safe, naturally occurring combination of compounds? The 

answer is never.” TLI further alleges that GNI falsely advertised that the active 

ingredients in Novedex XT “are naturally occurring and are found in normal foodstuffs.” 

The parties dispute whether an ingredient in Novedex can be considered “natural” or 

“naturally occurring” because the ingredient can be synthesized from naturally occurring 

material. Without a standard for determining “natural” or “naturally occurring,” and no 

determination by the FDA at the time GNI’s statements were made, these statements 

represent opinions, not “a claim as to the specific or absolute characteristics of a 

product.” Therefore, TLI’s claim 3 fails. 

TLI’s Count 7 refers to both Halodrol Liquigels and Halodrol MT, but the label 

for Halodrol Liquigels listed 3,4 divanillytetrahydrofuran without claiming 95% purity. 

Therefore, TLI’s Count 7 fails in part. 

There is no dispute that SuperPump 250 contained some turkesterone. Therefore, 

TLI’s Count 8 fails. 

TLI’s Count 9 alleges that GNI falsely advertised its products as containing 

effective doses. Specifically, TLI alleges that GNI stated in a marketing video uploaded 

to YouTube.com that its products use ingredients “in doses validated by those [clinical] 

studies” and that the statement is false because SuperPump 250 allegedly contains little 

or no turkesterone. However, even if SuperPump 250 contained no turkesterone, TLI has 

not proven GNI’s general statement regarding “effective doses” of unnamed ingredients 

to be false. Therefore, Count 9 fails. 

c. Materiality 

Although TLI’s expert, James T. Berger, opined that “users of testosterone 

boosting supplements are very careful and mindful of the products they use,” as found 

above, his survey, report, and testimony are not reliable. But even if Mr. Berger’s 

opinions are considered, TLI has not produced evidence sufficient to show a genuine 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 27 of 40
- 28 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

issue of material fact regarding whether any of GNI’s allegedly false statements “actually 

deceived or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience” and “the 

deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decision.” See 

Southland Sod Farms, 108 F.3d at 1139. 

d. Injury 

GNI contends that TLI has failed to establish actual harm and, even if it had, it 

cannot substantiate the amount of harm. Under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff must 

show that it “has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by 

direct diversion of sales from itself to defendant or by a lessening of the goodwill 

associated with its products.” Southland Sod Farms, 108 F.3d at 1139. If a plaintiff 

claims damages in the form of lost profits, it cannot establish causation unless it can show 

that the false statement caused damage by influencing purchasing decisions. William H. 

Morris Co. v. Group W, Inc., 66 F.3d 255, 257 (9th Cir. 1995). 

TLI reasons that steroids are not safe, legal, natural, or DSHEA-compliant, but 

effective; therefore, “when given the choice between two products that advertising 

suggests are interchangeable, consumers chose the product that was more effective—but 

this was only possible because GNI never told consumers the illegal and dangerous 

nature of its products.” But consumers were given the choice among numerous products, 

not just two. TLI has not shown that consumers would have chosen TLI’s products 

instead of GNI’s products, but for GNI’s allegedly false further advertising. Further, 

TLI’s argument suggests that consumers purchased GNI’s products because they were 

more effective, not because they were advertised as safe, legal, natural, and DSHEAcompliant. Moreover, as concluded above, GNI’s statements have not been shown to 

have been false at the time they were made. 

For reasons explained above, the report and testimony of TLI’s market expert, 

Ryan Hornbuckle, and the lost profit analysis of TLI’s damages expert, Ron Epperson, 

will be excluded. However, even if those expert opinions are considered, TLI has not 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 28 of 40
- 29 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

shown a genuine issue of material fact regarding actual harm suffered by TLI caused by 

GNI’s allegedly false statements. 

e. Statute of Limitations/Laches (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9) 

GNI contends that the three-year statute of limitations bars TLI’s Counts 1-4 and 

8-9, because it knew or should have known before May 16, 2008, about GNI’s allegedly 

false advertisement of its products as safe, legal, natural, and DSHEA-compliant and 

containing turkesterone. Regarding Counts 1-4, GNI points to three email exchanges as 

evidence TLI knew or should have known of the basis on which it now says that GNI’s 

advertisement of Novedex XT was false. In a February 2006 email exchange, TLI 

questioned an ingredient supplier regarding whether variants of ATD with ethyl 

carbonate or THP ether were “naturally occurring” and how either variant would compare 

to pure ATD. The supplier responded that neither variant was “naturally occurring.” But 

Novedex XT did not include either variant of ATD. 

In a July 2006 email exchange, the supplier stated that ATD is “100% compliant” 

and “found naturally as a fermented cholanolic acid by-product in bovine intestines,” 

such as those used to make sausage casings, and that he had provided the same 

information to GNI. The supplier also stated that ATD is safe, but that it is not easy to 

prove safety to the FDA. In a February 2007 email exchange, TLI indicated surprise that 

GNI’s notice to the FDA about new dietary ingredients (“NDI”) had passed, with the 

comment “something does not sound right?” The supplier responded that an NDI did not 

need approval before a product could be sold and also that “we have evidence ATD is in 

the food chain—that makes it DSHEA exempt anyhow.” None of these emails show that 

TLI knew or had reason to further investigate in 2006 or 2007 whether Novedex XT, 

which contained ATD, was DSHEA-compliant, naturally occurring, or safe. 

Regarding Counts 8 and 9, GNI points to an email showing that as early as June 

2006, TLI knew that GNI listed turkesterone as an ingredient of SuperPump 250 and 

“was actually very curious” as to GNI’s source. The email states that “Turk is next to 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 29 of 40
- 30 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

impossible to source in quantity,” but does not state that GNI could not have obtained it. 

GNI reasons that TLI should have known that GNI was making “false claims” if TLI’s 

claim that it had the exclusive agreement for the sale of turkesterone in the United States 

was true. But the context suggests that TLI’s attention was focused on whether its 

alleged exclusivity agreement was being violated or circumvented rather than whether 

SuperPump 250 contained a testable amount of turkesterone. 

Therefore, on the evidence submitted, it cannot be found as a matter of law that 

Counts 1-4 and 8-9 are barred by the statute of limitations. 

GNI further contends that laches bars suit for all similar instances of false 

advertising, even those within the limitations period, because the lawsuit was filed for 

false advertising that first occurred outside of the limitations period. Laches is a valid 

defense to Lanham Act claims, including those for false advertising. Jarrow Formulas, 

Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002). Section 43(a) borrows a 

state limitations period as a statute of limitations period, which here is three years. Id. at 

836. “[I]f a § 43(a) claim is filed within the analogous state limitations period, the strong 

presumption is that laches is inapplicable; if the claim is filed after the analogous 

limitations period has expired, the presumption is that laches is a bar to suit.” Id. at 837. 

“For purposes of laches, the limitations period may expire even though part of the 

defendant’s conduct occurred within the limitations period.” Id. at 838. Thus, on the 

evidence submitted for summary judgment, the strong presumption here is that laches is 

not a bar to suit. 

As the party asserting laches, GNI must show that (1) TLI’s delay in filing suit 

was unreasonable and (2) GNI would suffer prejudice caused by the delay if the suit were 

to continue. See id. The length of the delay is measured from the time the plaintiff knew 

or should have known about its potential cause of action. Id. The reasonableness of the 

delay is considered in comparison to the length of the analogous state limitations period. 

Id. Whether the plaintiff provides a legitimate excuse for the delay also is considered. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 30 of 40
- 31 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Id. Here, if GNI had shown that TLI knew or had reason to know about its potential false 

advertising claims regarding Novedex XT and SuperPump 250 in 2006, the delay would 

have been two years beyond the analogous state limitations period. But TLI asserts that it 

did not know that SuperPump 250 did not contain turkesterone or that it contained an 

ineffective amount of turkesterone until it first tested SuperPump 250 in August 2008, 

and GNI has not shown otherwise. Regarding Novedex XT, the FDA issued a Safety 

Alert in September 2010, and GNI recalled the product in October 2010. Before that, 

GNI has shown only two emails questioning whether ATD was safe, natural, legal, and 

DSHEA-compliant that received assurances from the supplier that it was. 

Therefore, on the evidence submitted, it cannot be found as a matter of law that 

Counts 1-4 and 8-9 are barred by laches. 

2. Common Law Unfair Competition 

In its response to GNI’s motion for summary judgment, TLI did not defend its 

Count 10 for common law unfair competition, which alleges that GNI falsely marketed 

its products as DSHEA-compliant. Its lack of response may be deemed a consent to the 

granting of the motion regarding Count 10. LRCiv 7.2(i). Moreover, Count 10 fails on 

the merits because § 337 of the FDCA “limits the ability of a private plaintiff to pursue 

claims under state law theories where such claims collide with the exclusive enforcement 

power of the federal government.” Photomedex, 601 F.3d at 924. 

3. Tortious Interference with Business and Business Expectancy 

TLI’s Count 11 alleges that GNI improperly interfered with TLI’s prospective and 

expected business or economic relationship by improperly demanding that American 

Media, Inc., not allow TLI to exhibit at the Mr. Olympia Weekend Expo on September 

25-26, 2009, and by threatening to pull its advertising from American Media, Inc.’s 

publications if TLI was allowed to attend the Mr. Olympia Weekend Expo. On May 16, 

2012, Count 11 was dismissed to the extent TLI alleges interference with business 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 31 of 40
- 32 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

expectancy of relationships with consumers at the Mr. Olympia Weekend Expo. (Doc. 

46.) 

Count 11 also alleges that TLI suffered damages because it had already made 

arrangements to attend the event, including purchasing plane tickets, making hotel 

reservations, and planning its exhibition for the event. However, TLI representatives 

attended the event; they just were not permitted to exhibit. Moreover, some of TLI’s 

alleged expenses were incurred after it was notified of American Media, Inc.’s decision. 

TLI has not shown that it incurred any expenses resulting from being denied permission 

to exhibit that it could not have avoided. 

Finally, TLI contends that denial of permission to exhibit caused it to lose a 

potential business relationship. Mr. Kramer testified that he thought TLI had preliminary 

plans to meet with a dietary supplement distributor at the Mr. Olympia Weekend Expo, 

but the distributor “discounted” him after he was unable to exhibit at the expo. But the 

mere hope of a prospective business relationship is insufficient to establish tortious 

interference with a business expectancy. Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz. 406, 414, 167 P.3d 

93, 101 (Ct. App. 2007). 

Therefore, Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 203) 

will be granted. 

D. GNI’s Counterclaim 

In its Counterclaim (Doc. 47), GNI alleges that TLI made false disparaging 

statements about GNI and its products in September 2008, early 2010, and April-May 

2012 on Internet message boards. In briefing, the parties have addressed the alleged 

misrepresentations as follows: 

1. SuperPump 250 does not contain the ingredient turkesterone. 

2. SuperPump 250 is not effective. 

3. Vasotropin is “ineffective” because it contains less than 1 mg of nitrates per 

tablet. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 32 of 40
- 33 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. Halodrol is “ineffective” because it does not contain 95% 3,4 

divanillytetrahydrofuran. 

5. Mr. Gaspari was a joke in the industry peddling protein from his garage. 

6. Mr. Gaspari “knows nothing about supplements.” 

7. Mr. Gaspari “would be a personal trainer at 24 Hour Fitness” if not for GNI 

formulator Bruce Kneller. 

8. Mr. Gaspari is a “counterfeiter.” 

9. GNI uses expired ingredients in its products. 

10. Novedex XT and Halodrol were “spiked” with illegal steroids. 

11. ThermoLife’s complaint “reads like a criminal indictment.” 

12. GNI’s recently released products are poorly formulated and pixie dusted. 

13. GNI will be ordered to turn over all documents related to advertising for 

SuperPump 250, Halodrol, and Novedex XT. 

14. GNI will be required to produce all documents sent to retailers claiming 

Halodrol and Novedex XT were natural, safe, and DSHEA-compliant. 

15. GNI will be required to disclose all gross sales of Halodrol, Novedex XT, 

and SuperPump 250. 

16. GNI’s failure to disclose information could result in contempt sanctions and 

criminal charges. 

17. A substantial judgment in this case could put GNI out of business and 

bankrupt Mr. Gaspari. 

18. Federal law provides that if and when GNI is found liable, the court can 

award treble damages equal to three times the profit GNI earned. 

19. The law clearly states that Mr. Gaspari is not entitled to any profit he made 

from selling these products. 

20. GNI is declining in the rankings. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 33 of 40
- 34 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1. False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, False 

Advertising, and Unfair Competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) 

GNI alleges that TLI’s publication of false disparaging statements about GNI and 

its products constitutes unfair competition, false advertising, false designation of origin, 

and/or false description under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Again, to succeed on a false 

advertising claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff must prove: 

(1) a false statement of fact by the defendant in a commercial 

advertisement about its own or another’s product; (2) the 

statement actually deceived or has the tendency to deceive a 

substantial segment of its audience; (3) the deception is 

material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing 

decision; (4) the defendant caused its false statement to enter 

interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely 

to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by direct 

diversion of sales from itself to defendant or by a lessening of 

the goodwill associated with its products. 

Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations 

omitted). 

TLI asserts that GNI’s characterizations of some of TLI’s statements are not 

factually accurate, other statements are not literally false, and others are non-actionable 

opinions and predictions about future events. GNI responds that, when interpreted in 

context, TLI’s statements mean much more than the literal words. However, even when 

read in context, the statements allegedly made by or on behalf of TLI are misstated and/or 

they are opinions, predictions, or not false. 

Further, in its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, GNI asserts 

that comments on a general informational message board do not constitute actionable 

commercial advertisements and that TLI does not show that the posts were disseminated 

to the relevant purchasing public or that it lost a single customer as a result. Yet all of the 

statements that GNI alleges were false and made by TLI (or its agents) were made on 

Internet message boards and GNI does not show that the posts were disseminated to the 

relevant purchasing public or that it lost a single customer as a result. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 34 of 40
- 35 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Moreover, to show damages, GNI relies entirely on the expert report and 

testimony of its damages expert, Stephen Clarke, which has been excluded entirely. Even 

if GNI’s statements were false and more than opinions, predictions, and puffery, GNI has 

failed to show any of the statements actually deceived or had the tendency to deceive a 

substantial segment of its audience, the deception was likely to influence the purchasing 

decision, and GNI has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement. 

Therefore, TLI will be granted summary judgment on GNI’s Count 1. 

2. Common Law Unfair Competition 

GNI’s Count 2 alleges that TLI represented that GNI’s products were illegal, 

mislabeled, dangerous, and ineffective without a basis in fact sufficient to validate those 

claims, and that TLI’s “representations constitute false advertising, which is actionable as 

unfair competition under Arizona common law.” As concluded above, the alleged 

statements do not constitute actionable false advertising, and GNI has not shown the 

statements caused GNI injury. 

Therefore, TLI will be granted summary judgment on GNI’s Count 2. 

3. Trade Disparagement 

In its Count 3, GNI alleges TLI published a series of statements on its forums and 

in other electronic body building forums that are false, misleading, defamatory, and made 

with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of those statements. Count 3 alleges that, 

as a result, GNI’s name has been disparaged and its goodwill injured. GNI concedes, 

however, that its damages expert, Mr. Clarke, did not expressly opine regarding the loss 

of goodwill. Moreover, Mr. Clarke’s opinion is not admissible. GNI has not shown it 

suffered any injury as a result of TLI’s allegedly disparaging statements. 

Therefore, TLI will be granted summary judgment on GNI’s Count 3. 

E. TLI’s Renewed Request for Dismissal as a Spoliation Sanction 

In its motion for summary judgment, TLI renews its previous request for dismissal 

as a spoliation sanction. (Doc. 206 at 27-30.) Although TLI’s motion for summary 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 35 of 40
- 36 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

judgment on GNI’s Counterclaim will be granted, TLI’s request for dismissal as a 

spoliation sanction will be denied for reasons explained below. 

IV. ADDITIONAL MOTIONS 

A. Motion for Spoliation Sanctions (Doc. 216) and Motion to Strike 

Declaration (Doc. 267) 

In addition to requesting dismissal for spoliation in its motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. 206), on September 3, 2013, TLI requested that the Court immediately 

impose spoliation sanctions against GNI by imposing default judgment in TLI’s favor on 

TLI’s claims, dismissing GNI’s counterclaim with prejudice, and ordering GNI to bear 

TLI’s fees and costs. (Doc. 216.) On September 20, 2013, GNI filed its response to the 

motion for sanctions, and on September 30, 2013, TLI filed a reply with four exhibits, 

one of which was the Declaration of Ted Willard. (Docs. 246, 264.) On October 3, 

2013, GNI moved to strike the Declaration of Ted Willard and portions of the reply that 

rely on the Declaration as exceeding the proper scope of a reply brief. (Doc. 267.) 

Under its inherent power and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), the Court has discretion to 

sanction a party responsible for the spoliation of evidence. Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 

F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that willful destruction of electronic files 

constituted spoliation). Before imposing the “harsh sanction” of dismissal, however, the 

district court should consider “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party 

seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. (quoting Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. 

Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995)). Before ordering outright 

dismissal, the court must make a finding of willfulness, fault, or bad faith and must 

consider less severe alternatives. Id. “A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as 

willful spoliation if the party has some notice that the documents were potentially

relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed.” Id. at 959. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 36 of 40
- 37 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TLI contends that the hard drive of a computer used by Mr. Gaspari from May 11, 

2012, through July 22, 2013, was “scrubbed” to permanently remove deleted files. An 

expert for each party has opined regarding whether what remains in the hard drive 

implies that the hard drive was scrubbed. The evidence is too speculative for the Court to 

conclusively find willfulness, fault, or bad faith. Moreover, the risk of prejudice to TLI 

has been mitigated by TLI obtaining the documents and emails it expected to find on Mr. 

Gaspari’s computer from other sources. 

Therefore, TLI’s motion for spoliation sanctions will be denied, and the motion to 

strike is moot. 

B. TLI’s Motion for Case-Dispositive Sanctions Due to Defendant’s 

Failure to Produce Relevant Documents in Discovery (Doc. 355) 

TLI also seeks dismissal of GNI’s Counterclaim and default judgment on TLI’s 

First Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) and (d) because when GNI was 

ordered by the Discovery Master to permit six of its hard drives to be imaged and 

searched by TLI’s third-party vendor, the search generated “hundreds of highly relevant 

documents” that TLI contends should have been disclosed and produced by GNI two 

years earlier. TLI further contends that the untimely production revealed that GNI had in 

its possession “thousands of relevant documents,” several of which are “smoking gun 

documents.” TLI asserts injury because the documents were produced too late for use 

during depositions of witnesses who cannot be compelled to testify at trial. 

GNI responds that previous rulings by the Court and the Discovery Master have 

cured any perceived prejudice. Specifically, the parties were granted leave to file 

supplemental briefs as to all pending motions addressing the late-produced discovery. 

(Doc. 254.) In its supplemental brief, TLI asserts that the late-produced discovery shows 

that “GNI knew all along that its advertising was false on its face.” For example, it cites 

an August 2009 email between two GNI employees discussing an alternative ingredient 

for Novedex to replace ATD because it would be “a much better ingredient to defend.” 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 37 of 40
- 38 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Contrary to TLI’s assertion, the email does not show that “ATD was not legal or 

DSHEA-compliant in December 2006.” Similarly, an email in 2008 questioning whether 

ATD exists in the intestine of animals because a professor thought it did not, but “was not 

100% sure about this,” does not prove that ATD is not “naturally occurring” and that, if it 

is not, GNI knew that as a fact in 2008. An October 14, 2009 email in which a supplier 

stated that he could not confirm the purity of 3,4-divanillytetrahydrofuran as 95%, but 

was able to confirm the range of purity as 65-95%, is not “a smoking gun.” Although 

some of the email exchanges cast suspicion on GNI, they do not support the extent of 

TLI’s conclusions. 

Some of the documents GNI failed to initially produce were relevant to the subject 

matter of this action and not unduly burdensome to produce. However, the subsequently 

ordered search of the six computer hard drives yielded many more documents than 

necessary or helpful to determination of the parties’ claims. Prejudice to TLI has been 

mitigated by supplemental briefing, and TLI has not shown that production of the 

“smoking gun documents” before depositions would have altered the outcome of this 

litigation. 

Considering the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions and the public 

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, the Court declines to impose the 

case-dispositive sanctions sought by TLI. 

C. GNI’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain FDA Statements (Doc. 

319) 

GNI moves to exclude at trial preliminary and informal statements made by the 

FDA about GNI’s products in anticipation that TLI will rely on them to establish GNI’s 

liability for false advertising. Because this action is entirely resolved by summary 

judgment, GNI’s motion in limine is moot. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 38 of 40
- 39 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Portions of Response Report 

and Areas of Testimony of Dr. Thomas Sox (Doc. 178) is granted. 

2. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Survey, Report and Testimony 

of James T. Berger (Doc. 181) is granted. 

3. Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Report, Response Report, 

and Testimony of Jim Prochnow (Doc. 190) is granted. 

4. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony and 

Opinions of Ron Epperson (Doc. 201) is granted. 

5. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Report and Testimony of Ryan 

Hornbuckle (Doc. 202) is granted. 

6. Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Testimony of 

Stephen Clarke (Doc. 205) is granted. 

7. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 203) is 

granted. 

8. Motion for Summary Judgment on Gaspari Nutrition Inc.’s Counterclaims 

(Doc. 206) by ThermoLife International, LLC is granted. 

9. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Due to Gaspari Nutrition Inc.’s Intentional 

Destruction of Evidence and GNI’s Efforts to Conceal Its Wrongful Conduct (Doc. 216) 

is denied. 

10. Motion to Strike Declaration of Ted Willard and Portions of Reply That 

Rely on the Willard Declaration (Doc. 267) by Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., is denied as 

moot. 

11. ThermoLife’s Motion for Sanctions Due to Defendant’s Failure to Produce 

Relevant Documents in Discovery (Doc. 355) is denied. 

12. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Certain FDA 

Statements (Doc. 319) is denied as moot. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 39 of 40
- 40 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment against Plaintiff 

ThermoLife International, LLC, on its complaint and in favor of Defendant Gaspari 

Nutrition, Inc., and that Plaintiff take nothing. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment against 

Counterclaimant Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., on its counterclaim and in favor of 

Counterdefendant ThermoLife International, LLC, and that Counterclaimant take 

nothing. 

The Clerk shall terminate this case. 

Dated this 10th day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 391 Filed 01/10/14 Page 40 of 40