1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GOLO, LLC 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ, 

 Defendant 

C.A. No. 

MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS 

IN A CIVIL ACTION

COMES NOW, Plaintiff GOLO, LLC and hereby moves this Honorable Court for an Order 

enforcing a subpoena to produce documents and a subpoena for deposition (the “Subpoenas”) 

served on Alexander Rodriguez, issued in conjunction with the case styled GOLO, LLC v. Goli 

Nutrition, Inc., et al., pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, C.A. 

No. 20-667-RGA, showing the Court as follows: 

Procedural and Factual Background 

GOLO’s Claims Against Goli 

 Pursuant to an Order entered December 13, 2021, GOLO, LLC was granted permission to 

file an amended complaint in the action GOLO, LLC v. Goli Nutrition, Inc. a Canadian Corp., and 

Goli Nutrition, Inc. a Delaware Corp., in the United States District Court for the District of 

Delaware, Case No. 20-667-RGA (the “Delaware Action”).1 Delaware Action Dkt. 123. As 

amended, GOLO, LLC (“GOLO”) alleges that Goli Nutrition Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and 

 

1

 There remains pending a motion to supplement the complaint to add additional factual allegations 

supporting GOLO’s false advertising against Goli. See Delaware Action Dkt. 214. 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 1 of 15
2 

Goli Nutrition Inc., a Delaware Corporation, (jointly referenced as “Goli”): infringed upon 

GOLO’s registered trademark (Count I); falsely designated its origin in violation of Section 43(a) 

of the Lanham Act of 1946 (15 USC § 1125(a)); falsely advertised the Goli products (Count IV); 

and engaged in unfair competition under Delaware law, including through false advertising 

(Counts V & VI). Delaware Action Dkt. 106. 

 GOLO is a health and wellness company that offers a total weight loss and wellness 

solution including through a unique and proprietary plan to help its customers make healthy 

lifestyle changes to allow them to lose weight and a patented dietary supplement that has been 

clinically shown to increase weight loss, reduce hunger and cravings and suppress the appetited, 

reduce stress and anxiety, increase immune function, and increase energy. Delaware Action Dkt. 

106 at ¶ 2. GOLO began selling its proprietary weight loss and wellness solution at least as early 

as April 2013 using its federally registered and distinctive GOLO trademark. Id. at ¶ 3. 

 In 2019, Goli launched with just one product:2 a gummy that Goli claims to provide the 

same health benefits as a full “shot” of real liquid apple cider vinegar (“ACV”) in just two gummies 

(the “ACV Gummies”). Id. at ¶ 5. Goli represents that its ACV Gummies support weight loss, a 

healthy immune system, heart health, healthy digestion, lower blood sugar levels, reduce appetite, 

and improved energy. Id. GOLO has identified multiple statements and representations Goli 

makes in its advertisements which GOLO contends are false or misleading, including: 

• Overstating the amount of ACV in its ACV Gummies, including by considering the 

powdered ACV used to manufacture the gummies to be the equivalent of liquid ACV; 

 

2

 Goli has since launched additional products, some of which GOLO has moved to add claims 

relating to false advertising. 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 2 of 15
3 

• Claiming that two ACV Gunnies are the equivalent of one shot of liquid ACV, when 

GOLO contends it would actually take thirty ACV Gummies to provide the amount of 

acetic acid (the main ingredient in apple cider vinegar) from what is commonly understood 

to be a shot of vinegar; 

• Claiming that the ACV Gummies contain a combination of beneficial enzymes, yeast, and 

healthy bacteria found in liquid apple cider vinegar called “the mother” even though 

laboratory testing of an actual ACV Gummy confirms “the mother” is not present; 

• Claiming that the ACV Gummies are organic when only certain ingredients are organic; 

• As well as other claims laid out in detail in the pleadings. 

Delaware Action Dkt. 106 at ¶ 11. 

Alex Rodriguez and Goli 

 Goli relies heavily on social media influencers and celebrities to promote and market its 

products, including Alex Rodriguez. Id. at ¶ 63; see also https://ca.goli.com/pages/home-jlar (last 

accessed Nov. 28, 2022). 

 In March 2021, Alex Rodriguez announced on his Instagram account that he had “joined 

forces with Goli Nutrition”. See https://www.instagram.com/p/CM6HiCfnQxv/ (last accessed 

Nov. 28, 2022). 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 3 of 15
4 

Id. 

 Mr. Rodriguez appears to continue to promote Goli products, and has done so for roughly 

a year and a half. Mr. Rodriguez has posted at least two videos on his Facebook page promoting 

Goli, including one on October 24, 2022, in which in response to comments, he replied “Add me 

on my telegram account, click on this link to drop me a message 

https://t.me/Alex_Rodriguez_interaction”: 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 4 of 15
5 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 5 of 15
6 

(last accessed on Nov. 28, 2022). Accordingly, Mr. Rodriguez appears to have promoted Goli 

both publicly through social media, but also through private messages with individuals, including 

through a Telegram account.3

Subpoenas Issued to Alex Rodriguez 

 On October 6, 2022, GOLO filed a Notice of Service of Subpoenas indicating that it 

intended to serve two Subpoenas upon Alex Rodriguez, a subpoena to produce documents and a 

subpoena for deposition. Delaware Action Dkt. 276. Thereafter, counsel for GOLO reached out 

to counsel for Mr. Rodriguez who agreed to accept service of the subpoenas. Declaration of 

Christina Baugh, ¶ 2, attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Subpoenas were sent to Mr. Rodriguez’s 

counsel on October 11, 2022, and he agreed in writing to accept service on October 13, 2022. Id.

 The Subpoenas requested production of documents by October 20, 2022, and a deposition 

to be conducted on October 27, 2022 at GOLO’s counsel’s office in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. 

See Exhibits A & B hereto; Delaware Action Dkt. 276. 

 On October 26, 2022, counsel for Mr. Rodriguez reached out to counsel for GOLO 

requesting a time to “introduce [them]selves.” Ex. 2 to Baugh Decl. Counsel for GOLO and Mr. 

Rodriguez had a phone discussion on Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 4:00 pm. Baugh Decl. ¶ 

3. 

 Based on Mr. Rodriguez’s counsel’s oral objections to the Subpoenas, conveyed during 

their phone discussion, as being overly broad, requesting documents and information that could be 

produced by Goli, and concerns of burden on Mr. Rodriguez as a third party, GOLO’s counsel 

offered to further narrow the subpoena for documents in an effort to avoid involving the Court. 

 

3

 Telegram promotes itself as a cloud-based mobile and desktop messaging app with a focus on 

security and speed. See https://telegram.org (last visited Nov. 28, 2022). 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 6 of 15
7 

Ex. 2 to Baugh Decl. Mr. Rodriguez’s counsel then responded by email, placing their objections 

in writing for the first time on November 10, 2022, in which they disputed that Mr. Rodriguez 

should have to respond to the subpoena at all. Ex. 3 to Baugh Decl. No other written response or 

objection was received on behalf of Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez has not produced any 

documents nor sat for a deposition. Baugh Decl., ¶ 5. 

Argument and Citation to Authority 

 Litigants are permitted to issue subpoenas for the production of documents or appearance 

at a deposition to non-parties pursuant to Rule 45. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. If the recipient has objections 

to the subpoena for the production of documents, he is required to serve written objections on the 

requesting party, which “must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 

14 days after the subpoena is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). Likewise, the Rules provide 

for a procedure to seek to quash or modify a subpoena if it is perceived to create an undue or 

unreasonable burden on the subpoenaed person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d). 

 “The court for the district where compliance is required – and also, after a motion is 

transferred, the issuing court – may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails 

without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). 

I. Any objections were untimely. 

 Here, Mr. Rodriguez was served with the subpoenas no later than when his counsel agreed 

to accept service on October 13, 2022. Performance was requested by October 20, 2022 for the 

production of documents and by October 27, 2022 for his deposition. Ex. A & B. Yet by those 

dates, Mr. Rodriguez had neither performed nor provided written objections to the subpoenas. Nor 

did he provide written objections within fourteen days after service- October 27, 2022. The first 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 7 of 15
8 

written objections to the Subpoenas were made on November 10, 2022. Accordingly, his 

objections were untimely. 

II. The Requests for Production Are Proper. 

“[I]t is generally accepted that the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 45 is limited by 

the relevancy requirement of the federal discovery rules.” Jordan v. Commissioner, Mississippi 

Dept of Corrections, 947 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2020) citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and 

Advisory Committee Note to the 1970 Amendments to Rule 45. 

“The Court, therefore, must determine whether the subpoenas duces tecum at issue seek 

irrelevant information and/or are overly broad under the same standards set forth in Rule 26(b) and 

as applied to Rule 34 requests for production.” American Federation of State County and 

Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 79 v. Scott, 277 F.R.D. 474, 476 (S.D. Fla. 2011) 

(citation omitted). The burden is placed on the party seeking to avoid discovery to show that the 

requested information is either irrelevant or that the marginal relevance of the information is 

outweighed by a harm to the producing party. Id. at 477. 

Each of the requests for production of documents is narrowly tailored to seek information 

that would be in Mr. Rodriguez’s possession relating to his role as a promoter of Goli and relevant 

to one or more element of the claims and defenses pending in the Delaware Action. 

A. Documents relating to working with third parties to promote Goli. 

GOLO requested that Mr. Rodriguez produce documents sufficient to identify the people 

acting on his behalf with respect to his promotion of Goli products (Request 1), documents 

sufficient to identify any contracts with third parties (not Goli) relating to his sale or promotion of 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 8 of 15
9 

Goli products (Request 4), and documents sufficient to identify payments or compensation made 

to third parties (not Goli) relating to his sale or promotion of Goli products (Request 6).4 

It is no secret that Mr. Rodriguez is a celebrity, and it is that celebrity status that makes 

him an ideal candidate for promoting Goli. It is also commonly known and understood that 

celebrities tend to have business managers, schedulers, and/or assistants who help manage their 

multiple commitments and business ventures. These requests were aimed at identifying any such 

third parties who may have actually been the ones communicating with Goli, obtaining information 

about the products, communicating or receiving inquiries from the public about Mr. Rodriguez’s 

promotional efforts for Goli, and otherwise acting on his behalf to fulfill his obligations to Goli to

promote and market the Goli products. Once identified, those individuals may also be considered 

for discovery efforts depending on the nature of their involvement and reasonable beliefs as to the 

information they received and processed. 

The information received and utilized by Mr. Rodriguez, including through these third 

parties, is relevant to each of GOLO’s claims. GOLO has accused Goli of making and pushing 

false information about its products in promoting the Goli products. Therefore, evidence of what 

Goli was providing to these third parties, in hopes it would be repeated by Mr. Rodriguez to 

promote the Goli products, is relevant to the false advertising claims. Likewise, communications 

the third parties received from the consuming public evidencing confusion between the Goli and 

GOLO products is highly relevant to GOLO’s trademark infringement claims. Accordingly, it is 

 

4

 As part of GOLO’s attempts to work with Mr. Rodriguez and respond to objections, GOLO 

agreed to narrow these three to contracts with any third party (not Goli) relating to the sale, 

promotion, or distribution of Goli and documents sufficient to identify all payments or 

compensation made to third parties (not Goli) relating to the sale, distribution, or promotion of 

Goli. Ex. 2 to Baugh Decl. 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 9 of 15
10 

relevant and important to identify the people who would have been receiving and responding to 

those communications to properly identify who might have relevant information to the claims. 

Mr. Rodriguez’s objections to these requests are that he was a “spokesperson and an 

employee or executive involved in the sales/distribution/marketing” of the Goli products. Ex. 3 to 

Baugh Decl. (emphasis in original). The objection goes on to state that GOLO has “no good faith 

basis for believing that Mr. Rodriguez had the authority to enter into agreements with third parties 

for the sale, distribution, or promotion of Goli, let alone that he did so without Goli’s approval 

such that Goli would not be in possession of any such documents.” Id. 

Nothing has been produced by Goli that would indicate Mr. Rodriguez was prevented from 

having third parties assist him in his promotional efforts- including assistants, business managers, 

or agents. Nor has anything been produced by Goli to indicate that Goli would have to approve 

Mr. Rodriguez’s use of any such third parties. Simply put, nothing has been produced to indicate 

that Mr. Rodriguez was not allowed to operate as many celebrities do- through third parties 

working on their behalf. If, instead, Mr. Rodriguez’s response to these requests is actually that he 

has no such responsive documents because he did not work through third parties- he should say 

that. 

B. Documents relating to Mr. Rodriguez’s promotion of Goli products. 

GOLO requested that Mr. Rodriguez produce documents sufficient to identify his 

promotional appearances for Goli Products (Request 5), documents sufficient to identify each 

social media post Mr. Rodriguez made including the Goli marks or accused statements (Request 

13), documents sufficient to identify each advertisement, including scripts, made including the 

Goli marks or accused statements (Request 14), documents sufficient to identify each website he 

used to promote Goli products (Request 15), documents sufficient to identify each social media 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 10 of 15
11 

account he used to promote Goli products including using the Goli mark or accused statements 

(Request 16), documents sufficient to identify all interviews he gave relating to the Goli products 

(Request 17), and documents sufficient to identify the audience and number of people he reaches 

with his marketing efforts for Goli (Request 19). 

In an attempt to work with Mr. Rodriguez and respond to his oral objections, GOLO agreed 

to narrow these requests to documents sufficient to identify social media platforms or appearances 

on behalf of Goli. Ex. 2 to Baugh Decl. 

Advertisements and promotions of the Goli products are directly relevant to the trademark 

claims and false advertising claims. Locations of advertisements and similarity of the 

advertisements weigh into the analysis of likelihood of confusion. Arrowpoint Capital Corp. v. 

Arrowpoint Asset Mgmt., LLC, 793 F.3d 313, 319 (3rd Cir. 2015). Likewise, dissemination of 

false and misleading information in its advertisements and promotions is the heart of a claim of 

false advertising. Groupe SEB USA, Inc. v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC, 774 F.3d 192, 198 (3rd Cir. 

2014). Accordingly, documents sufficient to identify where these advertisements and promotions 

were being made by Mr. Rodriguez is relevant and will lead to the discovery of additional relevant 

information as it is used to locate advertisements and promotion done on behalf of Goli. 

Mr. Rodriguez objects that this information would be publicly available and obtainable 

through Goli. Ex. 3 to Baugh Decl. 

New social media platforms appear almost daily. Which social media platforms Mr. 

Rodriguez uses may reasonably change over the course of the year and a half he has promoted 

Goli’s products. And while counsel tries to stay abreast of trends, it is not unreasonable to believe

that Mr. Rodriguez and his staff have a finger closer to the pulse of popular social media than 

counsel, and therefore, while counsel could scour the internet hoping to find any site on which Mr. 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 11 of 15
12 

Rodriguez promoted Goli’s products, and locate every interview with any blogger or news outlet, 

Mr. Rodriguez knows where he has performed. He is being paid to promote the Goli products and 

it is not unreasonable to believe he has a record of where he has acted to satisfy those obligations 

and that the burden to provide documents sufficient to show where he promoted Goli’s products 

would be relatively slight- but certainly less than counsel searching the internet. Further, just 

because the responding party has disseminated information publicly does not mean it is insulated 

from production in response to a subpoena. See American Federation of State, County and 

Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Counsel 79, 277 F.R.D. at 477 (denying motion to quash in 

relation to documents the responding party “has itself promoted and already publicly 

disseminated”). 

While Mr. Rodriguez objects that documents sufficient to show his promotional activities 

could be obtained through Goli, there is no evidence to support that. Mr. Rodriguez is the one 

who made the promotional posts, interviews, and content that is sought in the subpoena and as 

relevant information in his possession, custody, or control, he should be required to produce it. 

C. Documents relating to investigating or correcting statements. 

GOLO requested production of documents reflecting any retraction Mr. Rodriguez made 

of promotional or advertising materials or statements related to Goli products (Request 11), and 

documents sufficient to show any due diligence or investigation he performed concerning the 

accused statements (Request 12). 

GOLO agreed to narrow these requests to documents sufficient to show independent due 

diligence or investigation of the accused statements (not through Goli). Ex. 2 to Baugh Decl. 

Mr. Rodriguez’s relationship with Goli as a promoter began during the pendency of the 

Delaware Action in which Goli is accused of making many false or misleading representations 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 12 of 15
13 

about its products. In response to the Delaware Action, and other actions by competitors relating 

to allegedly false advertisement claims, Goli has modified its marketing and advertisement. It is 

not unreasonable, therefore, to believe that Mr. Rodriguez may have made or been asked to make 

retractions or changes to the promotional statements he used relating to Goli. Any evidence of 

those changes would be relevant to whether Goli reasonably believed it had grounds to make the 

statements. Likewise, if Mr. Rodriguez, on notice of the claims, himself investigated whether 

there was support for the claims he was making as to the Goli products, the results of that 

investigation would be relevant to the veracity of the statements pushed by Goli. 

Mr. Rodriguez’s objections do little more than express shock and distain that he might have 

taken corrective action or done any independent verification of the advertising statements he made. 

Again, if the answer is that he has no such responsive documents- that should be the answer instead 

of an objection 

D. Communications with third parties about Goli. 

GOLO requested documents reflecting consumer confusion between Goli and GOLO 

(Request 7), communications received from third parties (not Goli) in response to his promotion 

of Goli products (Request 8), communications with third parties (not Goli) concerning the accused 

statements (Request 9), communications with third parties (not Goli) concerning the Delaware 

Action (Request 10), and all communications with third parties (not Goli) concerning GOLO 

(Request 18). 

GOLO agreed to narrow these requests to documents evidencing confusion between GOLO 

and Goli, non-public communications with third parties relating to any of his Goli promotions, and 

documents sufficient to show communications with third parties (not Goli) related to GOLO or 

GOLO’s products and services. Ex. 2 to Baugh Decl. 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 13 of 15
14 

Evidence of customer confusion between GOLO and Goli is integral to the analysis 

performed for the trademark claims relating to likelihood of confusion. Arrowpoint Capital Corp., 

793 F.3d at 319. Accordingly, communications between Mr. Rodriguez (as a spokesperson for 

Goli) and third parties including consumers, which evidence confusion between the two companies 

and their products or services is directly relevant to the trademark claims. Likewise, 

communications from customers relating to the accused false statements weighs into how 

important those statements were to the consuming public, including the frequency with which the 

statements weighed into the consumers’ purchasing decision. Groupe SEB USA, Inc., 774 F.3d at 

198. 

Mr. Rodriguez does not appear to dispute that these requests seek relevant information, but 

instead contends that GOLO has no good faith basis to believe he had any non-public conversations 

responsive to these requests. As set forth above, the public nature of the conversations is not 

determinative of whether Mr. Rodriguez should respond to a subpoena. However, since social 

media platforms have non-public means of communications (example, a “DM” in Facebook) or 

whole platforms designed for non-public communications (example, telegram), it is not 

unreasonable to believe that third parties reached out to Mr. Rodrigues through these methods of 

communication in response to his promotional activities. And any such communication would be 

hidden from view and undiscoverable absent a response to the subpoena. 

III. The request for deposition was proper. 

Mr. Rodriguez is being paid to promote Goli products. The only objection made to the 

subpoena to provide testimony is that it is “ludicrous”. Ex. 3 to Baugh Decl. However, as 

demonstrated above, Mr. Rodriguez has taken actions on behalf of Goli to promote its products, 

the products and statements about which are the heart of the claims in the Delaware Action. He 

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 14 of 15
15 

has knowledge related to the claims and defenses pending, including as it relates to marketing 

statements made regarding the Goli products, and his testimony would be required to authenticate 

any responsive documents he produces, including communications with third parties. 

Conclusion 

 Mr. Rodriguez acknowledges that he is paid spokesperson for Goli, which is facing claims 

of false advertising and trademark infringement. Yet he does not believe he is required to respond 

to the Subpoenas seeking documents arising from the relationship and related to the pending 

claims. Instead, based upon his untimely objections, be believes he is entirely insulated from 

responding to requests for relevant information unless and until GOLO can prove he has those 

responsive documents and that they are not public nor in the possession of Goli (which would 

arguably require GOLO to have them already). That is not the standard applied to Subpoenas and 

Mr. Rodriguez should be compelled to respond to them by producing the responsive documents in 

his possession and providing deposition testimony regarding his knowledge. 

Dated: December 1, 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 

/s/ Christina M. Baugh 

Christina M. Baugh 

Florida Bar No. 1028574 

4540 PGA Boulevard, Suite 208 

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 

3340 Peachtree Road N.E., Suite 2900 

Atlanta, GA 3026 

Tel: (404) 264-4026 

Email: CBaugh@btlaw.com 

Counsel for GOLO, LLC and Mr. Lundin

Case 1:22-mc-23919-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 15 of 15