PUBLIC 

1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Acting Chair 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rohit Chopra 

Christine S. Wilson 

In the Matter of 

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC, 

a limited liability company, 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, 

a limited liability company, and 

KRAMER DUHON, 

individually and as an officer of HEALTH 

RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC and 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC 

DOCKET NO. 9397 

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO 

RESCHEDULE THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING DATE 

Respondents respectfully request a brief extension of the deadline to response to 

Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Reschedule the Evidentiary Hearing Date so that the 

Opposition that Respondents attempted to file on April 15, 2021 (four business days after 

the deadline) will be considered timely. 

I. Summary

On April 15, 2021, Respondents filed a Response to Complaint Counsel’s Motion 

to Reschedule the Evidentiary Hearing Date. See Ex. A. The FTC’s filing system rejected 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

2 

and refused to accept the filing. See Ex. B. For the reasons set forth below, Respondents 

respectfully short extension of the original deadline.1 Before the Commission extends and 

further delays this case by three months, Respondents respectfully request that they 

extend this one deadline to respond by seven days so Respondents’ opposition to the 

motion can be filed. 

II. 

 Complaint Counsel served its Expedited Motion to Reschedule Evidentiary 

Hearing (“Motion”) at 8:47 PM on March 30, 2021. Because of the late hour in which 

the Motion was received, Counsel for Respondents did not notice that the filing was with 

the Commission, rather than with Office of Administrative Law Judges.2

 The next day 

Respondents filed an Expedited Motion to Enter New Scheduling Order or, in the 

alternative, Transfer Case to the Commission (“Respondents’ Motion”). See Ex. C. The 

Respondents’ Motion clearly opposes the request to extend the hearing date and requests 

the case be decided a more expeditious schedule rather than delayed until the original 

June 2021 hearing date. In other words, Respondents believed that they had responded 

to the original Motion by proposing a more expedited schedule. It was not until 

Respondents read Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Respondents’ Expedited Motion to 

 

1 Respondents can file the Response immediately. If the Commission grants the request today, the extension 

would only be a short six or seven-day extension (depending on whether the Motion was considered “filed” 

on March 30, 2021 or March 31, 2021). Respondents did not receive the notice from the FTC’s Efiling 

system until March 31, 2021. See Ex. C. 

2 See Ex. D (Reese Declaration).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

3 

Enter New Scheduling Order on April 15, 2021 that Respondents’ counsel realized that 

the original Motion had been filed with Commission, not the Office of the ALJ.3

CONCLUSION 

 Before further delaying this case by three months, the Commission should at least 

allow Respondents four business days beyond the deadline to respond the requested 

extension. 

Dated: April 16, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

REESE MARKETOS LLP 

By: /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

Texas Bar No. 00788258 

joel.reese@rm-firm.com 

Joshua M. Russ 

Texas Bar No. 24074990 

josh.russ@rm-firm.com 

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, TX 75201-3201 

Telephone: (214) 382-9810 

Facsimile: (214) 501-0731 

 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS 

 

3 Respondents counsel did not review the Opposition to Respondents’ Expedited Motion to Enter New 

Scheduling Order until April 15, 2021 because, on April 6, 2021, the ALJ issued a discovery order that 

required immediate attention and numerous hours. See Ex. D (Reese Declaration).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 16, 2021, I filed the foregoing document 

electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification to: 

April J. Tabor 

Acting Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

 email: oalj@ftc.com

COMPLAINT COUNSEL 

Elizabeth Averill 

eaverill@ftc.gov 

Jonathan Cohen 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

 /s/ Joel W. Reese 

 Joel W. Reese 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
Exhibit A 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Acting Chair 

 Noah Joshua Phillips 

 Rohit Chopra 

 Christine S. Wilson 

In the Matter of 

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC, 

 a limited liability company, 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, 

 a limited liability company, and 

KRAMER DUHON, 

 individually and as an officer of HEALTH 

 RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC and 

 WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC 

DOCKET NO. 9397 

RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO 

RESCHEDULE EVIDENTIARY HEARING DATE 

 Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Reschedule the Evidentiary Hearing Date should 

be denied. 

I. Summary 

 On March 10, 2021, the ALJ granted Respondents’ Motion for Leave to Amend 

the Answer. Respondents filed their amended answer on March 30, 2021. On March 12, 

2021, the ALJ issued its Order denying Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Amend the 

Complaint. As noted in the March 12, 2021 Order, the filing of the answer constitutes “a 

waiver of the hearings as to the facts alleged in the complaint, and together with the 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

2 

complaint will provide a record basis on which the Commission shall issue a final decision 

containing appropriate findings and conclusions and a final order disposing of the 

proceeding.” Consequently, we now have a record on which the Commission can issue a 

final decision. It is not necessary for the parties to waste time and money further 

continuing this case to conduct further discovery or to create unnecessary expert reports. 

It is time for a final resolution of this case. 

 Remarkably, now that the case has substantially narrowed and no material facts 

are in dispute, Complaint Counsel argues that it needs more time to prepare. Complaint 

Counsel has not proven “good cause” for extending the trial date by an additional 10 

weeks. All of the discovery cited by Complaint Counsel was directed at issues that were 

previously in dispute, but are now admitted. Complaint Counsel never explains why they 

delayed in seeking discovery or why they delayed seeking to compel discovery that 

Complaint Counsel thought was relevant, but they did not receive. There is not “good 

cause” to further delay this case. 

I. FACTS

 Within two months of losing its motion for contempt in FTC and State of Maine v. 

Health Research Laboratories, LLC, et al., 2:17-cv-00467-JDL (“Maine Action”), the 

FTC filed this action and has undertaken a course of action to destroy Respondents’ 

business. 

 Under the FTC Act, this action is supposed to be for a cease-and-desist order to 

prevent Respondents from “disseminat[ing] or caus[ing] to be disseminated advertising 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

3 

and promotional materials”1 for four supplements that the Commission contends were 

“not substantiated at the time the representations were made.”2 However, instead of 

actually seeking a cease-and-desist order, Complaint Counsel has used this action to 

punish Respondents because they exercised their First Amendment rights to contest the 

FTC’s request for contempt in the Maine Action. 

 In an effort to drive Respondents from business, the FTC served 14 subpoenas on 

every vendor and business partner connected to Respondents for the last decade, 

including a subpoena to the law firm that represented Respondents in the very claims that 

are the subject to this action. FTC also served requests for production and interrogatories 

that would take hundreds of hours to answer. 

 Respondents’ business is a small operation with no employees. It is easier for 

vendors and business partners to elect not to do business with Respondents than face 

harassment from the government. It is against this backdrop that Respondents decided 

that they could not continue to fight the FTC. 

 Rather than continue a fight that has been ongoing for more than six years, 

Respondents elected to admit all material facts in the Part III Administrative Complaint – 

an action expressly permitted by 16 C.F.R. § 3.12. Respondents filed an Amended 

Answer that admits all material facts in Plaintiff’s Original Complaint so there are no 

material facts in the Complaint that are disputed. Despite this fact, Complaint Counsel 

 

1 See Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 9, 11 and 13. 

2 See Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 17, 19, and 21. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

4 

wants to continue to harass Respondents with discovery. Complaint Counsel contends 

the requested discovery is necessary and relevant to “determining the appropriate relief in 

this case.” 

II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 

A. Relief is dictated by statute and the need for additional discovery—after all 

material facts have been admitted—does not justify the extension of the hearing 

date. 

 The appropriate relief in this case is dictated by statute. The Commission filed this 

Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondents have “disseminated or [have] caused 

to be disseminated advertising and promotional materials”3 for four supplements that the 

Commission contends were “not substantiated at the time the representations were 

made.”4 The only relief permitted by Section 5 of the FTC is an order requiring 

Respondents to cease and desist from the allegedly deceptive act or practice—which is the 

dissemination of advertising and promotional materials regarding the four supplements. 

 Complaint Counsel vaguely alleges that the discovery requests justify an extension, 

but does not explain what relief, if any, Complaint Counsel seeks that will be influenced 

by the discovery. For example, Complaint Counsel does not argue that further discovery 

would reveal wrongful conduct related to other supplements or products. All discovery 

requests are directly solely at the four “Identified Products.” Because Complaint Counsel 

has not demonstrated the relevancy or need for the discovery—and the need to further 

 

3 See Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 9, 11 and 13. 

4 See Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 17, 19, and 21. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

5 

continue this case—the requested rescheduling of the evidentiary hearing is unnecessary 

and without good cause. 

 As noted by ALJ in its March 12, 2021 Order, Respondents’ Answer under Rule 

3.12(b)(2) “has the effect of dispensing with a hearing and removing proceedings to the 

Commission for determination of an appropriate final order.” March 12, 2021 Order 

(citing 16 C.F.R § 3.12(b)(2)). Rule 3.12(b)(2) provides that “[s]uch an answer shall 

constitute a waiver of hearings as to the facts alleged in the complaint, and together with 

the complaint will provide a record basis on which the Commission shall issue a final 

decision containing appropriate findings and conclusions and a final order disposing of 

the proceeding.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.12(b)(2) (emphasis added). If the hearing is waived—as 

stated by Rule 3.12(b)(2)—when does Complaint Counsel plan on adding the anticipated 

new discovery to the record? How would the anticipated new discovery be added to the 

record? As stated by Rule 3.12(b)(2), the record in this case is the Complaint and the 

Amended Answer. Rule 3.12(b)(2) does not state that the record is the Answer and the 

Complaint and any other information and documents that Complaint Counsel wants to 

add. 

B. Respondents have now agreed to the “fencing in” relief that is the purported 

reason for the extension of the hearing date. 

 Complaint Counsel claim that they need to continue the hearing date to obtain 

discovery relevant to “fencing-in” relief. This action is to prohibit Respondents from 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

6 

“disseminat[ing] or caus[ing] to be disseminated advertising and promotional materials”5

for four supplements that the Commission contends were “not substantiated at the time 

the representations were made.”6 Respondents have agreed to a blanket prohibition on 

disseminating or causing to be disseminated any advertising or promotional materials for 

any supplements that makes any representations regarding health or disease.7

 In other 

words, rather spending hundreds of additional hours on this case in the coming months, 

let’s cut to the chase and give the FTC whatever permissible “fencing in” relief has been 

requested in the Complaint. 

C. Extension is contrary to the Commission’s strong interest in resolving proceeding 

expeditiously. 

 The Commission has a “strong interest in resolving proceedings expeditiously.” 

See In the Matter of Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board, Docket No. 9374, 2018 WL 

218323, at *3 (Apr. 26, 2018); See also Rule 3.1 (“[T]he Commission's policy is to 

conduct [adjudicative] proceedings expeditiously.”); Rule 3.41(b) (“Hearings shall 

proceed with all reasonable expedition ....”); Rules of Practice Amendments, 61 Fed. Reg. 

50,640 (FTC Sept. 26, 1996) (“[A]djudicative proceedings shall be conducted 

expeditiously and ... litigants shall make every effort to avoid delay at each stage of a 

 

5 See Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 9, 11, and 13.

6 See Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 17, 19, and 21.

7 To confirm this agreement, Respondents have filed a stipulation agreeing to whatever fencing in 

relief is permitted by law and requested in the Complaint. See Ex. A (Respondents’ Stipulation as 

to “Fencing-In” Relief).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

7 

proceeding.”). To abide by this policy, this case should be decided now and not further 

extended. 

III. CONCLUSION

 The FTC subpoenaed all of Respondents’ vendors, issued massive discovery 

requests that would take months to answer, and repeatedly tried to prevent any end to 

this case. The FTC took these actions knowing at all times that the acts or practices that 

are the subject of this proceeding ceased more than a year prior to the filing of the 

Complaint and that the entire administrative action for a “cease-and-desist” order was a 

farce. The manner in which the FTC has acted in this case is not what Congress intended 

when it granted the FTC the right to issue administrative cease-and-desist orders. 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Commission should deny the Motion to 

Reschedule the Evidentiary Hearing Date and decide this case under the “record” created 

by the Complaint and the answer. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

8 

Dated: April 15, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

REESE MARKETOS LLP 

By: /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

Texas Bar No. 00788258 

joel.reese@rm-firm.com 

Joshua M. Russ 

Texas Bar No. 24074990 

josh.russ@rm-firm.com 

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, TX 75201-3201 

Telephone: (214) 382-9810 

Facsimile: (214) 501-0731 

 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

9 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 15, 2021, I filed the foregoing document 

electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification to: 

April J. Tabor 

Acting Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

 email: oalj@ftc.com

COMPLAINT COUNSEL 

Elizabeth Averill 

eaverill@ftc.gov 

Jonathan Cohen 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

 /s/ Joel W. Reese 

 Joel W. Reese 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
Exhibit A 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC, 

 a limited liability company, 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, 

 a limited liability company, and 

KRAMER DUHON, 

 individually and as an officer of HEALTH 

 RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC and 

 WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC 

DOCKET NO. 9397 

RESPONDENTS’ STIPULATION AS TO “FENCING-IN” RELIEF

In the Court’s April 6, 2021 Order Granting Complaint Counsel’s Motions to 

Compel, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) noted that the discovery may be relevant 

to “fencing-in” relief and that “a common form of ‘fencing-in’ relief is a ‘multiproduct’ 

prohibition that bars the respondent from using its deceptive trade practice to sell not 

only the product that was the subject of the enforcement action, but all products sold by 

the respondent.”1 Respondents hereby stipulate and agree that the Initial Decision of the 

ALJ can include whatever “fencing in” relief is permitted by statute and requested in the 

 

1 Order, p. 3, fn 2 (quoting In re ECM BioFilms, Inc., 2015 FTC LEXIS 22, at *629-30 (Jan. 28, 

2015)).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

2 

Complaint.2

Dated: April 13, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

REESE MARKETOS LLP 

By: /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

Texas Bar No. 00788258 

joel.reese@rm-firm.com 

Joshua M. Russ 

Texas Bar No. 24074990 

josh.russ@rm-firm.com 

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, TX 75201-3201 

Telephone: (214) 382-9810 

Facsimile: (214) 501-0731 

 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

I hereby certify that on April 12, 2021, I spoke with Compliant Counsel regarding 

an agreement on fencing in relief and agreed to provide whatever fencing in relief was 

permissible by law based on the Complaint. Complaint Counsel advised me that they did 

not agree to fencing in relief. 

 /s/ Joel W. Reese 

 Joel W. Reese 

 

2 This stipulation relates to the “remedy” provided by the FTC Act, not any findings of fact. Of 

course, the remedy must be “reasonably related” to the unlawful acts which form the basis of the 

order. See In the Matter of Mutual Construction Co., Inc., 87 F.T.C. 621, 1976 WL 180691 

(March 30, 1976). Respondents do not interpret “fencing in” relief to refer to any findings of 

fact. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 13, 2021, I filed the foregoing document 

electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification to: 

April J. Tabor 

Acting Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: oalj@ftc.com

COMPLAINT COUNSEL 

Elizabeth Averill 

eaverill@ftc.gov 

Jonathan Cohen 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

 /s/ Joel W. Reese 

 Joel W. Reese 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
Exhibit B 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
From: FTC Apps no-reply@apps.ftc.gov

Subject: Re: D09397 Health Research Laboratories - A filing submission has been returned

Date: April 16, 2021 at 9:16 AM

To: joel.reese@rm-firm.com

The Respondent Counsel under Docket Number: D09397 and Health Research

Laboratories, EFiling has been uploaded to the system by Joel Reese on 2021-04-15

19:59:17 EDT and is Returned. File(s) included in this submission: RESPONDENTS’

OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO RESCHEDULE EVIDENTIARY

HEARING DATE.

2021-04-16 10:16:16 EDT - Sherri Harris (Comments) returned for failure to comply with

Commission Rules 3.22(d), 4.3(c), 16 CFR §§ 3.22(d), 4.3(c)

Please do not reply to this message as this email address is not monitored.

For Procedural Matters contact: DocumentProcessing@ftc.gov

For Technical Matters contact: support.adminefiling@ftc.gov

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC
Exhibit C 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC
From: Averill, Elizabeth eaverill@ftc.gov

Subject: Dkt. 9397: Health Research Laboratories - Complaint Counsel's Expedited Motion to Reschedule Evidentiary Hearing

Date: March 30, 2021 at 8:47 PM

To: OALJ OALJ@ftc.gov, Electronic Filings ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov

Cc: Joel Reese (joel.reese@rm-firm.com) joel.reese@rm-firm.com, Josh Russ (josh.russ@rm-firm.com) josh.russ@rm-firm.com,

Cohen, Jonathan jcohen2@ftc.gov, Harris, Sherri CTR sharris@ftc.gov, Welby, Grant gwelby@ftc.gov, Garrett, Celia

cgarrett1@ftc.gov

Attached please find courtesy copies of Complaint Counsel’s Expedited Motion to

Reschedule Evidentiary Hearing for submission to the Commission along with a supporting

Declaration, Exhibits, and a Proposed Order.

Thank you.

Elizabeth J. Averill

Federal Trade Commission

Bureau of Consumer Protection

202-326-2993

CC Expedited 

Motion...ng .pdf

Averill Decl and 

Exs_Final.pdf

Proposed 

Order.pdf

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC
Exhibit D 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC, 

 a limited liability company, 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, 

 a limited liability company, and 

KRAMER DUHON, 

 individually and as an officer of HEALTH 

 RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC and 

 WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC 

DOCKET NO. 9397 

DECLARATION OF JOEL W. REESE

I, Joel W. Reese, hereby declare: 

1. My name is Joel W. Reese. I am counsel for the Respondents, Health 

Research Laboratories, LLC, Whole Body Supplements, LLC and Kramer Duhon. I make 

this declaration based on personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein. 

2. Complaint Counsel served its Expedited Motion to Reschedule Evidentiary 

Hearing (“Motion”) at 8:47 PM on March 30, 2021. Because of the late hour in which 

the Motion was received, I did not notice that the filing was with the Commission, rather 

than with Office of Administrative Law Judges. All other filings had been with the Office 

of Administrative Law Judges. The next day Respondents filed an Expedited Motion to 

Enter New Scheduling Order or, in the alternative, Transfer Case to the Commission 

(“Respondents’ Motion”). The Respondents’ Motion clearly opposes the request to 

extend the hearing date and requests the case be decided a more expeditious schedule 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

2 

rather than delayed until the original June 2021 hearing date. In other words, 

Respondents believed that they had responded to the original Motion by proposing a 

more expedited schedule in the Respondents’ Motion. On April 6, 2021, the ALJ issued 

its Order Granting Complaint Counsel’s Motions to Compel. Considering that replies are 

generally not permitted and the obligations under this Order, I did not review Complaint 

Counsel’s Opposition to Respondents’ Expedited Motion to Enter New Scheduling Order 

(filed on April 9, 2021) until April 15, 2021. It was not until I read this Opposition on 

April 15, 2021 that I realized that Complaint Counsel’s Motion had been filed with 

Commission, not the Office of the ALJ. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct based on my personal knowledge. 

 _____/s/ Joel W. Reese____________________ 

 JOEL W. REESE 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/16/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601222 | PUBLIC