FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/17/2021 | Document No. 602639 | PAGE Page 1 of 4 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Lina Khan, Chair 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rohit Chopra 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

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’ RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S EXPEDITED MOTION 

TO EXTEND COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S REPLY DATE 

Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Extend Complaint Counsel’s Reply Date is full of 

hyperbole,1 but devoid of any factual basis for this Commission to find that good cause 

exists for an extension, as required by Rule 4.3(b). 

Rule 4.3(b) provides that “the Commission, for good cause shown, may extend any 

time limit prescribed by...order of the Commission.” 16 C.F.R. § 4.3(b) (emphasis added). 

1 Complaint Counsel accuses Respondents of “gamesmanship,” having a “complete disregard for the 

process established by the Commission’s recent Orders,” “strategically [holding] off on articulating their 

radically narrow interpretation” of the rules. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/17/2021 | Document No. 602639 | PAGE Page 2 of 4 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC 

Complaint Counsel’s reason appears to be that it “is not possible for Complaint Counsel 

to prepare a thorough response to all of the new legal arguments and factual claims 

advanced in Respondents’ Opposition by the original reply date.” Complaint Counsel’s 

Motion, p. 2. If this argument is sufficient for “good cause” before the Commission, then 

the “good cause” requirement for an extension is meaningless. 

“Good cause is demonstrated if a party seeking to extend a deadline demonstrates 

that a deadline cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” In re Basic Research, LLC, 2004 WL 2556291, Dkt. No. 9318 (F.T.C. Oct. 

18, 2004) (emphasis added). Complaint Counsel does not explain or “demonstrate” why it 

is not possible to respond. Complaint Counsel does not provide any affidavits or evidence 

to support its argument. Complaint Counsel does not cite to other commitments or 

obligations that would interfere with the completion of the reply. Complaint Counsel’s 

argument seems to be simply that Complaint Counsel was surprised and did not expect 

Respondents to respond to Complaint Counsel’s request for summary disposition. 

Because Complaint Counsel’s half page Motion for Extension failed to demonstrate 

why Complaint Counsel cannot reasonably meet the reply deadline, Complaint Counsel’s 

request for an extension should be denied pursuant to Rule 4.3(b). We are now two months 

beyond the date the Commission set for a hearing and seemingly no closer to a resolution 

of this never-ending FTC investigation. Further delays serve no one’s interests. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/17/2021 | Document No. 602639 | PAGE Page 3 of 4 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC 

Dated: September 17, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/17/2021 | Document No. 602639 | PAGE Page 4 of 4 * PUBLIC *

PUBLIC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 17, 2021, I filed the foregoing document 

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

April J. Tabor The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Acting Secretary Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov email: oalj@ftc.com 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL 

Elizabeth Averill 

eaverill@ftc.gov 

Jonathan Cohen 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

/s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

4