FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601189 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC

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, 

DOCKET NO. 9397 

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 

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)). 

1 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601189 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC

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. 

2 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/13/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601189 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC

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 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 

3