FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/1/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600817 | PUBLIC

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF 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, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) Docket No. 9397 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER DENYING COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

AND RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO QUASH WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

On February 19, 2021, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) 

Complaint Counsel, pursuant to FTC Rule 3.38(a), 16 C.F.R. § 3.38(a), filed two motions 

to compel discovery: a Motion to Compel Respondents to Produce Documents; and a 

Motion to Compel Respondents to Supplement Interrogatory Responses (collectively, 

“Motions to Compel”). Respondents Health Research Laboratories, LLC (“HRL”), 

Whole Body Supplements, LLC (“WBS”), and Kramer Duhon (collectively, 

“Respondents”) filed their Opposition on February 26, 2021. On February 17, 2021, 

Respondents filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena to Former Legal Counsel (“Motion to 

Quash”). Complaint Counsel has not yet filed an opposition. Because there are pending 

motions that may affect the scope of the pleadings and, therefore, the scope of 

permissible discovery, the Motions to Compel and the Motion to Quash are DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as set forth below. 

Currently pending are motions from both sides of this case seeking leave to 

amend the pleadings. On February 12, 2021, Respondents filed a motion for leave to 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/1/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600817 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

amend the answer in accordance with Rule 3.12(b)(2) “(“Motion to Amend Answer”).1 

On February 24, 2021, Complaint Counsel, as part of its opposition to the Motion to 

Amend Answer, included a cross-motion for leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to 

Rule 3.15(a)(1).

2

 The following day, on February 25, 2021, Respondents filed a Waiver 

of Affirmative Defenses of Mootness and Lack of Public Interest. On February 25, 2021, 

Complaint Counsel filed a motion for leave to respond to Respondents’ waiver filing, 

which was granted on March 1, 2021. 

Rule 3.31(c)(1), regarding the general scope of discovery states: “Parties may 

obtain discovery to the extent that it may be reasonably expected to yield information 

relevant to the allegations of the complaint, to the proposed relief, or to the defenses of 

any respondent.” It would be inefficient and a potential waste of resources to resolve the 

discovery disputes with reference to the existing allegations, defenses, and proposed 

relief, when requests to amend the pleadings are pending. Accordingly, the Motions to 

Compel and the Motion to Quash are DENIED; however, this is WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE pending resolution of the parties’ motions to amend the pleadings. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: March 1, 2021 

1

Rule 3.12(b)(2) states: 

If allegations of complaint are admitted. If the respondent elects not to contest the 

allegations of fact set forth in the complaint, the answer shall consist of a statement that 

the respondent admits all of the material allegations to be true. Such 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. In such an answer, the respondent may, however, reserve the right to 

submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under § 3.46. 

2 Rule 3.15(a)(1) provides: 

(a) Amendments (1) By leave. If and whenever determination of a controversy on the 

merits will be facilitated thereby, the Administrative Law Judge may, upon such 

conditions as are necessary to avoid prejudicing the public interest and the rights of the 

parties, allow appropriate amendments to pleadings or notice of hearing: Provided, 

however, That a motion for amendment of a complaint or notice may be allowed by the 

Administrative Law Judge only if the amendment is reasonably within the scope of the 

original complaint or notice. Motions for other amendments of complaints or notices 

shall be certified to the Commission. 

2 A