PUBLIC

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 DOCKET NO. 9397 

KRAMER DUHON, 

individually and as an officer of

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC 

and WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC. 

________________________________________________ 

EXPEDITED MOTION TO RESCHEDULE EVIDENTIARY HEARING DATE 

 

Based on Respondents’ failures to respond to discovery and shifting legal positions, 

Complaint Counsel requests that the Commission extend the evidentiary hearing date to 

September 21, 2021 pursuant to Rules 3.21(c)(1) and 3.41(b).1 

On February 12, 2021, Respondents filed a motion to amend their Answer to admit all 

material factual allegations in the Complaint pursuant to Rule 3.12(b)(2). No. 600668. Based on 

the pendency of that motion, the ALJ dismissed Complaint Counsel’s outstanding motions to 

compel discovery without prejudice. No. 600817. The ALJ granted Respondents’ motion to 

amend on March 10, 2021. No. 600937. However, his decision left the state of discovery 

unclear, and Respondents continue to refuse to engage in the discovery process. This refusal is 

 

1

 If the Commission is not able to consider this motion on an expedited basis, Complaint Counsel 

respectfully requests an appropriate extension of the hearing date based on the date of the Commission’s 

decision. Complaint Counsel requests corresponding adjustments of discovery and pre-hearing deadlines 

in the Scheduling Order and intends to submit a separate motion to the ALJ. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 1 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

2 

important because limited discovery related to the scope of relief (such as facts related to the

seriousness and deliberateness of Respondents’ unlawful conduct) remains necessary following 

the amendment of Respondents’ Answer.2

 Under these unusual circumstances, an extension of 

time for discovery in this matter is essential because there otherwise will be insufficient time to 

conduct discovery after a decision is issued confirming the permissibility of additional discovery. 

Because such an extension is only workable if the Commission reschedules the evidentiary 

hearing to a later date, we request the above-described continuance. 

CASE BACKGROUND

Respondents have a long history of advertising their products to consumers as effective 

cures and treatments for a variety of diseases without possessing anything close to adequate 

substantiation for their claims. See FTC and State of Maine v. Health Research Laboratories, 

LLC, et al., 2:17-cv-00467-JDL (D. Me.), Dkt. 1. The administrative Complaint alleges

Respondents deceptively advertised four products with unsubstantiated claims the products 

would effectively relieve, cure, or protect consumers from the serious health conditions of 

cardiovascular disease, atherosclerosis, hypertension, and diabetic neuropathy. 

The ALJ entered a Scheduling Order on December 14, 2020. No. 600095. Complaint 

Counsel served Respondents with Interrogatories and Requests for Production on December 22, 

2020. Averill Decl. ¶2, Exs. A & B. At the end of January, Respondents served incomplete 

interrogatory answers3 and produced 492 documents (containing multiple copies of the same 

documents). Averill Decl. ¶¶3-5, Exs. C & D. Respondents initially promised to supplement 

their initial document production within two weeks but later refused to do so. Averill Decl. ¶6, 

 

2

 This issue is central to motions to compel discovery currently pending before the ALJ. Nos. 601039, 

601041. 

3

 Respondents refused to provide answers to certain interrogatories, including one requiring them to 

identify substantiation for the challenged ad claims, and they provided incomplete answers to many 

interrogatories such as those requesting information about product sales and the dissemination of the ads 

that are relevant to evaluating the seriousness of Respondents’ unlawful conduct. See Averill Decl., Ex. 

D. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 2 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

3 

Ex. E. To date, Respondents have produced no emails, notes, or correspondence from the 

relevant period. Averill Decl. ¶9. They also have not produced any documents related to 

Respondents’ advertising and marketing strategy for the four products at issue. Id. Further, 

Respondents produced virtually no documents related to work performed by consultants or 

advisors who Respondents previously identified as being involved in developing and reviewing 

the challenged advertisements and identifying purported substantiation for ad claims. Id. 

Moreover, Respondents produced essentially no documents showing how they developed, 

reviewed, and approved ad content. Id. Tellingly, Respondents have not produced a single 

document clearly authored by, or addressed to, either Respondent Kramer Duhon or his nephew, 

Kyle Duhon, who assisted him in operating Health Research Laboratories and Whole Body 

Supplements. Id. 

On February 1, 2021, Respondents’ Counsel advised Complaint Counsel for the first time 

Respondents did not intend to participate in further discovery and would instead seek to 

terminate the administrative action through settlement, by amending or withdrawing their 

answer, or by refusing to cooperate with discovery and incurring sanctions terminating the 

proceeding. See Averill Decl. ¶15. Respondents subsequently filed an unsuccessful Motion for 

Acceptance of a Contested Cease and Desist Order.4

 No. 600441. On February 12, Respondents 

filed a motion seeking permission to amend their Answer (“Respondents’ Motion to Amend”), 

and Complaint Counsel later filed a Cross-Motion to Amend the Complaint. Nos. 600668, 

600771. On February 19, Complaint Counsel filed motions to compel discovery from 

Respondents that the ALJ subsequently denied without prejudice on March 1, 2021 pending 

resolution of the motions to amend the pleadings. See Nos. 600702, 600703, 600817. Following 

the ALJ’s decision granting Respondents’ Motion to Amend, Complaint Counsel re-filed 

modified versions of the motions to compel seeking limited discovery related to the seriousness 

and deliberateness of Respondents’ unlawful conduct on March 24, 2021. Nos. 601039, 601041. 

 

4

 In this novel motion, Respondents essentially sought to unilaterally impose a cease and desist order in 

this matter. See also No. 600607 (Feb. 1, 2021) (denying motion). 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 3 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

4 

Respondents filed an Amended Answer, in a form different from what was approved by the ALJ, 

on March 30. 

RELEVANT LAW

Rules 3.21(c)(1) and 3.41(b) provide the Commission may “upon a showing of good 

cause” postpone the original hearing date. 16 C.F.R. §§ 3.21(c)(1), 3.41(b). Good cause is 

established when the movant demonstrates circumstances, not attributable to lack of diligence on 

the part of the movant, that necessitate a later hearing date. See, e.g., In re Impax Laboratories, 

Inc., Dkt. 9373 (June 15, 2017) (rescheduling hearing date to accommodate 5-week extension of 

discovery); In re ECM Biofilms, Inc., Dkt. 9358 (Apr. 8, 2014) (postponing evidentiary hearing 

date by 45 days to provide additional time for discovery). 

Rule 3.12(b)(2) provides that a respondent’s general admission of all material factual 

allegations does not resolve the issue of appropriate relief. See 16 C.F.R. § 3.12(b)(2) (answer 

and complaint “will provide a record basis on which the Commission shall issue ... appropriate 

findings and conclusions and a final order[.]”) Further, the Rule permits limited discovery and 

an evidentiary hearing concerning facts relevant to the scope of relief because it states the 

pleadings “provide a record basis” rather than the only basis for decision5 and specifies the

answer operates as “a waiver of hearings as to the facts alleged in the complaint” rather than all 

hearings.6 However, these questions have not yet been specifically addressed in the handful of 

decisions involving Rule 3.12(b)(2).7 

 

5 Facts outside of the complaint generally may be considered in determining proper relief. See In re Zale 

Corp., 77 F.T.C. 1635, 1970 WL 117293, *1 (June 17, 1970) (“The selection of an appropriate remedy, 

and the admissibility of evidence with regard thereto, are governed by the unlawful practices actually 

found to exist, and not by the allegations of the complaint.”).

6

 Rule 3.12(b)(2) additionally provides that Respondents may reserve the right to submit proposed 

findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 3.46. 

7 See In re Sir Carpet, Inc., 85 F.T.C. 190, 1975 WL 172194 (Feb. 6, 1975); In re Auslander Decorator 

Furniture, Inc., 83 F.T.C. 1542, 1974 WL 175916 (Apr. 23, 1974); In re Market Fur Dressing Corp., 76 

F.T.C. 101, 1969 WL 101378 (July 24, 1969). However, there is a previous ALJ decision in a Rule 

3.12(b)(2) case expressing the view that he was required to issue an initial decision with “findings of fact 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 4 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

5 

In every litigated administrative case, the factual record crucially informs the 

Commission’s decisions about appropriate relief. See, e.g., In re Telebrands Corp., 140 F.T.C. 

278, 334-340 (Sept. 19, 2005); Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311, 326-27 (7th Cir. 1992) 

(upholding Commission order with fencing-in provisions based on factual findings). 

Importantly, in this case, the Notice of Contemplated Relief includes fencing-in provisions 

intended to prevent future violations. Fencing-in relief necessarily extends to conduct beyond 

the unlawful acts specifically described in the complaint. See, e.g., FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive, 

Co., 380 U.S. 374, 394 (1965) (recognizing Commission may frame broad orders to prevent 

respondents from engaging in similar illegal conduct in the future). Development of the relevant 

factual record is necessary in determining whether proposed relief is reasonably related to the 

alleged violative conduct and includes facts related to: (1) the seriousness and deliberateness of 

the violation; (2) the ease with which violative conduct may be transferred to other products; and 

(3) any history of prior violations. See, e.g., Telebrands Corp. v. FTC, 457 F.3d 354, 358 (4th 

Cir. 2006) (quoting Stouffer Foods Corp., 118 F.T.C. 746, 811 (1994)); see also ColgatePalmolive, 380 U.S. at 394 (stating “the propriety of a broad order depends upon the specific 

circumstances of the case”). Therefore, discovery focused on revealing such facts is essential. 

ARGUMENT

A. Limited discovery relevant to scope of relief is necessary and appropriate following 

Respondents’ Amended Answer. 

Although Respondents now intend to admit all material factual allegations in the 

Complaint, the issue of relief remains outstanding. By refusing to participate in discovery on the 

basis of their Rule 3.12(b)(2) admissions, Respondents are improperly attempting to cut off any 

further development of the factual record that is critical to the Commission in making an 

informed decision concerning appropriate relief. The need for a complete record explains why 

 

and conclusions of law in haec verba with the complaint.” In re New Home Sewing Center, 76 F.T.C. 

191, 1969 WL 101146, at *5 (Aug. 5, 1969). 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 5 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

6 

Rule 3.12(b)(2) does not preclude limited discovery concerning the appropriate scope of relief. 

See also No. 600817, at 5 (“There is nothing in Rule 3.12(b)(2) ... that prevents Complaint 

Counsel from pursuing discovery regarding issues that remain relevant after [the motions to 

amend the answer and complaint] are resolved.”). Further, Complaint Counsel’s limited 

discovery is focused on just such issues, specifically facts related to the seriousness and 

deliberateness of Respondents’ unlawful conduct. See also Rule 3.31(c)(1) (“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.”) 

(emphasis added).

B. Complaint Counsel has diligently attempted to complete discovery in accordance 

with Scheduling Order deadlines. 

Good cause for the requested continuance of the hearing date in this matter exists because 

Complaint Counsel has diligently worked to compel Respondents to produce evidence 

concerning the seriousness and deliberateness of Respondents’ unlawful conduct, but 

Respondents have obstructed such discovery. Complaint Counsel served their Interrogatories 

and Requests for Production on Respondents eight days after entry of the Scheduling Order. 

Once it became evident that Respondents refused to participate in further discovery, Complaint 

Counsel promptly filed motions to compel that the ALJ denied without prejudice on March 1, 

2021 pending resolution of the motions concerning the pleadings. Complaint Counsel recently 

re-filed narrower motions to compel and anticipates decisions from the ALJ on April 1. 

Complaint Counsel also attempted to obtain documents relevant to determining the 

appropriate scope of relief from third parties, but has had limited success in that effort. 

Specifically, on January 4, 2021, Complaint Counsel sent subpoenas duces tecum to fourteen 

individuals and companies, including several copywriters and consultants who may have assisted 

Respondents in developing and reviewing advertisements. Averill Decl. ¶11. Unfortunately, 

neither of the copywriters produced responsive documents, and two consultants only produced a 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 6 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

7 

very small number of documents to Complaint Counsel.8

 Averill Decl. ¶¶ 12-13. As a result, 

Respondents’ refusal to produce documents in this case has, among other things, prevented 

Complaint Counsel from gaining access to documents showing: (1) how the challenged 

advertisements were developed, reviewed, and approved; (2) Respondents’ advertising strategy; 

or (3) specific details concerning Kramer Duhon’s knowledge and participation. Such 

documents, along with other categories of business records missing from Respondents’ limited

document production such as emails, correspondence, and planning documents, are likely to be 

highly relevant to evaluating the deliberateness of Respondents’ unlawful conduct. For example, 

one of a few emails produced by a third party consultant shows he advised Kyle Duhon on May 

29, 2018 that the black garlic mailers were “pretty egregious in terms of blatantly express disease 

claims being made.” He additionally shared with Duhon that he “did not know many companies 

that are still going out this aggressively.” See Averill Decl. ¶12, Ex. F. 

The deadline for Complaint Counsel to issue document requests, interrogatories, and 

subpoenas duces tecum was March 25, 2021. See No. 600095. Fact discovery is currently 

scheduled to close on April 29. Id. Expert reports currently must be filed by May 6, but 

Respondents still have not provided interrogatory responses identifying which substantiation 

materials they relied on to support the challenged advertising claims. Id. Given the paltry 

number of documents produced by Respondents and their incomplete interrogatory responses, it 

is extremely difficult for Complaint Counsel to effectively conduct party and third party 

depositions or to prepare expert reports evaluating Respondents’ purported substantiation. Under 

these circumstances, the discovery deadlines in the current Scheduling Order are not workable 

and should be extended. 

 

8

 One consultant, Inna Yegorova, who appears to have reviewed ads and/or substantiation for ad claims

for Respondents asserts she has no documents responsive to the subpoena. See Averill Decl. ¶14, Ex. G. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 7 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

8 

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Complaint Counsel respectfully requests that the Commission 

issue an order rescheduling the evidentiary hearing date in this matter and corresponding 

adjustments of discovery and pre-hearing deadlines in the Scheduling Order. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Elizabeth J. Averill 

 Elizabeth J. Averill

 Jonathan Cohen 

 Federal Trade Commission

 600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, CC-9528 

 Washington, DC 20580 

 (202) 326-2993 (Averill); -2551 (Cohen) 

 Eaverill@ftc.gov; Jcohen2@ftc.gov 

 (202) 326-3197 (facsimile) 

 Complaint Counsel

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 8 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

9 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

 The undersigned counsel represents that she and Jonathan Cohen conferred with 

Respondents’ counsel, Joel Reese, in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised 

in this motion, but were not able to reach an agreement. This conference took place by telephone 

starting at 2:45PM (Eastern) on March 23, 2021. 

 

 s/ Elizabeth Averill 

Elizabeth Averill 

Federal Trade Commission

 600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, CC-9528 

 Washington, DC 20580 

 (202) 326-2993; eaverill@ftc.gov

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 9 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

10 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I served a copy of Complaint Counsel’s Expedited Motion to Reschedule 

Evidentiary Hearing Date as well as a supporting Declaration of Elizabeth J. Averill, attached 

Exhibits, and a Proposed Order to counsel for the Respondents on March 30, 2021 via electronic 

mail. 

Joel Reese

Joshua Russ 

Reese Marketos LLP

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Joel.reese@rm-firm.com

Josh.russ@rm-firm.com

I also served one electronic copy via the Administrative E-Filing System and one electronic 

courtesy copy to the Office of the Secretary via email to ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov. 

I served one electronic courtesy copy via email to the Office of the Administrative Law Judge: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Room H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

 s/ Elizabeth J. Averill 

Elizabeth J. Averill 

Federal Trade Commission

 600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, CC-9528 

 Washington, DC 20580 

 (202) 326-2993; eaverill@ftc.gov

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 10 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

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 DOCKET NO. 9397 

KRAMER DUHON, 

individually and as an officer of

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC 

and WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC.

________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING EVIDENTIARY HEARING DATE 

 On November 13, 2020, the Commission issued an administrative complaint against 

Respondents Health Research Laboratories, LLC, Whole Body Supplements, LLC, and Kramer 

Duhon alleging that advertising for their Black Garlic Botanicals, BG18, The Ultimate Heart 

Formula, and Neupathic products violated Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act. The Complaint was accompanied by a Notice specifying that the evidentiary hearing would 

commence on July 13, 2021. Complaint Counsel has filed a Motion requesting that the 

Commission reschedule the original hearing date to September 21, 2021 to permit additional 

time for fact and expert discovery to take place. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 11 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

2 

Commission Rules of Practice 3.21(c)(1) and 3.41(b) provides the Commission may 

order a later date for the commencement of the evidentiary hearing “upon a showing of good 

cause.” 16 C.F.R. §§ 3.21(c)(1), 3.41(b). 

 Under the circumstances presented, we find there is good cause for the requested 

continuance of the hearing date. Although Respondents admitted all material allegations in the 

administrative Complaint pursuant to Rule 3.12(b)(2), Complaint Counsel remains entitled to 

conduct discovery concerning relevant facts related to: (1) the seriousness and deliberateness of 

the violation; (2) the ease with which violative conduct may be transferred to other products; and 

(3) any history of prior violations. See, e.g., Telebrands Corp. v. FTC, 457 F.3d 354, 358 (4th 

Cir. 2006) (quoting Stouffer Foods Corp., 118 F.T.C. 746, 811 (1994)); see also ColgatePalmolive, 380 U.S. at 394 (stating “the propriety of a broad order depends upon the specific 

circumstances of the case”). Because Respondents have not yet responded to outstanding 

discovery requests, several of which are the subject of pending motions before the ALJ, it is 

unlikely discovery can be completed in accordance with Scheduling Order deadlines required by

the July 13, 2021 hearing date. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Complaint Counsel’s Expedited Motion to Reschedule 

Evidentiary Hearing Date is GRANTED. The evidentiary hearing in this matter is rescheduled 

and will begin on September 21, 2021 at 10:00 AM at the Federal Trade Commission offices, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 532-H, Washington, DC 20580. The Chief 

Administrative Judge is directed to correspondingly adjust discovery deadlines and other prehearing deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order. 

By the Commission.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 12 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

3 

 April J. Tabor 

 Acting Secretary

SEAL: 

ISSUED: 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 13 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

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 DOCKET NO. 9397 

KRAMER DUHON, 

individually and as an officer of

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC 

and WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC.

________________________________________________ 

DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH J. AVERILL 

I, Elizabeth J. Averill, hereby state that I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth 

below. I submit this declaration in support of Complaint Counsel’s Expedited Motion for 

Extension of Hearing Date. If called as a witness, I could and would testify as follows: 

1. I am a United States citizen and am over eighteen years of age. I am employed by 

the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) as an attorney in the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of 

Consumer Protection. I am acting as Complaint Counsel in the above-captioned matter. 

2. On December 22, 2020, I served Complaint Counsel’s First Requests for 

Production to Respondents (“RFPs”) and Complaint Counsel’s First Set of Interrogatories on 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 14 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

2 

Respondents by email to their counsel, Joel Reese and Joshua Russ. True and Correct copies of 

the RFPs and Interrogatories are attached as Exs. A & B. 

3. On January 21, 2021, I received Respondents’ Objections and Responses to 

Complaint Counsel’s First Requests for Production (“RFP Responses”). A true and correct copy 

of the RFP Responses is attached as Ex. C. 

4. On January 21, 2021, I received Respondents’ Objections and Responses to 

Complaint Counsel’s First Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatory Responses”). A true and 

correct copy of the Interrogatory Responses is attached as Ex. D. 

5. A vendor working with Respondents’ counsel produced 492 documents on 

January 25, 2021 (“January 25 Production”). This is the only document production Complaint 

Counsel has received in response to the RFPs. 

6. On January 25, 2021, Respondents’ counsel stated he planned to produce 

additional responsive documents to Complaint Counsel within two weeks. A true and correct 

copy of this email is attached as Ex. E. 

7. I personally reviewed all of the documents in the January 25 Production. During 

my review, I noticed the majority of the documents had previously been produced to the FTC as 

part of the contempt investigation related to FTC and State of Maine v. Health Research 

Laboratories, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00467-JDL (D. Me.). 

8. Furthermore, the January 25 Production includes multiple copies of the same 

articles, random website content, and excerpted sections of alternative health books related to

individual ingredients in the four challenged products. For example, six copies of an article 

entitled “Aged Garlic Extract Reduces Low Attenuation Plaque in Coronary Arteries of Patients 

with Metabolic Syndrome in a Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study” authored by 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 15 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

3 

Matsumoto et al. were produced with Bates numbers of HRLAC_00186 to 00191; 

HRLAC_00720 to 00725; HRLAC_01444 to 01449; HRLAC_01991 to 01996; HRLAC_02566 

to 02571; and HRLAC_03113 to 03118. Six copies of an article entitled “Garlic Shows Promise 

for Improving Some Cardiovascular Risk Factors” authored by Ackermann et al. were produced 

with Bates numbers of HRLAC_00672 to 00683; HRLAC_00684 to 00695; HRLAC_01943 to 

001954; HRLAC_01955 to 01966; HRLAC_03065 to 03076; and HRLAC_03077 to 03088. 

Three copies of an abstract related to an article entitled “Inhibiting progression of coronary 

calcification using Aged Garlic Extract in patients receiving statin therapy: a preliminary study” 

authored by Budoff et al. were produced with Bates numbers of HRLAC_00016 to 00017; 

HRLAC_01262 to 01263; and HRLAC_02384 to 02385. There are three copies of a website 

article entitled “14 Biggest Myths About Type 2 Diabetes,” apparently downloaded from 

http://community.ihealthlabs.com, that were produced with Bates numbers HRLAC_01426 to 

01431; HRLAC_00168 to 00173; and HRLAC_02548 to 02553. Respondents produced three 

copies of an article entitled “Applicable People fermented black garlic; green natural org,” 

apparently downloaded from http://www.iblackgarlic.com, and produced with Bates numbers 

HRLAC_01305 to 01306; HRLAC_00059 to 00060; and HRLAC_02427 to 02428. 

Respondents produced three copies of an excerpt entitled “Chelation Therapy” from a book 

entitled “Alternative Medicine: the definitive guide” with Bates numbers HRLAC_01832 to 

01842; HRLAC_00561 to 00571; and HRLAC_02954 to 02964. This is just a very small sample 

of the extensive amount of duplicative materials in the January 25 Production. 

9. Based on my review, the January 25 Production did not include any documents 

related to the development, analysis, review, or approval of the challenged advertisements other 

than a few statements of ad approval apparently signed by Richard Cohen. The production did 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 16 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

4 

not include any communications or documents clearly related to work done by individuals or 

entities who assisted the Respondents on projects related to advertising and substantiation such 

as documents involving Inna Yegorova, Inna Consulting, Curtis Walcker, Dietary Supplement 

Experts, LLC, or Stephen Kimball. The production did not include documents or any 

communications related to either Respondents’ advertising and marketing strategy or product 

development for Black Garlic Botanicals, BG18, The Ultimate Heart Formula, or Neupathic. 

Respondents have not produced any contemporaneous emails, notes, or correspondence. 

Respondents have not produced any documents clearly authored by, or addressed to, either 

Kramer Duhon or his nephew, Kyle Duhon, who assisted Kramer Duhon in operating the 

businesses. 

10. Respondents have not produced a privilege log in this matter. 

11. During this case, Complaint Counsel sent subpoenas duces tecum to fourteen 

individuals and companies known to have had business relationships with the Respondents. 

Subpoenas were sent to two copywriters who worked with Respondents, Kent Komae and 

Stephen Kimball. Neither produced responsive documents. Mr. Komae claims he did not work 

on the challenged advertisements. Mr. Kimball produced a small number of electronic files to 

Complaint Counsel in an unreadable format and has been unresponsive to further inquiries. 

12. Complaint Counsel also sent a subpoena to Richard Cohen, a consultant and 

endorser who appears in Respondents’ challenged advertisements. He produced 26 documents. 

13. Complaint Counsel also sent a subpoena to Dietary Supplement Experts, LLC

(“DSE”). DSE served as a consultant to Respondents during the relevant period and produced 

128 documents in response to the subpoena. An email string from May 2018 between Curtis 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 17 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

5 

Walcker, owner of DSE, and Kyle Duhon was produced to Complaint Counsel. A true and 

correct copy of this email string (with mobile phone numbers redacted) is attached as Ex. F. 

14. Complaint Counsel also sent a subpoena to a former consultant, Inna Yegorova, 

who worked with Respondents on consulting projects related to the challenged products. In her 

response, Ms. Yegorova claimed to have no responsive documents. A true and correct copy of 

Ms. Yegorova’s response to the subpoena is attached as Ex. G. 

15. On February 1, 2021 starting at 4:30 PM (Eastern), Jonathan Cohen and I spoke 

by telephone with Joel Reese in an effort to discuss and resolve the issues raised in the original 

Motion to Compel Respondents to Produce Documents as well other issues related to their 

Objections and Answers to the First Set of Interrogatories. Mr. Reese was generally unwilling to 

engage in a detailed discussion about specific discovery issues and instead insisted that all of 

those issues were irrelevant because Respondents would not participate further in discovery in 

the administrative action because of cost. During the conference, Mr. Reese stated Respondents 

were willing to admit to all allegations in the Complaint. He stated that Respondents intended to 

terminate the administrative proceeding by settling, withdrawing their answer, filing a motion to 

amend their answer to admit allegations in the Complaint, or declining to participate further in 

discovery and eventually incurring what he referred to as “death penalty” sanctions that would 

terminate the administrative proceeding. During the conference, Mr. Reese also stated 

Respondents would not review or produce additional documents, produce a privilege log, or 

otherwise supplement their discovery responses. 

16. Following the conference on February 1, counsel for the parties had a discussion

related to settlement that was ultimately not successful. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 18 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC 

6 

17. During a telephone call with Mr. Reese held on March 23 to meet and confer 

about Complaint Counsel’s Second Motion to Compel Respondents to Produce Documents and 

Second Motion to Compel Respondents to Supplement Interrogatory Responses, he confirmed 

that Respondents’ position is they should not be required to participate in any additional 

discovery because of their intention to file an amended Answer pursuant to Rule 3.12(b)(2). 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 

true and correct. 

Executed on: March 30, 2021 /s/ Elizabeth J. Averill 

Alexandria, VA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 19 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

Exhibit A

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 20 of 67 | PUBLIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE 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 DOCKET NO. 9397 

KRAMER DUHON,

individually and as an officer of

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC 

and WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC.

________________________________________________ 

FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO RESPONDENTS

 Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.37, Complaint Counsel requests that 

Respondents produce the Documents and tangible things described below by January 21, 2021 

via electronic submission through a Secure File Transfer link to be provided by Complaint 

Counsel. Complaint Counsel also requests a conference to discuss the form and manner in which 

Respondents will produce these Documents. 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

1. Produce a copy of each unique Advertisement for every Identified Product 

disseminated on or after January 17, 2018, Documents sufficient to establish Basic 

Dissemination Data for each such Advertisement, and all Documents Related To the content, 

development, analysis, review or approval of such Advertisements. 

2. Produce all Documents constituting or reflecting Communications Related To any 

Identified Product with any Subject Third Party. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 21 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
3. Produce all Scientific and Efficacy Information Related To any of the Subject 

Claims. 

4. Produce physical samples of each Physical Product shipped or delivered to 

consumers on or after January 17, 2018. 

5. Produce Documents sufficient to establish the formulation of each Identified 

Product including (i) the exact type and dosage of the ingredients that You expected each

Identified Product would contain; (ii) the exact type and dosage of the ingredients each Identified 

Product actually contained when shipped to consumers; and (iii) testing, measurements or 

analysis of any sort Related To either of the foregoing. 

6. Produce all Documents Related To whether and how an Identified Product, or any 

ingredient therein, is absorbed or used by the human body after the Identified Product is taken 

orally. 

7. Produce Documents sufficient to establish the volume of sales of each Identified 

Product, and the Net Revenue from such sales, on or after January 17, 2018. 

8. Produce all Documents Related To any defenses You intend to assert in this 

matter. 

9. Produce all Documents constituting or reflecting Communications with Your 

customers on or after January 17, 2018 Related To the efficacy or lack of efficacy of any 

Identified Product. 

10. Produce a Customer List. 

11. Produce all Documents You rely on, or refer to, in any answer to any 

Interrogatory in this matter. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 22 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
DEFINITIONS

A. “And,” as well as “or,” shall be construed both conjunctively and disjunctively, as 

necessary, to bring within the scope of any Request all information that otherwise might be 

construed as outside its scope. 

B. “Any” includes “all,” and “all” includes the word “any.” 

C. “Advertisement” or “Advertisements” or “Advertising” means any written or verbal 

statement, illustration, or depiction that promotes the sale of a good or service, or is designed to 

increase consumer interest in a brand, good, or service and was disseminated to consumers. The 

terms include, but are not limited to: labeling, packaging, package inserts, radio, television, 

promotional materials, print (including but not limited to brochures, newspapers, magazines, 

pamphlets, leaflets, circulars, mailers, book inserts, free standing inserts, letters, catalogues, 

posters, charts, billboards, public transit cards, point of purchase displays), audio programs 

transmitted over a telephone system, telemarketing scripts, on-hold scripts, upsell scripts, 

training materials provided to telemarketing firms, program-length commercials or other 

infomercials, website content, social media, and other digital content, including electronic 

newsletters. 

D. “Basic Dissemination Data” means all of the following information about an 

Advertisement: (i) how it was disseminated; (ii) when it was disseminated; (iii) the total number 

disseminated; (iv) where it was disseminated; and (v) the identity and contact information of the 

individuals or entities that disseminated the Advertisements. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 23 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
E. “Communications” means conversations, meetings, discussions, and any other 

communicative exchange or message, whether in person, by telephone, email, text message, 

social media, or otherwise, as well as all Documents reflecting those communications. 

F. “Customer List” means Documents sufficient to identify the name, address, email, and 

phone number for all consumers that purchased, received, to whom you delivered, or whom you 

billed for each Identified Product on or after January 17, 2018. 

G. “Document” or “Documents” mean the complete original and any non-identical copy 

(whether different from the original because of notations on the copy or otherwise), regardless 

of origin or location, of any written, typed, printed, transcribed, filmed, punched, or graphic 

matter of every type and description, however and by whomever prepared, produced, 

disseminated or made, including, but not limited to, any advertisement, book, pamphlet, 

periodical, contract, correspondence, file, invoice, memorandum, note, report, record, 

handwritten note, working paper, routing slip, chart, graph, paper, index, map, tabulation, 

manual, guide, outline, script, abstract, history, calendar, diary, agenda, minute, code book or 

label. “Document” shall also include all Electronically Stored Information. 

H. “Each” includes “every,” and “every” includes “each.” 

I. “Electronically Stored Information” or “ESI” mean the complete original and any 

non-identical copy (whether different from the original because of notations, different metadata, 

or otherwise), regardless of origin or location, of any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, 

photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any 

electronic medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after 

You translate it into a reasonably usable form. This includes, but is not limited to, email, text, 

instant messaging, videoconferencing, social media, and other electronic correspondence 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 24 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
(whether active, archived, or in a deleted items folder), metadata, word processing files, 

spreadsheets, databases, and recordings, whether stored on: cards; magnetic or electronic tapes; 

disks; computer hard drives, network shares or servers, or other drives; cloud-based platforms; 

cell phones, PDAs, computer tablets, or other mobile devices; or other storage media. 

J. “Identified Product” means Black Garlic Botanicals, BG18 (also known as BG-18), The 

Ultimate Heart Formula, and Neupathic. 

K. “Net Revenue” means all amounts buyers paid (including charges for each Identified 

Product, shipping and handling, or any other charges buyers paid) minus any refunds. 

L. “Referring To” or “Relating To” means discussing, describing, reflecting, containing, 

analyzing, studying, reporting, commenting on, evidencing, constituting, setting forth, 

considering, recommending, concerning, or pertaining to, in whole or in part. 

M. “Respondents” mean Health Research Laboratories, LLC; Whole Body Supplements, 

LLC; and Kramer Duhon, either individually or collectively. 

N. “Scientific and Efficacy Information” means: (i) tests, reports, studies, clinical trials, 

experiments, demonstrations, scientific literature, and written opinions Related To any Identified 

Product or any ingredient (or combination of ingredients) therein; (ii) any information that You 

contend experts in the scientific community might rely upon, in whole or in part, to determine 

whether any Identified Product provide or confer any benefit or other effect; and (iii) any other 

material questioning, confirming, contradicting, or analyzing any of the foregoing. 

O. “Subject Claims” means the claims identified in paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 

20 of the Complaint issued in this matter. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 25 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
P. “Subject Third Party” means Richard Cohen, M.D., Inna Yegorova, Inna Consulting,

Curtis Walcker, AIBMR Life Sciences, Inc., Dietary Supplement Experts, LLC, Stephen 

Kimball, and Jesse Duvell.1 

Q. “Physical Product” means an Identified Product and its packaging as shipped or

delivered to consumers, including labelling, images, inserts, bottling, and any other packaging or 

materials that accompany the Identified Product and contain or reflect Communications. 

R. “You” or “Your” means Respondents.

INSTRUCTIONS

A. Ongoing Duty to Supplement: These Requests for Production are continuing in nature

and require supplemental responses pursuant to the Rules of Practice, § 3.31(e). Responsive 

Documents obtained or discovered after your initial production must be produced promptly. 

B. Covered Documents: You must furnish every responsive Document in the possession,

custody, or control of Respondents, Your attorneys, accountants, agents, affiliates, directors, 

officers, consultants, employees, contractors, bailees, other representatives, or any other person 

or entity from whom You can obtain such Documents by demand, request, or otherwise. 

C. Document Identification: Documents responsive to more than one Request herein need

only be submitted once. If any responsive Documents have been previously supplied to the FTC, 

You may comply with these Requests for Production by identifying the Document(s) previously 

provided, the date of submission, and designating particular previously-produced Documents (by 

Bates number) as responsive to a specific Request or Requests. 

D. Document Production: You must produce Documents in the order in which they appear

in Your files or as electronically stored and without being manipulated or otherwise rearranged; 

if Documents are removed from their original folders, binders, covers, containers, or electronic 

1

 Exhibit A to the Complaint (HRL004991) mentions Duvell. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 26 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
source to be produced, then You must specify the folder, binder, cover, container, or electronic 

media or file paths from which such Documents came. In addition, number by page (or file, for 

those Documents produced in native electronic format) all Documents in Your submission, with 

a unique Bates identifier. 

E. Privilege Claims: If You withhold any responsive Document based on a claim of 

privilege or any similar claim, You must assert the claim no later than the return date for these 

Requests for Production. In addition, submit, together with the claim, a schedule of the items 

withheld, stating individually as to each item: (1) the type, specific subject matter, date, and 

number of pages; (2) the names, addresses, positions, and organizations of all authors and 

recipients; and (3) the specific grounds for making the privilege or similar claim. If only a 

portion of any responsive material is privileged, You must produce all non-privileged portions. 

F. Electronic Submission of Documents: Guidelines for producing ESI or digitally

imaged hard copy Documents are located in Attachment A. 

G. Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information: Unless specifically requested herein, do 

not produce any Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (“Sensitive PII”) or Sensitive 

Health Information (“SHI”) before conferring with Complaint Counsel. You must transmit 

Sensitive PII or SHI to Complaint Counsel. For purposes of these Requests, Sensitive PII 

includes: an individual’s Social Security number alone; or an individual’s name or address or 

phone number in combination with one or more of the following: date of birth, Social Security 

number, driver’s license number or other state identification number, or a foreign country 

equivalent, passport number, financial account number, credit card number, or debit card 

number. SHI includes medical records and other individually identifiable health information 

Relating To the past, present, or future physical or mental health or conditions of an individual, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 27 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the 

provision of health care to an individual. 

Dated: Dec. 22, 2020 /s/ Elizabeth J. Averill 

 ELIZABETH J. AVERILL 

JONATHAN COHEN 

 Federal Trade Commission

Division of Enforcement 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mailstop CC-9528 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2993, eaverill@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-2551, jcohen2@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3197 (Fax) 

 Complaint Counsel 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 28 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this date, the foregoing was served via email on Respondents’ 

counsel. 

Joel W. Reese

Joshua M. Russ 

Reese Marketos LLP

750 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 600 

Dallas, TX 75201-3201 

joel.reese@rm-firm.com

josh.russ@rm-firm.com

Dated: December 22, 2020 

/s/ Elizabeth J. Averill 

 ELIZABETH J. AVERILL

Federal Trade Commission

Division of Enforcement

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite CC-9528

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2993, eaverill@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3197 (Fax) 

 Complaint Counsel 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 29 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
ATTACHMENT A

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 30 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Production Requirements

Revised July 2020

In producing information to the FTC, comply with the following requirements, unless the FTC 

agrees otherwise. If you have questions about these requirements, please contact FTC counsel 

before production.

Production Format

1. General Format: Provide load-ready electronic productions with:

a. A delimited data load file (.DAT) containing a line for every document, unique id 

number for every document (DocID), metadata fields, and native file links where 

applicable; and

b. A document level text file, named for the DocID, containing the text of each produced 

document.

Do not produce corresponding image renderings (e.g., TIFF or JPEG) for files 

in native format unless the FTC requests them. If the FTC requests

corresponding image renderings, provide an Opticon image load file (.OPT) 

containing a line for every image file.

2. Electronically Stored Information (ESI): Documents stored in electronic format in the 

ordinary course of business must be produced in the following format:

a. For ESI other than the categories below, submit in native format with all metadata and 

either document level extracted text or Optical Character Recognition (OCR). Do not 

produce corresponding image renderings (e.g., TIFF or JPEG) for files in native format 

unless the FTC requests them. If the FTC requests corresponding image renderings, 

they should be converted to Group IV, 300 DPI, single-page TIFF (or color JPEG 

images when necessary to interpret the contents or render them intelligible.)

b. For Microsoft Excel, Access, or PowerPoint files, submit in native format with extracted 

text and metadata. Data compilations in Excel spreadsheets or delimited text formats 

must contain all underlying data, formulas, and algorithms without redaction.

c. For other spreadsheet, database, presentation, or multimedia formats; instant messages; 

or proprietary applications, discuss the production format with FTC counsel.

3. Hard Copy Documents: Documents stored in hard copy in the ordinary course of business 

must be scanned and submitted as either one multi-page pdf per document or as 300 DPI 

single page TIFFs (or color JPEGs when necessary to interpret the contents or render them 

intelligible), with corresponding document-level OCR text and logical document 

determination in an accompanying load file.

4. Document Identification: Provide a unique DocID for each hard copy or electronic document, 

consisting of a prefix and a consistent number of numerals using leading zeros. Do not use a 

space to separate the prefix from numbers.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 31 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
5. Attachments: Preserve the parent/child relationship by producing attachments as separate 

documents, numbering them consecutively to the parent email, and including a reference to all 

attachments.

6. Metadata Production: For each document submitted electronically, include the standard 

metadata fields listed below in a standard delimited data load file. The first line of the data load 

file shall include the field names. Submit date and time data in separate fields. Use these 

standard Concordance delimiters in delimited data load files:

Description Symbol ASCII Character

Field Separator ¶ 20

Quote Character Þ 254

Multi Entry delimiter ® 174

<Return> Value in data ~ 126

7. De-duplication: Do not use de-duplication or email threading software without FTC approval.

8. Password-Protected Files: Remove passwords prior to production. If password removal is not 

possible, provide the original and production filenames and the passwords, under separate cover.

Producing Data to the FTC

1. Prior to production, scan all data and media for viruses and confirm they are virus-free.

2. For productions smaller than 50 GB, submit data electronically using the FTC’s secure file 

transfer protocol. Contact FTC counsel for instructions. The FTC cannot accept files via 

Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, or other third-party file transfer sites.

3. If you submit data using physical media:

a. Use only CDs, DVDs, flash drives, or hard drives. Format the media for use with 

Windows 7;

b. Use data encryption to protect any Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information or 

Sensitive Health Information (as defined in the instructions), and provide passwords in 

advance of delivery, under separate cover; and

c. Use a courier service (e.g., Federal Express, UPS) because heightened securitymeasures 

delay postal delivery.

4. Provide a transmittal letter with each production that includes:

a. Production volume name (e.g., Volume 1) and date of production;

b. Numeric DocID range of all documents in the production, and any gaps in the DocID 

range; and

c. List of custodians and the DocID range for each custodian.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 32 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 33 of 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

Exhibit B

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 34 of 67 | PUBLIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE 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 DOCKET NO. 9397 

KRAMER DUHON,

individually and as an officer of

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC 

and WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC.

________________________________________________ 

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO RESPONDENTS

 Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.35, Complaint Counsel asks Respondents 

to answer these Interrogatories. 

INTERROGATORIES

1. Specify every Document that constitutes Substantiation Material including its 

Bates number and the date You first possessed the Document. 

2. State the exact type and dosages of the ingredients that You expected each 

Identified Product would contain when consumed and, if different, the exact type and dosages of 

the ingredients each Identified Product actually contained when shipped to consumers. 

3. Provide Basic Dissemination Data for each unique Advertisement for each

Identified Product disseminated on or after January 17, 2018. 

4. If You deny paragraph 14 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in part, 

State the Basis for Your denial. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 35 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
5. If You deny paragraph 15 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in part, 

State the Basis for Your denial. 

6. If You contend that some or all of the claims in paragraph 7 of the Complaint in 

this matter have Substantiation, State the Basis for that contention with respect to each claim 

You contend has Substantiation, including identifying all Substantiation Materials. 

7. If You deny paragraph 16 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in part, 

State the Basis for Your denial. 

8. If You deny paragraph 17 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in part, 

State the Basis for Your denial. 

9. If You contend that some or all of the claims in paragraph 9 of the Complaint in 

this matter have Substantiation, State the Basis for that contention with respect to each claim 

You contend has Substantiation, including identifying all Substantiation Materials.

10. If You deny paragraph 18 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in part, 

State the Basis for Your denial. 

11. If You deny paragraph 19 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in part, 

State the Basis for Your denial. 

12. If You contend that some or all of the claims in paragraph 11 of the Complaint in 

this matter have Substantiation, State the Basis for that contention with respect to each claim 

You contend has Substantiation, including identifying all Substantiation Materials. 

13. If You deny paragraph 20 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in part, 

State the Basis for Your denial. 

14. If You deny paragraph 21 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in part, 

State the Basis for Your denial. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 36 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
15. If You contend that some or all of the claims in paragraph 13 of the Complaint in

this matter have Substantiation, State the Basis for that contention with respect to each claim 

You contend has Substantiation, including identifying all Substantiation Materials. 

16. If You currently contend that the Identified Products (including any of their active 

ingredients) are Bioavailable after ingestion by consumers, State The Basis for Your contention. 

17. Identify each person You intend to call at the hearing in this matter including 

contact information and the subjects his or her testimony will address. 

18. If You contend that Kramer Duhon is not responsible for the conduct of other 

Respondents in this action, State the Basis for Your contention. 

19. Identify all affirmative defenses You intend to raise in this matter. 

DEFINITIONS

A. “Advertisement” or “Advertisements” means any written or verbal statement, 

illustration, or depiction that promotes the sale of a good or service, or is designed to increase 

consumer interest in a brand, good, or service and was disseminated to consumers. The terms 

include, but are not limited to: labeling, packaging, package inserts, radio, television, 

promotional materials, print (including but not limited to brochures, newspapers, magazines, 

pamphlets, leaflets, circulars, mailers, book inserts, free standing inserts, letters, catalogues, 

posters, charts, billboards, public transit cards, point of purchase displays), audio programs 

transmitted over a telephone system, telemarketing scripts, on-hold scripts, upsell scripts, 

training materials provided to telemarketing firms, program-length commercials and other 

infomercials, website content, social media, and other digital content, including electronic 

newsletters. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 37 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
B. “And,” as well as “or,” shall be construed both conjunctively and disjunctively,

as necessary, to bring within the scope of any Interrogatory all information that otherwise might 

be construed as outside its scope. 

C. “Any” includes “all,” and “all” includes the word “any.”

D. “Basic Dissemination Data” means all of the following information about each

version of an Advertisement: (i) how it was disseminated; (ii) when it was disseminated; (iii) the 

total number disseminated; (iv) where it was disseminated; and (v) the identity and contact 

information of the individuals or entities that disseminated the Advertisements. 

E. “Bioavailable” means the availability of a substance to be absorbed and used by

the human body. 

F. “Respondents” mean Health Research Laboratories, LLC; Whole Body

Supplements, LLC; and Kramer Duhon, either individually or collectively. 

G. “Document” or “Documents” mean the complete original and any nonidentical copy (whether different from the original because of notations on the copy or 

otherwise), regardless of origin or location, of any written, typed, printed, transcribed, filmed, 

punched, or graphic matter of every type and description, however and by whomever prepared, 

produced, disseminated or made, including, but not limited to, any advertisement, book, 

pamphlet, periodical, contract, correspondence, file, invoice, memorandum, note, telegram, 

report, record, handwritten note, working paper, routing slip, chart, graph, paper, index, map, 

tabulation, manual, guide, outline, script, abstract, history, calendar, diary, agenda, minute, 

code book or label. “Document” shall also include all Electronically Stored Information. 

H. “Each” includes “every,” and “every” includes “each.”

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 38 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
I. “Electronically Stored Information” or “ESI” mean the complete original and 

any non-identical copy (whether different from the original because of notations, different 

metadata, or otherwise), regardless of origin or location, of any writings, drawings, graphs, 

charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any 

electronic medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after 

You translate it into a reasonably usable form. This includes, but is not limited to, email, text, 

instant messaging, videoconferencing, social media, and other electronic correspondence 

(whether active, archived, or in a deleted items folder), metadata, word processing files, 

spreadsheets, databases, and recordings, whether stored on: cards; magnetic or electronic tapes; 

disks; computer hard drives, network shares or servers, or other drives; cloud-based platforms; 

cell phones, PDAs, computer tablets, or other mobile devices; or other storage media. 

J. “Identified Product” and “Identified Products” means Black Garlic Botanicals, 

BG18 (also known as BG-18), The Ultimate Heart Formula, and Neupathic, either individually 

or collectively. 

K. “State the Basis” means explain with sufficient detail that Complaint Counsel 

can rely on Your answer, before and during the hearing in this matter, as providing a sufficiently 

comprehensive response to avoid surprise with respect to the subject the Interrogatory addresses. 

L. “Substantiation” means any evidence establishing that a claim is true or 

evidence providing a reasonable basis for a claim. 

M. “Substantiation Materials” means any information that You rely on to 

substantiate any of the Subject Claims, including but not limited to tests, reports, studies, clinical 

trials, experiments, demonstrations, scientific literature, written opinions, anecdotal evidence, 

and any other information You contend an expert in the scientific community would rely upon. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 39 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
N. “Subject Claims” means the claims identified in paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 

18 and 20 of the Complaint issued in this matter. 

O. “You” or “Your” means Health Research Laboratories, LLC; Whole Body 

Supplements, LLC; Kramer Duhon, either individually or collectively. 

INSTRUCTIONS

A. Duty to Supplement. These Interrogatories require supplemental responses. 16 

C.F.R. § 3.31(e). 

B. Return Date. Your response is due thirty days after service. 

C. Answer Form. You must answer each Interrogatory separately, in writing, and 

under oath. Your response should set forth the Interrogatory fully preceding each answer. 

D. Period Covered. Unless otherwise specified, no Interrogatory is limited in time. 

E. Scope. The Interrogatories cover information in the possession, custody, or 

control of Respondents, Your attorneys, accountants, agents, affiliates, directors, officers, 

consultants, employees, contractors, bailees, other representatives, or any other person or entity 

from whom You can obtain such Documents by demand, request, or otherwise. 

F. Reference to Documents. If You answer an Interrogatory with reference to 

Documents, Your answer must attach the Document (or identify it by Bates number if already 

produced), and refer to specific responsive section and page. 16 C.F.R. § 3.35(c). 

G. Waiver. Any objection You fail to raise through Your initial response is waived. 

H. Objections. If You object to any Interrogatory or a part thereof, Your response 

must provide Your exact objection and the facts upon which You base the objection. If you 

object to part of an Interrogatory, You must answer the remainder fully. If You object to an 

Interrogatory or part thereof as allegedly irrelevant, You must provide all responsive information 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 40 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
that You concede is relevant. If You object to an Interrogatory or part thereof as unduly 

burdensome, You must describe any alleged burden a response would entail. 

I. Privilege Claims. If You object to any Interrogatory based on privilege or any 

similar claim, You must assert the claim no later than the return date for these Interrogatories. 

Your response must include the basis for the privilege or similar claim, and any responsive 

information that Your objection does not cover. 

J. Notice. If any party files any dispositive motion, or at the commencement of the 

hearing, Complaint Counsel may move to preclude You from offering evidence regarding 

responsive matters Your answers to these Interrogatories fail to include. 

Dated: Dec. 22, 2020 /s/ Elizabeth J. Averill 

 ELIZABETH J. AVERILL 

JONATHAN COHEN

 Federal Trade Commission

Division of Enforcement 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mailstop CC-9528 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2993, eaverill@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-2551, jcohen2@ftc.gov

(202) 326-3197 (Fax) 

 Complaint Counsel 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 41 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this date, the foregoing was served via email on Respondents’ 

counsel. 

Joel W. Reese

Joshua M. Russ 

Reese Marketos LLP

750 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 600 

Dallas, TX 75201-3201 

joel.reese@rm-firm.com

josh.russ@rm-firm.com

Dated: December 22, 2020 

/s/ Elizabeth J. Averill 

 ELIZABETH J. AVERILL

Federal Trade Commission

Division of Enforcement 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite CC-9528

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2993, eaverill@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3197 (Fax) 

 Complaint Counsel 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 42 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

Exhibit C

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 43 of 67 | PUBLIC
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

COMMISSIONERS: Joseph J. Simons, Chairman 

 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’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINT 

COUNSEL’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

 Respondents Health Research Laboratories, LLC (“HRL”), Whole Body 

Supplements, LLC (“WBS”) and Kramer Duhon (collectively, “Respondents”) provide the 

following Objections and RESPONSE to Complaint Counsel’s First Requests for 

Production as required by Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.37. 

OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS

Respondents object to the production of privileged attorney client communications 

and privileged work product. Respondents will interpret the requests as seeking nonprivileged documents. 

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

1. Produce a copy of each unique Advertisement for every Identified Product 

disseminated on or after January 17, 2018, Documents sufficient to establish Basic 

Dissemination Data for each such Advertisement, and all Documents Related To the 

content, development, analysis, review or approval of such Advertisements. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 44 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
2

RESPONSE: Respondents object to the request for “all Documents Related to the content, 

development, analysis, review or approval of such Advertisements” because this request is 

overly broad, because it fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable 

particularity, and because it seeks documents privileged by the attorney client privilege and 

the work product privilege. Non-privileged documents will be produced. Privileged 

attorney client communications and work product will not be produced.

2. Produce all Documents constituting or reflecting Communications Related 

To any Identified Product with any Subject Third Party. 

RESPONSE: Respondents object to producing any privileged communications. Nonprivileged documents will be produced. 

3. Produce all Scientific and Efficacy Information Related To any of the 

Subject Claims. 

RESPONSE: Documents responsive to this request will be produced.

4. Produce physical samples of each Physical Product shipped or delivered to 

consumers on or after January 17, 2018. 

RESPONSE: Items responsive to this request will be produced. 

5. Produce Documents sufficient to establish the formulation of each 

Identified Product including (i) the exact type and dosage of the ingredients that You 

expected each Identified Product would contain; (ii) the exact type and dosage of the 

ingredients each Identified Product actually contained when shipped to consumers; and 

(iii) testing, measurements or analysis of any sort Related To either of the foregoing. 

RESPONSE: Documents responsive to this request will be produced.

6. Produce all Documents Related To whether and how an Identified 

Product, or any ingredient therein, is absorbed or used by the human body after the 

Identified Product is taken orally. 

RESPONSE: Documents responsive to this request will be produced.

7. Produce Documents sufficient to establish the volume of sales of each 

Identified Product, and the Net Revenue from such sales, on or after January 17, 2018. 

RESPONSE: Documents responsive to this request will be produced.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 45 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
3

8. Produce all Documents Related To any defenses You intend to assert in 

this matter. 

RESPONSE: Respondents object to this request because it is overly broad, because it 

seeks privileged documents, and because it does not identify any requested document 

with specificity. Respondents will produce non-privileged documents. 

9. Produce all Documents constituting or reflecting Communications with 

Your customers on or after January 17, 2018 Related To the efficacy or lack of efficacy 

of any Identified Product.

RESPONSE: Documents responsive to this request will be produced.

10. Produce a Customer List. 

RESPONSE: Documents responsive to this request will be produced.

11. Produce all Documents You rely on, or refer to, in any answer to any 

Interrogatory in this matter. 

RESPONSE: Documents responsive to this request will be produced. 

Dated: January 21, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

REESE MARKETOS LLP 

By: /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

Texas Bar No. 00788258 

joel.reese@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 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 46 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.37, copy of this document was served on 

Complaint Counsel on January 21, 2021 via electronic mail: 

Elizabeth J. Averill 

Jonathan Cohen 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, CC-9528

Washington, DC 20580 

202.326.2993

eaverill@ftc.gov 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

 /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 47 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

Exhibit D

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 48 of 67 | PUBLIC
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

COMMISSIONERS: Joseph J. Simons, Chairman 

 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’ OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO COMPLAINT 

COUNSEL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

 Respondents Health Research Laboratories, LLC (“HRL”), Whole Body 

Supplements, LLC (“WBS”) and Kramer Duhon (collectively, “Respondents”) provide the 

following Objections and Answers to Complaint Counsel’s First Set of Interrogatories as 

required by Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.31. 

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

1. Specify every Document that constitutes Substantiation Material including

its Bates number and the date You first possessed the Document. 

ANSWER: Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c) and (d), Defendants object to this Request 

because it seeks to require Respondents to marshal all of their evidence and because it is 

unnecessarily burdensome. Respondents are the in the process of producing “every 

Document that constitutes Substantiation Material.” Complaint Counsel can answer this 

interrogatory by reviewing and compiling the information from the documents produced. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 49 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
2

2. State the exact type and dosages of the ingredients that You expected each 

Identified Product would contain when consumed and, if different, the exact type and 

dosages of the ingredients each Identified Product actually contained when shipped to 

consumers.

ANSWER: Respondents expected the type and dosages of the ingredients that each 

Identified Product would contain when consumed would be the same as the exact types 

and dosages referenced in the Complaint. Per the FTC’s request, samples of each 

Identified Product are being produced. 

3. Provide Basic Dissemination Data for each unique Advertisement for each 

Identified Product disseminated on or after January 17, 2018.

ANSWER: Please see Basic Dissemination Data spreadsheet in the document production.

4. If You deny paragraph 14 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in 

part, State the Basis for Your denial. 

ANSWER: Respondents object to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and improper. Kramer Duhon disagrees that he represented any of the items 

in paragraph 14. HRL and Kramer Duhon both disagree that the advertisements 

represented any of the items in paragraphs (a) through (e).

5. If You deny paragraph 15 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in 

part, State the Basis for Your denial. 

ANSWER: First, as explained in the previous answer, Respondents disagree that they 

made the representations in the manner characterized by the FTC. Second, with regard to 

any statements or claims actually made by the advertisements, Respondents believe that 

the statements and claims are supported by the materials provided to the FTC. 

6. If You contend that some or all of the claims in paragraph 7 of the

Complaint in this matter have Substantiation, State the Basis for that contention with 

respect to each claim You contend has Substantiation, including identifying all 

Substantiation Materials.

ANSWER: Respondents object to this Request. The Request identifies an advertisement 

and then requests that Respondents “State the Basis” for the contention that “each claim” 

has “Substantiation.” Defendants object to this Request because it seeks to require 

Respondents to marshal all of their evidence and because it is unnecessarily burdensome. 

Respondents are in the process of producing the Substantiation Material, which 

Respondents believe is already in the FTC’s possession. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 50 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
3

7. If You deny paragraph 16 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in

part, State the Basis for Your denial. 

ANSWER: Respondents object to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and improper. Kramer Duhon disagrees that he represented any of the items 

in paragraph 16. HRL and Kramer Duhon both disagree that the advertisements 

represented any of the items in paragraphs (a) through (e).

8. If You deny paragraph 17 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in

part, State the Basis for Your denial. 

ANSWER: First, as explained in the previous answer, Respondents disagree that they 

made the representations in the manner characterized by the FTC. Second, with regard to 

any statements or claims actually made by the advertisements, Respondents believe that 

the statements and claims are supported by the materials provided to the FTC. 

9. If You contend that some or all of the claims in paragraph 9 of the

Complaint in this matter have Substantiation, State the Basis for that contention with 

respect to each claim You contend has Substantiation, including identifying all 

Substantiation Materials.

ANSWER: Respondents object to this Request. The Request identifies an advertisement 

and then requests that Respondents “State the Basis” for the contention that “each claim” 

has “Substantiation.” Defendants object to this Request because it seeks to require 

Respondents to marshal all of their evidence and because it is unnecessarily burdensome. 

Respondents are in the process of producing the Substantiation Material, which 

Respondents believe is already in the FTC’s possession. 

10. If You deny paragraph 18 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in

part, State the Basis for Your denial. 

ANSWER: Respondents object to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and improper. Kramer Duhon disagrees that he represented any of the items 

in paragraph 18. HRL and Kramer Duhon both disagree that the advertisements 

represented any of the items in paragraphs (a) through (e).

11. If You deny paragraph 19 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in

part, State the Basis for Your denial. 

ANSWER: First, as explained in the previous answer, Respondents disagree that they 

made the representations in the manner characterized by the FTC. Second, with regard to 

any statements or claims actually made by the advertisements, Respondents believe that 

the statements and claims are supported by the materials provided to the FTC. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 51 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
4

12. If You contend that some or all of the claims in paragraph 11 of the

Complaint in this matter have Substantiation, State the Basis for that contention with 

respect to each claim You contend has Substantiation, including identifying all 

Substantiation Materials.

ANSWER: Respondents object to this Request. The Request identifies an advertisement 

and then requests that Respondents “State the Basis” for the contention that “each claim” 

has “Substantiation.” Defendants object to this Request because it seeks to require 

Respondents to marshal all of their evidence and because it is unnecessarily burdensome. 

Respondents are in the process of producing the Substantiation Material, which 

Respondents believe is already in the FTC’s possession. 

13. If You deny paragraph 20 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in 

part, State the Basis for Your denial. 

ANSWER: Respondents object to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and improper. Kramer Duhon disagrees that he represented any of the items 

in paragraph 20. HRL and Kramer Duhon both disagree that the advertisements 

represented any of the items in paragraph (a). 

14. If You deny paragraph 21 of the Complaint in this matter, in whole or in 

part, State the Basis for Your denial. 

ANSWER: First, as explained in the previous answer, Respondents disagree that they 

made the representations in the manner characterized by the FTC. Second, with regard to 

any statements or claims actually made by the advertisements, Respondents believe that 

the statements and claims are supported by the materials provided to the FTC. 

15. If You contend that some or all of the claims in paragraph 13 of the

Complaint in this matter have Substantiation, State the Basis for that contention with 

respect to each claim You contend has Substantiation, including identifying all 

Substantiation Materials.

ANSWER: Respondents object to this Request. The Request identifies an advertisement 

and then requests that Respondents “State the Basis” for the contention that “each claim” 

has “Substantiation.” Defendants object to this Request because it seeks to require 

Respondents to marshal all of their evidence and because it is unnecessarily burdensome. 

Respondents are in the process of producing the Substantiation Material, which 

Respondents believe is already in the FTC’s possession. 

16. If You currently contend that the Identified Products (including any of

their active ingredients) are Bioavailable after ingestion by consumers, State The Basis for

Your contention.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 52 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
5

ANSWER: Products are essentially equivalent to the ingredients in the produced studies. 

17. Identify each person You intend to call at the hearing in this matter

including contact information and the subjects his or her testimony will address.

ANSWER: 

Rick Cohen

Kramer Duhon 

Kyle Duhon 

Curtis Walker 

Plus, Respondents intend to call any witnesses called by the FTC, including any witnesses 

deposed by the FTC or the Respondents. 

18. If You contend that Kramer Duhon is not responsible for the conduct of

other Respondents in this action, State the Basis for Your contention.

ANSWER: Respondents object to this interrogatory because it seeks a legal opinion or 

legal conclusion, which Respondents are not required to provide. From a factual 

perspective, Respondents contend that the alleged conduct of Kramer Duhon is not a legal 

basis for the FTC to seek the relief that it seeks against him. 

19. Identify all affirmative defenses You intend to raise in this matter.

ANSWER: 

Requested Relief Exceeds Statutory Authorization: Section 5 of the FTC Act only grants 

the Commission the legal authority to enter an “order requiring such person, partnership, 

or corporation to cease and desist from using such method of competition or such act or 

practice.” 15 U.S.C. § 45(b). The FTC’s Administrative Complaint does not make a proper 

request for relief consistent with the FTC Act. Instead, the FTC requests relief that exceeds 

the authority granted to the FTC under the FTC Act. Respondents object to any Order that 

includes any findings, statements, or relief that exceeds the statutory authority granted by 

the FTC Act.

Mootness and Lack of Statutory Authority: The causes of action alleged in the Complaint 

are barred by mootness because all alleged conduct (i.e., marketing and advertising) 

referenced in the Complaint ceased more than year prior to the filing of the Complaint and 

will not reoccur in the future. The FTC has alleged no facts regarding a likelihood of 

reoccurrence. Further, the FTC Act does not grant the FTC the authority to seek a cease 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 53 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
6

and desist order for conduct that ceased prior to the Administrative Complaint without 

evidence that the conduct will likely reoccur in the future. 

Not in the public interest: Neither the filing of the administrative action nor the 

contemplated relief is in the public interest as required by 15 U.S.C. § 45. 

Violation of the United States Constitution: The FTC’s administrative process violates the 

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it seeks to deny Respondents 

of property and rights without due process of law. Further, the FTC receives its authority 

through Article II of the United States Constitution. The FTC’s structure violates and is 

inconsistent with Article II of the United States Constitution because the Commissioners

and the Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) can only be removed by the President for 

“inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” which means that the 

Commissioners and the ALJs are not subject to the supervision and authority of the 

President.

De Novo Review of Factual Findings Violates of the United States Constitution: Even 

though the Commissioners do not hear live testimony from witnesses, the Commissioners 

conduct a de novo review of the ALJ’s factual findings. This de novo review of the ALJ’s 

factual findings violates the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure 

Act.

Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel: The actions alleged in the Administrative Complaint 

are barred under the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel due to the January 

16, 2018 Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction and Other 

Equitable Relief (“Final Judgment”) and/or the August 12, 2020 Order in Case No. 2:17-

cv-00467-JDL, styled Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Health Research Laboratories, 

LLC, et al, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. 

Consent Judgment Settlement: The actions alleged in the Administrative Complaint are 

barred due to the settlement as referenced in the Final Judgment. 

Fails as a matter of law: The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. 

No Vicarious Liability and No Direct Liability: The Complaints’ claims against Kramer 

Duhon are barred because Duhon is not responsible for the conduct of the other 

Respondents.

Respondents reserve the right to supplement this response as additional discovery is 

conducted.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 54 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
7

Dated: January 21, 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 SERVICE 

I certify that, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.31, a copy of this document was served on 

Complaint Counsel on January 21, 2021 via electronic mail: 

Elizabeth J. Averill 

Jonathan Cohen 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, CC-9528

Washington, DC 20580 

202.326.2993

eaverill@ftc.gov 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

 /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 55 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

Exhibit E

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 56 of 67 | PUBLIC
From: Joel Reese

To: Averill, Elizabeth

Cc: Dee Dee Carr; Cohen, Jonathan; Hall Ann; Welby, Grant

Subject: Re: Dkt. 9397 - Document production?

Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 10:12:51 AM

Liz:

We will have additional productions. We haven’t finished the review, but should have it done

in the next two weeks.

Reese Marketos LLP

Joel W. Reese

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600

Dallas, Texas 75201 | Direct: (214) 382-9801 | Main: (214) 382-9810

www.rm-firm.com

On Jan 25, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Averill, Elizabeth <eaverill@ftc.gov> wrote:

Grant tells me we received notice of the production from Mr. Kinney within moments

of when I sent the email to you, so I wanted to update that it looks like the documents

have been uploaded.

From: Averill, Elizabeth

Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 10:03 AM

To: Dee Dee Carr <deedee.carr@rm-firm.com>; Joel Reese <joel.reese@rm-firm.com>

Cc: Cohen, Jonathan <jcohen2@ftc.gov>; Hall Ann <ann.hall@rm-firm.com>; Welby,

Grant <gwelby@ftc.gov>

Subject: Dkt. 9397 - Document production?

Joel,

We still have not received your first document production.

Please send the physical product samples via FedEx or UPS to the address below. 

Please do not send them to us via USPS.

Elizabeth Averill

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailstop CC-9528

Washington, DC 20580

We expect to send copies of subpoena productions to Ms. Carr later this afternoon. 

Liz

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 57 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
From: Dee Dee Carr <deedee.carr@rm-firm.com>

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:53 PM

To: Averill, Elizabeth <eaverill@ftc.gov>

Cc: Joel Reese <joel.reese@rm-firm.com>; Cohen, Jonathan <jcohen2@ftc.gov>; Hall

Ann <ann.hall@rm-firm.com>; Welby, Grant <gwelby@ftc.gov>

Subject: Re: FTC v. HRL; Discovery Responses

I’ll talk to Jeff Kenney about handling this.

Dee Dee Carr

(214) 382-9808

On Jan 22, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Averill, Elizabeth <eaverill@ftc.gov>

wrote:

Ms. Carr,

We have not received the document production yet. Grant Welby will

send you another SFTP link directly. My understanding is that SFTP links

won’t work when the original recipient forwards the link to someone else.

Thank you.

From: Dee Dee Carr <deedee.carr@rm-firm.com>

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 11:52 AM

To: Averill, Elizabeth <eaverill@ftc.gov>

Cc: Joel Reese <joel.reese@rm-firm.com>; Cohen, Jonathan

<jcohen2@ftc.gov>; Hall Ann <ann.hall@rm-firm.com>; Welby, Grant

<gwelby@ftc.gov>

Subject: Re: FTC v. HRL; Discovery Responses

Good morning, I’m re-sending via your ftp site now. Please confirm

once recieved.

Good Day

Dee Dee Carr

(214) 382-9808

On Jan 22, 2021, at 8:00 AM, Jeff Kinney

<Jkinney@digitalverdict.com> wrote:

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 58 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
Please do.

From: Averill, Elizabeth <eaverill@ftc.gov>

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 8:00 AM

To: Jeff Kinney <jkinney@digitalverdict.com>; Joel Reese

<joel.reese@rm-firm.com>; Cohen, Jonathan

<jcohen2@ftc.gov>

Cc: Hall Ann <ann.hall@rm-firm.com>; Dee Dee Carr

<deedee.carr@rm-firm.com>; Welby, Grant

<gwelby@ftc.gov>

Subject: RE: FTC v. HRL; Discovery Responses

Joel and Mr. Kinney,

We are unfortunately not permitted to download

documents from any type of outside document sharing site

or dropbox. However, we can easily send you a secure file

transfer link to transfer the files. Mr. Kinney - Should we

email that link to you?

Liz

From: Jeff Kinney <jkinney@digitalverdict.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 8:25 PM

To: Joel Reese <joel.reese@rm-firm.com>; Cohen, Jonathan

<jcohen2@ftc.gov>; Averill, Elizabeth <eaverill@ftc.gov>

Cc: Hall Ann <ann.hall@rm-firm.com>; Dee Dee Carr

<deedee.carr@rm-firm.com>

Subject: RE: FTC v. HRL; Discovery Responses

Jonathan/Liz,

Below is a link to the production Joel referred to in the

previous email.

HRLAC_00001-HRLAC_03582

From: Joel Reese <joel.reese@rm-firm.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 5:21 PM

To: Cohen, Jonathan <jcohen2@ftc.gov>; Averill, Elizabeth

<eaverill@ftc.gov>

Cc: Hall Ann <ann.hall@rm-firm.com>; Jeff Kinney

<jkinney@digitalverdict.com>; Dee Dee Carr

<deedee.carr@rm-firm.com>

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 59 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
Subject: FTC v. HRL; Discovery Responses

Jonathan and Liz:

Attached are our responses to the FTC’s discovery requests. 

Jeff Kinney with Digital Verdict will be sending you a link for

documents.

Reese Marketos LLP

Joel W. Reese

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600

Dallas, Texas 75201 | Direct: (214) 382-9801 | Main: (214) 382-

9810

www.rm-firm.com

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 60 of PUBLIC 67 | PUBLIC
PUBLIC

Exhibit F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 61 of 67 | PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 62 of 67 | PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 63 of 67 | PUBLIC PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 64 of 67 | PUBLIC PUBLIC
PUBLIC

Exhibit G

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 65 of 67 | PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 

PUBLIC

66 of 67 | PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/30/2021 | OSCAR NO. 601091 | Page 67 of 67 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC