FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/29/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600570 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC, 

a limited liability company, 

DOCKET NO. 9397 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, 

a limited liability company, and 

KRAMER DUHON, 

individually and as an officer of HEALTH 

RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC and 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC 

RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE UNAUTHORIZED REPLY 

On January 28, 2021, Complaint Counsel filed a Motion to Strike, requesting that 

the Court strike the Reply filed on January 27, 2020. In the interests of judicial economy 

and to avoid delay and for the reasons stated below, the Court should deny the Motion to 

Strike. 

Brief Response 

Before filing the Motion for Acceptance of Contested Stipulated Cease-and-Desist 

Order (“Motion”), Respondents’ counsel provided Complaint Counsel with a copy of the 

draft Motion so that, if there were certain issues regarding the proposed cease-and-desist 

order that were important to the FTC, those issues could be addressed. Complaint 

Counsel raised a couple of concerns including that concerns the proposed stipulation (a) 

1 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/29/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600570 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

permits ongoing sales of the products; and (b) permits the advertising of virtually identical 

products. See Ex. A to the Motion. To address these issues, Respondents asked if there 

was any language that Complaint Counsel would propose to alleviate these concerns. See 

Ex. A to Motion. Complaint Counsel refused to provide any language. See Ex. A to the 

Motion. Despite this fact, Respondents revised the proposed order to (a) prohibit all 

future sales of the four supplements at issue; and (b) prohibit all advertising or marketing 

for not only the four products at issue, but also any substantially similar products. See 

Motion, p. 3. 

In the Response, Complaint Counsel raised numerous arguments, some of which 

were never addressed in the extensive meet-and-confer session and emails prior to the 

filing of the Motion. Compare Ex. A to Motion to Response. For that reason, 

Respondents addressed the issues raised by Complaint Counsel in a reply. Some of the 

issues in the Reply are issues that are important for the Court to consider when 

considering Complaint Counsel’s arguments against the Motion, including (a) the fact 

that the Commission refused the filing initially because it was filed with the “wrong 

decision maker” (i.e., the Commission and not the OALJ); (b) the clarification that the 

Motion seeks to have the Court “recommend” a cease-and-desist order to the 

Commission, as opposed to issuing the Order directly; and (c) the fact that Complaint 

Counsel has stated in a letter—which is not in Complaint Counsel’s pleadings—that 

Complaint Counsel intends to prove a likelihood of reoccurrence of the alleged prohibited 

“act or practice.” See Reply, p. 6. Striking the Reply will only cause delay and 

2 
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/29/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600570 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

inefficiency because Respondents will be forced to address Complaint Counsel’s issues 

through another motion. It is more efficient for the parties and the Court to consider 

these issues through a single Motion, Response, Reply, and Surreply rather than through 

multiple motions. 

Finally, as Complaint Counsel acknowledges in the first sentence of the Response, 

the Motion is an “unusual request.” See Response, p. 1. This is not a discovery fight 

where Respondents are simply re-iterating common legal or factual issues. The Motion is 

an attempt to permit the limited relief provided by the FTCA and end this case without 

the expense, hassle, and time associated with further unnecessary administrative 

proceedings. Respondents have done nothing wrong and, if they had the unlimited 

budget of the United States Government, they would love to fight every allegation to the 

bitter end. But, Respondents stopped marketing the supplements at issue long before this 

case was initiated. Complaint Counsel’s effort to obtain a cease-and-desist order is a 

vindictive waste of time and government resources. For these reasons, Respondents 

respectfully request that the Court deny the Motion to Strike, but grant Complaint 

Counsel the right to file a Surreply. 

3 
 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/29/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600570 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

Dated: January 29, 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 

4 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/29/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600570 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 29, 2021, I filed the foregoing document 

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

April J. Tabor The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Acting Secretary Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

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

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

Elizabeth Averill 

eaverill@ftc.gov 

Jonathan Cohen 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL 

 /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

5