Judge sides with supplement maker in motion in Lyman Good’s lawsuit

September 6, 2019

The Court in the Lyman Good nutritional supplement lawsuit has granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss related to the issue of spoliation of evidence.  While the court will not outright dismiss the case, the order states that the jury may infer from the lack of evidence.  A trial date has yet to be set.

Order on Motion to Dismiss … by Jason Cruz on Scribd

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York heard oral arguments on August 19th on the Motion to Dismiss from defendants Gaspari Nutrition and Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals.  The Court make a quick ruling by granting in part defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the same day.  Defendants had requested that the Court dismiss the case due to the spoliation of evidence – a missing bottle of Anavite which Good claims was contaminated and per defendants’ is the key piece of evidence in the lawsuit.  The request to dismiss the case is one of the potential penalties under the rules of civil procedure if a party does not provide evidence to another.  It is the most severe of the penalties. In addition, defendants originally requested the Good’s attorney, David Fish, recuse himself from the case since he could be a potential witness (i.e., Good claimed he gave the bottle to Fish but Fish stated that he no longer had it).  But defendants seemed to back off this claim.


Defendants also pointed out that the bottle in question was not listed in Good’s list of supplements he was taking to USADA.

Defendants’ Motion also shows its request to Good and his attorney for the bottle in question. The below correspondence which was attached to the Motion from defendants shows a bottle they received but not the subject Anavite.

There is no real opinion as to what the Court dismissed of the claims that Good set forth or whether this was a general granting that plaintiff and his counsel mishandled the evidence.  The ruling seems to imply that a jury could not side with Good based on the lack of evidence and/or the defendants would have a necessary advantage since they would be allowed to argue that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the product was contaminated because plaintiff does not have the product.

Payout Perspective:

This case shows that not every fighter that sues a supplement maker will receive $27 million dollars like Yoel Romero (or at least receive a judgment for that amount).  There is no trial date set but one would imagine that Good will look to settle or defendants will go for the kill here.  In speculating on the granting of defendants’ motion without a written opinion, one has to believe that the Judge does not believe that a jury will be able to find in favor of Good without the evidence.

Defendants’ Motion to D… by Jason Cruz on Scribd

Motion to Dismiss – Opposition by Jason Cruz on Scribd

Motion to Dismiss – Reply B… by Jason Cruz on Scribd

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.