ORIGINA.L PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF 
 AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

Ardagh Group S.A., 

a public limited liability company, and
 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, a corporation, DOCKET NO. 9356


and 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a corporation. 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY FROM
 

WITNESSES THAT RESPONDENTS ADDED TO THEIR FINAL WITNESS LIST BUT
 

FAILED TO DISCLOSE ON THEIR PRELIMINARY WITNESS LIST
 

Complaint Counsel respectfully moves in limine to exclude testimony from those 

witnesses that Respondents added to their Final Witness List but failed to disclose on their 

Preliminary Witness List: Respondents' executives Paul Coulson, Robert Ganter, Michael 

Leahy, Jarrell A. Reeves, J. Steven Rhea, Kenneth Wilkes, and the unidentified 

"representative(s) of the financial buyer of 
 any divested assets" (collectively, the "Newly Added 

Witnesses"). Disregarding the Scheduling Order governing this case, Respondents added these 

witnesses to their Final Witness List without advance notice to, or consent from, Complaint 

Counsel, without an Order from this Court, and without demonstrating good cause for the 

additions. Respondents' failure to notify Complaint Counsel of their intent to add these 

witnesses before the close of discovery denied Complaint Counsel the opportunity to take 

discovery regarding the Newly Added Witnesses' expected trial testimony. 

1 
PUBLIC
 

Respondents' Final Witness List also includes over 35 third parties, and in each case, in 

addition to the identified witness from that third part, Respondents include "and/or a 

representative of (third part name) knowledgeable regarding (third part's) strategy and 

practices relating to beer (or spirits) containers" (together with the unidentified financial buyer, 

the "Unidentified Witnesses"). Complaint Counsel also moves to exclude testimony from any 

such Unidentified Witnesses. Permitting testimony from the Newly Added and Unidentified 

Witnesses at trial would unduly prejudice Complaint Counsel's case. 

I. The Court Should Exclude Testimony from the Newly Added Witnesses and the
 

Unidentified Witnesses Because Respondents Have Disregarded This Court's Order 

Respondents have disregarded this Court's explicit order about witness additions. The 

August 2,2013 Scheduling Order ("August 2nd Order") provided witness list submission 

deadlines and procedures for adding new witnesses. The October 18, 2013 Revised Scheduling 

Order ("October 18th Order") provided new deadlines for certain submissions and explicitly 

incorporated the Additional Provisions of 
 the August 2nd Order by reference.! The August 2nd 

Order required Respondents to provide a preliminary witness list to Complaint Counsel by 

August 16,2013.2 The October 18th Order required Respondents to produce a final witness list 

to Complaint Counsel by November 18,2013, compliant with Additional Provision 15 of the 

August 2nd Order.3 Additional Provision 15 provides that: 

Parties shall notify the opposing part promptly of changes in witness lists to 

facilitate completion of discovery within the dates of 
 the scheduling order. The 

final proposed witness list may not include additional witnesses not listed in the 

preliminary witness lists previously exchanged unless by consent of all parties, or, 

if the parties do not consent, by an order of the Administrative Law Judge upon a 

showing of good cause.4 

i Exhibit 1 (October 18th Order at 4) ("All Additional Provisions to the August 2,2013 Order Remain in effect.").
 

2 Exhibit 2 (August 2nd Order at 1).
 

3 Exhibit i (October 18th Order at 2, 4).
 

4 Exhibit 2 (August 2nd Order at 7).
 

2
 
PUBLIC
 

Respondents have failed to comply with any of these requirements. Respondents provided their 

Preliminary Witness List to Complaint Counsel on August 20,2013, four days after the Court's 

deadline established in the August 2nd Order.5 Respondents chose not to include the Newly 

Added Witnesses on their Preliminary Witness List. On November 18,2013, Respondents 

provided Complaint Counsel with their Final Witness List that, for the first time, included the 

Newly Added Witnesses.6 

Respondents also disregarded the Court's explicit instructions for adding witnesses set 

forth in Additional Provision 15. Respondents failed to "notify the opposing part promptly of 

any changes in witness lists."? Indeed, Respondents provided no notice to Complaint Counsel of 

their intent to include additional witnesses on their Final Witness List. In fact, this twelfth-hour 

change came nearly two months after the September 23rd close of discovery.8 This scenario is 

precisely what Additional Provision 15 seeks to prevent by requiring prompt notice of witness 

additions in order "to facilitate completion of discovery within the dates of 
 the scheduling 

order." 

Neither Complaint Counsel nor this Court has consented to the addition of 
 the Newly 

Added Witnesses. Respondents chose not to seek "consent of all (the) parties" or "an order of 

the Administrative Law Judge" to include the Newly Added Witnesses.9 Nor have Respondents 

made a "showing of good cause," as required by Additional Provision 15, demonstrating why 

this Court should allow them to include the Newly Added Witnesses three months after they 

failed to include them on their Preliminary Witness List. 

5 See Exhibit 3 (Defendants' Preliminary Witness List, dated August 20, 2013).
 

6 See Exhibit 4 (Respondents' Final Witness List, dated November 18,2013).
 

7 Exhibit 2 (August 2nd Order, Additional Provision 15) (emphasis added).
 

8 Exhibit 2 (August 2nd Order at 1).
 

9 Exhibit 2 (August 2nd Order, Additional Provision 15).
 

3 
PUBLIC
 

Even had Respondents attempted to show good cause for the Newly Added Witnesses, 

such an attempt would have failed. As this Court recognized in In re Chicago Bridge & Iron 

Company, N V, "(g)ood cause is demonstrated if a part seeking to extend a deadline 

demonstrates that a deadline cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the part seeking 

the extension."lo Here, there is no reason why Respondents, exercising diligence, could not have 

included the Newly Added Witnesses on their Preliminary Witness List. In fact, the named 

Newly Added Witnesses are all high-level executives at either Ardagh or Saint-Gobain. 

Respondents, therefore, have known the significance of 
 these individuals' business roles, and 

thus, their potential as witnesses, since well before the Preliminary Witness List deadline. 

Similarly, Respondents have contemplated divesting assets in an effort to resolve the 

transaction's anticompetitive effects since at least July 2, 2013, when Respondents first 

approached Complaint Counsel to discuss possible divestitures. If 
 Respondents wanted to 

preserve their right to call the "(r)epresentative(s) of a financial buyer of any divested assets," 

they had well over a month to add these persons to their Preliminary Witness List. Accordingly, 

no good cause exists for Respondents' failure to disclose the Newly Added Witnesses on their 

Preliminary Witness List. ii 

Respondents' Final Witness List also lists individual executives from 35 third parties, 

each of whom was deposed during the discovery period. But for each of 
 those third parties, in 

addition to listing the executive who was deposed, Respondents also include "and/or a 

10 In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., N. v., FTC Dkt. 9300, Order on Respondents' Motion to Strke Witnesses at 3 

(Oct. 23, 2002) (citing Bradford v. Dana Corp, 249 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir 2001); Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 

F.3d 1417, 1418 (1Ith Cir. 1998); Fed R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee Notes (1983 Amendment)). In Chicago 

Bridge & Iron, this Court ruled that Complaint Counsel could not present testimony from two witnesses who were 

omitted from Complaint Counsel's preliminar witness list but inCluded on their final witness list, because 

Complaint Counsel failed to demonstrate good cause for adding the witnesses to the final list. 11 Moreover, as set forth in Complaint Counsel's Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence of Respondents' 

Possible Divestitures to Undetermined Third-Par Buyers, although the trial ofthis matter is scheduled to 

commence in 15 days, Respondents have not signed a contract to divest assets; indeed, they have not even identified 

who the mysterious divestiture buyer, if any, wil be. 

4
 
PUBLIC
 

representative of(third party name) knowledgeable regarding (third part's) strategy and 

practices relating to beer (or spirits) containers." Complaint Counsel has no objection to 

Respondents eliciting testimony from third part witnesses who were identified and deposed 

during the discovery period and are now listed on Respondents' Final Witness List. But to the 

extent Respondents now seek to adduce testimony from other unidentified "representatives" of 

those third parties, the time to identify those witnesses and notify counsel that they would be 

added to Respondents' witness list has long-since passed.12 

This Court should not reward Respondents' disregard for this Court's deadlines and 

procedures for adding new witnesses, and Complaint Counsel should not be expected to crossexamine witnesses who, two months after the close of 
 fact discovery, have yet to be identified. 

Permitting Respondents to amend their witness list at this late date would unfairly prejudice 

Complaint Counsel's case. 

II. Complaint Counsel Would Be Prejudiced by Inclusion of Additional Witnesses Not 

Listed on Respondents' Preliminary Witness List 

Respondents' disregard of 
 this Court's deadlines and procedures has prejudiced 

Complaint Counsel's ability to take adequate discovery of 
 the Respondents' Newly Added or 

Unidentified Witnesses. Because Respondents did not disclose them as witnesses, Complaint 

Counsel's discovery relating to Paul Coulson, Jarrell Reeves, 1. Steven Rhea, and Kenneth 

Wilkes has been insuffcient. Complaint Counsel did not receive notice until the November 18th 

Final Witness List that Respondents intended to offer testimony from these witnesses at trial, and 

therefore conducted limited discovery and deposed these witnesses without any indication that 

they would testify at trial, much less the basic information required by this Court's Scheduling 

12 In re Basic Research LLC, FTC. Dkt. 9318, December 7,2005 Order on Complaint Counsel's Motion to Strike at 

2-3 (excluding Respondents from calling additional unidentified third-part representative). 

5 
PUBLIC
 

Order setting forth the topics that Respondents expect these witnesses would cover at triaL. In 

addition, Complaint Counsel did not depose Robert Ganter, and conducted a limited examination 

of Michael Leahy in his capacity as a corporate spokesman on specific topics, since 

Respondents did not disclose them as trial witnesses before the expiration of discovery. 

Complaint Counsel has not taken discovery of third-part Unidentified Witnesses. Finally,
 

Respondents' late identification of a stil unnamed "financial buyer" witness has doubly impeded 

Complaint Counsel's ability to conduct additional discovery. As Respondents have not reached 

any agreement to divest assets, or identified a buyer, Complaint Counsel remains unable to 

depose or conduct any discovery of this future person. 

Moreover, even now the testimony Respondents propose to elicit from these witnesses 

remains unclear. Respondents failed to comply with this Court's October 18th Order which 

requires Respondents to include a "brief summary of the testimony of each witness" with its 

Final Witness List.13 Respondents' Final Witness List, however, fails to include these 

summaries. For each Ardagh or Saint-Gobain employee listed, Respondents provide ajob title 

and a sweeping description of 
 the person's job responsibilities, with no summary or other 

indication of 
 what the witness' proposed trial testimony wil be.14 For example, Respondents 

describe Ardagh Chairman Paul Coulson's responsibilties as "overseeing Ardagh's 

management," providing no insight as to what myriad topics implicated in overseeing a major 

15 Respondents' glass and metal container company Mr. Coulson may testify about at triaL. 


descriptions of third-part witnesses are equally oblique. Each third-part witness description
 

13 Exhibit 1 (October 18th Order at 2); see also Exhibit 2 (August 2nd Order at 1) (similarly requiring that the 

Preliminary Witness List include "a brief summar of the proposed testimony").
 14 Exhibit 4 (Respondents' Final Witness List at 2).
 

15 Exhibit 4 (Respondents' Final Witness List at 2).
 

6
 
PUBLIC
 

consists of the name ofa company, the name and job title of one employeel6 of 
 that company, 

and a boilerplate statement that in addition to or instead of 
 the named employee, Respondents 

may call at trial another employee of 
 that company who is "knowledgeable regarding. . . 

strategies and practices related to . . . containers.,,17 These descriptions provide no insight 

whatsoever as to the specific topics about which each third-party witness wil testify, nor do they 

provide any information regarding the content of that testimony. 

Given Respondents' disregard of 
 the August 2nd and October 18th Scheduling Orders in 

an effort to add witnesses without the timely notice, consent, or good cause required, and in light 

of the resulting prejudice to Complaint Counsel's case, this Court should exclude the Newly 

Added Witnesses from testifying at triaL. As Judge McGuire recognized in In re Basic Research, 

LLC, "(a) scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 

disregarded by counsel without peril.,,18 

III. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, Complaint Counsel respectfully requests that the Court 

exclude the testimony of the Newly Added Witnesses. 

16 For MilerCoors and Boston Beer, Respondents name two employee witnesses. 

17 Exhibit 4 (Respondents' Final Witness List at 3-6).
 

18 In re Basic Research LLC, FTC. Dkt. 9318, December 7,2005 Order on Respondents' Motions to Exclude
 

Complaint Counsel Witnesses Heymsfield, Mazis, and Nunberg (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) in denying Respondents' untimely in limine motions). 

7
 
PUBLIC
 

Dated: December 4, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Edward D. Hassi 

EDWARD D. HASSI 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

Bureau of Competition 

Federal Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20580
 

Telephone: (202) 326-2470
 

Facsimile: (202) 326-3496
 

Electronic Mail: ehassi@ftc.gov 

8
 
PUBLIC
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

Ardagh Group S.A., 

a public limited liabilty company, and
 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, a corporation, DOCKET NO. 9356


and 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a corporation. 

(Proposed) ORDER 

After reviewing Complaint Counsel's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony from 

Witnesses That Respondents Added to Their Final Witness List But Failed to Disclose on Their 

Preliminary Witness List, it is ordered that Respondents may not offer testimony into evidence 

from the following witnesses listed in Respondents November 18,2013 Final Witness List: Paul 

Coulson, Robert Ganter, Michael Leahy, Jarrell A. Reeves, 1. Steven Rhea, Kenneth Wilkes, 

"representative(s) of the financial buyer of any divested assets," and any unidentified 

representatives of third parties.
 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: December _,2013 
PUBLIC
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

In the Matter of 

Ardagh Group S.A., 

a public limited liabilty company, and 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, a corporation, DOCKET NO. 9356

and 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a corporation. 

STATEMENT REGARING MEET AND CONFER
 

Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Scheduling Order, Complaint Counsel and Counsel for the 

Respondents met and conferred in good faith in an effort to resolve by agreement the issues 

raised in this motion and have been unable to reach such an agreement. 

Dated: December 4, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Edward Hassi 

EDWARD D. HASSI 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

Bureau of Competition 

Federal Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2470 

Facsimile: (202) 326-3496 

Electronic Mail: ehassi@ftc.gov 
PUBLIC
 

EXHIBIT 1
 
PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

) 

Ardagh Group S.A., ) 

a public limited liabilty company, and ) DOCKET NO. 9356 

Saint-Gobai Contaers, Inc., 

a corporation, and 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Compagne de Saint-Gobain, ) 

a corporation, ) 

Respondents. ) 

) 

REviSED SCHEDULING ORDER 

In accordance with the September 30, 2013 Commission Order and due to the parial 

shutdown of 
 the federal governent from October 1-16,2013, the remaining dates in the August 

2,2013 Scheduling Order are hereby revised as follows: 

October 29,2013	 Deadline for Complaint Counsel to provide expert witness report. 

November 1,2013	 Complaint Counsel provides to Respondents' Counsel its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, including depositions or 

designated portons thereof, copies of all exhibits (except for 

demonstrtive, ilustrtive or summary exhbits and expert related
 

exhbits), Complaint Counsel's basis of admissibilty for each 

proposed exhibit, and a brief sumary of the testimony of each 

witness. 

Complaint Counsel serves coUresy copies on ALI of its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, its basis of admissibilty for 

each proposed exhibit, and a brief sumar of the testimony of 

each witness, including its expert witnesses. 

November 15,2013 - Dealine for Respondents' Counsel to provide expert witness 

reports. Respondents' 
 expert report shall include (without 
November 18,2013 ­

November 19,2013 ­

November 25,2013
 

November 26,2013 ­

November 26,2013 ­

December 3,2013
 

December 4, 2013 

December 4,2013
 

December 5, 2013 

PUBLIC 

limitation) rebuttal, if any, to Complaint Counsel's expert witness 

report(s). 

Respondents' Counsel provides to Complaint Counsel its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, including depositions or 

designated portions thereof, copies of a11 exhibits (except for 

demonstrative, ilustrative or sumar exhibits and expert related 

exhibits), Respondents' basis of admissibilty for each proposed 

exhibit, and 
 a brief summar of the testimony of each witness. 

Respondents' Counsel serves couresy copies on ALJ its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, its basis of admissibilty for 

each proposed exhibit, and a brief sumar of the testimony of 

each witness, including its expert witnesses. 

Paries that intend to offer confdential materials of an opposing 

pary or non-part as evidence at the hearing must provide notice
 

to the opposing pary or non-pary, pursuat to 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). 

See Additional Provision 7. 

Exchange deposition transcript counter-designations. 

Complaint Counsel to identify rebuttal expert( s) and provide 

rebuttal expert report(s). Any such report are to be limited to 

rebuttal of matters set fort in Respondents' expert report. If
 

material outside the scope of fair rebutt is presented,
 

Respondents wil have the right to seek appropriate relief (such as 

striking Complaint Counsel's rebuttal expert reports or seeking 

leave to submit surbuttal expert reports on behalf of
 

Respondents). 

Deadline for filing motions for in camera treatment of proposed 

trial exhibits. 

Deadline for depositions of experts (including rebuttal experts) and 

exchange of expert related exhibits. 

Deadline for filing motions in limine to preclude admission of 

evidence. See Additional Provision 9.
 

Deadline for filing responses to motions for in camera treatment of 

proposed trial exhibits. 

Deadline for filing motions for in camera treatment of proposed 

expert related exhibits. 

2
 
PUBLIC 

December 11, 2013 Deadline for filing responses to motions in limine to preclude 

admissions of evidence. . 

December 11,2013 Exchange and serve courtesy copy on ALJ objections to final 

proposed witness lists and exhibit lists. 

December 11, 2013 Exchange objections to the designated testimony to be presented 

by deposition and counter-designations. 

December 12, 2013 Deadline for filing responses to motions for in camera treatment of 

proposed expert related exhibits. 

December 12, 2013 Complaint Counsel fies pretrial brief supported by legal authority. 

December 12, 2013 Exchange proposed stipulations oflaw, facts, and authenticity. 

December 13, 2013 Respondents' Counsel fies pretrial brief supported by legal 

authority. 

December 16, 2013 File final stipulations oflaw, facts, and authenticity. Any 

subsequent stipulations may be offered as agreed by the paries. 

December 17,2013 Final prehearing conference to begin at 10:00 a.m. in FTC 

Couroom, Room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 

Pennsylvana Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

The paries are to meet and confer prior to the conference 

regarding trial logistics and proposed stipulations of law, facts, and 

authenticity of exhibits and any designated deposition testimony. 

To the extent the paries stipulate to certain issues, the paries shall 

prepare a Joint Exhibit which lists the agreed stipulations. 

Counsel may present any objections to the final proposed witness 

lists and exhibits, including to any designated deposition 

testimony. Trial exhibits will be admitted or excluded to the extent 

practicable. To the extent the paries agree to the admission of 

each other's exhibits, the paries shall prepare a Joint Exhibit 

which lists the exhibits to which neither side objects. Any Joint 

Exhibit will be signed by each pary with no signatue for the judge 

required. 

December 19, 2013 Commencement of Hearng, to begin at 10:00 a.m. in FTC 

Couroom, Room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

3 
PUBLIC
 

All Additional Provisions to the August 2,2013 Scheduling Order remain in effect. 

ORDERED: ))M clfí-u 

D. Michael Cliappel 

Chief Adminstrative Law Judge 

Date: October 18, 2013 

4
 
PUBLIC
 

EXHIBIT 2
 
PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRTIVE LAW JUDGES
 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

Ardagh Group S.A., 

a public limited liabilty company, and 

) 

) 

) DOCKET NO. 9356 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a corporation, and 

) 

) 

) 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, 

a corporation, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

August 9, 2013	 Complaint Counsel provides preliminary witness list (not including 

experts) with a brief summar of 
 the proposed testimony. 

August 16,2013 Respondents' Counsel provides preliminary witness lists (not 

including experts) with a brief 	 summar of 
 the proposed testimony. 

August 20,2013 Complaint Counsel provides expert witness list. 

August 23,2013 Deadline for issuing document requests, interrogatories and 

subpoenas duces tecum, except for discovery for purposes of 

authenticity and admissibilty of exhibits. 

August 30, 2013 Respondents' Counsel provides expert witness list. 

Sel?tember 6, 2013	 Deadline for issuing requests for admissions, except for requests 

for admissions for purposes of authenticity and admissibilty of 

exhibits. 

September 23,2013 -	 Close of discovery, other than discovery permitted under Rule 

3.24(a)(4), depositions of experts, and discovery for puroses of 

authenticity and admissibilty of exhibits. 

September 23,2013 - Deadline for fiing '"(m)otions to dismiss filed before the 
PUBLIC
 

evidentiary hearing, motions to strke, and motions for 

summary decision" pursuant to Rule 3.22(a). 

October 4, 20 i 3 Deadline for Complaint Counsel to provide expert witness report. 

October 7,2013 Complaint Counsel provides to Respondents' Counsel its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, including depositions or 

designated portions thereof, copies of all exhibits (except for 

demonstrative, ilustrative or summar exhibits and expert related 

exhibits), Complaint Counsel's basis of admissibilty for each 

proposed exhibit, and a bnef summary of the testimony of each 

witness. 

Complaint Counsel serves couresy copies on AU of its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, its basis of admissibilty for 

each proposed exhibit, and a bnef summary of the testimony of 

each witness, including its expert witnesses. 

October 21,2013 Deadline for Respondents' Counsel to provide expert witness 

reports. Respondents' expert report shall include (without 

limitation) rebuttal, if any, to Complaint Counsel's expert witness 

report(s). 

October 23, 2013 Respondents' Counsel provides to Complaint Counsel its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, including depositions or 

designated portions thereof, copies of all exhibits (except for 

demonstrative, ilustrative or summar exhibits and expert related 

exhibits), Respondents' basis of admissibilty for each proposed 

exhibit, and a bnef summary of the testimony of each witness. 

Respondents' Counsel serves couresy copies on AU its fial 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, its basis of admissibilty for 

each proposed exhibit, and a bnef summary of the testimony of 

each witness, including its expert witnesses. 

October 24, 2013 Parties that intend to offer confidential matenals of an opposing 

pary or non-party as evidence at the hearng must provide notice 

to the opposing pary or non-party, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). 

See Additional Provision 7. 

October 28, 2013 Exchange deposition transcnpt counter-designations. 

October 31, 2013 Complaint Counsel to identify rebutttll expert(s) and provide 

rebuttal expert report(s). Any such reports are to be limited to 

rebuttal of matters set forth in Respondents' expert reports. If 

matena1 outside the scope of fair rebuttal is presented, 

2 
October 31,2013 

November 6, 2013 

November 7, 2013 

November 7,2013 

November 8, 2013 

November 14, 2013 

November 14, 2013 

i 

I November 14, 2013 .1 

November 15, 2013 

November 15,2013 

November 15, 2013 

November 19, 2013 

November 20,2013
 

November 21, 2013

PUBLIC 

Respondents will have the right to seek appropriate relief (such as 

striking Complaint Counsel's rebuttal expert reports or seeking 

leave to submit surrebuttal expert reports on behalf of 

Respondents). 

Deadline for filing motions for in camera treatment of proposed 

tral exhibits.
 

Deadline for depositions of experts (including rebuttal experts) and 

exchange of expert related exhibits. 

Deadline for filing motions in limine to preclude admission of 

evidence. See Additional Provision 9. 

Deadline for filing responses to motions for in camera treatment of 

proposed trial exhibits. 

Deadline for filing motions for in camera treatment of 
 proposed

expert related exhibits. 

Deadline for filing responses to motions in limine to preclude 

admissions of evidence. 

Exchange and serve courtesy copy on AU objections to final 

proposed witness lists and exhibit lists. 

Exchange objections to the designated testimony to be presented 

by deposition and counter-designations.
 

Deadline for filing responses to motions for in camera treatment of 

proposed expert related exhibits. 

Complaint Counsel fies pretrial brief supported by legal authority. 

Exchange proposed stipulations oflaw, facts, and authenticity. 

Respondents' Counsel fies pretrial brief supported by legal 

authority.
 

File final stipulations oflaw, facts, and authenticity. Any
 

subsequent stipulations may be offered as agreed by the paries.
 

Final prehearng conference to begin at 10:00 a.m. in FTC 

Courtoom, Room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

3 
PUBLIC 

The paries are to meet and confer prior to the conference 

regarding trial logistics and proposed stipulations oflaw, facts, and 

authenticity of exhibits and any designated deposition testimony. 

To the extent the parties stipulate to certain issues, the parties shall 

prepare a Joint Exhibit which lists the agreed stipulations. 

Counsel may present any objections to the final proposed witness 

lists and exhibits, including to any designated deposition 

testimony. Trial exhibits wil be admitted or excluded to the extent 

practicable. To the extent the paries agree to the admission of 

each other's exhibits, the parties shall prepare a Joint Exhibit 

which lists the exhibits to which neither side objects. Any Joint 

Exhibit wil be signed by each pary with no signature for the judge 

required. 

December 2, 2013 Commencement of 
 Hearing, to begin at 10:00 a.m. in FTC

Couroom, Room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 

1. For all papers that are required to be filed with the Offce of 
 the Secretary, the paries 

shall serve a courtesy copy on the Administrative Law Judge by electronic mail to the following 

email address: oalj@ftc.gov. The courtesy copy should be transmitted at or shortly after the time 

of any electronic filing with the Offce of the Secretar. The oali@ftc.gov email account is to be 

used only for courtesy copies of pleadings filed with the Offce ofthe Secretar and for 

documents specifically requested of 
 the parties by the Offce of Administrtive Law Judges. 

Certificates of service for any pleading shall not include the OAU email address, or the email 

address of any OAU personneL, including the Chief AU, but rather shall designate only 600 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-I1O as the place of service. The subject lie of all electronic 

submissions to oalj@ftc.gov shall set forth only the Docket Number and the title of the 

submission. Service by email shall be followed promptly by delivery of one hard copy by the 

next business day. In any instance in which a courtesy copy of a pleading for the Administrative 

Law Judge cannot be effectuated by electronic mail, counsel shall hand deliver a hard copy to the 

Offce of Administrative Law Judges. Discovery requests and discovery responses shall not be 

submitted to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The paries are reminded that all filings 

with the Offce of 
 the Secretary, including electronic filings, are governed by the provisions of 

Commission Rule 4.3(d), which states: "Documents must be received in the Offce of the 

Secretary of 
 the Commission by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time to be deemed filed that day. Any 

documents received by the agency after 5:00 p.m. wil be deemed filed the following business 

day." 

2. The paries shall serve each other by electronic mail and shall include "Docket 

9356" in the re line and all attached documents in .pdfformat. Complaint Counsel and 

Respondents' Counsel agree to waive their rights to Service under 16 C.F.R. § 4.4(a)-(b). 

4
 
.i 

PUBLIC
 

3. Each pleading that cites to unpublished opinions or opinions not available on 

LEXIS or WESTLA W shall include such copies as exhibits. 

4. Each motion (other than a motion to dismiss or a motion for summar 

decision) shall be accompanied by a separate signed statement representing that counsel for the 

moving pary has conferred with opposing counsel in an effort in good faith to resolve by 

agreement the issues raised by the motion and has been unable to reach such an agreement. In 

addition, pursuant to Rule 3.22(g), for each motion to quash filed pursuant to § 3.34(c), each 

motion to compel or deterine suffciency pursuant to § 3.38(a), or each motion for sanctions 

pursuant to § 3.38(b), the required signed statement must 
 also "recite the date, time, and place of 

each . . . conference between counsel, and the names of all paries paricipating in each such 

conference." Motions that fail to include such separate statement may be denied on that ground. 

5. Rule 3.22(c) states:
 

All written motions shall state the partcular order, ruling, or action desired and 

the grounds therefor. Memoranda in support of, or in opposition to, any 

dispositive motion shall not exceed 10,000 words. Memoranda in support of, or 

in opposition to, any other motion shall not exceed 2,500 words. Any reply in 

support of a dispositive motion shall not exceed 5,000 words and any reply in 

support of any other motion authorized by the Administrative Law Judge or the 

Commission shall not exceed 1,250 words. 

If a party chooses to submit a motion without a separate memorandum, the word count limits of 

3.22(c) apply 
 to the motion. Ifa pary chooses to submit a motion with a separate memorandum, 

absent prior approval ofthe ALJ, the motion shall be limited to 750 words, and the word count 

limits of 3.22(c) apply to the memorandum in support of 
 the motion. This provision applies to 

all motions filed with the Administrative Law Judge, including those fied under Rule 3.38. 

6. Ifpapers filed with the Office of 
 the Secretary contain in camera or 

confidential material, the filing par shall mark any such material in the complete version of 

their submission with tbold font and bracesJ. 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(e). Parties shall be aware of the 

rules for fiings containing such information, including 16 C.F.R. § 4.2. 

7. If a pary intends to offer confidential materials of an opposing pary or non-pary as 

evidence at the hearing, in providing notice to such non-party, the parties are required to inform 

each non-party of the strict standards for motions for in camera treatment for evidence to be 

introduced at trial set forth in 16 C.F.R. § 3.45, explained in In re Dura Lube Corp., 1999 FTC 

LEXIS 255 (Dec. 23, 1999); In re Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 2000 FTC LEXIS 157 (Nov. 

22,2000) and 2000 FTC LEXIS 138 (Sept 19,2000); In re Basic Research, Inc., 2006 FTC 

LEXIS 14 (Jan. 25, 2006), and summarized herein. Motions also must be supported by a 

declaration or affidavit by a person qualified to explain the confidential nature of the documents. 

In re North Texas Specialty Physicians, 2004 FTC LEXIS 66 (April 23, 2004). Each pary or 

non-pary that files a motion for in camera treatment shall provide one copy otthe documents for 

which in camera treatment is sought to the Administrative Law Judge. 

5 
PUBLIC 

8. If 
 the expert reports prepared for either party contain confidential information that has 

been granted in camera treatment, the party shall prepare two versions of 
 its expert report(s) in

accordance with Provision 6 of 
 this Scheduling Order and 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(e). 

9. Motions in limine are discouraged. Motion in limine refers "to any motion, whether 

made before or during tral, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is 

actually offered." In re Daniel Chapter One, 2009 FTC LEXIS 85, *18-20 (April 20, 2009)
 

(citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38,40 n.2 (1984)). Evidence should be excluded in
 

advance of tral on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all 

potential grounds. Id. (citing Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies. Inc., 831 F. Supp. 

1398, 1400 (N.D. Il. 1993); Sec. Exch. Comm 'n v. U.S Environmental, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 19701, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16,2002)). Moreover, the risk of 
 prejudice from giving 

undue weight to marginally relevant evidence is minimal in a bench tral such as this where the 

judge is capable of assigning appropriate weight to evidence. 

1 O. Compliance with the scheduled end of discovery requires that the partes serve 

subpoenas and discovery requests sufficiently in advance ofthe discovery cut-off and that all 

responses and objections will 
 be due on or before that date, unless otherwse noted. Any motion 

to compel responses to discover requests shall be filed within 30 days of service ofthe 

responses and/or objections to the discover requests or within 20 days after the close of 

discovery, whichever first occurs. 

11. Each party is limited to 50 document requests, including all discrete subpars; 

25 interrogatories, including all discrete subpars; and 50 requests for admissions including all 

discrete subparts except that there shall be no limit on the number of requests for admission for 

authentication and admissibilty of exhibits. Any single interogatory inquiring as to a request 

for admissions response may address only a single such response. There is no limit to the 

number of sets of discovery requests the parties may issue, so long as the total number of each 

type of discovery request, including all subparts, does not exceed these limits. Within seven 

days of service of a document request, the parties shall confer about the format for the 

production of electronically stored information. All discovery taken in connection with FTC v. 

Ardagh Group. SA., Case No. 13-CV-1021 (RMC) (D.D.C.) (the "Federal Action") can be used 

in this action and vice versa. However, document requests, interrogatories and requests for 

admissions served by the paries in connection with the Federal Action wil count not against the 

limits noted above. 

12. No fact witness that has been deposed in the Federal Action may be deposed again in 

this action. The deposition of any person may be recorded by videotape, provided that the 

deposing pary notifies the deponent and all parties of its intention to record the deposition by 

videotape at least five days in advance of 
 the deposition. No deposition, whether recorded by 

videotape or otherwise, may exceed a single, seven-hour day, unless otherwise agreed to by the 

paries or ordered by the Administrative Law Judge. 

13. The paries shall serve upon one another, at the time of issuance, copies of all 

subpoenas duces tecum and subpoenas ad testifcandum. For subpoenas ad testifcandum, the
 

pary seeking the deposition shall consult with the other paries before the deposition date is 

6
 
PUBLIC 

scheduled. The paries need not separately notice the deposition of a third party noticed by an 

opposing pary. At the request of any pary, the time and allocation for a third pary deposition 

shall be divided evenly between them, but the noticing party may use any additional time not 

used by the opposing pary. If no pary makes such a request, cross-examination of the witness 

wil be limited to one hour.
 

14. Non-parties shall provide copies or make available for inspection and
 

copying of documents requested by subpoena to the pary issuing the subpoena. The party that
 

has requested documents from non-paries shall provide copies of the documents received from 

non-pares to the opposing party within three business days of receiving the documents. No 

deposition of a non-pary shall be scheduled between the time a non-pary provides documents in 

response to a subpoena duces tecum to a party, and 3 days after the pary provides those 

documents to the other pary, unless a shorter time is required by unforeseen logistical issues in 

scheduling the deposition, or a non-party produces those documents at the time of 
 the deposition 

as agreed to by all parties involved. 

15. The final witness lists shall represent counsels' good faith designation of all 

potential witnesses who counsel reasonably expect may be called in their case-in-chief. Paries 

shall notify the opposing pary promptly of 
 changes in witness lists to faciltate completion of 

discovery within the dates of 
 the scheduling order. The final proposed witness list may not 

include additional witnesses not listed in the preliminary witness lists previously exchanged 

unless by consent of all paries, or, if the parties do not consent, by an order of the 

Administrative Law Judge upon a showing of good cause. 

16. The final exhibit lists shall represent counsels' good faith designation of all 

trial exhibits other than demonstrative, ilustrative, or summary exhibits. Additional exhibits 

may be added after the submission of the final lists only by consent of all parties, or, if the 

parties do not consent, by an order of 
 the Administrative Law Judge upon a showing of good 

cause. 

17. Witnesses shall not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced suffcient 

to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. F.R.E.602. 

i 8. Witnesses not properly designated as expert witnesses shall not provide 

opinions beyond what is allowed in F.R.E. 701. 

19. The paries are required to comply with Rule 3.31A and with the following: 

(a) At the time an exper is first listed as a witness by a pary, that pary shall 

provide to the other party: 

(i) materials fully describing or identifying the background and qualifications of 

the expert, all publications authored by the expert within the preceding ten years, and all prior 

cases in which the expert has testified or has been deposed within the preceding four years; and 

7
 
PUBLIC 

(ii) transcripts of such testimony in the possession, custody, or control of the 

producing pary or the expert. Notwithstanding the foregoing, transcripts subject to protective 

orders preventing their disclosure in this action need not be produced if 
 the governing protective 

orders are produced to the other parties, unless, upon motion of any party and for good. cause 

shown, the court that issued the protective order orders their production. 

(b) At the time an expert report is produced, the producing party shall provide to the 

other party all documents and other written materials relied upon by the expert in formulating an 

opinion in this case. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the experts' notes and drafs of 

expert reports need not be produced. Likewise, communications between experts and with 

counselor consultants need not be produced unless relied upon by the expert in formulating an
 

opinion in this case.
 

(c) It shall be the responsibility of a party designating an expert witness to ensure that the 

expert witness is reasonably available for deposition in keeping with this Scheduling Order. 

Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, expert 

witnesses shall be deposed only once and each expert deposition shall be limited to one day for 

seven hours. Experts who have been deposed in the Federal Action wil not be deposed again in 

this action. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event an exper submits in this action an expert 

report that is different from the expert report that expert has submitted in the Federal Action, that 

expert may be deposed a second time regarding such differences between the two reports. 

all opinions to be expressed 

and the basis and reasons therefore; the data or other information considered by the exper in 

forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summar of or support for the opinions; the 

(d) Each expert report shall include a complete statement of 


qualifications of 
 the expert; and the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony. 

(e) A party may not discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been 

retained or specially employed by another part in anticipation ofthis litigation or preparation 

for hearing and who is not designated by a party as a testifying witness. 

the exper reports, a pary shall provide opposing counsel (i) (t) At the time of service of 


a list of all commercially-available computer programs used by the expert in the preparation of 

the report; (ii) a copy of all data sets used by the expert, in native file format and processed data 

file format; and (ii) all customized computer programs used by the expert in the preparation of 

the report or necessar to replicate the findings on which the expert report is based.
 

20. Properly admitted deposition testimony and properly admitted investigational 

hearing transcripts are part ofthe record and need not be read in open court. Videotape 

deposition excerpts that have been admitted in evidence may be presented in open court only 

upon prior approval by the Administrative Law Judge. 

21. The paries shall provide one another, and the Administrative Law Judge, no 

later than 48 hours in advance, not including weekends and holidays, a list of all witnesses to be 

called on each day of 
 hearing, subject to possible delays or other unforeseen circumstances. 

8 
PUBLIC
 

22. The pares shall provide one another with copies of any demonstrative, 

ilustrative or summar exhibits (other than those prepared for cross-examination) 24 hours 

before they are used with a witness. 

23. Complaint Counsel's exhibits shall bear the designation CX and Respondents' 

exhibits shall bear the designation RX or some other appropnate designation. Complaint 

Counsel's demonstràtive exhibits shall bear the designation CXD and Respondents' 

demonstrative exhibits shall bea the designation RXD or some other appropnate designation. 

Both sides shall number the first page of each exhibit with a single senes of consecutive 

numbers. When an exhibit consists of more than one piece of paper, each page of the exhibit 

must bear a consecutive control number or some other consecutive page number. Additionally, 

pares must account for all their respective exhibit numbers. Any number not actally used at 

the hearg shall be designated "intentionally not used." 

24. At the final prehearng conference, counsel wil be required to introduce all 

exhibits they intei;d to introduce at tral. The paries shall confer and shall eliminate duplicative 

exhibits in advance of the final prehearng conference and, ifnecessar, during tral. For
 

example, if RX 100 and CX 200 are different copies of the same document, only one of those 

documents shall be offered into evidence. In addition, the paries shall confer in advance of the 

fina prehearing conference to prepare a Joint Stipulation that lists the proposed exhibits to which 

neither pary has an objection to admissibilty. Additional exhibits may be added after the final 

prehearing conference only by order of the Administrative Law Judge upon a showing of good 

cause. Counsel shall contact the cour reporter regarding submission of exhibits. 

ORDERED: ))M~'"

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: August 2, 2013 

9
 
PUBLIC
 

EXHIBIT 3
 
PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

) Docket No. 9356 

Ardagh Group S.A, 

a public limited liabilty company, and 

) 

) 

) 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a corporation, and 

) 

) 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, 

a corporation. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY WITNESS LIST 

This list designates the witnesses whom Ardagh Group S.A. ("Ardagh Group"), 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, and Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants") 

currently contemplate as potential witnesses to testify in the above-captioned matter, either orally 

as live witnesses or by deposition and/or investigational hearing transcript or declaration, based 

on the information available on the undersigned date. Discovery is ongoing and that discovery 

wil likely have an impact on Defendants' final witness list. Subject to the limitations in the 

Scheduling Order entered in this matter, Defendants reserve the right: 

A. To present testimony, orally by live witness or by deposition transcript or 

declaration, from any person who has been or may be identified by the Federal 

Trade Commission as a potential witness in this matter. 

B. To present testimony by deposition transcript of any person identified by a Party 

or non-Party as a FTC Rule 3.33(c) or Federal Rule 30(b)(6) representative of that 

Part or non-Part pursuant to a 3.33(c) or 30(b)(6) notice served by Plaintiff or 

Defendants. 

C. To call the custodian of records of 
 any non-Part from whom documents or 

records have been obtained - including but not limited to those non-Parties listed 

below - to the extent necessary to authenticate documents in the event a 
PUBLIC 

non-Part 

documents. 

stipulation cannot be reached concerning the authentication of 


D. To supplement this list in light of 
 the fact that discovery in this matter is ongoing. 

E. Not to call at the hearing any of the witnesses listed below. 

F. To call any witnesses to rebut the testimony of 
 witnesses proffered by the Federal 

Trade Commission. 

G. To call any of 
 these or other witnesses for rebuttal testimony. 

.! 

i 

Subject to these reservations of rights, Defendants' preliminary witness list is as follows:

PARTY WITNESS LIST 

1. Reiner Brand - Sales Director for European Operations of Ardagh Group.
 

Mr. Brand is involved in negotiating sales contracts with glass bottle customers. 

2. James Fredlake - President of Ardagh Glass Americas. Mr. Fredlake is
 

responsible for managing Ardagh Glass Americas. 

3. Joseph Grewe - President and Chief Executive Officer ofSaint-Gobain 

Containers, Inc. Mr. Grewe is responsible for managing Saint-Gobain Containers, 

Inc. 

4. John Riordan - Finance Director of Ardagh Group. Mr. Riordan is responsible
 

for the financial management of Ardagh Group. 

5. Niall Wall - Chief 
 Executive Offcer of Ardagh Group. Mr. Wall is responsible 

for managing Ardagh Group. 

Defendants currently intend to present the testimony of the above-named part witnesses
 

through live testimony at the hearing. Defendants reserve the right to offer the prior testimony of 

additional party witnesses who have been deposed or otherwise given testimony in connection 

with the FTC's investigation of Ardagh Group's proposed acquisition of Saint -Gobain 

Containers, Inc. (the "Proposed Transaction"). 

2
 
PUBLIC
 

THIRD PARTY WITNESS LISTl 

6. 21 st Amendment Brewery ("21 st Amendment") - Representative of 21 st
 

Amendment knowledgeable regarding 21st Amendment's strategy and practices 

related to beer containers. 

7. Abita Brewing Company ("Abita") - David Blossman, President of Abita, and/or 

a representative of Abita knowledgeable regarding Abita's strategy and practices 

related to beer containers. 

8. Amcor Rigid Plastics ("Amcor") - Frederick Piercy Jr., Business Director at 

Amcor, and/or a representative of Amcor knowledgeable regarding Amcor's 

strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

9. Anchor Hocking Company ("Anchor Hocking") - Bert Filice, Senior Vice 

President of Anchor Hocking, and/or a representative of Anchor Hocking 

knowledgeable regarding Anchor Hocking's strategy and practices related to 

spirits containers. 

10. Anheuser-Busch InBev North America ("ABI") - Lee Keathley, Vice President of 

Procurement at ABI, and/or a representative of ABI knowledgeable regarding 

ABI's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

11. August Schell Brewing Company ("August Schell") - Theodore Marti, President 

of August Schell, and/or a representative of August Schell knowledgeable 

regarding August Schell's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

12. Bacardi USA, Inc. ("Bacardi") - Representative ofBacardi knowledgeable
 

regarding Bacardi's strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

13. Ball Corporation ("Ball") - Representative of 
 Ball knowledgeable regarding 

Ball's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

14. Beam Inc. ("Beam") - Kenneth Edwards, Vice President and Chief Procurement 

Officer, and/or a representative of 
 Beam knowledgeable regarding Beam's 

strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

15. Big Sky Brewing Company ("Big Sky") - Kevin Keeter, Purchasing Manager for 

Big Sky, and/or a representative of Big Sky knowledgeable regarding Big Sky's 

strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

16. The Boston Beer Company ("Boston Beer") - C. James Koch, Chairman of
 

Boston Beer, Martin F. Roper, President and Chief Executive Officer of Boston 

Beer, Judy Embree, Senior Director of 
 Procurement at Boston Beer, and/or a 

i Defendants reserve the right to call any third part witness to present live testimony at the 

hearing or to rely on such 
 person's declaration or deposition transcript. 

3 
PUBLIC
 

representative of 
 Boston Beer knowledgeable regarding Boston Beer's strategy 

and practices related to beer containers. 

17. Boulevard Brewing Company ("Boulevard") - Jeffery Krum, Chief Financial 

Offcer at Boulevard, and/or a representative of 
 Boulevard knowledgeable 

regarding Boulevard's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

18. Brown-Forman Corporation ("Brown-Forman") - Tim NaIl, Vice President at 

Brown-Forman, and/or a representative of 
 Brown-Forman knowledgeable 

regarding Brown-Forman's strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

19. Bruni Glass ("Bruni") - Ray Kor, Chief 
 Financial Officer, and/or a representative 

of Bruni knowledgeable regarding Bruni's strategy and practices related to spirits 

containers. 

20. Cigar City Brewing ("Cigar City") - Representative of Cigar City knowledgeable
 

regarding Cigar City's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

21. City Brewing Company, LLC ("City Brewing") - Representative of City Brewing 

knowledgeable regarding City Brewing's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

22. Constellation Brands, Inc. ("Constellation") - Peter Lijewski, Vice President of
 

Procurement at Constellation, and/or a representative of Constellation 

knowledgeable regarding Constellation's strategy and practices related to spirits 

containers. 

23. Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco") - Representative of Cost co 

knowledgeable regarding Costco's strategy for buying, marketing, and sellng 

beer and spirits. 

24. Crown Holdings, Inc. ("Crown") - Representative of Crown knowledgeable 

regarding Crown's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

25. Diageo North America, Inc. ("Diageo") - Rick Thielen, Senior Vice President of 

Procurement, and/or a representative ofDiageo knowledgeable regarding 

Diageo's strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

26. Fevisa Industrial, S.A. de C.V. ("Fevisa") - Representative of Fe visa 

knowledgeable regarding Fevisa's strategy and practices related to.beer and spirits 

containers. 

27. Founders Brewing Company ("Founders") - Brad Stevenson, Vice President of 

Operations of Founders, and/or a representative of 
 Founders knowledgeable 

regarding Founders' strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

4
 
PUBLIC
 

28. F.X. Matt Brewing Company ("Matt Brewing") - Fred Matt, President of Matt 

Brewing, and/or a representative of Matt Brewing knowledgeable regarding Matt 

Brewing's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

29. Gamer Packaging, Inc. ("Gamer") - Kenneth Gamer, President of Gamer, and/or 

a representative of 
 Gamer knowledgeable regarding Gamer's strategy and 

practices relating to beer and spirits containers. 

30. The Gambrinus Company ("Gambrinus") - John Horan, Director of Tax and 

Assistant Treasurer for Gambrinus, and/or a representative of Gambrinus 

knowledgeable regarding Gambrinus's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

31. Genesee Brewing Company ("Genesee") - Representative of Genesee 

knowledgeable regarding Genesee's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

32. Glass Packaging Institute - Lynn Bragg, President of 
 the Glass Packaging 

Institute regarding historical performance and trends in the glass packaging 

industry and the use, or non-use, of glass for food and beverage containers. 

33. Campari America ("Campari") - Representative of Cam pari knowledgeable 

regarding Campari's strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

34. Harpoon Brewery ("Harpoon") - Daniel Kenary, President of 
 Harpoon, and/or a 

representative of 
 Harpoon knowledgeable regarding Harpoon's strategy and 

practices related to beer containers. 

35. Heaven Hil Distileries ("Heaven Hil") - Representative of Heaven Hil
 

knowledgeable regarding Heaven Hill's strategy and practices related to spirits 

containers. 

36. Kroger Company ("Kroger") - Representative of 
 Kroger knowledgeable 

regarding Kroger's strategy for buying, marketing, and sellng beer and spirits. 

37. The Lagunitas Brewing Company ("Lagunitas") - Leon Sharyon, Chief Financial 

Offcer of Lagunitas, and/or a representative of 
 Lagunitas knowledgeable 

regarding Lagunitas's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

38. Lion Brewery, Inc. ("Lion") - Representative of Lion knowledgeable regarding 

Lion's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

39. Mad Scientists Brewing Partners, LLC, d/b/a Sixpoint Craft Ales ("Sixpoint") ­

Representative of Sixpoint knowledgeable regarding Sixpoints strategy and 

practices related to beer containers. 

5 
PUBLIC 

40. Mars & Co. ("Mars") - Representative of 
 Mars knowledgeable regarding Mars's 

consulting for ABI and ABI's strategy and practices related to beer containers and 

beer container purchasing. 

. ! 41.	 MilerCoors, LLC ("MilerCoors") - Jim Sheehy, Vice President of Procurement 

at MilerCoors, and/or a representative of 
 MilerCoors knowledgeable regarding 

MilerCoors's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

42. Moosehead Breweries Limited ("Moosehead") - Andrew Oland, President of 

Moosehead, and/or a representative of 
 Moosehead knowledgeable regarding 

Moosehead's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

43. New Belgium Brewing Company ("New Belgium") - David Larsen, Packaging 

and Materials Buyer at New Belgium, and/or a representative of 
 New Belgium 

knowledgeable regarding New Belgium's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

44. Oskar Blues Brewing Company ("Oskar Blues") ~ Daniel O'Connor, Chief
 

Financial Officer of Oskar Blues, and/or a representative of Oskar Blues 

knowledgeable regarding Oskar Blues' strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

45. Owens-Ilinois, Inc. ("Owens-Ilinois") - Anthony Caracciolo, Vice President of
 

Global Sales at Owens-Ilinois, and/or a representative of 	 Owens-Ilinois 

knowledgeable regarding Owens-Ilinois's sale of 
 beer and spirits containers. 

46. Pernod Ricard ("Pernod") - Adam Gelles, Vice President of 	 New Product 

Development and Purchasing at Pernod, and/or a representative ofPernod 

knowledgeable regarding Pernod's strategy and practices related to spirits 

containers. 

47. Rexam Inc. ("Rexam") - Representative of 
 Rexam knowledgeable regarding 

Rexam's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

48. Saxco International ("Saxco") - Herbert Sachs, President of Saxco International, 

and/or a representative of Saxco knowledgeable regarding Saxco's strategy and 

practices related to beer and spirits containers. 

49. Sazerac Company ("Sazarec") - Philp Cissell, Vice President of 
 Purchasing for 

Sazerac, Steven Wyant, Vic~ President of Sales and Marketing at Sazerac, and/or 

a representative ofSazerac most knowledgeable regarding Sazerac's strategy and 

practices related to spirits containers. 

50. Sierra Nevada Brewing Company ("Sierra Nevada") - Albert Spinell, Director of 

Operations at Sierra Nevada, and/or a representative of Sierra Nevada 

knowledgeable regarding Sierra Nevada's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

6
 
PUBLIC
 

51. Sly Fox Brewing Company ("Sly Fox") - Representative of Sly Fox 

knowledgeable regarding Sly Fox's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

52. Surly Brewing Company ("Surly") - Representative of Surly knowledgeable 

regarding Surly's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

53. Target Corporation ("Target") - Representative of 
 Target knowledgeable 

regarding Target's strategy for buying, marketing, and sellng beer and spirits. 

54. United States Distiled Products ("U.S.D.P.") - Patricia Pelzer, Chief Financial 

Offcer of U.S. D.P., and/or a representative of U.S. D.P. knowledgeable regarding 

U.S.D.P.'s strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

55. Vitro Packaging, LLC ("Vitro") - Representative of 
 Vitro knowledgeable 

regarding Vitro's strategy and practices related to beer and spirits containers. 

56. Whole Foods Markets, Inc. ("Whole Foods") - Representative of Whole Foods 

knowledgeable regarding Whole Foods' strategy for buying, marketing, and 

sellng beer and spirits. 

57. Yuengling Beer Company ("Yuengling") - Representative of Yuengling 

knowledgeable regarding Yuengling's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

Dated: New York, New York 

August 20, 2013 

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 

By: lsi Richard F Schwed
 

Richard F. Schwed 

Alan S. Goudiss 

Wayne Dale Collns 

Lisl Joanne Dunlop 

SHEARMN & STERLING LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 8484000 

Facsimile: (212) 848 4173
 

agoudiss@shearman.com 

rschwed@shearman.com 

wcollns@shearman.com 

ldunlop@shearman.com 

Heather L. Kafele 

7
 
PUBLIC 

SHEARMN & STERLING LLP 

801 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: (202) 508 8000 

Facsimile: (202) 508 8100 

hkafele@shearman.com 

Counsel for Defendant Ardagh Group 

s.A. 

CRAVATH, SWAIN & MOORELLP, 

by 

lsi Christine A. Varney 

Christine A. Varney 

Sandra C. Goldstein 

Y onatan Even 

Members of 
 the Firm 

Attorney for Defendants
 

Worldwide Plaza
 

825 Eighth Avenue
 

New York, NY 10019
 

(212) 474-1000 

cvarney@cravath.com 

Counsel for Defendant Saint-Gobain 

Containers, Inc. 

8 
PUBLIC 

I, Edward G. Timlin, an associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP, hereby certify that on 

August 20,2013, I caused the foregoing document to be served by electronic mail on the persons 

listed below. 

Edward D. Hassi
 

Catharine M. Moscatell
 

Brendan 1. McNamara
 

Sebastian Lorigo
 

Victoria Lippincott 

Meredith Robinson 

Devon Kelly 

James Abell
 

Teresa Martin 

Amanda Hamilton 

u.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

ehassi@ftc.gov
 

cmoscatell@ftc.gov
 ~ bmcnamara@ftc.gov
 

slorgio@ftc.gov
 

vlippincott@ftc.gov
 

mrobinson@ftc.gov
 

dkelly2@ftc.gov
 

jabell@ftc.gov
 

tmartin@ftc.gov
 

ahamilton 1 @ftc.gov
 

Complaint Counsel 

August 20,2013 By: lsi Edward G. Timlin 

Edward G. Timlin 

9
 
PUBLIC
 

EXHIBIT 4
 
PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRA TIVE LAW JUDGES
 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

Ardagh Group S.A., 

a public limited liabilty company, and 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9356 

) 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a corporation, and 

) 

) 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, 

a corporation. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

RESPONDENTS' FINAL WITNESS LIST 

This list designates the witnesses whom Ardagh Group S.A. ("Ardagh"), Compagnie de 

Saint-Gobain, and Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. (collectively, the "Respondents") currently 

contemplate as potential witnesses to testify in the above-captioned matter, either orally as live 

witnesses or by deposition and/or investigational hearing transcript or declaration, based on the 

information available on the undersigned date. Subject to the limitations in the Scheduling Order 

entered in this matter, Respondents reserve the right: 

A. To present testimony, orally by live witness or by deposition transcript or 

declaration, from any person who has been or may be identified by Complaint 

Counsel as a potential witness in this matter. 

B. To call the custodian of records of any non-Part from whom documents or
 

records have been obtained - including but not limited to those non-Parties listed 

below - to the extent necessary to authenticate documents in the event a 

stipulation cannot be reached concerning the authentication of non-Part 

documents. 

C. Not to call at the hearing any of the witnesses listed below. 

D. To call any of 
 these or other witnesses for rebuttal testimony. 

Subject to these reservations of 
 rights, Respondents' final witness list is as follows: 
I 

PUBLIC
 

PARTY WITNESS LIST 

1. Reiner Brand - Sales Director for European Operations of Ardagh. Mr. Brand is
 

involved in negotiating sales contracts with glass bottle customers. 

2. Paul Coulson - Chairman of 
 the Board of Ardagh. Mr. Coulson is responsible for 

overseeing Ardagh' s management. 

3.	 James Fredlake - President of Ardagh Glass Americas. Until approximately 

November 2013, Mr. Fredlake was responsible for managing Ardagh Glass 

Americas. 

4. Robert Ganter - General Manager and Senior Vice President of 	 the Beer Sector of 

Activity for Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. Mr. Ganter is responsible for beer 

container manufacturing and sales at Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. 

5. Joseph Grewe - President and Chief Executive Offcer of Saint-Gobain
 

Containers, Inc. Mr. Grewe is responsible for managing Saint-Gobain Containers, 

Inc. 

6. Michael Leahy - Operational Excellence Director of Ardagh. Mr. Leahy is
 

responsible for overseeing Ardagh's program to improve operational metrics. 

7. Jarrell A. Reeves - Vice President of Sales of Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.
 

Mr. Reeves is responsible for food, beverage, and spirits sales at Saint-Gobain 

Containers, Inc. 

8. J. Steven Rhea - Senior Vice President, Strategic Development, of Saint-Gobain
 

Containers, Inc. Mr. Rhea is responsible for purchasing, distribution, marketing, 

and corporate quality at Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. 

9. John Riordan - Finance Director of Ardagh. Mr. Riordan is responsible for the
 

financial management of Ardagh. 

10. Niall Wall - Chief 
 Executive Offcer of Ardagh. Mr. Wall is responsible for 

managing Ardagh. 

11. Kenneth Wilkes - Chief 
 Financial Officer of Ardagh Glass Americas. Until 

approximately November 2013, Mr. Wilkes was responsible for the financial 

management of Ardagh Glass Americas. 

2
 
PUBLIC
 

EXPERT WITNESS LIST 

12. Dr. Chetan Sanghvi - Senior Vice President at NERA Economic Consulting.
 

Respondents expect that Dr. Sanghvi wil testify about the relevant markets, 

market structure, competitive effects, barriers to entry, and effciencies of the 

Proposed Transaction. 

13. Michael Kallenberger - consultant with First Key Consulting Inc., a brewery 

consultancy. Respondents expect that Mr. Kallenberger wil testify about trends 

involving glass and non-glass beer containers. 

14. Dr. Raymond Bourque - President of RAY -PAK, Inc., a packaging innovation 

and technology consultancy. Respondents expect that Dr. Bourque wil testify 

about trends involving glass and non-glass spirits containers. 

15. Robert Wallace - Managing Partner of 
 Wallace Church Inc., a global brand 

identity strategy and package design consultancy. Respondents expect that 

Mr. Wallace wil testify about trends involving glass and non-glass beer and 

spirits containers. 

THIRD PARTY WITNESS LIST 

16. 21st Amendment Brewery ("21st Amendment") - Ryan Frank, Brewery
 

Production Manager of 21st Amendment, and/or a representative of 21st 

Amendment knowledgeable regarding 21st Amendment's strategy and practices 

related to beer containers. 

17. Abita Brewing Company ("Abita") - David Blossman, President of Abita, and/or 

a representative of Abita knowledgeable 
 regarding Abita's strategy and practices 

related to beer containers. 

18. Amcor Rigid Plastics ("Amcor") - Frederick Piercy Jr., Business Director at 

Amcor, and/or a representative of Amcor knowledgeable regarding Amcor's 

strategy and practices related to beer and spirits containers. 

19. Anchor Hocking Company ("Anchor Hocking") - Umberto Filce, Senior Vice 

President of Anchor Hocking, and/or a representative of Anchor Hocking 

knowledgeable regarding Anchor Hocking's strategy and practices related to 

spirits containers. 

20. Anheuser-Busch InBev North America ("ABI") - Lee Keathley, Vice President of 

Procurement at ABI, and/or a representative of ABI knowledgeable regarding 

ABI's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

21. August Schell Brewing Company ("August Schell") - Theadore Marti, President 

of August Schell, and/or a representative of August Schell knowledgeable 

regarding August Schell's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

3 
PUBLIC 

22. Ball Corporation ("Ball") - Bruce Doellng, Director of Sales North America,
 

and/or a representative of 
 Ball knowledgeable regarding Ball's strategy and 

practices related to beer containers. 

23. Beam Inc. ("Beam") - Kenneth Edwards, Vice President and Chief Procurement 

Offcer, and/or a representative of 
 Beam knowledgeable regarding Beam's 

strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

24. Big Sky Brewing Company ("Big Sky") - Kevin Keeter, Purchasing Manager for 

Big Sky, and/or a representative of 
 Big Sky knowledgeable regarding Big Sky's 

strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

25. The Boston Beer Company ("Boston Beer") - Judy Embree, Senior Director of 

Procurement at Boston Beer, Corey Lewis, Director of Strategy, Research, and 

Business Support at Boston Beer, and/or a representative of Boston Beer 

knowledgeable regarding Boston Beer's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

26. Boulevard Brewing Company ("Boulevard") - Jeffery Krum, Chief Financial 

Offcer at Boulevard, and/or a representative of 
 Boulevard knowledgeable 

regarding Boulevard's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

27. Brown-Forman Corporation ("Brown-Forman") - Tim NaIl, Vice President at 

Brown-Forman, and/or a representative of 
 Brown-Forman knowledgeable 

regarding Brown-Forman's strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

28. Bruni Glass ("Bruni") - Ray Kor, Chief Financial Offcer, and/or a representative
 

of Bruni knowledgeable regarding Bruni's strategy and practices related to spirits 

containers. 

29. Cigar City Brewing ("Cigar City") - Joey Redner, Founder and Chief Executive 

Offcer of Cigar City, and/or a representative of 
 Cigar City knowledgeable 

regarding Cigar City's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

30. Constellation Brands, Inc. ("Constellation") - Peter Lijewski, Vice President of 

Procurement at Constellation, and/or a representative of Constellation 

knowledgeable regarding Constellation's strategy and practices related to spirits 

containers. 

31. Diageo North America, Inc. ("Diageo") - Rick Thielen, Senior Vice President of 

Procurement, and/or a representative ofDiageo knowledgeable regarding 

Diageo's strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

32. Founders Brewing Company ("Founders") - Brad Stevenson, Vice President of 

Operations at Founders, and/or a representative of 
 Founders knowledgeable 

regarding Founders's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

4
 
PUBLIC
 

33. F.x. Matt Brewing Company ("Matt Brewing") - Fred Matt, President of Matt 

Brewing, and/or a representative of Matt Brewing knowledgeable regarding Matt 

Brewing's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

34. Gamer Packaging, Inc. ("Gamer") - Kenneth Gamer, President of Gamer, and/or 

a representative of Gamer knowledgeable regarding Gamer's strategy and 

practices relating to beer and spirits containers. 

35. The Gambrinus Company ("Gambrinus") - John Horan, Director of Tax and 

Assistant Treasurer at Gambrinus, and/or a representative of Gambrinus 

knowledgeable regarding Gambrinus's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

36. Glass Packaging Institute - Lynn Bragg, President of 
 the Glass Packaging 

Institute regarding historical performance and trends in the glass packaging 

industry and the use, or non-use, of glass for food and beverage containers. 

37. Harpoon Brewery ("Harpoon") - Daniel Kenary, President of 
 Harpoon, Warren

Dibble, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of 
 Harpoon, and/or a 

representative of 
 Harpoon knowledgeable regarding Harpoon's strategy and 

practices related to beer containers. 

38. Heaven Hil Distileries ("Heaven Hil") - Max Shapira, President of Heaven Hil,
 

and/or a representative of 
 Heaven Hil knowledgeable regarding Heaven Hill's 

strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

39. The Lagunitas Brewing Company ("Lagunitas") - Leon Sharyon, Chief Financial 

Offcer of Lagunitas, and/or a representative of 
 Lagunitas knowledgeable 

regarding Lagunitas's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

40. MilerCoors, LLC ("MilerCoors") - Jim Sheehy, Vice President of Procurement 

at MilerCoors, David Kroll, Vice President of Innovation and Insights at 

MilerCoors, and/or a representative of 
 MilerCoors knowledgeable regarding 

MilerCoors's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

41. Moosehead Breweries Limited ("Moosehead") - Andrew Oland, President of 

Moosehead, and/or a representative of 
 Moosehead knowledgeable regarding 

Moosehead's strategy and practices related to beer containers. 

42. New Belgium Brewing Company ("New Belgium") - David Larsen, Packaging 

and Materials Buyer at New Belgium, and/or a representative of 
 New Belgium

knowledgeable regarding New Belgium's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

43. Oskar Blues Brewing Company ("Oskar Blues") - Daniel O'Connor, Chief 

Financial Officer of Oskar Blues, and/or a representative of Oskar Blues 

knowledgeable regarding Oskar Blues' strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

5 
PUBLIC 

44. Owens-Ilinois, Inc. ("Owens-Ilinois") - Anthony Caracciolo, Vice President of
 

Global Sales at Owens-Ilinois, and/or a representative of Owens-Ilinois 

knowledgeable regarding Owens-Ilinois's strategy and practices related to beer 

and spirits containers. 

45. Pernod Ricard ("Pernod") - Adam Gelles, Vice President of New Product 

Development and Purchasing at Pernod, and/or a representative ofPernod 

knowledgeable regarding Pernod's strategy and practices related to spirits 

containers. 

46. Representative(s) of 
 the financial buyer of any divested assets knowledgeable 

regarding the financial buyer's business plan with respect to any divested assets. 

47. Sazerac Company ("Sazarec") - Philip Cissell, Vice President of 
 Purchasing at 

Sazerac, Steven Wyant, Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Sazerac, and/or 

a representative of Sazerac most knowledgeable regarding Sazerac's strategy and 

practices related to spirits containers. 

48. Sierra Nevada Brewing Company ("Sierra Nevada") - Albert Spinell, Director of 

Operations at Sierra Nevada, and/or a representative of Sierra Nevada 

knowledgeable regarding Sierra Nevada's strategy and practices related to beer 

containers. 

49. United States Distiled Products ("U.S.D.P.") - Patricia Pelzer, Chief Financial 

Officer of U.S . D.P., and/or a representative of U.S. D.P. knowledgeable regarding 

U.S.D.P.'s strategy and practices related to spirits containers. 

50. Vitro Packaging, LLC ("Vitro") - John Shaddox, President ofFIC Exports, and/or
 

a representative of 
 Vitro knowledgeable regarding Vitro's strategy and practices 

related to beer and spirits containers. 

51. Whole Foods Markets, Inc. ("Whole Foods") - Doug Bell, Global Beverage 

Buyer at Whole Foods, and/or a representative of 
 Whole Foods knowledgeable 

regarding Whole Foods' strategy for buying, marketing, and sellng beer and 

spirits. 

52. Yuengling Beer Company ("Yuengling") - Dick Yuengling, Jr., President of 

Yuengling, David Casinell, Chief Operating Offcer of 
 Yuengling, and/or a 

representative of 
 Yuengling knowledgeable regarding Yuengling's strategy and 

practices related to beer containers. 

Dated: New York, New York 

November 18,2013 

SHEARMN & STERLING LLP 

6
 
PUBLIC
 

By: lsi Richard F. Schwed 

Richard F. Schwed 

Alan S. Goudiss 

Wayne Dale Collins 

Lisl Joanne Dunlop 

SHEARMN & STERLING LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 848 4000 

Facsimile: (212) 848 4173
 

agoudiss@shearman.com 

rschwed@shearman.com 

wcollins@shearman.com 

Idun10p@shearman.com 

Heather L. Kafele 

SHEARMN & STERLING LLP 

801 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: (202) 508 8000 

Facsimile: (202) 5088100 

hkafele@shearman.com 

Counsel for Respondent Ardagh Group 

s.A. 

CRAVATH, SWAIN & MOORELLP, 

by 

lsi Christine A. Varney 

Christine A. Varney 

Sandra C. Goldstein 

Y onatan Even 

Members of 
 the Firm 

Attorney for Defendants
 

Worldwide Plaza
 

825 Eighth Avenue
 

New York, NY 10019
 

(212) 474-1000 

cvarney@cravath.com 

Counsel for Respondents Compagnie 

de Saint-Gobain and Saint-Gobain 

Containers, Inc. 

7 
PUBLIC
 

I, Jason M. Swergold, an associate at Shearman & Sterling LLP, hereby certify that on 

November 18,2013, I caused the foregoing document to be served by electronic mail on: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

I further certify that on November 18,2013, I caused the foregoing document to be 

served by electronic mail on the persons listed below. 

Edward D. Hassi
 

Catharine M. Moscatell
 

Brendan J. McNamara
 

Sebastian Lorigo
 

Victoria Lippincott 

Meredith Robinson
 

Devon Kelly
 

James Abell
 

Teresa Martin
 

Amanda Hamilton
 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission
 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

ehassi@ftc.gov
 

cmoscatell@ftc.gov
 

bmcnamara@ftc.gov
 

slorgio@ftc.gov
 

vlippincott@ftc.gov
 

mrobinson@ftc.gov
 

dkelly2@ftc.gov
 

jabell@ftc.gov
 

tmartin@ftc.gov
 

ahamilton 1 @ftc.gov
 

Complaint Counsel 

November 18,2013 By: lsi Jason M Swergold 

Jason M. Swergold 

8 
PUBLIC
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 4,2013, I fied the foregoing document 

electronically using the FTC's E-Filng System, which wil send notification of such 

fiing to: 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-l13 

Washington, DC 20580 

I also certify that I delivered via electronic mail and hand delivery a copy of the 

foregoing document to: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

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

Washington, DC 20580 

I further certify that I delivered via electronic mail a copy of the foregoing 

document to: 

Alan Goudiss
 

Dale Collns 

Richard Schwed 

Lisl Dunlop 

Shearman & Sterling LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

(202) 848-4906 

agoudiss@shearman.com 

wcollns@shearman.com 

rschwed@shearman.com 

ldunlop@shearman.com 

Counsel for Respondent Ardagh Group SA. 

Christine Varney 

Y onatan Even 

Athena Cheng 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019 

(212) 474-1140 

cvarney@cravath.com 

yeven@cravath.com 

acheng@cravath.com 
PUBLIC
 

yeven@cravath.com 

acheng@cravath.com 

Counsel for Respondent Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE FOR ELECTRONIC FILING 

I certify that the electronic copy sent to the Secretary of the Commission is a true 

and correct copy of the paper original and that I possess a paper original of the signed 

document that is available for review by the parties and the adjudicator. 

December 4,2013 By: /s/ Edward D. Hassi 

Attorney