OR~~n~ll\L ¡ u ~ m~Mli"'


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9327 

) 

_c ) 

) Polypore International, Inc. )

a corporation ) Public Document 

) 

RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED REPLY TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S 

OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA 

TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRIAL EXHIBITS 

Complaint Counsel's surprising opposition to Respondent's motion for in camera 

treatment is in direct contrast with the ultimate mission and goal of the Federal Trade 

Commission. The Federal Trade Commission is "directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or 

corporations.. . 
 from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." 15 V.S.C. § 45(a)(2). In suggesting that 

the public be allowed unfettered access to Respondent's confidential and sensitive documents 

Complaint Counsel wil inevitably create a less competitive marketplace and harm competition. 

Production of Respondent's trade secrets and confidential information to its competitors and 

customers wil allow those businesses an enormous and unfair competitive advantage that is in 

direct conflct with the inherent purose of the Federal Trade Commission. The F.T.C. 

"promotes healthy competition and challenges anti 
 competitive business practices to make sure 

that consumers have access to quality goods and services, and that businesses can compete on the 

merits oftheir work."i (emphasis added). In opposing Respondent's reasonable desire to protect 

its competitive information in order to allow ij: to remain competitive in the marketplace,
 

i From the F.T.C. pamphlet, Competiion Counts. 

PPAB 1555674v2 
Complaint Counsel fails to uphold the basic tenants of the F.T.C.'s duty to protect the 

competitive marketplace and succeeds only in further harassing Respondent. 

Complaint Counsel is in no way prejudiced through the in camera treatment of 

Respondent's confidential documents and objects simply to further har and waste
 

Respondent's limited resources. By opposing without due cause the in camera protection that is 

contemplated by the F.T.C rules Complaint Counsel seeks to put Respondent in the untenable 

position of either allowing all manner of confidential business and competitive information to be 

introduced into the public record, causing it significant and irreparable competitive harm in the 

marketplace, or to withdraw documents which are supportive and helpful to its case from being 

introduced into evidence thus jeopardizing its defense of the FTC's claims. 

Complaint Counsel's apparent motive in opposing Respondent's motion for in camera 

treatment is further demonstrated in the fact that Complaint Counsel did not object to the in 

camera motions of any and all third parties. In singling out Respondent's desire to protect its 

confidential information, Complaint Counsel unfairly promotes the interests of all other 

competitors and consumers involved in this case. Complaint Counsel unfairly targets 

Respondent's request for in camera treatment as overly "broad", but fails to make the same 

argument as to in camera requests submitted by third parties. 

Many of the third paries to this action have sought in camera protection for the majority 

of their documents. By way of example only, Johnson Controls, Inc. has sought in camera 

treatment for 89 percent of the JCI documents Complaint Counsel designated as a potential 

exhibits. Similarly, Entek requested that 76 percent of the documents that Complaint Counsel 

designated as potential exhibit be grated in camera treatment. In turning a blind eye to the in 

camera requests of third paries, Complaint Counsel's singular objection to the Respondent's
 

2 

PPAB 1555674v2 
request is utterly disingenuous and serves only to interfere with the presentation of Respondent's 

case and to further distract Respondent from preparing for the hearing in this matter. 

Finally, Complaint Counsel targets Respondent's Motion as too general and the reasons 

for in camera treatment of each document as too broad. However, Complaint Counsel's own 

response is overly broad in that nowhere does Complaint Counsel ariculate a specific objection 

to anyone of Respondent's in camera designations. Complaint Counsel correctly states that 

"applicants for in camera treatment must make a 'clear showing that the information concerned 

is sufficiently secret and sufficiently materiaL... ", yet fails to point to any description or
 

document identified in Respondent's Motion that does not specifically address and satisfy the 

necessary standards. Moreover, Complaint Counsel's position is severely undermined by its 

silence in the fact of Third Paries motions for in camera treatment which evidencing no greater 

specificity and in many cases far less specificity, than Respondent's motion. 

CONCLUSION 

Complaint Counsel's objection to Respondent's Motion for in camera treatment of
 

sensitive and confidential documents serves no legitimate purpose other than to harass 

Respondent. Further, releasing Respondent's confidential documents and proprietary 

information to the public-especially when similar information from competitors and customers
 

is afforded confidentiality-would cause Respondent severe and irreparable harm and would be 

directly at odds with the Federal Trade Commission's duty to protect and preserve the 

competitive marketplace. Respondent requests that the Court overrule Complaint Counsel's 

objection and grant its Motion for in camera Treatment in the interest in protecting the 

competitive environment in the industry at issue. 

3 

PPAB 1555674v2 
Dated: April 
 23, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, 

C:0ø ~Lp Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr.
 

Eric D. Welsh
 

. PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9689
 

wiliamikardêparkerpoe.com
 

ericwelshêparkerpoe.com
 

John F. Graybeal 

PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

150 Fayettevile Street 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Telephone: (919) 835-4599 

Facsimile: (919) 828-0564
 

iohngraybealêparkerpoe.com
 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4 

PPAB 1555674v2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 23, 2009, I caused to be filed via hand delivery and 

electronic mail delivery an original and two copies of the foregoing Proposed Reply to 

Complaint Counsel's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain 

Trial Exhibits, and that the electronic copy is a true and correct copy of the paper original and 

that a paper copy with an original signature is being fied with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

secretaryêftc. gOV
 

I hereby certify that on April 23, 2009, I caused to be served one copy via electronic mail 

delivery and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Proposed Reply to
 

Complaint Counsel's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain
 

Trial Exhibits, upon: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge . 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oali(qftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on April 23, 2009, I caused to be served via first-class mail delivery 

and electronic mail delivery a copy of the foregoing Proposed Reply to Complaint Counsel's 

Opposition to Respondent's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain Trial Exhibits upon: 

1. Robert Robertson, Esq. Steven Dah, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

rro bertsonêftc. gov sdahmêftc.gov 

Brian Weyhrich 

_J_
 7 ~
 0#

PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 335-6639 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4491
 

PPAB 1555674v2