. ~ ~ .. ~ """.¡¡ ;¡ ~ ,G SJ.,
 O'R~G~N''1~ lì'l , !I ~ _.." ~. .. lj ",rn


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

Respondent. ) 

) 

ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S SECOND MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

I. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) ofthe Commission's Rules of 
 Practice and the October 22,2008 

Scheduling Order in this matter, Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") submitted 

on May 5,2009 a second motion for in camera treatment ("Second Motion"). Respondent avers 

in its Second Motion that it removed over 915 exhibits from in camera consideration in response 

to the April 27, 2009 Order on Respondent's prior motion for in camera treatment. On May 8, 

2009, Complaint Counsel submitted an opposition to Respondent's second motion for in camera 

treatment. 

II. 

An Order on Non-Parties' Motions for In Camera Treatment was entered in this matter 

on May 6,2009. The legal standards that apply to motions for in camera treatment, including 

Respondent's Second Motion, are set forth in that Order. In addition to the case law set forth in 

that Order, it is noted that under Federal Trade Commission Rule 3.45(a), "the Administrative 

Law Judge, the Commission and reviewing courts may disclose in camera material to the extent 

necessar for the proper disposition ofthe proceeding." 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(a). A ruling on in 

camera treatment, "like other questions relating to the proper, fair, and expeditious conduct of 

adjudicative hearingsL) is a matter within the sound discretion ofthe administrative law judge." 

In re Bristol-Myers Co., 90 F.T.C. 455, 457 (1977). 

In this proceeding, it appears to be "reasonable. . . , as Commission Rule 3.45(a) allows, 

for the (administrative) law judge to grant in camera treatment for information at the time it is 

offered into evidence subject to a later determination by the (administrative) law judge or the 

Commission that public disclosure is required in the interests of facilitating public understanding 

of their subsequent decisions." Id. As the Commission later reaffirmed in another leading case 

on in camera treatment, since "in some instances the ALJ or Commission cannot know that a 

certain piece of information may be critical to the public understanding of agency action until the 

Intial Decision or the Opinion of 
 the Commission is issued, the Commission and the ALJs retain 
the power to reassess prior in camera rulings at the time of publication of decisions." In re 

General Foods Corp., 95 F.T.C. 352, 356 n.7 (1980). Thus, "(g)ranting in camera treatment. . . 

(need) not frstrate public understanding of this case." In re Int 'l Ass 'n of Conference 

Interpreters, No. 9270, 1996 FTC LEXIS 298, at *7 (June 26,1996). 

III. 

Respondent's Second Motion for in camera treatment provides the documents for which 

in camera treatment is sought and complies, except as noted below, with the requirements for in 

camera treatment. Exhibit A to Respondent's Second Motion is a list by exhibit number ofthe 

documents for which Respondent seeks in camera treatment. Exhibit B is the Second 

Declaration of Michael Shor, Special Counsel for Polypore, in support of 
 Respondent's Second
 

Motion for in camera treatment ("Shor Declaration").
 

Complaint Counsel argues that Respondent has failed to meet its burden of explaining 

why this Court should grant in camera treatment to each of the 687 documents listed in Exhibit 

A of 
 Respondent's Second Motion. Complaint Counsel further argues that the justifications 

provided in Exhibit B of 
 Respondent's Second Motion do not define with sufficient specificity 

the serious injury that would result if the documents were released to the public. In addition, 

Complaint Counsel notes that several of the documents for which Respondent seeks in camera 

treatment are more than three years old. 

In his Declaration in support of 
 Respondent's Second Motion, Shor describes the 

documents for which in camera treatment is sought and declares that each document contains 

sensitive and confidential information, the disclosure of 
 which would seriously injure 

Respondent. Shor further declares that each document has been maintained internally by 

Respondent in a confidential manner, shared only with those individuals requiring the 

information contained therein. According to his Declaration, the documents that Respondent 

designates as proposed trial exhibits are organized into nine categories: (1) business plans and 

strategies, (2) contract negotiations and customer contracts, (3) intellectual property and 

proprietary information, (4) market analysis, (5) pricing strategy, (6) customer-specific 

documents, (7) costing data, (8) sales and financial information, and (9) multiple category 

documents. 

Shor's Declaration generally supports Respondent's claims that the documents, including 

those which are more than three years old, are sufficiently secret and sufficiently material to its 

business that disclosure would result in serious competitive injury. That showing was then 

balanced against the importance of the information in explaining the rationale of decisions at the 

Commission. Respondent requests in camera treatment for the proposed trial exhibits for a 

specified period of either three or five years. 

In camera treatment for a period of 
 five years, expiring on June 1, 2014, wil be extended 

to the documents for which Respondent requests in camera treatment of that duration, in 

accordance with Section IV of 
 this Order. 

2 
In camera treatment for a period ofthree years, expiring on June 1,2012, wil be 

extended to the documents for which Respondent requests in camera treatment of such duration, 

in accordance with Section IV of this Order. ' 

iv. 

Upon review of 
 Exhibit A and Exhibit B, it appears that not all ofthe documents listed in 

Exhibit A have an explanation in Exhibit B. It also appears that not all of the documents 

described in Exhibit B are listed in Exhibit A. In camera treatment is GRANTED only for 

documents both listed in Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B. With respect to the documents 

for which Respondent has failed to provide any explanation for its requested in camera 

treatment, Respondent's Second Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Respondent shall prepare a proposed order, with a signature line for the Administrative 

Law Judge, that lists by exhibit number the documents that, by this Order, have been granted in 

camera treatment and that sets forth the expiration date of in camera treatment for each exhibit. 

Respondent shall inform its testifyng current or former employees that in camera 

treatment has been extended to the material described in this Order. At the time that any 

documents that have been granted in camera treatment are offered into evidence, or before any 

of the information contained therein is referred to in court, Respondent shall identify such 

documents and the subject matter therein as in camera, inform the court reporter ofthe trial 

exhibit number(s) of 
 such documents, and request that the hearing go into an in camera session. 

ORDERED: '~ ~ a lJ D. Michael Chap~ ' 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: May 13, 2009 

3