ORIGINAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUGES
 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

Respondent. ) 

) 

ORDER ON NON-PARTY MOORE'S MOTIONS FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT AND 

NON-PARTY ENTEK'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

I. 

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

Scheduling Order in this matter, non-party The Moore Company ("Moore") submitted on May 4, 

2009 a motion for in camera treatment for materials that Respondent had identified as proposed 

tral exhibits, and submitted on May 5, 2009 a motion for in camera treatment for materials that 

Complaint Counsel had identified as proposed trial exhibits. Non-pary ENTEK International 

LLC ("ENTEK") submitted on May 6, 2009 a supplemental motion for in camera treatment of 

documents that were, ENTEK states, recently identified by Respondent as proposed trial exhibits 

and not included in ENTEK's prior motion for in camera treatment. Neither Complaint Counsel 

nor Respondent have filed an opposition to either of Moore's motions or to ENTEK's 

supplemental motion. 

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 

the instant motions, are set forth in that Order. 

II. 

Each ofthe non-parties' motions for in camera treatment, as described below, complied 

with the requirements for seeking in camera treatment. Each motion was supported by a 

declaration of an individual within the company who had reviewed the documents. The 

declarations supported the applicants' claims that the documents are sufficiently secret and 

sufficiently material to their 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. Each motion attached the documents for which in 

camera treatment was sought. The specific motions of Moore and ofENTEK are separately 

addressed below. 
A.
 

Each of Moore's motions for in camera treatment provides a Declaration of 
 Guy Dawe 

("Dawe Declaration"). Dawe states that he is the Managing Director of Amer-Sil, S.A. ("AmerSil"), a wholly-owned subsidiar of Moore. In each of 
 his Declarations, Dawe avers that the 

public disclosure of the documents for which in camera treatment is sought, which contain 

information that he deems highly confidential, would significantly harm Amer-Sil's commercial 

and competitive interests. Each Dawe Declaration further avers: that the information in the 

documents is generally not disclosed outside of Amer-Sil, except insofar as it may be shared 

confidentially with Amer-Sil' s business partners; that the information is distributed within the 

company only to those who have a specific need for the information; and that the employees who 

receive the information typically do so only upon entering into confidentiality agreements. 

According to the Declaration that Dawe executed on May 1, 2009, the documents that 

Respondent designated as proposed trial exhibits are organized into three categories. These 

three categories relate to: (1) Amer-Sil's product development, (2) Amer-Sil's product 

marketing, customer, and sales strategy, and (3) Amer-Sil's pricing, including its prices for 

specific products sold to specific customers. According to the Declaration that Dawe executed 

on May 5,2009, the four documents that Complaint Counsel designated as proposed trial 

exhibits, which Dawe discusses individually, relate to product development, strategic marketing 

and sales plans, customer development, and customer relations. 

Moore requests in camera treatment for the parties' proposed trial exhibits for a specified 

period of either three, five, or ten years. Moore also requests in camera treatment, for ten years, 

for each of the Dawe Declarations. 

A review of the Dawe Declarations in support of Moore's motions and of the documents 

reveals that all but one of the materials for which protection is sought meet the standards for in 

camera treatment. In camera treatment is DENIED for the Declaration that Dawe executed on 

May 1, 2009, because that Declaration, unlike the Declaration that he executed on May 5,2009, 

does not warrant such treatment under the legal standards set forth in the Order on Non-Parties' 

Motions for In Camera Treatment entered in this matter on May 6,2009. Moore also has not 

demonstrated circumstances warranting an extension of in camera treatment, either for the 

documents for which it seeks protection or for the Declaration that Dawe executed on May 5, 

2009, beyond the five-year period typically given for business records. Accordingly, Moore's 

motion is GRANTED in part. 

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

to the documents for which Moore requests in camera treatment for ten years and to the 

Declaration that Dawe executed on May 5,2009, as well as to the documents for which Moore 

requests in camera treatment for five years, in accordance with Section III of this Order. 

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

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

accordance with Section II of this Order. 

2
 
B. 

Non-party ENTEK states that its supplemental motion for in camera treatment is 

necessitated by Respondent's identification of additional documents as proposed trial exhibits, 

which ENTEK had not previously addressed in its motion for in camera treatment on April 9, 

2009. ENTEK supports its supplemental motion with a Declaration :fom Dan Weerts, Vice 

President of Sales & Marketing at ENTEK ("Weerts Declaration"). Weerts states that all of the 

documents for which ENTEK seeks in camera treatment contain confidential business 

information, the disclosure of 
 which would seriously injure ENTEK's ability to compete. 

Weerts further states that the documents are material to ENTEK's business as core company 

information and/or important business records. The documents are, according to his Declaration, 

grouped into six subject matter categories: (1) customer contracts, (2) confidential 

communications with customers and/or confidential customer information, including ENTEK's 

strategy for keeping and/or securing additional business, (3) ENTEK's price lists, individual 

customer pricing, and product costs, (4) ENTEK's sales and/or capacity, (5) ENTEK's products 

and the testing thereof, and (6) ENTEK's global business plans and strategy. Weerts declares, 

for the documents in each ofthese subject matter categories, that the "( d)etails are disclosed only 

to a select group" of ENTEK employees, and that all ENTEK employees are required to sign a 

non-disclosure agreement covering all of the kinds of documents included in these categories. 

ENTEK requests in camera treatment for each of these documents for a specified period 

of either one, three, or five years.
 

A review of 
 the Weerts Declaration in support ofENTEK's supplemental motion and of 

the documents reveals that all of the documents sought to be protected meet the standards for in 

camera treatment. Accordingly, ENTEK's motion is GRANTED. 

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

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

accordance with Section II of this Order. 

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

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

accordance with Section II of this Order. 

In camera treatment for a period of one year, expiring on June 1,2010, wil be extended 

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

accordance with Section II of this Order. 

III. 

In camera treatment is appropriate only for information that is offered into evidence. 

The paries shall prepare a joint 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. 

3 
Each non-party having documents or information for which in camera treatment has been 

granted by this Order shall inform its testifyng curent 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, the parties shall identify such 

documents and the subject matter therein as in camera, inform the court reporter of the tral 

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

ORDERED: 

D.

,t "' ~ Michael Chapp 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: May 13, 2009 

4