f)R~G,~N.AL ~.,'" il i!J . ~

r..':-","::"--'-'''''' ''''~S'''',~ :-.:0,,,, ,~,~:ò'~~'~'.'~ ''; "'"

i/¡~':'" :j;¡ f3¿::;'/'('~~;:\

¡ Jkj .,: G 2¡~i'u ~

~\,,\,.. S lib 1'1 l' .e/

"""'~~~~~~Gi:;;;;;1ç.t:;;'ti'.Y

UNITED STATES OF AMRICA

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 9327

Polyp ore International, Inc.

a corporation. PUBLIC VERSION

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO

AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER

Respondent seeks to delay the hearing date in this matter by 30 days, from Apri114,

2009, to May 14,2009. Complaint Counsel respectfully opposes a delay of triaL. Complaint

Counsel's offer to agree to an extension of discovery deadlines with respect to outstanding third

part subpoena responses, including allowing supplemental expert reports, is suffcient to

address Respondent's concerns without delaying the triaL. Any delay wil harm consumers and

is not waranted in view of the fact that (1) the Cour already ruled on this same issue last year

when Respondent sought to move the tral date to May 18, 2009; (2) Complaint Counsel has

responded to discovery demands and deadlines expeditiously; (3) Parker Poe is not new counsel

at all; (4) Respondent has created the discovery issues that it now seeks additional time to

resolve.

The Court has Already Spoken on the Hearine Date

On October 1 si, 2008, citing concerns that it would be difficult to conduct discovery prior

to the December 9, 2008 trial date set by the Commission, Respondent requested that the hearig

date be extended to May 18, 2009. The Cour granted Respondent's Motion in part and denied it

in part, and set the trial date to April 14, 2009. In its Order, the Cour cited the requirement

under Rule 3.51 that an initial decision be fied within one year of the issuance of the complaint.

-1-
Notwithstanding the Cour's order that the trial begin on April14, 2008, Respondent requests

that the trial be delayed until May 14th so that it can complete its discovery and prepare for triaL.

Complaint Counsel believes that Respondent has only itself to blame as it has failed to adjust its

discovery efforts to meet the April 14 trial date. Moreover, Complaint Counsel has offered to

work with Respondent so that it could complete its discovery without changing the tral date but

Respondent has rebuffed our offer.

Respondent points to the delay by third parties in responding to its discovery requests as

the primary reason for seeking a later trial date. Complaint Counsel has consistently offered to

be flexible on discovery deadlines, on a case-by-case basis, so that Respondent wil not be

prejudiced by late third part subpoena responses. Complaint counsel even suggested that the

parties supplement their expert reports with respect to information received in third part

documents, and depositions that occur, after the February 13, 2009 discovery cutoff deadline.!

Respondent refused Complaint Counsel's offer to allow expert reports to be supplemented.

Respondent's refusal of Complaint Counsel's offer to be flexible on such discovery deadlines

should not redound to the detriment of consumers or rush a Cour decision.

Complaint Counsel stands by its position that discovery deadlines can be extended for

both Respondent and Complaint Counsel to encompass the late document productions from third

parties to whom Respondent has issued discovery requests, including depositions, designation of

documents, and supplements to expert reports, if necessary. No other deadlines need to be

moved.

!Scheduling Order dated October 22,2008. Although the Scheduling Order has set

Februar 13 as close of Discovery, Respondent and Complaint Counsel have already agreed to

schedule a few depositions after February 13.

-2-
Delay Harms Consumers

This is a consummated merger. As a result of the acquisition of Microporous,

Respondent has a monopoly in the markets for deep-cycle separators and motive power

separators. The acquisition halted Microporous' entry into a third market for UPS separators

that would have upset Respondent's monopoly in that market. The acquisitionalso halted

Microporous' ongoing expansion in a fourth market for automotive battery separators, disrupting

a duopoly shared by Respondent and Entek.

Customers are already feeling the impact of the merger in double digit price increases

that have been announced by Respondent. Since the acquisition, Respondent has sought price

increases as high as 18%. See October 28, 2008, Daramic Press Release at

http://ww.daramic.com/news/daramic news detail.cfm?news id=21;

Customers have no viable competitive constraints,

and have complained that its acquisition of Microporous has given

Respondent monopoly power and that Respondent is exercising that power in seekig price

mcreases.

The

purpose of Section 7 of the Clayton Act is to stop mergers that may tend to lead to monopoly. 15

U.S.C. § 18 (2000). When such mergers do lead to monopolies they are ilegaL. Id.

Durng the pendency of this action, Respondent has continued to disperse former

Microporous assets and former Microporous personnel continue to be lost.

-3-
Commission staff

requested that Respondent cease the integration of the newly acquired Microporous into

Respondent and to hold Microporous as a separate competing entity as early as

after the acquisition was consummated.

Respondent refused to grant the request. Had

Respondent agreed to hold Microporous separate, consumers would have been protected during

the pendency of this litigation.

Every day of delay allows Respondent to reap additional monopoly profits, which hars

consumers, and fuher complicates the process of achieving effective relief.

Complaint Counsel has Moved Expeditiously

Complaint Counsel has moved expeditiously in pursuing this matter. Complaint Counsel

served its document request on Respondent on October 22,2008. Complaint Counsel then

provided all of the third part documents that it liad received in its Part 2 investigation, within a

month ofthe commencement of Discovery.2 The majority of the third part documents received

by Complaint Counsel in its investigation were produced on November 7, 2008, including all of

the documents in its possession from

, five of the eight companies from whom Respondent asserts it needs information. See

Respondent's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order at i¡22.

2Complaint Counsel has not produced Entek documents to Respondent pursuant to the

Court's Order of November 18, 2008, entering a stipulation entered into between Polypore and

Entek.

-4-
Complaint Counsel then reprocessed those documents at Respondent's request, in a different

format to facilitate Respondent's review.3 Respondent's attempt to characterize this

reproduction of the same material as "sporadic" is thus misleading at best. Complaint Counsel

has bent over backwards to ensure that Respondent would be able to meet its deadlines for an

April 14 trial date.

Subsequent productions of third part documents to Respondent have been within five

days of receiving documents, unless the par producing the documents had not yet been notified

of the protective order, in which case documents were produced ten days after they had received

a copy of the order.

Parker Poe is Not New Counsel

Respondent states that a delay in the tral is warranted because its counsel was "not

involved in the development of positions in response to the FTC inquiry," implying that its

current counsel was recently obtained.4 This is simply not tre. More importantly, counsel

raised this same issue last year in its previous motion to extend the trial date. It is past time for

counsel to get engaged and prepare for triaL.

Respondent's counsel, Parker Poe, and Michael Shor, have been on this case for at least

nine months - three months longer than the lead Complaint Counsel for the FTC. During its Part

2 investigation, the Commission

3Complaint Counsel's Initial Disclosures included copies ofthe materials as submitted to

the FTC by third parties. By agreement between the parties, and at the public's expense,

Complaint Counsel processed these documents and electronic submissions for Respondent to

create litigation databases for each third part submission, including images, native fies, all

metadata, and load files for Respondent's litigation software with custom delimiters.

4In its motion Respondent states "immediately after its retention, Parker Poe. . .." Id. at

i¡5.

-5-
to Respondent. Parker Poe prepared the interrogatory responses, and appears to have been

responsible for the document production. Back in June 2008, Parker Poe was responsible for

drafting all of Respondent's interrogatory responses.5 See

In a dozen letters dated as early as May 1, 2008, to

Commssion staff, Respondent represented that

during the course of the Commssion's Part 2 investigation.

, Polypore identified its local counsel as Parker Poe. Id.

Commssion Staff contacted counsel for Polypore to notify them of staffs

Thus Polypore has been on

notice of the Commission's concerns for nearly a year. Respondent has'had ample time to

review its own documents, question its own witnesses, and prepare its defenses in this matter. If,

in fact, Respondent has failed to review its documents and interview witnesses, Respondent's

failure to prepare for litigation should not redound to the detriment of consumers.

Moreover, Respondent has had continuity of counsel throughout the Part 2 and Part 3

proceedings, even if Respondent has only recently appointed Parker Poe to be its trial counseL.

First, Parker Poe was already involved in the Part 2 investigation. Second, Respondent's inhouse counsel, Philip Bryson, Esquire, was heavily involved throughout the Part 2 investigation,

presented Respondent's arguments to FTC staff and Commissioners,

Respondent's business people. Third, Respondent represented to

FTC staff that it had retained counsel, Michael Shor, specifically to deal with this matter. Mr.

5Respondent's assertion that it was only responsible for 8 CID responses is misleading.

There were only 8 CID questions.

-6-
Shor was in charge of in the Part 2 proceedings. Mr.

Shor as well. Even if Parker Poe's involvement in the

Part 2 investigation was not suffcient to prepare Respondent for trial, Mr. Bryson's and Mr.

Shor's hands-on involvement in preparing and presenting Respondent's case to the FTC during

the Part 2 investigation is suffcient to prevent any delay as a result of appointing Parker Poe to

be trial counsel.

Parker Poe was also Respondent's counsel in an arbitration that was terminated by the

merger. While Respondent describes this arbitration as "unelated," in fact it is directly related

to an important aspect of the case. Respondent and Microporous were arbitrating a non-compete

agreement that Respondent had invoked in an attempt to prevent Microporous from expanding

into automotive separator production. Many of the facts that Parker Poe developed in the

arbitration relate directly to competition between Microporous and Respondent and to

Microporous' entr into the automotive separator market. Indeed, in an attempt to settle this

arbitration, Respondent proposed that Microporous agree to stay out of the automotive market in

exchange for Respondent's agreement to withdraw from the motive power market. (i! 41 of

Complaint J. Respondent's invitation to divide markets is itself a violation of Section 5 of the

FTC Act. As Respondent notes in its motion, Parker Poe was involved in producing documents

related to the arbitration from its own files durg the FTC Part 2 investigation.

Respondent Has Created the Discovery Issues

That it Now Seeks Additional Time to Resolve

This case is not complex. It is a straightforward application of the antitrust laws to a

merger. The application of the antitrust laws to Respondent's anticompetitive conduct also

follows established law. This trial should not be delayed so that Respondent can conduct

-7-
unnecessary third part and foreign discovery past the date scheduled for the close of Discovery.

Complaint Counsel has turned over third part documents in its possession to

Respondent. Respondent already has many documents for several of the third parties to whom it

has issued subpoenas. In addition, the subpoenas issued by Respondent to third parties are

extremely broad and extensive. The subpoenas that Respondent has issued to third parties are

significantly more extensive and document requests

issued by Complaint Counsel to Respondent. The delay by third parties in responding to such

broad subpoenas is due, in part, to Respondent failure to negotiate or narrow these subpoenas to

get responsive documents in a timely maner.

Moreover, Respondent did not issue its subpoenas duces tecum to third parties until

November, well after the start of Discovery. The Complaint was served on Respondent in this

matter on September 15,2008. Discovery commenced on October 22,2008. Respondent was

well aware of the need to conduct discovery quickly in this matter. In its Motion to Reschedule

Hearing Date on October 1, 2008, Respondent had apparently already identified the firms from

whom it intended to conduct discovery. Id. at pp. 6-7. Respondent also appears to have already

done much of the trial preparation that it claims it must do prior to tral. According to

Respondent's previous motion, it had already identified its witnesses, including fourteen (14)

Corporate witnesses, long before discovery even began. Id. 6. The trial should not be delayed to

accommodate Respondent's lax efforts to pursue needless discovery past the end of the

Discovery cutoff.

Likewise, this trial need not be delayed to conduct needless discovery abroad.

Respondent argues that a delay is necessary because it must be permitted to conduct discovery of

witnesses in the United Kingdom, Taiwan and Korea. It is diffcult to believe that alternative,

-8-
less time-consuming discovery with respect to these firms is not available in the United States.

Signally, Respondent has not yet even identified a Korean witness to Complaint Counsel. A

respondent cannot be permitted to delay trial merely by tracking down foreign firms at which it

might conduct discovery and speculating that it would be diffcult to conduct discovery with

respect to them.

Conclusion

Respondent issued its extensive and onerous discovery requests late, sat on its rights, and

now seeks to use these tactics to delay the triaL. Complaint Counsel has acted diligently to

ensure that Respondent wil have every opportity to be prepared for trial, including offering to

be flexible on discovery deadlines and permitting a supplement to expert reports that would

include new information leared from documents and depositions received after the discovery

deadlines in the scheduling order. Any delay of trial wil redound to the detriment of lead-acid

battery separator consumers in terms of monopoly prices and the continued disintegration of the

former Microporous. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion should be denied. Ifthe Cour amends

the schedule, it should only extended discovery deadlines for both Respondent and Complaint

Counsel to encompass the late document productions from third parties to whom Respondent has

issued discovery requests, including depositions, designation of documents, and supplements to

expert reports, if necessary. No other deadlines need to be moved, and the trial date should not

be changed.

-9-
Dated: Januar 30, 2009

-10-

Respectfully submitted,

1c;¡;

J Robert Robertson

Complaint Counsel

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commssion

600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (H-374)

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: (202) 326-2008

Facsimile: (202) 326-2214
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 30,2009 I fied via hand and electronic mail delivery an

original and two copies of the foregoing Response to Respondent's Motion to Amend the

Scheduling Order (public version) with:

Donald S. Clark, Secretar

Office of the Secretar

Federal Trade Commssion

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135

Washington, DC 20580

I hereby certify that on Januar 30,2009, I served via electronic mail and mail delivery a

copy of the foregoing Response to Respondent's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (public

version) with:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commssion

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, H-106

Washington, DC 20580

oali (gftc.gov

I hereby certify that on Januar 30,2009, I served via electronic mail delivery and first

class mail two copies of the foregoing Response to Respondent's Motion to Amend the

Scheduling Order (public version) with:

Willam L. Rikard, Jr., Esq.

Eric D. Welsh, Esq.

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

willamrkard (gparkerpoe.com

ericwelsh (gparkerpoe.com

Linda Cunningham

Federal Trade Co n

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: (202) 326-2638

lcunningham (g ftc. gov
DAllAN\IC Daramlc. LLC

The GIon 8ung

i T 43 Norh Comunity House Road

SuIte 35

Charotte, He 28277

Tel: 170.) æ7~.i

Fox (7Q.) æ7~752

ww.daamrc.com

Octbe 20, 2008

CONFIDENTIL POL Y0000321

ATTACHMENT A to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
We will be upti our prill shee and will send 1h to your aton. As soon as

praca. I would appreciat the opportty to meet with you to provide more detaled

inight in th escatig cost sitution ~d any other ope commerial iss.

Should you have any questions, pleae give eith Steve or mylf a caL.

Sincely.

.d ~ ..

S. Tucker Roe

Vice Preident Sales &; Marketng

Cc:

Ha Seibert- Darc. LLC

Steve McDod-Daramc, LLC

A POII co_

CONFIDENTIAL POL Y0000322

ATTACHMENT A to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES

2. Identify each and every change in prices by Polypore to customers in North

,-

America in any relevant product since the transaction. For each such request to increase price

state:

a. the relevant product;

b. the customer;

c. the curent price;

d. the proposed change in price;

e. the reason for the price change; and

f. the amount of change in price achieved irany.

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
I

,

! .

I

i

r

5

PPAB 1493718v7 Cnntidcntial Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
6

PPAB 14937T8v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
7

PPAB 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order

I

i

I

i

i

I
8

PPAB 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
9

PPAß 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
10

PPAB!493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
11

PPAB !493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
i

I

I

12

PPAB 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
13

PPAB 14937!8v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
1 'l

PPJ\B 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
15

I'PAB 1493718v1 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
J

16

PPAß 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT B to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend the Scheduling

Order
o

O'MELVENY & MYERS UP

BUJ'SG

BRUSSf:i.S

CENTlJRY CITY

nol'(: KO~G

LONDON

LOS A"GELI:S

Sic\\ YORK

610 Newport Center Drive. 17th Floor

l'cwport Beach. California 9i66o-6'P9

n:I.\'lnos" (9-+9) 760'9600

FACSIMIl.E (949) 8i3,6994

www.omm.com

December i 9, 2008

VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL

Mr. Pierre Hauswald

VP General Manager

Daramic, LLC

The Gibson Building

11430 North Community House Road

Suite 350

Charlotte, NC 28277

Dear Mr. Hauswald:

S"S I'RAS(;SCO

S lli\,'i(; 1'1.\1

SILICON VAI'I'EY

"HNG.\NJRf';

TOKYO

\\"SlU!"GTOj', D.C.

OllR FllF SI'MßER

874.9io-999

I\RITU.'S !)IRlCeT 11iAi'

(949) 8i3-79i6

"':RITER'S E.MAIl. .\I)DRESS

alau rendeau(ßom m .com

ATTACHMENT C to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Q'MnVENY & MYERS LLP

Mr. Pit:rre Hauswald, December 19, 2008" Page 2

ATTACHMENT C to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
O'MlLVI'NY & MYfl\s UP

Mr, Pierre llauswald. December 19,2008 - Page 3

AJL:le

cc: J. Robert Robertson. ESQ. (via cmail

Nfl I :7508

~inCirelY,

\~ìV~t_tt¡Ll

Amy J. Laurcndcau

ofO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

ATTACHMENT C to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Page 1 ofl

From:

Sent:

To:

Friday, December 12, 2008 3:14 PM

Roe, Tucker

This email message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain confidential inormation and are intended only for

the individual(s) to whom the message is addressed. If you have received this emaiI message in error, please notify the

sender by reply emaiI and delete it from your system; you should not distribute or copy this emailiiessage or its contents,

Any views or opinions presented in this emaiI message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of

No employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of

with another par byemail. accepts no liabilty for the content of this email, or for the consequences of

any actions taken on the basis of the intomiation provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed by

signed writing, TIie recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of any virus. accepts no

liability for any damage caused by any virus trnsmitted by this email message or any attachments.

2366 Bernvile Road, Reading, PA 19605 ~Y.Y:W,el)i;Jsy_s-,çQ!!i

1/12/2009

ATTAVHMENT D to

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
12/16/2008

Pi'ae 143

1

2

3

4

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

For The Record, Inc.

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

27d2167b-1305-4bbf-8ce8-48b4807e518a

ATTACHMENT E to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
From:

Sent: Monday, December 01 , 2008 8:37 AM

To: Dahm, Steven A.

A TT ACHMENT F to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
\ '

22

PPAB 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT G to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
23

PPAB 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT G to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
I

i

,\

24

PPAB 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT G to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
25

PPAB 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT G to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
26

PPAB 1493718v7 Confidential Material

ATTACHMENT G to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order

~.

I
Bureau or Compelilon

Mergers II DIvIsion

VIA FACSIME 202-637-5910

Joseph G. Krauss, Esq.

Hogan & Harson LLP

555 Thiteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

UNlTED STATES OF ,\MERlCA

FEDERA TRAE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. D,C.l0S80

March 20, 2008

ATTACHMENT I to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Joseph G. Krauss, Esq.

March 20, 2008 Page 2

ATTACHMENT I to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Joseph G. Krauss, Esq.

March 20, 2008

Page 3

Sincerely" // ø~' ~el)~in Gris

Attorney

601 New Jersey Avenue N.W. (NJ-6133)

Washington, D.C. 20001

e~mail bgris(qftc.gov

facsimile 202-326-2071

ATTACHMENT I to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Harton UP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street NW

Washington, DC 20004

+1.202.637.5600 Tel

+1.202,637.5910 Fox

ww.hhlaw.com

June 5, 2008 Michaelyn R. Ware

Assocìal.

202~37-88S7

mnvnrc&hhlaw,cam

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dalun, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Re: Polypore International, Inc. 's Response to the Civil Investigative Demand Issued By

the Federal Trade Commission, FTC File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

TIs response was prepared by Polypore's local counsel, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP,

with assistance from Polypore's in-house legal deparent, varous business people at Polypore,

Daramic, and Microporous, and Hogan & Harson LLP,

ATTACHMENT J to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dah

June 5, 2008

Page 2

Sincerely,

)J'cJ:¡l. (ZUv~

Michaelynn R, Ware

Enclosures

cc: Phiip Bryson, Esq.

Richard S. Glaser, Esq.

Benjamin Oris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT J to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Harton lLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

+1.202.637.5600 Tel

+1.202.637.5910 Fax

ww.hhlaw.com

June 5, 2008 Michaelynn R.Wnre

Associate

202-637-8857

mrwnre(ghhlnw.com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dahm, Esq.

i\ttorney, 11ergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Re: Polyp ore International, Inc. 's Response to the Civil Investigative Demand Issued By

the Federal Trade Commission, FTC File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

Ths response was prepared by Polypore's local counsel, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP,

with assistance from Polypore's in-house legal deparent, various business people at Polypore,

Daramic, and Microporous, and Hogan & Hartson LLP.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dah

June 5, 2008

Page 2

Sincerely,

)J'dv:r (ZlÁ ~

Michaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Phillp Bryson, Esq.

Richard S. Glaser, Esq.

Benjamin Gris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Hartson LlP

ColumbIa Square

555 ThIrteenth Street NW

Washington. DC 20004

+ 1.202.637.5600 Tel

+ 1.02.637.5910 Fax

www.hhlaw.com

June 2, 2008 Michnelynn R. Ware

Associiile

202-637-8857

mrwnre(ghhliiw.com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dahm, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Re: Polyp ore International, Inc. 's Thirteenth Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum,

FTC File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

June 2, 2008

Page 2

As we have discussed, these emails and electronic documents have been collected and reviewed

by Polypore's in-house legal deparent and local counsel based in Charlotte, Nort Carolina.

Sincerely,

.)' cA () A i f? r. d tl Ir/VVVV~

Micliaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Philip Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Gris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondents

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Harton LIP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington. DC 20004

+1.202.637.5600 Tel

+1.02.637.5910 Fax

www.hhlaw.com

May 29, 2008 Michaelynn R. Ware

Associate

202-637-8857

mnvarel!hhlaw.com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dah, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Waslungton, DC 20001

Re: Polypore International, Ine.'s Twelfth Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC

File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dah

May 29, 2008

Page 2

As we have discussed, these em ails and electronic documents have been collected and reviewed

by Polypore's in-house legal deparment and local counsel based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Sincerely,

. ¿U.1.6trfk~,1JZ(if

Michaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Phillp Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Gris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

May 28, 2008

BY HAD DELIVERY

Steven A. Dah, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Hogan & Harton LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street NW

Washington. DC 20004

+1.202.637.5600 Tel

+1.02.637.5910 fall

www.hhlaw.com

Michuelynn R. Wnre

Associate

202-637-8857

mrwiiref!IU1luw.com

Re: Polypore International, Inc.'s Eleventh Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC

File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dalun

May 28, 2008

Page 2

As we have discussed, these emails and electronic documents have been collected and reviewed

by Polypore's in-house legal departent and local counsel based in Charlotte, Nort Carolina.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondents

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dalun

May 28, 2008

Page 3

Sincerely,

Jiu¡ C)vi./.Q ~11,\ (2 (A..,

Michaelyn R. wa£

Enclosures

cc: Phillp Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Gris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dalim

May 28, 2008

Page 4

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dah

May 28, 2008

Page 5

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May 28, 2008

Page 6

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Harton LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

+ 1.202.637.5600 Tel

+ 1.202.637.5910 Fax

www.hhlaw.com

May 22, 2008 Michuelynn R. Ware

Associate

202-637-8857

mrware(!hhlaw.com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dahm, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 601 7

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washigton, DC 20001

Re: Polypore International, Inc. '8 Tenth Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC

File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondents

MotiOn to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May 22, 2008

Page 2

This is a supplemental production of additional hard copy docwnents located by

Polypore's in-house legal deparment and local counsel based in Charlotte, North Carolina,

following the collection and review of the hard copy documents previously submitted.

Sincerely, JJ~ ~

Michaelynn R. ware?

Enclosures

cc: Phillp Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Oris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Harton LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

WashIngton. DC 20004

+1.202.637.5600 TI!I

+1.202.637.5910 Fax

ww.hhlaw.com

May 22, 2008 Michnelynn R. Wore

Associate

202-637-8857

mrwiirel!hhliiw.com

BY HAD DELIVERY

Steven A. Dah, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washigton, DC 20001

Re: Polyp ore International, Inc.'s Ninth Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC File

No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dah

May 22, 2008

Page 2

As we have discussed, these emails and electronic documents have been collected and reviewed by

Polypore's in-house legal deparent and local counsel based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Sincerely, ~l;'~ Michaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Phillp Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Gris, Esq.

Michael ShOT, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Hartson IIp

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

+ 1.202.637.5600 Tel

+ 1,202,637,5910 FiI

May 19,2008 ww.hhlaw.com

Michaelyn R, Ware

Associate

202-637-8857

mrare§)hhaw.com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dah, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Re: Polypore International, Inc.'s Eighth Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC File

No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May 19,2008

Page 2

As we have discussed, these emaI1s and electronic documents have been collected and reviewed by

Polypore's in-house legal department and local counsel based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Sincerely,

Jjji~~ (?~ Michaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Phillp Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Gris, Esq.

Michael ShOT, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Hartson LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street NW

Washington. DC 20004

+ 1.02.637.5600 Tel

+1.202,637.5910 Fax

ww.hhlaw.com

May 19, 2008 Michaelynn R. Ware

Associate

202-637-8857

mrarelihhlaw,com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dahm, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Re: Polypore International, Inc.'s Seventh Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum,

FTC File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

These emails and electronic documents have been collected and reviewed by Polypore's in-house

legal department and local counsel based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May 19,2008

Page 2

Sincerely, ff~' ' ,,1'1"¡ " ; J.?, ~.'

Michaelynn R. W àre

. '. "' - .

i~;\)O' T!.__"

Enclosures

cc: Philip Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Gris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Harton LIP

Columbia Square

S55 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington. DC 20004

+ 1.202.637.5600 Tel

+ 1.02.637.5910 Fu

www.hhlaw.com

May 14, 2008 Michoelynn R. Wore

Associate

202-637-8857

mnvarc§hhlaw.com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dah, Esq.

1\ttorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washigton, DC 20001

Re: Polypore International, Inc.'s Sixth Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC File

No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

These emails and electronic documents have been collected and reviewed by Polypore's in-house

legal deparment and local counsel based in Charlotte, Nort Carolina.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May i 4, 2008

Page 2

Sincerely,

)M'ciõ (2 ~

Michaelyn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Philip Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Oris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

May 12, 2008 '

BY HAD DELIVERY

Steven A. Dah, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Hogan & Harton UP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

+ 1.202.637.5600 Tel

+1.202.637.5910 Fax

www.hhlaw.com

Michaclynn R. Wore

Associate

202-637 -8857

mrwnre(£hhlaw.com

Re: Polypore International, Inc.'s Fifth Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC File

No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

These eNmaI1s and electronic documents have been collected and reviewed by Polypore's inhouse legal deparent and local counsel based in Charlotte, Nort Carolina.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May 12, 2008

Page 2

Sincerely,

.J dw/j (U

Michaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Philip Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Gris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Hartson IIp

ColumbIa Square

555 Thirteentli Street. NW

Washington, DC 20004

+1.202.637.5600 Tel

+1.202.637.5910 Fax

ww.hhlaw.com

May 9, 2008 Michuelynn R. Wnre

Associate

202.637-8857

mnvure(!hhlaw.com

BY HAD DELIVERY

Steven A. Dah, Esq.

llttorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey llvenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Re: Polypore International, Inc.'s Fourth Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC

File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May 9, 2008

Page 2

As with the hard copy documents, these emails and electronic documents have been collected

and reviewed by Polypore's in-house legal deparent and local counsel based in Charlotte,

North Carolina.

Sincerely,

JMrk(Jf2~

Michaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Plul1p Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Oris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Hartson IIp

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street NW

Washington, DC 20004

+ 1.02.637.5600 Tel

+ 1.202,637.5910 Fax

ww.hhlaw.(om

May 8, 2008 Michaelynn R. Ware

Associate

202-637-8857

mrare~hhlaw,com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dahm, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Re: Polypore International, Ine.'s Third Response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC

File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

As with our submission yesterday, these documents have been collected and reviewed by

Polypore's in-house legal department and local counsel based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A, Dahm

May 8, 2008

Page 2

Sincerely,

). cA'( (2 ~

Michaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Philip Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Oris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Hartson LlI

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington. DC 20004

+ 1.202.637.5600 Tel

+ 1.202.637.5910 Fax

www.hhlaw.com

May 7,2008 Michael)'nn R. Wure

Associate

202-637-8857

mrwiireimhhluw.com

BY HAD DELIVERY

Steven A. Dah, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washigton, DC 20001

Re: Polyp ore International, Inc.'s Second Responseto the Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC

File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May 7, 2008

Page 2

As we have discussed, these documents have been collected and reviewed by Polypore's inhouse legal departent and local counsel based in Charlotte, Nort Carolina.

i With respect to this second categoiy, on April 29 and May 1,2008, we produced PDFs of 

nonprivileged hard copy documents from the files of Polyp ore's local counsel, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP. ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May 7, 2008

Page 3

Sincerely,

fi~ (Z~.

Michaelyn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Phillp Bryson, Esq.

Benjamm Oris, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Harton LlP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street. NW

Washington. DC 20004

+1.202.637.5600 Tel

+1.202.637.5910 Fax

www.hhlaw.com

May 1, 2008 Michoelynn R. Wore

Associate

202-637-8857

mrwiire(!hhlDw.com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dah, Esq.

llrtorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Waslungton, DC 20001

Re: Supplemental Production for Polypore International, Ine.'s First Response to the

Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC File No. 0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

May 1,2008

Page 2

These documents were scaned into PDF fies from the hard copy tiles ot .loiypore-s

local counsel, Parker Poe Adams & Bertsein LLP.

Sincerely,

r t - 1 . . ~ ,__LvG~ tr" (ê~ " l,' ~.

Michaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc: Phillp Bryson, Esq.

Benjamin Gris, Esq.

Adam Shearer, Esq.

Michael Shor, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
HOGAN &

HARTSON

Hogan & Hartson LL?

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street. NW

Washington. DC 20004

+ 1.202.637.5600 Tel

+ 1.202.637.5910 Fax

www.hhlaw.com

April 29, 2008 Michaclyiiii R. Ware

Associate

202-637-8857

mrware0)lililaw.com

BY HAND DELIVERY

Steven A. Dalun, Esq.

Attorney, Mergers II

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Room 6017

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW

WaslUlgton, DC 20001

Re: Polypore International, Inc.'s First Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum, FTC File No.

0810131

Dear Steve:

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order
Steven A. Dahm

Aprìl 29, 2008

Page 2

Sincerely, ~cL~!r~

Michaelynn R. Ware

Enclosures

cc:

Adam Shearer, Esq.

ATTACHMENT K to

Response to Respondent's

Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order