ORIGINAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9327 

) 

) 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO SET HEARING LOCATION 

Pursuant to Rule 3.41 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 C.PR. § 3.41, 

Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") respectfully moves for an order setting the 

location of the hearing in the above-captioned matter in Charlotte, North Carolina, as discussed 

at the October 22,2008, scheduling conference. 

In accordance with Commission Rule 3.22(f), 16 C.PR. 3.22(l, Respondent's Counsel
 

has discussed in good faith the issue raised by this motion with Complaint Counsel, but Counsel 

have been unable to resolve the issue. A signed statement documenting those discussions is
 

submitted herewith. 

In support of its motion, Polypore states as follows: 

1. Polypore's corporate headquarters is located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Many 

of the witnesses Polypore intends to call reside in Charlotte and are extremely busy operating 

Polypore's business. The economic downturn is making operating the business more diffcult 

and requires a greater attention of Polypore's personnel to the business, including those 

employees which wil serve as witnesses for Polypore or be called by Complaint Counsel as 

witnesses. Furthermore, many of the witnesses Complaint Counsel intends to call also work and 

reside in Charlotte. None of 
 the identified third party witnesses reside in or around Washington,

PPAB lS4243Svl 
D.C. In contrast, the sole basis for a Washington, D.C. based hearing is the location of the 

Federal Trade Commission and the convenience of Complaint Counsel. Numerous factors set 

forth below manifest that the hearing should be held in Charlotte. 

2. At the scheduling conference held on October 22, 2008, Administrative Law
 

Judge Chappell, Complaint Counsel and Respondent's Counsel all recognized that convenience 

and economic efficiency dictated that the hearing would likely need to occur in North Carolina i, 

but that such a decision should be reserved for a future date2: 

24 JUDGE CHAPPELL: Now, along those lines, when I 

25 see a case like this, I always throw it out to the 

1 parties. If everyone agrees that we'd be better off
 

2 having this trial where the witnesses are -- and that's 

3 I guess North Carolina or whatever -- I throw that out, 

4 and if anybody wants to talk about that, come to some
 

5 agreement, I've done this before, I've had a case in 

6 Fort Worth, Texas. I'll be able to find a courtroom. 

7 So I don't need a decision today, but if you 

8 want to think about it, let me know. 

9 MR. RIKARD: That would be something that we 

10 would like to consider and we'll talk to Mr. Robertson 

11 about. There are certainly plenty of nice courtrooms 

12 with electronics and everything available in Charlotte, 

13 and that may be something that works well. 

14 Thank you for that comment, Your Honor.
 

15 MR. ROBERTSON: I like it down there, so if it 

16 works out, that would be fine. 

i The October 22,2008, Scheduling Order ("Scheduling Order") in the form part of 
 the order stated that the location of 

the hearing was Washington, D.C., or such "other location to be determined." (October 22, 2008 Scheduling Order.) The Order 

entered February 4, 2009 rescheduling the hearing only stated "Commencement of Hearing, to begin at 10:00 a.m. in room 532, 

Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580." (February 4, 2009 Order 

Granting Respondent's Motion To Amend The Scheduling Order.) 

2 Complaint Counsel now takes the position that it did not budget for a Charlotte based hearing, but Complaint 

Counsel's statement to Administrative Law Judge Chappell during the October 22, 2008 scheduling conference makes no such 

assertion. (Transcript of October 22, 2008 Pre-Hearing Scheduling Conference, p. 7.) In fact, this position was first asserted in 

an email dated March 10,2009. Of course, Complaint Counsel has had the budget to fly its attorneys throughout the country to 

meet with multiple witnesses and attend depositions. 

2 

PPAB 1542435v1 
October 22, 2008 Pre-Hearing Scheduling Conference, pp. (Transcript of 


6-7). 

3. Charlotte, North Carolina, is the most convenient and cost-effective hearing 

location for the parties and other participants in the hearing. Washington, D.C. is not convenient 

to Respondent, its witnesses or its counsel and a hearing in Washington, D.C. wil impose an 

unecessary hardship and cost on Respondent. 

4. A substantial number of the witnesses Polypore intends on callng to testify at the
 

hearing work and reside in Charlotte and several reside in Johnson City, Tennessee, which is 

easily accessible from Charlotte. (Johnson City is an approximately three hour drive to/from 

Charlotte as opposed to a six hour and forty-five minute drive to/from Washington, D.C.)
 

Additionally, Complaint Counsel's Revised Witness List identifies a minimum of eight Charlotte 

based curent or former employees of Polypore as potential witnesses at the hearing of this 

matter3, and Complaint Counsel advised on March 10, 2009, that it intends to call all of these 

witnesses at the hearing, specifically including Polypore's President and Chief Executive 

Officer, Bob Toth; DaramIc's Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Tucker Roe; and 

Daramic's Vice President and General Manager, Pierre Hauswald. (January 6, 2009 Revised 

Witness List.) 

5. If the hearing is held in Washington, D.C., a large number of 
 the Polypore officers

and employees wil be required to travel to Washington, D.C., potentially for extended periods of 

time. Such travel and testimony wil result in several days of lost work for each Polypore 

employee called as a witness. The scheduling complications that inevitably occur at trial wil 

impact the time away from work. This travel and lost work time imposes a hardship on both 

3 Complaint Counsel's Revised Witness List also identifies at least two additional current or former employees of 

Polypore who either work or reside in Johnson City, Tennessee. 

3 

PPAB l542435v1 
Polypore and the employees that wil be called as witnesses and also puts an additional, and quite 

substantial, financial burden on Polypore which, in fairness, it ought not have to bear. 

6. It is important to emphasize that Polypore wil continue to operate and run its
 

business operations during the course of the hearing. The Polypore officers and employees that 

Complaint Counsel has identified as intended witnesses are vital to Polypore's business. In these 

diffcult economic times, it is essential that Polypore minimize lost work time so that its business 

is not unnecessarily harmed. By conducting the hearing in Charlotte, many witnesses wil be 

close-by and prolonged and uncertain travel time wil be avoided. Consequently, travel time and 

costs wil be eliminated and the interrption to Polypore's business would be minimized, which 

would allow Polypore to continue close-to-normal business operations. 

7. None of the third-party witnesses are located in either Charlotte, North Carolina 

or Washington, D.C., and therefore such third-party witnesses wil have to travel regardless of 

whether the hearing is held in Charlotte or Washington, D.C. Charlotte, North Carolina, has 

extensive air transportation service to and from a multitude of locations, including Washington, 

D.C. U.S. Air's Charlotte hub provides regular daily service between Washington D.C. and 

Charlotte, and to and from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, San Francisco, California, Atlanta, 

Georgia, Los Angeles, California, Boston, Massachusetts, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which 

easily accommodates any third party witnesses who might be called to testify. Additionally, the 

cost of accommodations in Charlotte typically is less than that found in Washington, D.C., 

further reducing the burden on third parties. 

8. The undersigned firm, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP ("Parker Poe"), has its 

headquarters offce in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Parker Poe trial team is from Parker Poe's 

North Carolina offices. Additionally, Respondent wil be represented at the hearing by its 

4 

PPAB l542435v1 
General Counsel, Philip Bryson, Esq., and by Special Counsel, Michael L. Shor. Esq., both of 

whom reside in Charlotte and work at Polypore's Charlotte offce. A Washington, D.C. based 

hearing would require Respondent to incur significant attorney-related travel and room and board 

expenses that could be avoided if the hearing takes place in Charlotte. 

9. Complaint Counsel's trial team's travel expenses has the advantage of lower
 

governent rates. 

10. Furher in support of a hearing in Charlotte, is the proximity to the plant in Piney 

Flats, Tennessee. Respondent intends to move separately for an order allowing Judge Chappell 

to view Respondent's manufacturing facilty in Piney Flats, Tennessee, and the operation of the 

facilities during the course of the hearing. As stated above, Piney Flats is only three hours from 

Charlotte and a van could easily be arranged to transport Judge Chappell, Counsel, and other 

pertinent observers to and from Piney Flats in one day. Respondent believes a view of Piney 

Flats and its operations is critical to its presentation of its case. Setting the hearing location in 

Charlotte would facilitate the viewing of Polypore's Piney Flats, Tennessee, facilty. If the
 

hearing is in Washington, D.C., such a site visit is much more difficult and expensive. (It wil 

take two days and require additional airfare.) 

11. After the hearing was rescheduled to begin on May 12, 2009, Complaint Counsel
 

informed Respondent's Counsel that due to the college graduation of Mr. Robertson's daughter, 

Complaint Counsel wil move for a short recess on May 20 and 21 (a Wednesday and Thursday) 

during the course of the hearing in order to allow Mr. Robertson to travel to and attend his 

daughter's graduation. Assuming that the hearing would be held in Charlotte, Respondent's
 

Counsel told Complaint Counsel that it did not object to a recess in the hearing. Upon proper 

motion by Complaint Counsel, Respondent's Counsel wil not object to a recess in the hearing 

5 

PPAB 1542435v1 
for this limited purpose. Allowing such a recess for this purpose is appropriate. Locating the 

hearing in Charlotte supports such a recess. Holding the hearing in Washington, D.C. does not 

because of the cost and ineffciency of such a recess. To wit, it would be unjust for
 

Respondent's Counsel to have to incur hotel costs waiting in Washington, D.C. for the hearing to 

resume, or alternatively, to incur the costs associated with Respondent's Counsel and witnesses 

traveling home to Charlotte and then back to Washington D.C. once the hearing resumes.
 

Having the hearing occur in Charlotte would avoid this costly scenario, and would also allow 

Mr. Robertson's anticipated motion. 

12. In response to Complaint Counsel's request that a recess occur during the course
 

of the hearing, there have been discussions between the undersigned Counsel and Complaint 

Counsel regarding a request to the Court that the hearing begin on either Friday, May 22, 2009 or 

Tuesday, May 26, 2009, in order to enable an effcient trying of this case without recess. On 

March 9, 2009, Respondent's Counsel received an email from Complaint Counsel asking about 

delaying the star date of the hearing to one of these dates. Respondent's Counsel then
 

confirmed by telephone Respondent's agreement with a plan to seek a start of the hearing on 

May 26th to allow a straight through triaL. The next day, however, the undersigned Counsel 

received another email from Complaint Counsel stating that Complaint Counsel "wil keep with 

the judge's May 14th date" (sic) and that it could not agree to a hearing "anywhere but in 

Washington, D.C." Respondent believes, in the interest of economic effciency for all parties, 

that it would be beneficial to begin the hearing on May 26, 2009, after Complaint Counsel's 

scheduling conflict, so that the hearing can proceed straight through without interruption. 

13. Finally, Respondent's Counsel has located and reserved sufficient courtroom
 

space to allow for the appropriate hearing of this matter in Charlotte, North Carolina. The 

6 

PPAB 1542435vl 
Honorable Robert P. Johnston, Senior Resident Superior Cour Judge, has secured a Superior 

Cour courtroom in the Mecklenburg County Courthouse which has been reserved from May 12, 

2009 through May 29, 2009 (and which could be extended into June as necessary). The 

Mecklenburg County Courthouse, which opened in January 2007, is a $148 milion dollar 

facility with high-tech courrooms and wil provide excellent accommodation for this hearing. 

See Exhibit A. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Polypore respectfully requests that an order be 

issued setting the location of 
 the hearing in Charlotte, North Carolina. 

7 

PPAB 1542435v1 
Dated: March 13,2009 Respectfully Submitted, 

LldL '; a 

Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr. 

ErIc D. Welsh 

PARKR POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9689 

wiliamikard(fparkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh(fparkerooe.com 

John F. Graybeal 

PARKR POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

150 Fayettevile Street 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Telephone: (919) 835-4599
 

Facsimile: (919) 828-0564 

i ohngraybeal(fparkerpoe.com 

Attorneys for Respondent 

PPAB 1542435v1 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCHEDULING ORDER 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP ("Parker 

Poe") as counsel for Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore"), hereby represent that Parker Poe 

has conferred with Complaint Counsel in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the 

issues raised by its Motion To Set Hearing Location and have been unable to reach such an 

agreement. 

I, Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr., Esq., on behalf of 


Parker Poe and Complaint Counsel have discussed the issues raised by Respondent's 

motion on several occasions over the past several months. In a March 10,2009, email, 1. Robert 

Robertson, Esq. advised that Complaint Counsel's Counsel's position was that the hearing of this 

matter must take place in Washington, D.C. 

As a result of this email, Polypore and Complaint Counsel are at an impasse with respect 

to the issues raised in Respondent's motion. 

PPAB 1542435v1 
Dated: March 13, 2009 y Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr. 

PARKR POE ADAMS & BE 

Three Wachovia Center
 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000
 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9689
 

wiliamikard(fparkerpoe.com
 

PPAB 1542435v1 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

PROPOSED ORDER 

Upon consideration of Respondent's Motion To Set Hearing Location, any opposition 

thereto, and the Court being fully informed, 

IT is HEREBY ORDERED, that Respondent's Motion is GRANTED. 

IT is FURTHER ORDERED, that Commencement of Hearing shall occur in Charlotte, 

North Carolina, on May 12,2009, or another date to be determined. 

D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Date: 

PPAB 1542435v1 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 

I hereby certify that on March 13, 2009, I caused to be filed via hand delivery and 

electronic mail delivery an original and two copies of the foregoing Motion To Set Hearing 

Location, 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 

secretary(fftc. gov 

I hereby certify that on March 13, 2009, I caused to be served one copy via electronic 

mail delivery and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Motion To Set 

Hearing Location upon:
 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oali(fftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on March 13,2009, I caused to be served via first-class mail delivery 

and electronic mail delivery a copy of 
 the foregoing Motion To Set Hearing Location upon: 

Steven Dahm, Esq. 

1. Robert Robertson, Esq. Federal Trade Commission 

Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 

Washington, DC 20580 sdah(fftc. gov 

rrobertson(fftc. gov 

Brian . Weyhrich
 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 335-9050 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706 

PPAB 1542435v1