UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ORIGINAL 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

c:17 ¿;/ () 

In the Matter of ) ~tf 5 30 1 

) 

) Docket No. 9327 

) Polypore International, Inc., ) PUBLIC DOCUMENT a corporation. ) 

) 

) 

) 

:',1 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES' MOTION FOR IN 

CAMERA TREATMENT OF CERTAIN HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS 

Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") agrees that the specific documents 

identified in Exide Technologies' ("Exide") Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain Highly 

Confidential Materials ("Motion") warrant in camera treatment pursuant to Rule 3 .45(b) of the 

Federal Trade Commission Rules of Practice, 16 C.PR. § 3.45(b), and the opinions of this 

Commission. See In re Dura Lube Corp., 1999 FTC LEXIS 255 (Dec. 23 1999); In re Hoechst 

Marion Roussel, Inc., 2000 FTC LEXIS 157 (Nov. 22, 2000) and 2000 FTC LEXIS 138 (Sept. 

19, 2000); and In re Basic Research, Inc., 2006 FTC LEXIS 14 (Jan. 25, 2006). However, 

Respondent respectfully requests, for the proposed trial exhibits identified on Exhibit A to 

Exide's Motion, which are emails and correspondence to or from Respondent - some of which 

are already the subject of Respondent's own Fifth Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain 

Trial Exhibits, that any order directing in camera treatment for such exhibits permit Respondent) 

to review these exhibits and permit Respondent to observe testimony in the courtroom related to 

these exhibits. 

i Including Polypore's General Counsel, Philip Bryson, Esq., and Special Counsel to Polypore, Michael Shor, Esq. 
As Exide's Motion indicates, the thirteen2 exhibits appearing on Complaint Counsel's 

Proposed Exhibit List and identified on Exhibit A to Exide's Motion consist entirely of emails 

and other correspondence between Exide and Daramic. (Exide Technologies' Motion for In 

Camera Treatment of 
 Certain Highly Confdential Materials, p. 1). More specifically, t 

) (November 3, 2009 Declaration of Douglas Gilespie in Support of In 

Camera Treatment, ~ 3)( emphasis added). A review of the title of each exhibit identified on 

Exhibit A to Exide's Motion shows that each exhibit was either sent to, or sent by, Respondent.3 

Consequently, as to Respondent, these exhibits are not sufficiently secret. See BristolMyers Co., 90 FTC 455 (1977)(outlning the factors to be weighed when determining secrecy). 

In fact, Respondent has included its own Polypore-produced versions of several of these exhibits 

on its Proposed Exhibit List4, and Respondent possesses a copy of all thirteen exhibits identified 

on Exhibit A to Exide's Motion as business records. 

Furher, the disclosure of these exhibits to Polypore is not likely to result "in a clearly 

defined, serious injury" to Exide. 16 C.PR. § 3.45(b). As stated above, the emails and other 

correspondence at issue have been previously exchanged between Respondent and Exide in the 

ordinary course of Respondent's and Exide's business. Exide, in its Motion, does not contend 

that it would suffer harm should the thirteen exhibits identified on Exhibit A to its Motion be 

2 PX5001, PX5003, PX5007, PX5017, PX5020, PX5021, PX5025, PX5026, PX5027, PX5028, PX5033, PX5035, and 

PX5036. 

3 Ten of 
 the exhibits were sent to Exide by Harr Seibert (Daramic's Vice President, Business Director), two were sent 

to Exide by either Philip Bryson (Polypore's General Counsel) or Michael Shor (Special Counsel to Polypore), and the final 

exhibit was sent by Exide to Bob Toth (Polypore's President and Chief Executive Offcer). 

4 See Respondent's Fifth Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain Trial Exhibits; pp. 6-7. 

PPAB 1624763vl 
disclosed to Respondent. For example, Exide's Motion also seeks in camera protection for the 

September 30, 2009 Declaration of Douglas Gilespie, which Respondent has proposed to use as 

an exhibit at the hearing of the re-opened Record. As to this proposed exhibit, Exide specifically 

states that, t 

) (Exide Technologies' Motion for In Camera 

injury 

as to the disclosure of the emails and other correspondence to Respondent. 

The thirteen specific emails and correspondence which were identified by Exide on 

Exhibit A to its Motion are the business records of both Exide and Respondent, and in each 

instance, Respondent is a corresponding party to the email or other correspondence. Therefore, 

the exhibits are not sufficiently secret as to Respondent and the disclosure of the exhibits to 

Treatment of Certain Highly Confidential Materials, p. 2). Exide makes no such claim of 


Respondent wil not result in an injur to Exide. Respondent should not be prevented from
 

reviewing the thirteen exhibits appearing on Complaint Counsel's Proposed Exhibit List and 

identified on Exhibit A to Exide's Motion, or precluded from observing testimony in the 

courroom related to such exhibits. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent does not object to Exide's Motion but does 

respectfully request that it be permitted to review the following exhibits listed on Complaint 

Counsel's Proposed Exhibit list and be permitted to observe testimony in the courtroom related 

to the following exhibits: PX5001, PX5003, PX5007, PX5017, PX5020, PX5021, PX5025, 

PX5026, PX5027, PX5028, PX5033, PX5035, and PX5036. 

PPAB 1624763vl 
Dated: November 6, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, 

'a gk?-
 Wi ham L. iK:arâ, 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) 334-4706 

willamikardrÐparkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh~parkerpoe.com 

John F. Graybeal 

PARKR POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP 

150 Fayettevile Street
 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Telephone: (919) 835-4599 

Facsimile: (919) 828-0564 

i ohn€!raybealrÐparkerpoe.com 

Attorneys for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 

I hereby certify that on November 6, 2009, I caused to be fied via hand delivery and electronic mail 

delivery an original and two copies of the foregoing Respondent's Response to Exide Technologies ' Motion for 

In Camera Treatment 0/ Certain Highly Confidential Materials (Public) 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 November 6, 2009, I caused to be served one copy via electronic mail delivery 

and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Respondent's Response to Exide Technologies' 

Motion/or In Camera Treatment o/Certain Highly Confidential Materials (Public) upon: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
 

Administrative Law Judge
 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

I hereby certify that on November 6, 2009, I caused to be served via first-class mail delivery and 

electronic mail delivery a copy of 
 the foregoing Respondent's Response to Exide Technologies' Motion/or In 

Camera Treatment o/Certain Highly Confidential Materials (Public) upon: 

J. Robert Robertson, Esq. Steven Dahm, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

rrobertsonêftc.gov sdahmêftc.gov 

Donald 1. Russell, Esq.
 

Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck,
 

Untereiner & Sauber LLP
 

1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 411L
 

Washington, D.C. 20006
 

drusse i lêrobbi nsrussell. com
 

3.: W~ 

Brian R. Weyhrich 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706