UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

CUICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.Y.
a foreign corporation,

CHICAGO BRIDGE & LRON COMPANY, DOCKET NO, 9300

& corporation, and

PITT-DES MOINES, INC.,
a corporation,

Ne ee ee ee ee ee ee

ORDER ON BOEING'S MOTIONS FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT
OF TRIAT. TESTIMONY OF GREG PROULX AND TRIAL EXTINIBET

L

Pursuant to 16 C.ELR. § 3.45, third party witacss Greg Proulx, and his employer Bocing
Satellite Systems, Inc. (“Boeing”), on November 19, 2002, fited a motion for in camera treatment
for specific portions of Mr. Proulx’s testimony, which was expected to occur on November 20,
2002, By Order dated November 1, 2002, in: camera treatment for a period of tive years had
previously been granted to portions of two Boeing documents, designated as trial exhibits CX 10
and CX 513. The November 19, 2002 motion secks to protect the anticipated trial testimony
about these documents from public disciosure. In addition, Boeing requests #77 camera treatmeat
for trial testimony regarding: (a) the specifics of bids received and/or evaluated by Boeing in past
thermo yacnum chamber procurements, and (h) Boeing’s evaluation of vendors’ past proposals.

On November 20, 2002, Complaint Counsel called Proulx as a wilness in this matter,
Also on November 20, 2002, according to Boeing, Complaint Counscl informed Boeing that
Complaint Counsel intended to question Proulx about an additions document, CX 1573, that bad
not been designated as a trial exhibit at the time Bocing filed its initial motion for in camera
treatment. Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(g), on November 20, 2002, provisional iz camera
trealment was granted for CX 1573 and for portions of Proulx’s trial testimony.


On Devember 6, 2002, pursuant 10 16 C.F.R.§ 3.45 and in accordance with the
Adimpistrative I .aw Judge’s direction at the hearing on November 20, 2002, Boeing filed an
unopposed motion for in camera treatment of CX 1573 and the live testimony of Proulx
regarding that document.

1.

The Order on Non-Parties’ Motions for /z Camera Treatment of Documents Listed on
Parties’ Exhibit Lists, issued on November 1, 2002 sets forth the standards by which Bacing’s
motions for #7 camera treatment are evaluated. Bocing’s Deecmber 6, 2002 motion is supported
by the declaration of Marjoric Waltrip, in-house counscl for Bacing. According to this
declaration, the disclosure of ccrtain pages of CX 1573 and the pertions of Proulx’s testimony
relating fo this document would cause the loss of business advantage and serious and irreparable
injury to Boeing. A review of the declaration in support of the motion, the document for which z
camera treatent is souybt, and the pustions of Proulx’s testimony that were granted provisional
én commera satus, reveals that this information meets the standards for i camera treatment.

Accordingly, Boeing’s motions are GRANTED. 21 camera treatment, for a period of five
years, to expire Devember J, 2007, is hereby GRANTED Lo pages 3, 4, and 6 of CX 1573 and io

the portions of Proutx’s November 20, 2002 trial testimony that were previously granted
provisional in camera treatment pursuant to 16 C.F R. § 3.45¢g).

ORDERED: Na
D. Chappell

Administrative Law Judgc

Date: December 13, 2002