~ fd ia ri 

rzi ~ ¡~ !~ \iii A~L t~¿~ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUGES
 

In the Matter of 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

) 

ORDER ON NON-PARTY EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES' 

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

I. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) ofthe Commission's Rules of 
 Practice and the October 15,2009 

Order Granting Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record and Setting Hearing 

Schedule, as revised by the October 23, 2009 Order Granting Motion to Revise Hearng 

Schedule, non-pary Exide Technologies ("Exide") submitted a motion for in camera treatment 

on November 3,2009 ("motion"). Exide's motion seeks in camera treatment for certain highly 

confidential materials that Complaint Counsel or Respondent may seek to introduce at the 

November 12,2009 hearing in this matter. Exide supports its motion with a Declaration from 

Douglas Gilespie, Vice President for Global Procurement for Exide. ("Gilespie Declaration").
 

Respondent submitted a response on November 6,2009. 

As set forth below, Exide's motion is GRANTED. 

II. 

The legal standards that apply to motions for in camera treatment, including the instant 

motion, are set forth in the May 6,2009 Order on Non-Parties' Motions for In Camera 

Treatment and the May 13, 2009 Order on Respondent's Second Motion for In Camera 

Treatment. 

A. 

Exide's motion seeks in camera treatment for the following: (1) certain proposed trial 

exhibits containing highly confidential information, contained in Exhibit A to the Gilespie 

Declaration; (2) an earlier Declaration of Douglas Gilespie submitted on September 30,2009; 

and (3) excerpts from Gilespie's deposition testimony. Gilespie declares that Complaint 

Counsel has notified Exide that Complaint Counsel may introduce as exhibits each of these 
categories of documents.! 

The Gilespie Declaration describes the information for which in camera treatment is 

sought and declares that it is highy confidential and that public disclosure of this material 
 likely 

would cause serious competitive and commercial har to Exide. Gilespie further declares that 

the information is distributed within the company only to those who have a specific need for it 

and that these individuals are typically bound by confidentiality obligations that would prohibit 

them from disclosing the information if they left the company. 

Gilespie's Declaration supports Exide's claims that the documents are sufficiently secret 

and sufficiently material to its business that disclosure would result in serious competitive injury. 

That showing was balanced against the importance of the information in explaining the rationale 

of decisions at the Commission. 

Exide requests in camera treatment for the proposed trial exhibits for a period of three 

years. While in camera treatment wil be granted for three years, the expiration date of in 

camera treatment wil be altered for administrative convenience. Previously issued orders which 

granted in camera treatment for periods ofthree years set an expiration date of June 1,2012. So 

that all in camera treatment orders wil expire at the same time, the expiration dates of the in 

camera treatment granted in this order wil also expire on June 1,2012. 

With respect to the documents for which Exide seeks in camera treatment, Exide's 

motion is GRANTED. 

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

extended to the documents for which Exide has requested in camera treatment, in accordance 

with Section III of this Order. 

B. 

Respondent agrees that the specified documents identified in Exide's motion warrant in 

! On October 9,2009, Exide fied a motion for in camera treatment for the September 

30,2009 Declaration of Douglas Gilespie. The Commission's Rules of 
 Practice allow paries 

and non-parties to seek in camera treatment for material offered into evidence. 16 C.F.R. 

§ 3.45(b) (emphasis added). At the time Exide filed its October 9,2009 motion, there was no 

indication that either pary intended to offer the September 30, 2009 Gilespie Declaration into 

evidence. Thus, that motion was premature and not ruled on. It is now moot, since this Order 

addresses the September 30,2009 Gilespie Declaration. 

2
 
camera treatment. However, Respondent requests, with respect to 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 also subject to Respondent's motion for in camera treatment, 

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. 

The Gilespie Declaration describes the documents contained in Exhibit A as highly 

confidential email and other correspondence between Exide and Daramic. Respondent states 

that Respondent has included its own Polypore-produced versions of several of these exhibits 

and that it possesses all thirteen exhibits identified on Exhibit A. Because employees of 

Respondent, as either the recipient or author of the documents in Exhibit A, have previously seen 

the documents, as to Daramic, these documents are not sufficiently secret. Accordingly, this in 

camera order does not prevent employees of Respondent from reviewing the thirteen exhibits 

identified as Exhibit A to Exide's motion or preclude employees of 
 Respondent from observing 

testimony in the courtoom related to such exhibits. 

The Gilespie Declaration describes the Declaration ofDouglas Gilespie of 
 September 

30,2009 and the excerpts from Gilespie's deposition testimony as containing details that have 

not previously been disclosed to Daramic. Accordingly, this information shall not be disclosed 

to employees of Respondent. 

III. 

At the conclusion of 
 the hearing scheduled for November 12,2009, Respondent shall 

prepare a proposed order, with a signature line for the Administrative Law Judge, that lists, by 

exhibit number, the documents which have been admitted and have been granted in camera 

treatment by this order and that sets forth the expiration date of in camera treatment for each 

exhibit. 

ORDERED: ;: '" ~g .i~

D. Mièiael Ch ppel 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: November 10, 2009 

3