ORIGINAL 

;, :;ji/l6.¥ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ¡f

? 3 ¿~~;GG


BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. -Sq 51d-~ 

In the Matter of ) 

Polypore International, Inc., 

a corporation. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

) 

) 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S MOTION TO COMPEL
 

PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES
 

Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") hereby submits its memorandum in 

opposition to Complaint Counsel's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. In its Motion, 

Complaint Counsel seeks to compel Respondent to respond to written discovery requests 

including 14 additional interrogatory requests, 12 additional document requests, and 19 requests 

for admission in five business days or less. Complaint Counsel fails to cite any Federal Trade 

Commission rule that supports his unilateral written discovery. For the reasons set forth below, 

Respondent respectfully requests that the Court deny Complaint Counsel's motion in its entirety. 

INTRODUCTION 

On October 15, 2009, the Honorable D. Michael Chappell entered an Order granting 

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

(hereinafter referred to as the "Order") to allow the reception of additional evidence limited to 

Respondent's proffer as set forth in the Order. The Order sets the commencement date for the 

hearing for November 4, 2009, two weeks from today. The Order also provides for certain 

limited deposition discovery for that half-day hearing but significantly sets forth no right to serve 

~ 
written discovery or to serve subpoenas seeking production of documents from third paries. The 

Order also sets forth the deadlines for completing the limited depositions, exchanging witness 

and exhibit lists, exchanging objections to such lists, filing stipulations with the Court, filing 

objections to testimony or exhibits, filing in camera motions, and filing post-hearing
 

supplemental briefs and proposed findings of fact. With this schedule, the "Order provides
 

Complaint Counsel with pre-hearing procedures to ensure that Complaint Counsel is capable of 

effective rebuttaL." Order, p. 7. 

Without first seeking leave from this Court, Complaint Counsel, on October 16, 2009, 

served their Third Set of Interrogatories and Third Set of Document Requests on Respondent. 

The Interrogatories, without authority, demand that Respondent provide objections and answers 

by October 23, 2009 - only five (5) days after service of the requests. The Document Requests 

similarly, without authority, demand that Respondent provide objections and produce all 

responsive documents (including hard copy and electronic information) by October 23, 2009. 

Furthermore, Complaint Counsel served their First Set of Requests for Admissions on October 

i 9, 2009 (along with Complaint Counsel's Third Set of Interrogatories and Third Set of 

Document Requests, defined herein as the "written discovery"). Yet, even though only serving 

the Request for Admissions on Respondent on October 19, Complaint Counsel stil, without 

authority, demands that Respondent respond and serve objections to those Requests by 

October 23, 2009 - only four (4) days after service. Respondent's counsel has advised
 

Complaint Counsel of its objections to this written discovery. Simultaneously with this 

response, Respondent has served its initial objections to Complaint Counsel's written discovery. 

See Attachment A hereto. 

2 

1619068v2 

~ .. 
ARGUMENT
 

First, Complaint Counsel cites no authority, other than a strained reading of 
 the Order, to 

support his unilateral written discovery of Respondent. Complaint Counsel acknowledged that 

he had no authority for seeking this discovery. In a conference call with Respondent's counsel 

on October 19, 2009, Respondent noted to Complaint Counsel that the Order does not permit 

Complaint Counsel's written discovery. Without missing a beat, Complaint Counsel retorted: 

"That's fine, if 
 you won't give us your documents, we won't give you ours." Complaint Counsel 

made a similar statement at the end of that conference call as well. Not a word was uttered by 

Complaint Counsel or his staff during that call about any purported justification under the 

Federal Trade Commission rules or the Order for this discovery. 

In his motion, Complaint Counsel does not contend that the Order explicitly provides the 

right to the parties to conduct written discovery in advance of the November 4 hearing. Rather, 

Complaint Counsel attempts to create an argument that the Order "clearly contemplates that 

Complaint Counsel wil conduct (his written) discovery," because the Order "explicitly provides 

for an exchange of exhibit lists." Motion, p. 3 . Yet, Complaint Counsel ignores several relevant 

parts of the Court's Order which contradict its "contemplation" argument. In fact, this Court, in 

addressing Complaint Counsel's prior prejudice argument, which was asserted in response to 

Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record, noted that unlike with 

Respondent's First Motion to Reopen, which the Court denied in part on a showing of prejudice 

to Complaint Counsel, no such prejudice exists here: 

No such prejudice exists here, where, as set forth below, Complaint Counsel wil 

be allowed to conduct cross-examination and provide briefing and argument on 

the evidence described in the proffer. 

3 

1619068v2 

~-.­ .. 
Order, p. 6. Of course, Complaint Counsel ignores that no mention is made of a right to written 

discovery here. Moreover, the Order continues to state that: 

All depositions, witness and exhibit lists, offers of evidence, and post-hearing 

supplemental briefs and proposed findings of fact shall be limited to the proffered 

evidence. 

Order, p. 7. Again, Complaint Counsel ignores that no mention is made of document requests, 

interrogatories, requests for admission or subpoenas duces tecum. 

Moreover, Complaint Counsel fails to explain how the Order "contemplates" serving 

requests for admissions and interrogatories, which actually violate the limitations imposed by the 

Court in its Scheduling Order in any event. See Scheduling Order dated October 22, 2008
 

(limiting Complaint Counsel's interrogatories to 50). Exchanging exhibit lists has nothing to do 

with interrogatories or requests for admission. This non-sequitur aptly demonstrates the reaching 

nature of Complaint Counsel's argument. Complaint Counsel is simply not entitled to written 

discovery under the Order and is not prejudiced by not having it, since Complaint Counsel can 

"conduct cross-examination and provide briefing and argument on the evidence described in the 

proffer." Order, p. 6. 

Finally, Complaint Counsel fails to mention the relationship it has maintained with Exide 

throughout the course of this litigation. Complaint Counsel has previously obtained information 

and documentation from Exide that has not been voluntarily offered by Exide to Respondent. 

Complaint Counsel has access to information from Exide that Respondent does not have in its 

possession or have any knowledge of. For example, Complaint Counsel obtained the
 

Declaration of Douglas Gilespie which it submitted in its Response to Respondent's Second 

Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record. Complaint Counsel has shown repeatedly an ability to 

4 

1619068v2 

.. 
obtain documents and information from Exide, and there are no facts indicating that they are not 

pursuing the same course here today. 

Permitting Complaint Counsel to interpret the Court's Order to provide for written 

discovery is extraordinarily prejudicial to Respondent. Respondent has not been presumptuous 

to interpret the Court's Order to provide for something which is not explicitly stated and for that 

reason has not served written discovery on Complaint CounseL. In addition, Respondent has not 

sought the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum from the Secretary to serve on Exide. Rather, 

Respondent only obtained a subpoena ad testifcandum from the Secretary on October 16, 2009, 

which it then served on Exide for the deposition of Douglas Gilespie. That deposition is 

scheduled to occur on Thursday, October 22, 2009, at 1 :00 p.m. in Atlanta, Georgia. Respondent 

wil be greatly prejudiced if Complaint Counsel is permitted to engage in unilateral written 

discovery while Respondent does not have the benefit of such discovery from either Exide or 

Complaint Counsel in advance of 
 Mr. Gilespie's deposition. 

Complaint Counsel's demand for responses and document production in the span of five 

(5) days is without any basis in the FTC Rules. Under the FTC Rules, when written discovery is 

permitted, Respondent would have 30 days to respond. See 16 C.F.R. §3.32(a), 16 C.F.R. 

§3.35(2), 16 C.F.R. §3.37(b). Although this Court's Scheduling Order entered October 22,2009 

shortens that time, Respondent would stil have twenty (20) days to respond under the 

Scheduling Order. Complaint Counsel has unilaterally taken it upon himself to rewrite the rules 

of the FTC, as well as this Court's Order, to demand that Respondent produce documents, and 

provide responses to interrogatories and requests for admission, and to do so in five days or less. 

Complaint Counsel contends that the written discovery is not burdensome (Motion, p. 4), 

yet the first sentence of its motion reveals just how burdensome its requests are: "Complaint 

5 

16 i 9068v2 

.. 
Counsel respectfully moves the Court to compel Respondent to produce all documents 

indentified . .." Motion, p. 1 (emphasis added). Since Complaint Counsel uses an extremely
 

broad definition of "documents," which includes, among other things, electronically maintained 

documents (see e.g. Document Requests, Definition D), Complaint Counsel's supposed nonburdensome written discovery would require not only written responses, objections and 

production of 
 hard copy documents on 12 different subjects in five days, but would also require 

the production of all electronic data. From past practice with Complaint Counsel, such a task is 

neither simple nor easy. During the initial discovery period in this proceeding, Complaint 

Counsel submitted only thirteen (13) document requests to Respondent. In response to these 

previous requests, Respondent had to search the electronic and paper files of thirty (30) 

custodians and ultimately produced over 1.5 milion pages of documents. If Respondent is 

required to respond to Complaint Counsel's additional document requests, Respondent wil have 

to collect data from numerous custodians, process and review the data to determine
 

responsiveness, review the data for privilege, and produce any responsive, non-privileged
 

documents. Given the breadth of Complaint Counsel's document requests, this undertaking 

would last well into November - clearly beyond the hearing date and schedule contemplated in 

the Order Setting Hearing Schedule. 

In addition, Complaint Counsel requests Respondent to "state all facts regarding 

conversations, meetings or emails between Daramic and Exide from June 12, 2009, to the 

present, related to any negotiations relating to Daramic supplying Exide with flooded lead-acid 

battery separators in 2010 and beyond and identify: a) who was present; b) each topic of 

discussion and c) all exchanges of information." See Interrogatory No. 53. As demonstrated by 

the foregoing interrogatory, much of the discovery requested by Complaint Counsel is overly 

6 

16 i 9068v2 

~ .. 
broad, unduly burdensome, impermissibly vague or ambiguous, or requires unreasonable efforts 

or expense on the par of Respondent to respond. The undue burden imposed by these
 

interrogatories is fuher evidenced by Complaint Counsel's sweeping definition of "relating to" 

which means "in whole or in par constituting, containing, concerning, discussing, describing 

analyzing, identifying or stating" (Interrogatory, Definition 0). 

Complaint Counsel also contends that the discovery requests are "tailored" to the four 

proffers. Complaint Counsel's contention is wrong. For example, Complaint Counsel's requests 

reach back to the period prior to the close of the record. See e.g. Request for Production,
 

Instruction No. C: ("Unless otherwise specified, provide documents from March 13,2009, to the 

present.") Complaint Counsel's interrogatories seek information regarding Daramic price 

increases for all of its customers. See Interrogatory No. 54. Complaint Counsel's Request for 

Admission seeks an admission to a tired topic heard repeatedly during the hearing which 

occurred in May 2007. See Request for Admission No.8 ("Admit that Respondent structured its 

response to f 

)."). These
 

written discovery requests, which often retread old ground, exceed the Court's imposed 

limitation on the scope of 
 the deposition discovery. 

The Order limits the proffer of new evidence to four topics. Moreover, the Order sets 

forth very tight deadlines leading up to the hearing on November 4, 2009. Even without the 

many problems identified above, requiring Respondent to respond to Complaint Counsel's 

additional discovery requests is unduly burdensome and oppressive, and would require 

Respondent to devote significant time, effort and resources to search numerous custodians for 

responsive information and documents. For example, Complaint Counsel seeks a large number 

7 

16 i 9068v2 

~ .. 
of documents, including all documents discussing negotiations with Exide, pricing and cost 

documentation, detailed financial documents about the f )
 

documents and notes from every member of the Polypore Board of Directors, and the latest 

version of the AFS database. These requests would require Respondent to glean large volumes 

of information from its computer systems and employees as well as review this information for 

relevance and privilege - not an easy task and certainly not a quick one. 

Finally, requiring Respondent to respond to Complaint Counsel's written discovery is 

would cause Respondent to devote its resources in such a manner that it would not be able to 

effectively prepare for the hearing on November 4, 2009. If Respondent must respond to 

Complaint Counsel's discovery requests, then in the interests of justice, the right must be 

reciprocal, Respondent must be afforded the right to serve a subpoena duces tecum on Exide, 

Respondent must be afforded the right to retake Mr. Gilespie's deposition related to Exide's 

and/or Complaint Counsel's documents, and the hearing must be delayed in order to provide 

Respondent and Respondent's counsel adequate time to engage in this discovery and prepare for 

the hearing. 

In its Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record, Respondent moved for a proffer of 

specific, limited evidence. The Court's Order recognizes and allows the receipt of new evidence 

on a limited basis, and sets forth a simple and straightforward schedule leading up to the hearing. 

By serving written discovery, Complaint Counsel is ratcheting up what is supposed to be a 

simple and specific proffer of evidence. Moreover, it appears the Court already considered the 

possibility of additional written discovery by entering an Order which does not provide for 

written discovery, but rather provides for depositions. Given the short timeframe set forth in the 

8 

16 i 9068v2 

~ ~ .. 
Order, the proffer of new evidence ought to be kept simple and straightforward both in terms of 

additional discovery and in terms of the length of the hearing. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests that this Court deny 

Complaint Counsel's Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Responses. 

9 

16 i 9068v2 

'" ~ 
Dated: October 23,2009 Respectfully Submitted, 

£~ tJ-l Ä£W 

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) 334-4706 

williamrikard(fparkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh(fparkerpoe.com 

John F. Graybeal 

PARKER 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 

~ ." ~ .. .. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 

I hereby certify that on October 23, 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 

Complaint Counsel's Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Responses ¡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
 

Offce of the Secretary
 

Federal Trade Commission
 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

secretary(fftc.gov
 

I hereby certify that on October 23, 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 Complaint Counsel's Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Responses ¡Public) upon: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
 

Administrative Law Judge
 

Federal Trade Commission
 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

I hereby certify that on October 23,2009, I caused to be served via first-class mail delivery 

and electronic mail delivery a copy of the foregoing Respondent's Response to Complaint 

Counsel's Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Responses ¡Public) upon: 

1. Robert Robertson, Esq. Steven Dahm, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

rrobertson(fftc.gov sdahm(fftc.gov 

ace~ 

Adam C. Shearer 

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 

PP AS i 6 i 9068v2 

~ ~ ~ .. 
EXHIBIT A
 

, A TT ACHMENT TO RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES
 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 

A CORPORATION
 

DOCKET NO. 9327 

." ~ 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRAE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9327 

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

RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S 

TmRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's Ru1es of Practice for Adjudicative 

Proceedings ("FTC Rules"), 16 C.F.R. §§ 3.31 and 3.35, Respondent Polypore International, Inc. 

("Polypore"), by its attorneys, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, hereby submits its objections 

to Complaint Counsel's Third Set of Interrogatories ("Interrogatories"), which was served on 

October 16,2009.
 

OBJECTIONS 

1. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories on the basis that the Administrative Law 

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

. Hearing Schedule, dated October 15, 2009, makes no provision for additional interrogatories. 

The Cour's Order does not contemplate any wrtten discovery, only depositions, in advance of 

the half-day hearing schedu1ed to occur in two weeks. Respondent has not served any written 

discovery requests on Complaint Counsel. Nor has Respondent sought documentar evidence 

from third-pary Exide Technologies, Inc. by subpoena duces tecum, as Respondent believes that 

the Cour's Order does not authorize such discovery. 

2. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories on the basis that the FTC Rules provide 

no authorization for Complaint Counsel's serving interrogatories in this situation where the 

Court has scheduled a half-day hearing to occur in two weeks to re-open the record on a limited 

proffer of evidence. 

PPAB 1618857v2 

" ~ .. 
3. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories on the basis that Complaint Counsel's 

demand for answers to such Interrogatories is contrary to the FTC Rules. 

4. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories as overly broad, unduly burdensome,
 

impermissibly vague or ambiguous, or require uneasonable efforts or expense on the par of
 

Respondent in an extraordinarily short time frame while Respondent is simultaneously preparng 

witnesses for depositions and the hearing. 

5. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that it seeks information in 

existence and available to Complaint Counsel prior to the close of the record and/or unelated to 

Respondent's proffer made to the Cour in its Second Motion to Reopen the Record. 

6. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories on the basis that Complaint Counsel has 

already exceeded, or exceeds through their Third Set of Interrogatories, the limit of fift (50) 

interrogatories set forth in the Scheduling Order entered by the Admnistrative Law Judge on 

October 22, 2008. 

7. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek inormation 

protected by.the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege 

or any other applicable privilege. 

8. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to impose 

obligations broader than those required by or authorized under the FTC Rules, the Federal Ru1es 

of Civil Procedure, the Cour's Order Granting Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the 

Hearng Record and Setting Hearing Schedule, or any applicable order or rule of this Cour. 

2 

PP AS i 6 i 8857v2 

~ ~ "l .. 
9. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are not reasonably 

expected to yield information relevant to the limited proffer of evidence authorized by the Order 

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

Schedule. 

10. Respondent objects to Complaint Counsel's definitions of "Polypore," "the 

company," "you," "yours," "Daramic" and "Microporous," as being overbroad and unduly
 

burdensome. Respondent does not agree to the characterization of these terms and any response 

should not be considered a waiver ofthis objection. 

11. Respondent objects to Complaint Counsel's definitions of "Describe," "state" and 

"identify" as being overbroad and undu1y burdensome and oppressive. Respondent does not 

agree to the characterization of these terms and any response should not be considered a waiver 

of this objection. 

12. Respondent objects to Complaint Counsel's definition of "Computer Files" as 

being vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome. Respondent does not agree to the 

characterization of these terms and any response should not be considered a waiver of this 

objection. 

13. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they require Respondent to 

answer any Interrogatory on behalf of third pares. In paricular, Complaint Counsel's
 

definitions of "Polypore" and "Microporous" are overly broad because it requies Respondent to 

respond on behalf of 
 multiple other entities. 

3 

PPAB 1618857v2 

~ ~ .. 
14. Respondent objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they call for the production 

of information that can only be obtained from third paries. 

15. Respondent reserves the right to assert additional specific objections should the 

Court grant Complait Counsel's Motion to Compel Production of 
 Discovery Responses.
 

4 

PPAB 1618857v2 

~ " ~ 
Dated: October 21, 2009
 Respectfully submitted,
 

t:;) l-~
 Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr.
 

Eric D. Welsh
 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstei~, LLP
 

Three Wachovia Center
 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 335-9011
 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

willamrikardl!parkerooe.com
 

ericwelsh~parkerpoe.com
 

John F. Graybeal 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP
 

Wachovia Capitol Center
 

150 Fayettevile Street, Suite 1400
 

Raleigh, NC 27601
 

Telephone: (919) 835-4599
 

Facsimile: (919) 834-4564
 

iohngravbeal($parkerpoe.com
 

Attorneys for Respondent 

5
 

PPAB 1618857v2 

~ ." ~ .. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 

I hereby certify that on October 21, 2009, I caused to be served one copy via electronic 

mail delivery and two copies . via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Respondent's 

Objections to Complaint Counsel's Third Set of Interrogatories 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 October 21, 2009, I caused to be served via firstMclass mail
 

delivery and electronic mail delivery a copy of 
 the foregoing Objections to Complaint Counsel's Third Set of Interrogatories upon: 

J. Robert Robertson, Esq.. Steven Dah, Esq.
 

Federal Trade Commission
 Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvana Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 rrobertson~ftc.gov sdah~ftc.gov

Adam C. Shearer 

ÚLG~

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Thee Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 334M4706
 

PPAB 1618857v2 

,. ~ .. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) Docket No~ 9327 

) Polyp ore International, Inc., ) a corporation. ) 

RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S 

THIRD SET OF DOCUMENT REOUESTS 

Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's Rules of Practice for Adjudicative 

Proceedings ("FTC Rules"), 16 C.F.R. §§ 3.31 and 3.35, Respondent Polypore International, Inc. 

("Polypore"), by its attorneys, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, hereby submits its objections 

to Complaint Counsel's Third Set of Document Requests ("Requests") which was served on 

October 16,2009.
 

OBJECTIONS 

1. Respondent objects to the Requests on the basis that the Administrative Law
 

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

Hearing Schedu1e, dated October 15, 2009, makes no provision for additional document requests. 

The Cour's Order does not contemplate any wrtten discovery, only depositions, in advance of 

the half-day hearng scheduled to occur in two weeks. Respondent has not served any written 

discovery requests on Complaint CounseL. Nor has Respondent sought documentar evidence 

from third-pary Exide Technologies, Inc. by subpoena duces tecum, as Respondent believes the 

Cour's order does not authorize such discovery. 

2. Respondent objects to the Requests on the basis that the FTC Rules provide no
 

authorization for Compliant Counsel's servng document requests related to a limited proffer of 

evidence in a half-day re-opened hearing after the record has been closed. 

PPAB 1618871v! 

~ " .. 
3. Respondent objects to the Requests on the basis that Complaint Counsel's
 

demand for answers to such Requests is contrar to the FTC Rules. 

4. Respondent objects to the Requests as overly broad, unduly burdensome,
 

impermissibly vague or ambiguous, or require uneasonable efforts or expense on the part of the 

Respondent in an extraordinarily short time frare while Respondent is simultaneously preparing 

witnesses for depositions and the hearing. 

5. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent that it seeks documents prior .to 

the close of the record or unelated to Respondent's proffer made to the Cour in its Second 

Motion to Reopen the Record. 

6. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek documents
 

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege 

or any other applicable privilege. 

7. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek to impose
 

obligations boarder than those required by or authorized under the FTC Rules, the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, the Cour's Order Granting Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the 

Hearing Record and Setting Hearing Schedule, or any applicable order or rule of 
 this Cour. 

8. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent that they are not reasonably 

expected to yield documents relevant to the limited proffer of evidence authorized by the Order 

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

Schedule. 

2
 

PPAB 1618871vl
 

~ " ~ .. 
9. Respondent objects to Complaint Counsel's definitions of "Polypore," "the
 

company," "you," "your," "Daramic" and "Microporous," as being overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Respondent does not agree to the characterization of these terms and any response 

should not be considered a waiver of 
 this objection. 

10. Respondent objects to Complaint Counsel's definition of "Document," as being 

vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome. Respondent does not agree to the characterization of 

this ternis and any response should not be considered a waiver of ths objection.
 

11. Respondent fuer objects to Complaint Counsel's definition of "Document" to 

the extent that Complaint Counsel seeks discovery of "electronic information" or "information or 

files contained or retained on any electronic device including handheld laptop, desktop and home 

computer systems, floppy-disks, CD-ROMS, zip disk/drives, USB and/or any other 

computerized storage devices." To gather and review all documents (as sought in Complaint
 

Counsel's discovery requests and higWighted in their Motion to Compel Production of Discovery 

Responses on page 1 ("move the Cour to compel respondent to produce all documents ...")) 

from numerous custodians and produce in electronic and hard copy in five days as requested by 

Complaint Counsel would be unduly burdensome, oppressive, outrageously expensive, and 

unprecedented. 

12. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent they require Respondent to 

produce documents on behalf of thid paries. In parcu1ar, Complaint Counsel's defintions of
 

"Polypore" and "Microporous" are overly broad because it requires Respondent to produce 

documents on behalf of multiple other entities. 

3 

PPAB 1618871vl 

." ~ .. 
13. Respondent's responses to these Requests are given without prejudice to
 

Respondent's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts. The failure of
 

Respondent to object to any Request on a paricular ground may not be construed as a waiver of 

its right to object on any additional ground(s). 

14. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent they call for the production of 

documents that can only be obtained from thrd parties. 

15. Respondent reserves the right to assert additional specific objections should the 

Court grant Complaint Counsel's Motion to Compel Production of 
 Discovery Responses. 

4 

PPAB 1618871vl 

" ~ .. 
Dated: October 21, 2009 Respectfuly submitted,
 

cl~. í/~


Willam L. Rikard, Jr. 

Eric D. Welsh 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

Thee Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 335-9011
 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

willamrikard~arkerpoe.com
 

ericwelsh~arkerpoe.com
 

John F. Graybeal 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP
 

Wachovia Capitol Center
 

150 Fayettevile Street, Suite 1400
 

Raleigh, NC 27601
 

Telephone: (919) 835-4599
 

Facsimile: (919) 834-4564
 

iOIU1gl'aybeal~parkei:oe.com
 

Attorneys for Respondent 

,5 

PPAB 1618871vl 

~ ~ .. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 21, 2009, I caused to be served one copy via electronic 

mail delivery and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Respondent's 

Objections to Complaint Counsel's Third Set of Document Requests upon: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
 

Administrative Law Judge
 

Federal Trade Comrission
 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

I hereby certify that on October 21, 2009, I caused to be served via first-class mail 

delivery and electronic mail delivery a copy of 
 the foregoing Objections to Complaint Counsel's 

Third Set of Document Requests upon: 

1. Robert Robertson, Esq. Steven Dah, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

rrobertson(£ftc.gov sdah(£ftc.gov 

Adam C. Shearer (Je~

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Thee Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706 

PPAB 161887lvl 

." ~ .. .. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9327 

) Polypore International, Inc., ) PUBLIC DOCUMENT

a corporation. ) 

RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S 

FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's Rules of Practice for Adjudicative 

Proceedings ("FTC Rules"), 16 C.F .R. §§ 3.31 and 3.35, Respondent Polypore International, Inc: 

("Polypore"), by its attorneys, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, hereby submits its objections 

to Complaint Counsel's First Request For Admissions ("Requests"), which was served on 

October 19,2009.
 

OBJECTIONS 

1. Respondent objects to the Requests on the basis that the Administrative Law
 

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

Hearing Schedule, dated October 15, 2009, makes no provision for additional requests for 

admission. The Court's Order does not contemplate any written discovery, only depositions, in 

advance of the half-day hearing scheduled to occur in two weeks. Respondent has not served 

any written discovery requests on Complaint Counsel. Nor has Respondent sought documentary 

evidence from third-pary Exide Texhnologies, Inc. by subpoena duces tecum, as Respondent
 

believes the Court's order does not authorize such discovery.
 

2. Respondent objects to the Requests on the basis that the FTC Rules provide no
 

authorization for Compliant Counsel's serving requests for admission related to a limited proffer 

of evidence in a half-day re-opened hearing after the record has been closed. 

PPAB 1618927vl 

." .. 
3. Respondent objects to the Requests on the basis that Complaint Counsel's
 

demand for answers to such Requests 
 is contrary to the FTC Rules. 

4. Respondent objects to the Requests as overly broad, unduly burdensome,
 

impermissibly vague or ambiguous, or require uneasonable. efforts or expense on the par of 

Respondent in an extraordinarily short time frame while Respondent is simultaneously preparing 

witnesses for deppsitions and the hearing. 

5. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent that it seeks information in 

existence and available to Complaint Counsel prior to the close of the record and/or unrelated to 

Respondent's proffer made to the Court in its Second Motion to Reopen the Record. 

6. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information 

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege 

or any other applicable privilege. 

7. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek to impose
 

obligations boarder than those required by or authorized under the FTC Rules, the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, the Court's Order Granting Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the 

Hearng Record and Setting Hearing Schedule, or any applicable order or rule of this Cour. 

8. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent that they are not reasonably 

expected to yield information relevant to the limited proffer of evidence authorized by the Order 

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

Schedule. 

2
 

PPAB 161S927vl
 

~ ~ ~ .. 
9. Respondent objects to Complaint Counsel's definitions of "Polypore," "the
 

company," "you," "your," "Daramic" and "Microporous," as being overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Respondent does not agree to the characterization of these terms and any response 

should not be 'considered a waiver of 
 this objection. 

10. Respondent objects to Complaint Counsel's definition of "Document" as being
 

vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome. Respondent does not agree to the characterization of 

this terms and any response should not be considered a waiver of this objection. 

1 1. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent they require Respondent to
 

respond on behalf of third paries. In paricular, Complaint Counsel's definitions of "Polypore"
 

and "Microporous" are overly broad because it requires Respondent to respond on behalf of 

multiple other entities. 

12. Respondent's responses to these Requests are given without prejudice to
 

Respondent's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts. The failure of 

Respondent to object to any Request on a particular ground may not be construed as a waiver of 

its right to object on any additional ground(s). 

13. Respondent objects to the Requests to the extent they call for information that can 

only be obtained from third parties. 

14. Respondent reserves the right to assert additional specific objections should the 

Court grant Complaint Counsel's Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Responses.
 

., 

3 

PPAB 1618927vl 

~ ~ ~ 
Dated: October 21,2009 Respectfully submitted, 

(f¡ ÍÅ~ L. (2 ~ /Mfl 

Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr.
 

Eric D. Welsh
 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP
 

Thee Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suíte 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 335-901 1
 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

wiiliamikard~parkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh~parkerpoe.com 

John F. Graybeal
 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP
 

Wachovia Capitol Center
 

150 Fayettevile Street, Suite 1400
 

Raleigh, NC 27601
 

Telephone: (919) 835-4599
 

Facsimile: (919) 834-4564
 

johngraybeal~parkerpoe.com
 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4
 

PPAB 1618927vl 

~ .. ~ ~ 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 21, 2009, I caused to be fied via hand delivery and 

electronic mail delivery an original and two copies of the foregoing Respondent's Objections to 

Complaint Counsel's First Requests for Admissions and that the electronic copy is a tre and 

correct copy of the paper original and that a paper copy with an original signature is being fied 

with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Offce of 
 the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission
 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

secretary§ftc.gov
 

J hereby certify that on October 21, 2009, I caused to be served one copy via electronic 

mail delivery and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Respondent's
 

Objections to Complaint Counsel's First Requests for Admissions upon: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
 

Administrative Law Judge
 

Federal Trade Commission
 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

J hereby certify that on October 21, 2009, i caused to be served via first-class mail delivery 

and electronic mail delivery a copy of the foregoing Respondent's Objections to Complaint
 

Counsel's First Requests 
 for Admissions upon: 

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

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

rrobertson§ftc.gov sdahêftc.gov 

~ C. ~(,.~/fnW


Adam C. Shearer i
 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Thee Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706 

PPAB 1618927vl 

'\ ~ ~ ~