UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: 

In the Matter of 

William E. Kovacic, Chairman 

Pamela Jones Harbour 

Jon Leibowitz 

J. Thomas Rosch 

Polypore International, Inc., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

A corporation. ) 

----------------------------------~) 

Docket No. 9327 

Public 

THE MOORE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF 

DOCUMENTS DESIGNATED BY 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL 

Non-Party The Moore Company moves, pursuant to Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") 

Rule 3.45(b) of the FTC's Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b), for an order allowing in 

camera treatment of certain documents designated by Complaint Counsel as proposed trial 

exhibits (the "Designated Documents"). A table setting forth the Designated Documents is 

attached hereto as Exhibit A. In support of this motion, The Moore Company refers to the 

accompanying Declaration of Guy Dauwe ("Dauwe Decl.") . 

• 

I. Procedural Background 

Complaint Counsel and Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") have made 

numerous discovery requests of The Moore Company relating to The Moore Company's 

subsidiary Amer-Sil, S.A.'s ("Amer-Sil") battery separator business. The Moore Company 

designated those non-public, commercially.:·sensitive materials it produced in response to the 

discovery requests as "Confidential" in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 46(f) and 16 C.F.R. § 

972944 
4. 1 0(a)(2). The Moore Company also produced materials pursuant to the Protective Order 

Governing Discovery Material that was entered by the Court on October 23,2008. 

By letter dated April 24, 2009, Complaint Counsel informed The Moore Company that it 

intended to introduce into evidence four documents containing "Confidential Material" as that 

term is defined in the Protective Order. See Letter from Linda D. Cunningham dated April 24, 

2009, attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

II. Legal Standard 

16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b) provides that a document shall be placed in camera "after finding 

that its public disclosure will likely result in a clearly defined, serious injury to the person, 

partnership, or corporation requesting in camera treatment." An applicant for in camera 

treatment bears the burden of demonstrating that public disclosure will result in a clearly defined, 

serious injury. See H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 58 F.T.C. 1184, 1188, 1961 FTC LEXIS 368, *10-

11 (1961). 

Demonstrating serious injury requires the applicant to show "that the documents are 

secret, that they are material to the applicant's business and that public disclosure will plausibly 

discourage the future production of such information." In the Matter of Bristol-Myers Company, 

90 F.T.C. 455, 456, 1977 FTC LEXIS 25, *4-5 (1977). "The likely loss of business advantages 

is a good example of a 'clearly defined, serious injury. '" In re Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 

2000 FTC LEXIS 138, *6 (Sept. 19,2000) (quoting In the Matter of General Foods Corp., 95 

F.T.C. 352, 355 (1980)). In order to sustain this burden of proof, an application for in camera 

treatment must be supported by proper evidence, such as affidavits, to support all factual issues 

or assertions. See id. *4. 

2 
The following factors are weighed in considering both secrecy and materiality: (1) the 

extent to which the information is known outside of the applicant's business; (2) the extent to 

which the information is known by employees and others involved in the applicant's business; 

(3) the extent of measures taken by the applicant to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the 

value of the information to the applicant and to the applicant's competitors; (5) the amount of 

effort or money expended by the applicant in developing the information; (6) the ease or 

difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. See In 

the Matter of Bristol-Myers Company, 90 F.T.C. at 456, 1977 FTC LEXIS 25, *5 (citing 

Restatement of Torts § 757, Comment b at 6 (1939». 

An application for in camera treatment that is submitted by a third-party should be given 

"special solicitude," because such treatment encourages third-party cooperation in future 

proceedings. See In the Matter of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, 103 F.T.C. 500, 

1984 FTC LEXIS 60, at *2-3 (1984) ("Moreover, as third parties, the requests of these 

companies de~erve special solicitude. As a policy matter, extensions of confidential or in camera 

treatment in appropriate cases involving third party bystanders encourages cooperation with 

future adjudicative discovery requests."); see also The Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., 71 

F. T. C. 1714; 1967 FTC LEXIS 128, at *2 (1967) ("Here, on the other hand, petitioner's plea 

warrants special solicitude coming as it does from a third party bystander in no way involved in 

the proceedings whose records, if in camera treatment is denied, will be open to the scrutiny of 

its competitors including respondent herein."). 

III. Argument 

The Designated Documents should be afforded in camera treatment because The Moore 

Company, a nonparty, will suffer a clearly defined, serious injury if the documents are publicly 

3 
disclosed. Specifically, the Designated Documents contain information that is both secret and 

material to the business of Amer-Sil, The Moore Company's wholly-owned subsidiary. Public 

disclosure therefore would cause great competitive harm to The Moore Company, and this risk 

of harm is not outweighed by the significance of the information to the present proceeding. 

The Designated Documents contain information that is highly confidential and not 

disclosed outside of Amer-Sil, except insofar as it may be shared confidentially with Amer-Sil's 

business partners, usually in the context of non-disclosure agreements. Dauwe Dec!. '1[6. It is 

distributed within the company only to those who have a specific need for the information. Id. 

Amer-Sil maintains all of its records in a locked facility. Id. It does not permit tours of the 

facility or permit access to any part of the facility where confidential business records are stored, 

or confidential manufacturing processes take place. Id. Those employees who receive the 

information typically do so only upon entering into confidentiality agreements that prohibit them 

from disclosing the information to others. Id. Amer-Sil guards the confidentiality of this 

information because of its value to the Company's ongoing business, as well as to its 

competitors. Id. The information is the product of a significant investment of time and 

resources, and could not be acquired or duplicated by others in the absence of a similar 

expenditure of time and resources, if it could be duplicated at all. Id. Additionally, Amer-Sil, 

and by extension The Moore Company, has sought legal advice and incurred substantial cost to 

protect the confidentiality of the Designated Documents. Id. Each of the Designated Documents 

is therefore secret and material to Amer-Sil's business. See In the Matter of Bristol-Myers 

Company, 1977 FTC LEXIS at *5. 

As discussed more fully in the Declaration of Guy Dauwe, The Moore Company seeks in 

camera treatment for the following four documents: 

4 
1. Exhibit PX2267: This is an internal document produced after a battery conference 

in the United States in 2007. Dauwe Decl. , 8. It contains highly confidential information 

regarding product development ideas, including ideas for products unrelated to this litigation, as 

well as customer information including extremely sensitive information about a potential dispute 

between Amer-Sil and one of its customers. Id. This information should be protected for five 

years, and any shorter period of time would risk substantial commercial and competitive harm to 

Amer-Sil and its customers. Id. 

2. Exhibit PX2268: This document is an updated version of another document which 

was designated as a trial exhibit (Exhibit RX1613) by Polypore and for which The Moore 

Company also sought in camera treatment. Dauwe Decl. , 9; see also Declaration of Guy Dauwe 

in Support of Motion for In Camera Treatment of Documents Designated by Respondent 

Polypore International, Inc., filed on May 1,2009. As does Exhibit RX1613, this document 

includes highly confidential information regarding Amer-Sil's strategic marketing and sales 

plans. Dauwe Decl. '9. For example, it includes information about the profitability of a new 

project. Id. If Amer-Sil's customers or competitors were to learn this information, it would 

unfairly compromise Amer-Sil's pricing strategy. Id.; see In re Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 

2000 FTC LEXIS at *6 ("The likely loss of business advantages is a good example of a 'clearly 

defined, serious injury. "'). The document also contains information about strategic investment 

and prospective customer targets. Dauwe Decl. , 9. Only the most senior people within AmerSil have seen this document. Id. This information should be protected for ten years, and any 

shorter period of time would risk substantial commercial and competitive harm to Amer-Sil. Id.; 

see In the Matter of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp., 2005 FTC LEXIS 38, at * 19-21 

5 
(2005) (granting in camera treatment for ten years for non-party's business development and 

strategy documents). 

3. Exhibit PX2269: This document contains minutes from a confidential 2007 

meeting. Dauwe Decl. ~ 10. The information discussed at that meeting is confidential because it 

pertains to Amer-Sil' s customer development initiatives in the Asian market. Id. Amer-Sil has 

invested and continues to invest significant amounts of time and money in its ongoing efforts to 

cultivate new customers, including in the Asian market. Id. It has also invested substantial 

amounts of time and money in developing its knowledge of its customers' unique needs, 

including the needs of customers and prospective customers in the Asian market. Id. Public 

disclosure would undermine Amer-Sil's competitiveness in Asia, and perhaps elsewhere, 

because it would give Amer-Sil's competitors inside information about Amer-Sil's customer 

development and marketing strategy. Id.; see In re HoechstMarion Roussel, Inc., 2000 FTC 

LEXIS at *6 ("The likely loss of business advantages is a good example of a 'clearly defined, 

serious injury."'). Moreover, this document includes sensitive product development information 

about products unrelated to this litigation. Dauwe Decl. ~ 10. This information should be 

protected for five years, and any shorter period of time would risk substantial commercial and 

competitive harm to Amer-Sil. Id.; see In the Matter of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare 

Qm2,., 2005 FTC LEXIS at *19-21 (granting in camera treatment for ten years for non-party's 

business development and strategy documents). 

4. Exhibit PX2273: This is an internal email that includes highly sensitive 

information about one of Amer-Sil's customer relationships. Dauwe Decl. ~ 11. As described in 

detail by Mr. Dauwe in his Declaration, public disclosure of this information could cause 

substantial harm to Amer-Sil's other customer relationships and sales. Id.; see In re Hoechst 

6 
Marion Roussel, Inc., 2000 FTC LEXIS at *6 ("The likely loss of business advantages is a good 

example of a 'clearly defined, serious injury. "'). This information should be protected for five 

years, and any shorter period of time would risk substantial commercial and competitive harm to 

Amer-Sil. Dauwe Decl. ~ 11. 

As detailed in his Declaration, Mr. Dauwe personally reviewed all of the Designated 

Documents and determined the length of time for which in camera treatment is appropriate based 

on his assessment of the harm that Amer-Sil and, by extension, The Moore Company would 

suffer if the Designated Documents were publicly disclosed. Id. ~ 12. Based on that review, The 

Moore Company has indicated the minimum lengths of time for which the documents should be 

afforded in camera treatment. Id. 

Because it discusses the above listed documents in great detail and specifically as to why 

they are deserving of in camera treatment, the Declaration of Guy Dauwe should also be 

afforded in camera treatment for a period of ten years, which is the longest period of time for 

which in camera treatment is sought for any document discussed therein. 

WHEREFORE, The Moore Company respectfully requests that (1) in camera status be 

granted for the time frames above for those documents identified in Exhibit A, and (2) in camera 

status be granted for a period of ten years to the Declaration of Guy Dauwe and its 

accompanying exhibits. 

7 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE MOORE COMPANY 

By its attorneys, 
Dated: May 5, 2009 

Michael J. Connolly 

Laura B. Angelini 

HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP 

28 State Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109-1775 

(617) 345-9000 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on May 5, 2009, I caused a copy of this document to be served upon 

the following persons via first class mail, postage pre-paid: 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. [first-class mail and email] 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Three Wachovia Center, Suite 3000 

401 South Tryon Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202-1935 

(704) 372-9000 

J. Robert Robertson, Esq. [first-class mail and email] 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Steven Dahm, Esq. [first class mail and email] 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell [two by first class mail and by email] 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room H-I06 

Washington, DC 20580 

Donald S. Clark [original and two copies] 

Secretary ofthe Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

8 
Exhibit A 

• 
Nonpublic

Exhibits

Redacted