'" i,' Iì ~t ;l î ..n\ '-" l'! jl il ¿~~;;~1'?\-i;1;E."-coi0~i1:~' ~i~ Û ~ ~ ~:o~ ~~ i,i', ,l- i.'i~~" 'tl Q"~"\g;~!\íl ~.. ~~~ I" ~, r'~ (\ l~ ¡L. ~ t~,:, M ~ tl..~~ 

~'aii:l~;bti~~'" -+
 

, .iMJ ~ :: ZDOf! II
 ;:::0 0" 1~ Ii ",:J~ -l o3'P ,/ (,':~~v, ':57ílfq.:c'HFrs" s,,~. "; ~¿~
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of CASE NO. 9327 

Polypore International, Inc.
 

a corporation. PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 

THIRD PARTY ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S MEMORANDUM 

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM 

ISSUED TO GRAME FRASER-BELL AND ROBERT KEITH 

PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R § 3.34(c) 

On December 30, 2008, Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") served four 

subpoenas ad testifcandum on ENTEK International LLC, a third pary to this adjudicative 

proceeding, issued to the following individuals and entities: (1) ENTEK International LLC 

("Corporate Subpoena"), (2) Danel Weerts ("Weerts Subpoena"), (3) Graeme Fraser-Bell 

("Fraser-Bell Subpoena"), and (4) Robert Keith ("Keith Subpoena").l 

ENTEK takes no issue with the Corporate Subpoena and the deposition of Daniel 

Weerts, ENTEK's Vice President of Sales and Marketing, who is responsible for all ofENTEK's 

major customer relationships. However, ENTEK objects to and moves to quash the subpoenas ad 

Exhibit I, true and correct copies of the four subpoenas ad testifcandum issued to ENTEK, 

Daniel Weerts, Robert Keith and Graeme Fraser-Bell (collectively "Subpoenas"), sent via 

email on December 30, 2008 from Eric D. Welsh, ofParkerPoe Adams & Bernstein LLP, 

legal counsel for Polypore, to Darius Ogloza of 
 Latham & Watkins LLP, legal counsel for ENTEK. 
testifcandum directed at Graeme Fraser-Bell, ENTEK International Ltd.'s Vice President of 

International Sales who works and resides in the United Kingdom, and Robert Keith, ENTEK's 

President and Chief Executive Offcer. In addition to procedural deficiencies, the incremental 

value to Polypore's discovery from those two deposittons wil almost certainly be de minimis, 

whereas the costs to ENTEK are significant both in terms of cash costs and opportunity costs 

from the disruption of its U.S. and international business. 

In an effort to avoid duplication and minimize disruption, ENTEK offered to 

present Mr. Weerts for deposition in Portland, Oregon on a date convenient to Polypore, ENTEK 

and the FTC, in both his personal and corporate representative capacities.2 ENTEK furter 

informed Polypore that, as ENTEK's Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Mr. Weerts would be 

able to testify on all eighteen specifications covered by the Corporate Subpoena and that, 

accordingly, his testimony should be suffcient. ENTEK further offered discussions on makg 

available additional witnesses if and to the extent Mr. Weerts' deposition testimony should turn 

out to be insufficient. 3 

Polypore rejected this offer and continues to demand depositions of 
 Mr. Weerts,
 

Mr. Fraser-Bell, and Mr. Keith irrespective of 
 whether Mr. Weerts' testimony wil address all 

relevant issues and with no regard to the fact that the depositions of 
 Mr. Fraser-Bell and Mr. 

Keith wil be duplicative, costly, and disruptive to ENTEK's business.4 

Accordingly, because Polypore uneasonably rejected ENTEK's proposal, 

ENTEK has no alternative but to request an order from this tribunal quashing the Fraser-Bell and 

Keith Subpoenas.
 

ARGUMENT 

Paries may obtain discovery to the extent that it may be reasonably expected to 

Exhibit 2, a true and correct copy of 


2	 the letter ENTEK sent to Polypore responding to the Subpoenas. 

3	 Declaration ofHano F. Kaiser in Support ofENTEK's Motion to Quash Subpoenas Ad 

Testificandum Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.34(c) ("Kaiser Decl.") '9. 

4 

Kaiser DecL. '10.
 

2 
yield information relevant to the allegations of the complaint. 16 C.F .R. § 3.31 (c)(1). However, 

this right is not unqualified. The Administrative Law Judge may limit discovery that is 

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or if the burden and expense of the proposed 

discovery outweigh its likely benefit. 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c). Against this standard, both the Keith 

and the Graeme- Bell subpoenas should be quashed. 

I. The Keith Subpoena is Unreasonably Duplicative, Unduly Burdensome and the
 

Discovery Sought is Available from Another Source that is More Convenient, Less 

Burdensome and Less Expensive 

Polypore insists that ENTEK submit its President and CEO, Robert Keith,S for 

deposition despite ENTEK's repeated assurances that Mr. Keith has no unque factual 

knowledge that may be reasonably expected to yield information relevant to the allegations of 

the complaint or the specifications contained in the Corporate Subpoena. Mr. Weerts is in a 

significantly better position to address all the information sought. 

Federal courts have routinely quashed subpoenas directed to high-ranng 

corporate offcials where, as here, the individuals have no unique or special knowledge of the 

facts at issue in the action and/or the discovery sought is obtaínable from a more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive source. See, e.g., Thomas v. IBM, 48 F.3d 478, 484 (lOth Cir. 

1995) (issuance of protective order preventing deposition of 
 IBM chairman was not abusive 

where plaintiff failed to give adequate notice and failed to demonstrate that discovery sought 

could not be gathered from some other IBM personnel, from whom deposition might have been 

less burdensome); Dart Industries, Inc. v. Acor, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37731, at *4 (M.D. Fla. 

2008); Reifv. CNA, 248 F.R.D. 448, 451-452 (E.D. Penn. 2008); Harris v. Computer Assocs. 

Intl, Inc., 204 F.R.D 44, 46-47 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Baine v. General Motors Corp., 141 F.R.D. 

S	 Declaration of Joel Kuntz in Support ofENTEK's Motion to Quash Subpoenas Ad 

Testificandum Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.34(c) ("Kuntz Decl.") '2. 

3 
332,335-336 (M.D. Ala. 1991). "Depositions of 
 high level corporate executives may be 

duplicative, cumulative and burdensome where the person sought to be deposed has no personal 

knowledge of 
 the events in dispute." Harris, 204 F.R.D at 46. Federal courts have the power "to 

regulate harassing or burdensome depositions, and . . . unless a high level executive has unique 

personal knowledge about the controversy, the court should regulate the discovery process to 

avoid oppression, inconvenience, and burden to the corporation and to the executive. . . . 

Moreover, the oral deposition of a high level corporate executive should not be freely granted 

when the subject of the deposition wil be only remotely relevant to the issues of 
 the case."
 

Evans v. Allstate Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 515, 518-519 (N.D. Okla. 2003)(quoting Folwell v.
 

Hernandez, 210 F.R.D 169, 173-74 (M.D.N.C. 2002)). 

Here, RobertKeith is ENTEK's highest raning officer and Polypore, despite 

ENTEK's repeated requests, has failed to identify any unique or special knowledge that he may 

have of any facts material to ths adjudicative proceeding.6 In all those matters, including prices, 

supply, demand, volume, cost, production, competition, competitors, entry, and ENTEK's 

strategy in the lead acid separator industry, Mr. Weerts has more detailed and more direct 

knowledge than Mr. Keith. 

Mr. Weerts has worked at ENTEK or its predecessor since 1989, held his present 

position as ENTEK's Vice President of Sales & Marketing for over twelve years, and has been 

involved in the battery separator industr for over 30 years.7 As a co-owner of 
 the company, he 

serves on ENTEK's management team and is intimately involved in ENTEK's strategic 

planing.s Mr. Weerts has extensive experience not only in the sales and marketing side of 
 the 

battery separator business, but also in the production and manufacturing side.9 His position at 

6 The Keith Subpoena identifies no specific topics for which testimony is sought other than 

stating that the subject of the proceeding wil be "In the Matter of Polypore International, 

Inc., Docket No. 9327." This is identical to what was included in both the Weerts and FraserBell Subpoenas. 

7 Kurtz DecL. '4. 

8 Kuntz Decl. '4. 

9 Kuntz Decl. '4. 

4 
ENTEK and vast professional experience provide him with a unique understading of the battery 

separator industry, detailed knowledge of 
 the costs associated with manufacturing battery 

separators, as well as a keen understanding of pricing and the supply and demand conditions in 

the industry. Significantly, Mr. Weerts' responsibilities include ENTEK's U.S. and international 

relationships with its most significant customer Johnson Controls Battery Group Inc. and its 

affiiates. 

Notably, Polypore did not select Mr. Keith as a document custodian. In an email 

dated December 11, 2008, counsel for ENTEK explained: "(T)he vast majority of 
 relevant
 

information requested in Spec. 5 in Rob Keith's fies would likely be duplicative with the much
 

more detailed set contained in the fies of 
 Dan Weert. As a result, the benefit to Polypore of 

including Rob Keith would be minimal, whereas the burden on ENTEK of having its CEO divert 

significant time and attention away from operations at a time of overall financial and economic 

crisis and at a critical time of 
 the business year would be significant and harmful to the company. 

Including Rob Keith would thus be unduly burdensome."10 On December 16,2008, counsel for 

Polypore agreed "to substitute Mr. Humphrey for Mr. Keith for the custodian to be searched." 
 i i

That was the right decision. The same reasons, however, compel dropping Mr. Keith from the 

list of deponents with even greater force, because depositions are more, not less intrsive than 

document collections, which can at least in part be delegated. Moreover, without a documentary 

basis, one importnt reason for taing a deposition - asking the witness to explain his unique
 

documents - is lacking or at least greatly diminished. 

Compellng Mr. Keith to prepare and sit for a deposition would force the 

company's CEO away from his responsibilties for at least two days durng a time of crisis in the 

U.S. automotive industry, which ENTEK serves almost exclusively. Ths would impose a 

significant hardship on ENTEK. The burden and expense of deposing Mr. Keith thus far 

10 Exhibit 3, a tre and correct copy of 
 the Email chain between Eric D. Welsh and Hano 

Kaiser; titled: "Re: DRAFT Discovery Agreement ENTEK/olypore" dated December 16, 

2008, at 3:01 PM PDT. 

IIId. 

5 
outweighs its likely benefit. 

Because Mr. Keith has no unque knowledge and Polypore's legitimate interest in 

full and fair discovery is 
 satisfied by deposing Mr. Weerts, who has more direct and more
 

detailed knowledge of all matters material to this proceeding, the Keith Subpoena should be
 

quashed.
 

II. The Fraser-Bell Subpoena is Invalid on the Basis of Defective Service and Defective
 

Process 

Polypore has failed to properly serve a valid subpoena ad testifcandum on Mr. 

Fraser-Bell, who is a citizen and resident of 
 12 The Fraser-Bell Subpoena the United Kingdom. 


was issued pursuat to Rule 3.34(a)(I), 16 C.F.R. § 3.34(a)(I); however, nothing in that section 

"authorizes the issuance of. . . subpoenas to be served in a foreign country which may be 

authorized only in accordance with § 3.36." 16 C.F.R § 3.34(c). Rule 3.36 provides that an 

application for the issuance of a subpoena to be served in a foreign country (such as is necessar 

to hale Mr. Fraser-Bell before this tribunal) shall be made in the form of a written motion fied in 

accordance with the provisions of § 3.22(a). Such a motion must not only satisfy the same 

requirements for a subpoena issued under § 3.34, but must also show that "the pary 
 seeking 

discovery has a good faith belief 
 that the discovery requested would be permitted by treaty, law, 

custom or practice in the countr from which the discovery is sought and that any additional 

procedural requirements have been or wil be met before the subpoena is served." 16 C.F.R § 

3.36(b). Moreover, if 
 an ALJ issues such an Order, the Order must be attched to the subpoena 

and served by the moving party. 16 C.F.R § 3.36(c). Polypore has failed to comply with any of 

these provisions with respect to its request to depose Mr. Fraser-Bell. 

Polypore's subpoena is defective for the additional independent reason that it 

failed to properly serve process on Mr. Fraser-BelL. Polypore sent a copy of 
 the subpoena to Mr. 

12 Declaration ofGraeme Fraser-Bell in Support ofENTEK's Motion to Quash Subpoenas Ad 

Testificandum Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.34(c) ("Fraser-Bell Decl.") "2,3. 

6 
Fraser-Bell at ENTEK International LLC in Lebanon, Oregon via Certified Mail.13 Mr. FraserBell is not employed by ENTEK International LLC but, instead, by an ENTEK affiliate located 

14 ENTEK International LLC in Oregon therefore in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom. 


did not and could not accept service on Mr. Fraser-Bell's behalf. 

III. The Fraser-Bell Subpoena is Unreasonably Duplicative, Unduly Burdensome and
 

the Discovery Sought is Available from Another Source that is More Convenient, 

Less Burdensome and Less Expensive; and the Burden and Expense of the Proposed 

Discovery Outweigh its Likely Benefit 

The Fraser-Bell subpoena should be quashed because compliance with it would 

be unduly burdensome and/or the burden and expense of the proposed discovery outweigh its 

likely benefit. ENTEK already has offered to present for deposition Mr. Weerts, who is the 

person most knowledgeable about the specifications contained in the Corporate Subpoena. Mr. 

Fraser-Bell's knowledge is largely duplicative as to these categories. As a practical matter, 
 Mr. 

Weerts not only oversees all ofENTEK's sales efforts, in the U.S. and internationally with 

respect to Johnson Controls and its affiliates, he is also intimately familar with the operations, 

cost structure, and expansion plans ofENTEK's U.K. facilty. In terms of commercial relevance, 

Mr. Weerts is immediately responsible for more than 80% ofENTEK's total revenue. As to the 

remaining 20%, any differences in the degree of 
 knowledge between Mr. Fraser-Bell and Mr. 

Weerts are likely to be minimal and do not 
 justify the cost and disruption created by deposing 

Mr. Fraser-BelL. In practical terms, ENTEK International Ltd. wil 
 lose at least four days of Mr. 

Fraser-Bell's time ifhe is forced to attend a deposition in Portland, Oregon, not to mention the 

hardship imposed on Mr. Fraser-Bell personally. Mr. Fraser-Bell lives 
 in Liverpool in the United 

13 Legal counsel for Polypore also sent ENTEK's legal counsel a copy of 


the subpoena via electronic mail on December 30, 2008 without disclosing that it was sending a subpoena for 

the deposition of a foreign nationaL. Kaiser Decl. '2. 

14 Fraser-Bell DecL. "1,4. 

7 
Kingdom, about 180 miles northwest of London. There are no direct flghts from Liverpool to 

Portland. In order to get to Portland, Mr. Fraser-Bell would have to get to London first and then 

fly to Portland via Newark or, alternatively, fly from Liverpool to Isle of 
 Man, from there to 

Manchester, from Manchester to Newark, and then from Newark to Portland. The flght time 

15 In addition, Mr. Fraser-Bell would have to prepare and then of alone is 17-22 hours each way. 


course sit for the deposition, which would tae another two days. During that time Mr. FraserBell would be unable to tend to the responsibilties of 
 his job and respond to his customer's 

16 needs in a timely fashion. 


The vast majority of 
 information sought from Mr. Fraser-Bell is thus available
 

from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome and less expensive, namely Mr.
 

Weerts' deposition. As a result, deposing Mr. Fraser-Bell would be unduly burdensome. In 

addition, given Mr. Weerts' broad experience, which includes the international relationship with 

JCI, other international customers, and his detailed knowledge of 
 the operations ofENTEK's 

U.K. facility, the potential for obtaining incremental information from Mr. Fraser-Bell that could 

be material to Polypore's defenses in this case must be balanced against the certainty of 

significant expense and burden to ENTEK and Mr. Fraser-Bell personally from having him 

travel to Portland. Such balancing compels the conclusion that the burden and expense of the 

proposed discovery outweigh its likely benefit. 

For these reasons, the Fraser-Bell subpoena should be quashed. 

15 Based on a search on ww.orbitz.com (last visited on Januar 8, 2009, 6:00 pm PST) from 

LPL to PDX, then sorted by "shortest flght." The flght time from LPL to PDX via Isle of 

Man, Manchester and Newark is 22 hours 27 minutes. The flght time back from PDX to 

NCL via Chicago, Manchester and Isle of Man is 24 hours 54 minutes. Even from London 

Heathrow (LHR), according to ww.orbitz.com. there are no direct flghts to Portland, and 

the shortest flght via Newark is stil about 17 hours, not counting the time it would tae Mr. 

Fraser-Bell to get from Liverpool to London. 

16 Fraser-Bell Decl. il9.
 

8 
CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, ENTEK respectfully moves to quash the 

subpoenas ad testifcandum issued to Graeme Fraser-Bell and Robert Keith. In the event that 

this tribunal is unable to grant complete relief, ENTEK requests a hearing. 

Dated: January 9, 2009 Respectfully submitted, 

BY,J~O~ /1'1J5 

Darius Ogloza G .
 

LA TRAM & WATKIS LLP 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94111-6538 

Telephone: + 1.415.391.0600 

Facsimile: + 1.415.395.8095 

hano.kaiser(flw.com 

darus.ogloza(fl w.com 

* Admitted in New York only. Not admitted in 

California. 

Attorneys for ENTEK International LLe 

9 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

In the Matter of CASE NO. 9327 

Polypore International, Inc.
 

a corporation. PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 

DECLARTION OF HANNO F. KAISER IN SUPPORT OF
 

ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S
 

MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM
 

ISSUED TO GRAEME FRASER-BELL AND ROBERT KEITH
 

PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R § 3.34(c)
 

I, Hano F. Kaiser, under penalty ofpeijury, declare that the following is true and 

correct to the best of my knowledge: 

1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before the courts of 
 the State of 

New York. I am a partner with the law firm of 
 Latham & Watkins LLP, legal counsel for 

ENTEK International LLC ("ENTEK"). I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein 

and, if called upon, I could and would competently testify thereto. 

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the four
 

subpoenas ad testifcandum issued to ENTEK, Daniel Weerts, Robert Keith and Oraeme FraserBell (collectively "Subpoenas"), sent via email on December 30,2008 from Eric D. Welsh, of 

Parker Poe Adams & Berstein LLP, legal counsel for Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore"), 

to Darus Ogloza of 
 Latham & Watkins LLP, legal counsel for ENTEK. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of 
 the letter sent on 
Januar 5, 2009 from Darius Ogloza to Eric D. Welsh responding to the Subpoenas.
 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a tre and correct copy of 
 the Email from 

Eric D. Welsh to Hano Kaiser; titled: "Re: DRAFT Discovery Agreement ENTEK/olypore" 

dated December 16, 2008, at 3:01 PM PDT. 

5. On January 6, 2009, Darius Ogloza, Brett Collns and I met and conferred
 

with Eric Welsh via telephone regarding ENTEK's objections to the Subpoenas. 

6. During this telephone conversation, we informed Mr. Welsh that ENTEK
 

was willng to make Daniel Weerts available for deposition in both his personal and corporate 

representative capacities. 

7. We further explained that ENTEK objected to the subpoena issued to 

Oraeme Fraser-Bell because it was not properly served on him given that Mr. Fraser-Bell is a 

resident of 
 the United Kingdom and that his testimony would likely add little to that to be 

provided by Mr. Weerts. In addition, requiring Mr. Fraser"Bell to travel from the United 

Kingdom to Oregon would be unduly burdensome. 

8. We further explained that ENTEK objected to the subpoena issued to 

Robert Keith, ENTEK's Chief 
 Executive Officer, and that without a showing that he has unique 

or special knowledge of the facts at issue in this case, presenting him for deposition would be 

unduly burdensome and interfere with the daily operations of 
 the company. Moreover, Mr. 

Keith's testimony would likely be duplicative ofthat to be provided by Mr. Weerts in all 

material respects. We explained that, for example, as to volume, pricing, capacity, and 

competition, Mr. Weerts is likely to have more detailed relevant knowledge than Mr. Keith. 

9. We proposed that any conversation about Mr. Fraser-Bell's or Mr. Keith's 

depositions be deferred until after Mr. Weerts' deposition is concluded. 

10. On Januar 7, 2009, we received an email from Eric Welsh informing us 

2 
that our proposal was "unacceptable" and that Polypore intended to seek the depositions of 
 both 

Mr. Fraser-Bell and Mr. Keith. 

I declare, under the penalty of 
 perjury under the laws of the United States that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Signed this 9th day of Januar 2009, in San Francisco, California. 

~~ 

of. Kaiser
 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94111-6538 

Telephone: +1.415.395.8856 

Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095 

hano.kaiser~lw.com 

* Admitted in New York only. Not admitted in 

California. 

Attorney for ENTEK International LLe 

3 
EXHIBIT 1
 
" 

, 

SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM
 CD Issued Pursuant to Rule 3.34(a)(1), 16 C.F.R. § 3.'34(a)'1) (1997)

1. TO 2. FROM 

ENiEK International LLC
 

250 N. Hansard ,Ave.
 

Lebanon. ,OR 97355
 UND STATE OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRAE COMMISSION
 

This subpoena requires you to app,ear and give testimony, at the date 'and ,tillesp6cified in Item 5, at the 

request of Counsel listed In Item 8, in the proceeding described in Item 6. 

3; PLACE OF HEARING 4. YOUR APPEAANCE WILL 
 BE BEFORE Miller Nash
 Counsel for Respondent and a person authorized
 

ill S.W. Fifth Avenue
 by law to adminiáter oaths.


Portland. Oregon 97204
 

'5. DATE AND TlMEOF HEARING OR DEPosmDN 

1/19/09 at 9:00, AM
 

'6. SUBJECT OF PROCEEDING 

In theMa~ter of Polyp ore Inteqational, Inc., Docket No. 9327 , 

Please ~eBignate and provide witne~ses 'to testify on the sUbjec~B identified in the
 

attached Bchequle.
 

7. ,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE . 8. COUNSEL REQUESTING SUBPOENA 

The Honorable' D. Michael Chappell	 Eric D. Welsh 

Tliee Wachovia Center
 

Suite 300 ,
 

Federal Trade Commission ' 401 South Tron Str', '
 

Charlott, NC 28202-1935 'Washingtn, D.C. ,20$80
 

DATE ISSUED 

December 10, 208 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

APPEÁRANCE TRAVEL EXPENSE;S ,
 The delivery of this subpoena to you by' any method The Commission's, Rules-of Practice, reqùlre that fees and prescribed by the Commission's 
 Rules of Practice Is' mileage be paid by the par that requested your
 ,legal s~nviceand'maysubject you to a penalt appearace; You 'Shouldpresent your claim to Counsel ,llTposed by law for failure to comply; listed iii It~m 8 for payment. If you ate ~ånnanently or 

temporarilyllvfng somewhare other than Uie addresS em 

1Y0TlONTO UNliT' OR QUAsH this subpoena',and It.wouic: require excess,l'e travel for 

The GO,mm,sslor:'s Rules of Practioe require ttlat any	 you to appear; you must get prlorappiovalfrom Counsl
 

listed in Item .8. ,
 ltotlonto limit or qliash this subpoena:' be filed within


the earlier of 1.0 d,ays aft~r seivk:a or t,hi; tiiTe for 

complituQQ. The original and tan copies of the petition
 

must be fied with tha'Secretary of the FaderØTradè
 

CommiSsion" accompanied, by;,anaffidavlt of seivee, of 

the dOc,Uff6int uPQn counsel 
 listed in Item. 8, and upon this subpona does not require approvw by OMS under
 à,lI othår partIe,s presoribed.by the Rules of J=ract/ce. the Paperwork 'Reductlo~ Act of 1980., , ,
 

FrC For 7D-A (rev. 1/97) 
- ------------ -- -------------

-- ---------- ---- --------- ------ --- -- ---

- ------ --- ------ -- -------------- - -- ----

RETURN OF SERVICE " .
 I hereby certfy that a duplite origInal of tho wihin
 

subpna was duly SOlVed: (ci Ui melh ua 

o in person.
 

o by relstored man.
 

o by leavfng.coy at principal off or pface" of business, to wit: 

- - --- --- -----~-------------­

- -- -- - -- - -- -~-- - -- ---- -- -- -­

- - --- - ------ -- ~ - -- -- - - -- - ~ -­

on t~e person named herein on: , ""
 

(N 01 pe mig "iv) .


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i~~~~i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­

. "

SCHEDULE 

1. Sales by ENTEK International LLC ("ENTEK") of lead acid battery separators during 

the period of Januar 1, 2003 to the present, including but not limited to, the specific 

products sold, the amount of 
 volume of each product sold, the prices of the products sold, including shipment costs, if any, the . dates of purchase or sale, the .end uses or 

applications of the product sold, the ENTEK plant from which such product was sold and 

the final destination of the product. 

2. The wrtten responses provided by ENTK in response to the subpoena issued to ENTEK 

in ths matter and dated October 24,2008. 

3. Any actu or potential contrct betweenENTEK and Johnson Controls, Inc. ("JCI"), 

Exide Tecliologies ("Exide"), EnerSys, East Penn Manufactung CÒ., Inc. (I'East 

Penn"), Crown Battery Manufactuing Co. ("Crown"), Trojan Battery Co. ("Trojan"), US 

Battery Co. ("US Battery"), C&D Tecliologies, Inc. ("CD") or any other entity 

manufacturig battri~s for sale in Nort America from Januar 1, 2003 to the present, 

inclu.ding the related contractul negotiations. 

4. Negotiations, discussions or communications between ENTEK and JCI, Exide, EnerSys, 

East, Penn, Crown, Trojan, US Battery, C&D, or any other battry manufacturer
 

regarding (a) any change in price of or cost surcharge for any battery separator
 

manufactued or to 
 be manufactued by Èntek (b) Polypore International, Inc. (including 

without limitation Daramic, LLC) ("Polypore"), (c) Microporous Products, LP 

("Microporous"), or (d) any other manufactuer of batter separators from Januar i, 

2003 to the present. 

5. Factors related to any chage in price or cost surcharge instituted. by ENTEK from 

Januar 1, 2003 to the present. 

6. Any consideration by ENTEK of manufactung separators for industral or deep cycle 

batteries, including any communcation between Entek and any third par regarding the 

same from Januar 1, 2003 to the present. 

.7. The scope of_ competition for battery separators for lead acid batteries from Janua 1, 

2003 to the present. 

8. Actu or potential competitors of ENTEK for lead acid battery separators 
 from Januar 

1,)003 to the present. 

9. ENTEK's or other manufactuer's sPae of any market for lead .acid battery separators, 

including manufactuers of absorptive glass mat ("AGM") fróm January '1, 2003 to the 

present. 

10. For the period of January 1, 2003 to the presènt, ,ENTEK's expanion of any of its 

facilities for manufactug lead acid battery separators, includihg capacity of such 

expanded facilty, prodUcts to. be made from such facilty, the customers for such facilty, 

PPAB ISI02SIvl 
the cost of such expanion, and the time period covered by such expanion, includig 

star date of expansion project, commissionig date and actu or anticipated date of 

product being manufactured and sold. '
 

11. Testing or qualification by ENTEK or anyone on behalf of ENTEK of lead acid battery 

separators durng the period of Janua 1, 2003 to the present. 

12. ENTEK's consideration of or effort in developing alternative technology or substitutes 

to lead acid battery separators manufactued 'by Polypore, incluqing AGM separators 

durng the period of January 1, 2003 to the present. 

13. The actu or potential acquisition 
 ,of Microporous by Polypore (the "acquisition"). 

14. The actual, potential or perceived effect on ENTEK's business of an acquisition of 

Microporous by Polypore. 

15. COmiunications between ENTK and the Federal Trade Commission regarding the 

acquisition or Polypore. 

16. Any actual or potential barier to entr for suppliers or manufactuers of lead acid battery 

separators, including without linitation cost of entr or aclueving minmal viable .scale in 

(a) Nort America and (b) the World for the period of Januar 1,2003 to the present. 

17. Any actual or potential ownership interest of ENTEK in any joint venture or other entity 

that manufactuers lead acid battery separators for the period óf Januar 1, 2003 to the 

present. 

18. Any actual or potential ownerslup interest of any person other than ENTEK in any joint 

ventue or other entity that. manufactuers lead acid battery separators including BFR for 

the period of Janua 1, 2003 töthe present. 

2 

PPAB 1510251vl 
UNED STATES OF AMEIUCA 

BEFORE THE FEDERA TR.E COMMSSION 

In the Matter. of
 ) Docket No. 9327 

) Polypore IntellatiQnaJ, Inc., ) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

a corporation. ) 

ÇERTIFIÇATE OF sEllviç'E 

I hereby certify that on December 29,2008, I caused to be served the for~going Subpoena 

Ad Testificandum via Certified Mail Retun Receipt Requested upon: 

ENTK International LLC 

250 N. Hanard Ave. 

Lebanon, OR 97355 

I hereby certify that on December 29, 2Q08, I caused to be served one copy via electronic 

mail delivery and two copies via overnight mail. delivery of the foregoing Subpoena Ad Testificandum upon: . .
 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Adnnistrative Law Judge
 

Federal Ti"iide Commssion 

600 Pennsylvaia Avenue, NW 

WáShington, DC 20580 

oa1j(ßftc.gov, 

I hereby certfy that on December 29, 2008, I cause4 to be served via first-class mail upon: . , delivery and electronic rIaiI deliverY.a copy of the foregoing Subpoena Ad Testíflcandum

J. Robert Robertson, Esq. Steven Dah, Esq. Federal Trade Conuission Federal Trade Commssion 

6QO Pennylvana Avenue; NW 600 Pennylvana Avenue, NW 

Washigton,.DC 20580 WaShington, DC 20580 rtobertori(gftc.gov sdah(!ftc.gov 

PPAa ISl674Svl 
Adån C. Shearer (fG~

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Thee Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlott, NC .iS202
 

Telephone: (704) 335-9050
 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

2
 

PPAB lS16745vI 
ê ' , . SUBP'OENA AD TESTIFICANDUM '
 

V Issued Pursuant to Rul~ 3.34(a)(1),"16 ,C.F.R. § 3.34(a)(1) (1997) 

1. TO 2. FROM 

Mr. Graeme Fr~r-~eii
 

ENTEK International, LL6c
 

250 H. Hansard Ave. UND STATES OF AMERICA 

Lebànon, OR 07355, FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION 

This'subpoena requIres ,you to appear and give testimony, at the date and time speified in Item 5. at the
 requast of Counsel listed In Item 8, in the proceeding described in Item 6.
 

3. pLACE OF HEAING' 4. YOUR APPEARACE WILL BE BEFORE
 Miller Nash, 'Counsel for Respondent 'and a person authorized
 III S.W. Fifth Avenue by law to administer oaths. Portland, Oregon 97204 ' ,
 

6. SUBJECT OF PROCEEDING 

bi the Måtter of Polypore International. Inc., Docket No. 9327 

7. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Federal Trade Commission ' 

, , Washington, D.C. 20580

.5. DATE AND TIME OF HEARING OR DEPOSITON 

1/19/09 at 2:00 PM
 

6. COUNSEL REQUESTING SUBPOENA 

Erie D, Welsh 

Thr Wachovia Cente
 

Suite 300
 

401 South Tryon Street
 

Charlotte, NC 282Q2-1935
 

,DATE ISSUED SEC~~~/ 11


Decem,ber 10, 2008 ~, GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

APPEARANCE 

The dellv!3ry of this subpoena to Y0l, by any. method, 

prescribed by the CommisSlon's ,Rules of Practice Is 

legal service, a:nd may. SUbject you tò a penalty 

imposed by law for failure ta comply. 

~01JON TO LIMIT OR QUASH 

, The Commission's Rules, of Practice require that,any 

, motion 10 limit or qUash this subpoena be filed within 

, the earlier of 10 cnys after service or the timE! for
 

complit;nq$. The original and ten copies of the petition 

must be fied with the'SecretarY of the Fi:deral Trade 

'Commission, açGompanled by..an affidavit of servlce of ' 

the doc,umsnt upon counsel listed In.Jtem.8, and upon 

á;1I olhår partla,s prescribe by the Rules of Practice. 

'FrC Fon 70-A (rev. 1/97) 

TRAVEL EXPENSES 

The Commission's Rules-of Practlce,requlre that fee and 

, miletige be paid by th!l part that requested your 

appearnce. You,shouldpreseni yourctaim to Counsel 

, listed In It~m 8 for payment. If you are ~nnanently or 

temporarly,lIving sO,mewhere other than the address on 

this subpoena and It woulcl 'require exces,slVe travel 
 ,for 

YOU to appear. you must get prior approval from Counsel
 

listed In Item 8. 

This subpona ~does not require approval by OMS under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. , 
RETURN OF SERVICE , .
 

I hereby certIfy tht a duplIcate orgInal of the within 

subpoena was duty seNec: (ch the _ho uii)
 

o in person.
 

o by registere mall.
 

o by leaving, copy at prncipa ofca or place of busines, to wit: 

on the person named herein on: 

(Mo, day. an yø 

- -- -~ - -- --- ----- ------------ - - --- -----­ (Na 01 peramaldng l6) ..
 

- - - - - - ~ - - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ (Olal UUa)
 
UNIED STATES OF AME~CA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRAE COMMISSION 

in t~e Matter ilf ) Docket No. 9327 

) Polypore Iiiternational, Inc., ) PUBLIC DOCUMENT

a corporation. ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on peceniber29) 2008, I caused to be served the foregoing Subpgena 

Ad Testificandum via Certified MaiIRetu Receipt Requested upon: .
 

Mr, Qraeme Fra.er-Bell 

ENTEK International LLC 

250 N. Hansard Ave. 

Leb'anon, OR 97355 

I hereby certify tht on December 29) 20OS) I caused to be served one copy via electronic
 

mail delivery. and two copies via overnght mail deUvery of the foregoing ,Subpoena Ad
 

TestificanduI upon:' .
 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600Pèiiylvana Avtnue,NW
 

Washington, DC 20580 '
 

oa1j~ftc.gov 

I hereby certfy that on December 29, 2008) I caused to be served via first-class maíl 

delivery and electroitc mail delivery ,a 'copy of the foregoing SilfJpr.ena Ad Testifcandwn 

upon: 

J. Robert Roberton, Esq. Steven Dah, Esq. 

Federal Trade Comnssión Federal Trade Commission 

600 lennylvana A venue, NW 6~)'0 Pennylvana AvenQe, NW 

. WaShigton, OC20580 WasWngton, DC 20580 

iroqertQn~ftc.gov sdah($ftc.göv 

PPAB !S16741vl 
GL:l


Adam C. Shearer 

Park~r' Poe Adams & Berntein LLP 

Thee W achovia Center .
 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite-3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 335.9050 

Facsimile: (704)- 334.4706 

2 

PPAB ISI674Ivi 
.', 

~. " SUBPOENAA,D TESTIFICANDUM .
 

'V l.ssuedPursuant to Rule 3.34(a)(1), 16 C.F.R. § 3.34(a)(1) (1997) 

1. TO 

Mr . Robert Keith

Chief Operating Officer 

ENTEK Internation~i LLC
 

250 N. Ha~sard Ave.
 

Lebanon,' OR 97355
 

2. FROM 

UND STArES OF AMERICA
 

, fEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

This subpOena requlres.you to appear and give testimony, at the date and time specified in Iterr 5, at the 

request of Counsel listed In Item 8, in the proeeding described ih Item 6. . 

3. PLACE qF HEAING 

Miller Nash,
 

ILL S.W. Fifth Avenue
 

Portland, Oregon 97204
 

6. SUBJECT OF PROCEEDING
 

In the Matter of Polypore International, Inc., Docket No. 9327 

7. ,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Federal Trade Commission .
 

Washington, D.C. 20580
 

DATE ISSUED 

Decmber 10, 2008 

.

. APPEARANCe
 

The delivery of this subpoena to you by any. method. 

prescribed by the Commission's Rulas of Practice is 

legal service.ancJmay subject you tb a panalty 

Imposed by law for failure to comply. 

MonON TO LIMIT OR QUASH 

. The CO,mmisslon's Rl.les of Practice require that any 

motion to limit or quash this sU!ipoana be filed within 

the. earlier of 10 days after service 
 or the time for .
 

compllanq9. The original and ten copies of the petiion 

must be fled with the' Secretary of the Federal Trade 

Corinilssiol', accompanied b~ an affidavit otse"r~ice of 

the document upon counsel listed inlta.m 8, .and upon . all other partie.sprascrlbed by the Rules of Practice. 

4. YOUR APPEARACE WILL BE BEFORE 

Counsel' for Resp"oiid'ent . 
 and a pe.rson autho'rized by ,law to administer, oaths. 

5. DATE AND TIME OF HEAING OR DEPOSITION 

'1/20/09 at g,: 00 AM
 

8. COUNSEL REQUESTING SUBPOENA . 

Eric D. Welsh 

Three Wachovia Cente 

Suite 300 

401,SoutI Tryon Street. ' 

Charlott, NC Z8Z02 l935 

~/4 ~ 

TRAVEL EXPENSES .
 The Commission's Rules-of Practice. require that fees and 

mileage be paid by the part that requested your .
 

appearance. You .should present your claim to Çounsel
 

listed In ItEH a for payment If you are ~rmanently or
 

temporar.ily living somewhere other than the address on
 

this subpna and it wolildreulre excessiVe travel for 

YOll to appear, you must get prior approval from Couns9J

listed in Itema. . 

This subpona does not r~uire approval by OMB under 

the Papérwrk Reducton Act of 1980. . 

FTC Form 70-A (rev. 1/97) . 
RETURN OF SE~VICE 

I hereby cefy that a duplicte original of the within 

subpoena was duly served: (i; th mi us
 

o In person.
 

o by reistere mllil. 

o by leaving, copy at principal offe or pla~ of business, to wit: 

-~---- ~-. -- -- --- ----- - - - - --­

on the person nåmed hëi'ln on:
 

(Mo (l. lI year)
 

(Nama-l _ making lGrv)
 

- - - - - - - - - -"- ~- - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­

(0I1ca1 till.) 

" 
UNITE;D STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFQRE THE FEDERAL TRE COMMISSION
 

In the Matter of
 ) Docket No. 9327 

) Polypc;re International, Inc., ) PUBLIC DOCUNT 

a corporation. ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 29, 2008, I caused to be served the foreg9ing Subpoena 

Ad Testificandum via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested upon: 

Mr. Robert Keith 

Chief Operating Offçer 

ENTEK International LLC 

250 N. Hansard Ave.
 

Lebanon, OR 97355 

I hereby çertify that on December 29, 2,008, I caused to be served one copy via electronic. 

mai delivery t.d two copies Vill overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Subpoena Ad


Testificandun upon: .
 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrtive L~w Judge
 

:Federal Trttde Commission 

60ÖPennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washìngton, DC 20580 

oalj(fftc.gov 

I herepy certify that 9rt DeCQinber 29, 2008, I caused to be served via first-claSs mail 

delivery and electronic 
 mail delivery ,a cqpy .of the foregoing Subpoena Ad Testifandum 

upon: 

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

Federal Trade Commssion Federal Trade Commssion 

600 PennyIvana Av~:mue, NW 600 Peiisylvana Avenue, NW 

Washigton, DC 20580 Washigton, DC 20580 rroberton~ftc.gov ~dah(fft.gov 

PPAB1516744vl 
, ,
 

Ada C. Shearer (l~

Parker Poe AdaQs & Bernstein LLP 

Thee Wachovia Center 

401 Snuth Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Clilotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 335-9050
 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

2
 

PPAB 1516744vl 
SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM.' , ,


- Issued Pursuant to Rule 3.34(å)(1), 16C.F.R. § 3'.34(a)(1) (1997) 

1. TO 2. FROM 

Mr'. ,Dan:lel W.eerts
 

ENTEK Internat~onai LLC
 

250 N. Hansard Ave.
 

Lebanons' OR 97355 UNED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERA TRDE COMMSSION
 

TIis subpoena requires you to appear and 
 give testlm.ony, at the date and time speified in Item 5, at the request of Counsel .listed In Item 6, In the proceeding described In Item 6. 

3. pLACE OF HEARING 4. YOUR APPEANCE WILL BE BEFORE
 

Miller Nash
 Counsel for' Re~pondent. and a person authorized 11 1 s; W. Fifth Avenue	 . by.la~ to administer oaths. Portland, O:regon 97204
 

5. DATE AND TIME OF HEARING OR DEPOSITION 

1/20/09 at 2:00 PM
 

6. SUBJECT OF PROCEEDING 

In the Matter of Poly pore International. Inc., Docket No. 9327 

7. ,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE i;. COUNSEL REQUESTING SUBPOENA 

1Je Honorable D..Michael Chappell	 Eric D. Welsh
 

Thee Wachovia Center
 

Suite 300 

Federal Trade Commission '	 401 South Tryon Street. ' 

Washington, D.C. 20580 Charlotte. NC 28202-1935

DATE ISSUED 

December 10,208
 

GENÈRA INSTRUCTIONS " 

APPEAANCE /	 TRAVEL ExPENsES The delivery -of this subpoena to you by any method	 The CommissIon's Rules,of Practfce,requlre that fees and

. . 

prescribed. by the Commission's. Ru!es of Pratice Is
 mileage be paid by the par tht requested your
 legal servica.and may subject you tò a penalty , appearance. Yoush0!lldpreseot your claim to Coi:nsel ilTpo~ed by law for failul' to comply. listed in It~!l 8 for payment If you are ~rmanently or . 

t.emporarlly living somewhere other than the address on 

Pl0TlON TO UMIT OR QUASH this subpoena',and it.woufdrequlre exceive travel for 

The Co.mmls~ion's Rules of Praòtlce require tJat.any you to appear. you must get prior approval from Counsel 

motion listed In Item 8. . to limit or quash this subpoena be filed within the earller of .10 days after service or the time for 

complianqe. The 'onginal and ten copies of the petition 

must beffled with the Secretary of the Féderal Trade 

Commission, accmpanied by 
 an affidavit of'servlce of the d09umsnt upon counsel 
 listed in Item.8. and upon This subpona, does not require approval by OMS under áll other partie.s presçrlbed by the Rules of Practice. . (	 the Paprwrk Reduction Act of 1980. 

FTC Form 70~A (rev. 1197) 
- - - --- ---- -- -- --- - --- ------ - - - -- - - - - - --

RETURN OF SERVICE 

./ hereby certfy that a duplicte ongfnaf of the within 

subpona was dufy seNed: (chec Ui mo us 

o fn person.
 

o by registered mafl.
 

o by leaving coy at princpa of or place' of busfness, to wit: 

------ - ---------- -" - -------­

--- --- - - ~------ ------- -----­

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - ­

- -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ­

on the peon named herein on: 

--- --------- ---- -- ---------- - -- ----_._­

(Moth dly,lId y8l 

(Na 01 pe mi fØ) .
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (~~Ü~i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
. UNITED STATES OF 
 AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TMDE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9327 

) Polypore International, IDe., ) PUBLIC DOCUMNT
 

a co'rporation.
 ) , 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 29,2008, I caused to be served the foregoing Subpoena 

Ad Testi:fcandum via Certified Mail Retu Receipt Request,ed upon:
 

Mr. Danel Wee~ 

ENTEK In.ternational LLC 

250 N. Hansard Ave. 

Lebanon, OR 97355. 

I hereby certfy that on Decemb.er 29,2008, I caused to be served one copy via electronic 

mail delivery and two copies via overnght mail delivery of the foregoing Subpoena Ad
 

Testificandum upon:
 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Adminstrative Law Judge
 

Federal Trade Commssion 

600' Pennylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oalj~ftc;goy 

I hereby ~ertify that QD, December 29, 2008, I caused to be served via first.class mai 

deliveiy and electro,nic'mail delivery a copy of the foregoing 
 Subpoena A4 Testificandum 

upon: 

J. Robert R()berton, Esq. Steven Dal Esq. 

Federal Trade Comnission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvana Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvana A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washingtn, DC 20580 

rroberton(8ftc. goy sdah($:fc.gov 

PPAB lS16742vl 
Adam ç. Shearer 

il~

p'arker Poe Adams & Berntein LLP 

Three Wachovia Cen~r 

401 South Tryon Street, Sllite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 335~9050
 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

2
 

PPAB lS16742vl 
EXHIBIT 2
 
Darius C. Dgloia 505 Montgomery Street, SUite 2000 

Direc Dia: 415-395-8149 San Francsco. California 94111-6538 

darlus.ogloza~lw,co	 Tel: +1.415.391.0600 Fax +1.416.395.8095 

ww.lw.co 

FIRM I AFFILlA TE OFFICES LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP Ab Dhabl Munich 

Barclona New Jersey 

BlUsseI New York 

Chicgo Nor Virginia 

Doha Orange County 

Januar 5, 2009	 Dubal Pans 

Frankfrt Rom 

VIA EMAIL Hamburg San Diego

Hog Kon San Francsc 

London Shlnghal 

Los Aneles Silico Valley 

Eric D~ Welsh	 MBdnd Singapoe 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP Milan Tokyo

Mosco Washington, D.C. Thee Wachovia Center, Suite 3000 

401 SouthTryon Street	 File No. 030380-0007 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Re: In the Matter of Po Iv pore InternationaL. Inc.. Cas No. 9327 

Dear Eric: 

This letter sets forth ENTEK International LLC's ("ENTEK") technical and substative 

objections to the four subpoenas ad testifcandum ("Subpoenas") served on it by your client 

Polypore International, Inc. ("PoIypore") on December 30, 2008 in connection with the abovereferenced matter. 

We propose holding a meet and confer session with you concernng ENTEK's objections 

on either Tuesday, Janua 6 or Wednesday, Januar 7. Given the Januar 9 deadline to fie a 

motion to quah, if you are not available to meet on either of these days, we request an extension 

to fie a motion to quash unti a reasonable time after we are able to discuss ENTEK's objections. 

I. SubDoena Issued to ENTEK International LLC ("CorDorate SubDoena") 

ENTEK wil offer Dan Weerts as its corporate representative as to all specifications set 

fort in the Corporate Subpoena. Although a subpoena was issued to Mr. Weerts, as an
 

individual, he wil be presented for deposition on one occasion only, both in his personal and
 

corporate representative capacities, at a date and time convenient to all paries (including the 

Federal Trade Commssion). ENTEK shall seek to schedule Mr. Weerts' deposition suffciently 

prior to the discovery cut-off 
 to permit use of 
 his testimony at tral by both paries. We are 

happy to negotiate a convenient date and will provide some proposed dates for this deposition at, 

or shortly after, the proposed meet and confer session. 

General Obiections and Reservations 

i. ENTEK objects to the Corprate Subpoena because it is not narowly tailored so as to 

avoid imposing undue burden or expense on ENTEK as required by the Federal Trade 

Commission Act ("FTC Act") and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Eric D. Wellh 

January 6, 2009 

Page 2
 

LA THAM&WATKI NSLLp 

2. ENTEK objects to the Corporate Subpoena because it seeks information that is beyond 

the scope of permissible discovery under the FTC Act and the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

3. ENTEK objects to the Corporate Subpoena because it seeks to impose obligations on 

ENTEK beyond those expressly set fort in the FTC Act and the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

4. ENTEK objects to the Corporate Subpoena as overbroad and unduly burdensome, in that 

it seeks testimony that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the action nor 

reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

5. ENTEK objects to the Corporate Subpoena to the extent it seeks information protected 

from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common 

interest doctre or any other applicable discovery privilege or exemption.
 

6. ENTEK objects to the Corporate Subpoena to the extent it seeks information regarding 

trade secrets, proprietar commercial information or other sensitive or confidential ' 

information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of privacy 

or confidentiality, or is subject to any confdentiality agreement or obligation or any 

applicable court order. 

7. ENTEK objects to the Corprate Subpoena to the extent it calls for the disclosure of 

competitively sensitive information. ENTEK is, in the words of 
 the Federal Trade 

Commission's Complait, Polypore's "sole competitor." As such, disclosure of 

ENTEK's competitively sensitive information to Polypore is uniquely harful, both to 

ENTEK's abilty to compete and to the public interest in maitaning competition in the 

battery separator industry.
 

8. ENTEK objects to the Corporate Subpoena to the extent it seeks information not in 

ENTEK's possession, custody or control. 

9. ENTEK objects to the Corprate Subpoena to the extent it seeks information already in 

PoIypore's possession, custody or control. 

10. ENTEK objects to the Corporate Subpoena to the extent it seeks infornation that may be 

obtained from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome and/or less 

expensive. 

11. ENTEK objects to the Corporate Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is 

readily available and accessible to the public or an industry paricipant such as Polypore. 

12. ENTEK objects to the Corporate Subpoena because it uses terms that are overbroad, 

vague, ambiguous or otherwise inadequately defined, are meangless and unintellgible 

and/or seeks information that goes beyond proper limitation as to subject matter or scope. 
Eric D. Welsh 

Janu ary 5. 2008
 

Paoe 3
 

LATHAM&WATKINSLL 

Obiections to Specific Schedule Specifications ("Specifcations") 

Specification No.1 

Sales by ENTEK International LLC ("ENTEK") of lead acid battery separators durng 

the period of January 1, 2003 to the present, including but not limited to, the specific products 

sold, the amount of volume of each product sold, the prices of the products sold, including 

shipment costs, irany, the dates of 
 purchase or sale, the end uses or applications of 
 the product sold, the ENTEK plant from which such product was sold and the final destination of 
 the product. 

Obiections to Specification No.1 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. ENTEK furter objects to this Specification to the extent it seeks information 

regarding trade secrets, proprieta commercial information or other sensitive or confidential 

information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of privacy or 

confidentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or any applicable 

court order.
 

Specification No.2 

The written responses provided by ENTEK in response to the subpoena issued to ENTEK 

in this matter and dated October 24, 2008. 

Objections to Specification No.2 

ENTEK does not object to this Specification. 

Specification No.3 

Any actual or potential contract between ENTEK and Johnon Controls, Inc. ("JCI"), 

Exide Technologies ("Exide"), EnerSys, East Penn Manufacturng Co., Inc. ("East Penn"), 

Crown Battery Manufacturng Co. ("Crown"), Trojan Battery Co. ("Trojan"), US Battery Co. 

("US Battery"), C&D Technologies, Inc. ("CD") or any other entity manufactung batteries for 

sale in North America from Janua 1,2003 to the present, including the related contractul 

negotiations. 

Objections to Specification No.3 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification to the extent it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively 

sensitive information. ENTEK fuher objects to this Specification to the extent it seeks 

inormation regarding trade secrets, proprietar commercial information or other sensitive or 

confidential information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of 

privacy or confdentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or any 
Enc O. Welsh
 

January 5, 2009 

Page 4
 

LATHAM&WATKINSLLP 

applicable court order. Any response provided by ENTEK to ths Specification will be limited to 

any actul or potential contracts for the supply of lead acid battery separators. 

Specification No.4 

Negotiations, discussions or communications between ENTEK and JCI, Exide, EnerSys, 

East Penn, Crown, Trojan, US Battery, C&D, or any other battery manufacturer regarding (a) 

any change in price of or cost surcharge for any battery separator manufactured or to be 

manufactured by ENTEK (b) Polypore International, Inc (including without limitation Daramc, 

LLC) ("Polypore"), (c) Microporous Products, LP ("Microporous"), or (d) any 
 other manufactuer of 
 battery separators from Januar 1,2003 to the present. 

Obiections to Specification No.4 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification to the extent it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively 

sensitive information. ENfK fuher objects to this Specification to the extent it seeks 

inormation regarding trade secrets, proprietary commercial infonnátion or other sensitive or 

confidential infonnation that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of 

privacy or confdentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or any 

applicable court order.
 

Specification No.5 

Factors related to any change in price or cost surcharge instituted by ENTEK from 

Januar i, 2003 to the present. 

Obiections to Specification No.5 

ENTEK objects to ths Specification as overbroad and widuly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to ths Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. ENTEK further objects to this Specification to the extent it seeks information 

regarding trade secrets, proprieta commercial infonnation or other sensitive or confdential 

information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of privacy or 

confdentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or any applicable 

cour order. 

Specification No.6 

Any consideration by ENTEK of 
 manufactung separators for industrial or deep cycle 

batteries, including any communication between ENTEK and any third par regarding the same 

from Januar i, 2003 to the present. 

Obiections to Specification No.6 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and widuIy burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 
Eric D. Welah 

January 6, 2009 

Page 6
 

LA THAM&WATKI NSlL 

information. ENTEK fuher objects to this Specification to the extent it seeks infonnation 

regarding trade secrets, proprieta commercial infonnation or other sensitive or confidential 

information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of privacy or 

confidentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or any 
 applicable cour order. 

Specification No.7 

The scope of competition for battery separators for lead acid batteries from Januar I, 

2003 to the present. 

Obiections to Specification No.7 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. The tenn "scope of competition" is vague and ambiguous. This Specification wil 

yield little or no relevant infonnation in addition to what is already available to Polypore, or 

which PoIypore can acquire through other sources. ENTEK fuer objects to this Specification 

to the extent that it calls for legal conclusions relating to antitrust concepts of 
 market definition 

and competition. 

Specification No.8 

Actul or potential competitors of ENTEK for lead acid battery separators from Janua 

I, 2003 to the present. 

Objections to Specification No.8 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to ths Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. ENTEK further objects to this Specification to the extent it seeks infonnation 

regarding trade secrets, proprietay commercial infonnation or other sensitive or confdential 

information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of privacy or 

confdentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or any applicable 

cour order. Ths Specification wil yield little or no relevant Inonnation in addition to what is 

already available to Polypore, or which Polypore can acquire though other sources. ENTEK 

fuher objects to this Specification to the extent that it calls for legal conclusions relating to 

antitrust concepts of competition. 

. Specification No.9 

ENTEK's or other manufacturer's shae of any market for lead acid battery separators, 

including manufacturers of 
 absorptive glass mat ("AGM") from Janua 1,2003 to the present. 
Eric D. Weleh 

January 5, 2009
 

Page 6
 

LA THAM&WATKI NSu.1' 

Objections to Specification No.9 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. This Specification will yield little or no relevant information in addition to what is 

already available to PoIypore, or which Polypore can acquire though other sources. ENTEK 

further objects to this Specification to the extent that it calls for legal conclusions relating to 

antitrust concepts of market definition. 

Specification No. i 0 

For the penod of Janua 1,2003 to the present, ENTEK's expansions of any of its 

facilties for manufacturng lead acid battery separators, including capacity of such expanded 

facilty, products to be made from such facilty, the customers for such facility, the cost of such 

expansion, and the time period covered by such expansion, including sta date of expansion
 

project, commissionig date and actul or anticipated date of product being manufactues and 

sold. 

Obiections to Specification No. i 0 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. ENTEK further objects on the basis that ths Specification appears to seek 

documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of the dispute nor reasonably likely to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ENTEK fuher objects to this Specification to the 

extent it seeks information regarding trade secrets, proprieta commercial information or other 

sensitive or confdential information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law 

rights of 
 privacy or confdentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or 

any applicable cour order. 

Snecification No. i 1 

Testing or qualification by ENTEK or anyone on behaf of ENTEK of lead acid battery 

separators durng the period of Janua 1,2003 to the present. 

Obiections to Specification No. 11
 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. ENTEK fuher objects to this Specification to the extent it seeks information 

regarding trade secrets, proprietary commercial information or other sensitive or confdential 

information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of 
 privacy or


confidentiality, or is subject to any confdentiality agreement or obligation or any applicable 

cour order. 
Eric D. Welsh 

January 5, 2009 

Page 7 

LA THAMe.WATKI NSLLP
 

Sl?ecification No. 12 

ENTEK's consideration of or efforts in developing altemative technology or substitutes 

to lead acid battery separators manufactured by Polypore, including AGM separators during the 

period of January 1, 2003 to the present. 

Objections to Specification No. 12 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. ENTEK furter objects to ths Specification to the extent it seeks information 

regàrding trade secrets, proprieta commercial information or other sensitive or confdential 

information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of privacy or 

confidentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or any applicable 

cour order. 

Specification No. 13
 

The actual or potential acquisition of 
 Microporous by PoIypore (the "acquisition"). 

Obiections to Specification No. 13 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

further objects on the basis that this Specification appears to seek inormation that is neither 

relevant to the subject matter of 
 the dispute nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.
 

Specification No. 14 

The actual, potential or perceived effect on ENTEK's business of an acquisition of 

Microporous by Polypore. 

Objections to Specification No. 14 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. ENTEK further objects to this Specification to the extent it seeks information 

regarding trade secrets, proprietar commercial inormation or other sensitive or confidential 

information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of privacy or 

confidentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or any applicable 

court order.
 

Specification No. 15
 

Communications between ENTEK and the Federal Trade Commission regarding the 

acquisition or PoIypore. 
Eric D. Welsh 

January 6, 2009 

Page 8
 

LA THAM&WATKI NSu." 

Obiections to Specification No. 15 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTK 

fuher objects on the basis that this Specification appears to seek information that is neither 

relevant to the subject matter ofthe dispute nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.
 

Specification No. 16 

Any actul or potential barrier to entry for suppliers or manufacturers of lead acid battery 

separators, including without limitation cost of entry or achieving minimal viable scale in (a) 

North America and (b) the World for the period of Januar 1,2003 to the present. 

Obiections to Soecification No. 16 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. This 

Specification wil yield little or no relevant information in addition to what is already available to 

Polypore, or which Polyp 
 ore can acquire though other sources. ENTEK furter objects to this 

Specification to the extent that it calls for legal conclusions relating to antitrust concepts of 

competition and market definition. 

Specification No. 17 

Any actul or potential ownership interest of ENTEK in any joint ventue or other entity 

that manufactues lead acid battery separators for the period of Januar 1, 2003 to the present. 

Obiections to Specification No. 17 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires disclosure ofENTEK's competitively sensitive. 

information. 

Specification No. 18
 

Any actual or potential ownership interest of any person other than ENTEK in any joint 

venture or other entity that manufacturers (sic) lead acid battery separators including BFR for the 

period of Januar 1, 2003 to the present. 

Obiections to Specification No. 18 

ENTEK objects to this Specification as overbroad and unduly burdensome. ENTEK 

objects to this Specification as it requires production ofENTEK's competitively sensitive 

information. ENTEK further objects to this Specification to the extent it seeks information 

regarding trade secrets, proprieta commercial information or other sensitive or confdential 

information that is protected by constitutional, statutory or common law rights of 
 privacy or


confidentiality, or is subject to any confidentiality agreement or obligation or any applicable 

cour order. 
Eric D. Welsh 

Januiiy 5, 2009
 

PlgG 9
 

LATHAM&WATKINSLLP 

II. Subpoena Issued to Mr. Daniel Weerts
 

As discussed above, ENTEK will make Mr. Weerts available for deposition on one 

occasion only, both in his personal and corporate representative capacities, at a date and time 

convenient to Mr. Weert and his counsel and to all paries in the instat proceeding. 

III. Subpoena Issued to Mr. Graeme Fraser-Ben ("Fraser-Bell Subpoena") 

ENTEK objects to the Fraser-Bell Subpoena on the basis of defective process and 

defective service. Mr. Fraser-Bell is not employed by ENTEK International LLC and is not a 

resident of the United States. Polypore has failed to comply with numerous FTC rues and 

procedures pertaining to service of 
 process issued to individuas in foreign countres. See, e.g., FTC Rule 3.36. ENTEK fuer objects to the Fraser-Bell Subpoena as unduly burdensome, in 

that it seeks testimony from an individual in a foreign country that is likely to be duplicative of 

the testimony ofENTEK's corporate representative, Mr. Daniel Weerts. 

Accordingly, Mr. Fraser-Bell wil not be presented for deposition in Portland, Oregon or 

elsewhere. If PoIypore insists on taing his deposition elsewhere, ENTEK shall move to quah. 

We propose deferrng any furter discussion regarding Polypore's need for this testimony 
 and the need for ENTEK to move to quash the Subpoena until after Mr. Weerts' deposition is 

concluded. 

iv. Subpoena Issued to Mr. Robert Keitb ("Keitb Subpoena")
 

ENTEK objects to the Keith Subpoena as overbroad, uneasonably burdensome and 

duplicative. Mr. Keith, the curent Chief 
 Executive Offcer ofENTEK, does not 
 have any unque or special knowledge of 
 the facts at issue in this adjudicative proceeding. The process of 

deposing Mr. Keith imposes a hardship on ENTEK and Mr. Keith by hindering his abilty to 

car out his corporate responsibilties. Moreover, the discovery sought by Polypore is
 

"obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2); Baine v. General Motors Corp., 141 F.R.D. 332, 334 

(M.D. Ala. 1991). For example, the infonnation sought is likely to be provided by ENTEK 

though document production, wrtten responses to discovery, and Mr. Weerts' deposition. 

Given the availabilty of the infonnation sought from other sources, the Keith Subpoena 

represents a harassing discovery effort. Accordingly, Mr. Keith will not be presented for 

deposition in Portland, Oregon or elsewhere. Unless Polyp 
 ore withdraws this subpoena, ENTEK wil move to quash the Keith Subpoena and seek a protective order prohibiting the deposition of 

Mr. Keith. We propose deferring any further discussion regarding PoIypore's need for this 

testimony and the need for ENTEK to move to quash the Subpoena until after Mr. Weerts' 

deposition is concluded. 
Eric D. Welah 

January 5, 2009 

Page 10
 

LATHAM&WATKINSu.p 

Best regards, 

j)~~ (E.C-.


Darius OgIoza 

of LA THAM & WATKNS LLP 

cc: Hano F. Kaiser
 
EXHIBIT 3
 
Collns, Brett (SF) 

From: 

Sent: 

Welsh, Eric D. (ericwelsh(gparkerpoe.com) 

Tuesday, December 16,20083:01 PM 

To: Kaiser, Hanno (SF) 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Collins, Brett (SF) 

RE: DRAFT Discovery Agreement ENTEKlPolypore 

Hanno 

I think we are very close. Here are my additional thoughts.
 

Para 3 of your letter (Access to Entek Information) needs to include industry expert, upon


approval. 

Para 4 of your letter needs to include the use of the documents through appeal.
 

Para 5, I propose the following language: "Any industry expert shall not have been
 

employed by Polypore and shall not be employed by Polypore or provide consulting services
 

to Polypore (outside of the present
 

matter) for a period of two years from the final resolution of this matter."
 

I did not see points 6 and 7 of your email actually in the letter. Let me know if I
 

~jssed it. Otherwise, I would like to add it just so there is no misunderstanding down
 

tliè road.
 

We will agree to substitute Mr. Humphrey for Mr. Keith for the custodian to be searched.
 

I. appreciate your efforts and look forward to hearing back from you so that we can get
 

this wrapped up.
 

Best regards, 

Eric 

Eric Welsh
 

Partner 

Three Wachovia Center I 401 South Tryon Street i Suite 3000 , Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Phone: 704.335.9052 I Fax: 704.335.9755 I http://www.parkerpoe.com
 

From: Hanno. KaiserØlw. com (mailto: Hanno. KaiserØlw. comJ
 

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:10 PM
 

To: Welsh, Eric D.
 

Cc: DARIUS. OGLOZAØLW. com; Brett. CollinsØlw. com
 

Subject: DRAFT Discovery Agreement ENTEK!Polypore
 

Dear Eric: 

Please find attached, as discussed, a further revised version of the
 

Discovery Agreement. As you will see, we accepted virtually all of your
 

proposed changes and requests. Specifically:
 

(1 J The Safe Location concept has been removed. 

(2J The Disclosure Group has been expanded per your request.
 

(3J As to the industry expert, the new provision strikes a reasonable
 

compromise. We have 10 days in which to file a motion; in return we get
 
information about the proposed expert and one short interview if
 

required. The new provision also clarifies that the expert must be a
 

Polypore outsider. That should not be controversial.
 

(4 J Documents may now be removed from Safe Locations for the purposes
 

you identified.
 

(5J The process of returning ENTEK documents now follows the concept in
 

the PO.
 

(6J Polypore i s reservation of rights in case of claims of insufficient
 

compliance with the agreement have been clarified.
 

(7J Polypore has the right to call a witness; that, in my view, had
 

already been part of the previous draft.
 

(8 J Request Nos. 3 and 4 will cover facilities owned directly or
 

indirectly by ENTEK; we added language to clarify that point.
 

(9J We're fine with adding Graham Fraser Bell per your request. In lieu
 

of Rob Keith, however, we propose Greg Humphrey, North & South America
 

Account Manager. Greg ~s a much better and more direct source for
 

detailed information about actual or potential contracts, separator


prices, Polypore and Microporous (i. e., the information requested in 

Spec. 5) than Rob Keith. Moreover, the vast majority of relevant
 

information requested in Spec. 5 in Rob Keith i files would likely be
 

duplicati ve with the much more detailed set contained in the files of
 

Dan Weerts. As a result, the benefit to Polypore of including Rob Keith
 

would be minimal, whereas the burden on ENTEK of having its CEO divert
 

significant time and attention away from operations at a time of overall
 

financial and economic crisis and at a critical time of the business
 

year would be significant and harmful to the company. Including Rob
 

Keith would thus be unduly burdensome.
 

(10J As discussed yesterday, we did not make any changes to Spec. 6.
 

Best,
 

Hanno
 

Hanno F. Kaiser I LATHAM & WATKINS LLP I 505 Montgomery Street, San
 

Francisco, CA 94111-6538 I P: 415.395.8856, F: 415.395.8095, E:
 

hanno.kaiser01w.com i Admitted in NY. CA bar admission pending.
 

** * * * ** * * * ** * * ** * * * * ** * * * * **** ** * ** * * *** * ** * * * ** ** * ** * ** * * ** ** * *** * ** * * * 

******* 

To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of
 

Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be
 

used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed
 

under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend
 

to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
 

For more information please go to http://www.lw.com/docs/irs.pdf


** * * ** * *** ** * *** * ** * * ** * * * * * ** * * * **** * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * **   ** ** * * 

******* 

This email may 
 contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or

attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
 

review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express
 

permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
 

recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
 

Latham & Watkins LLP
 

IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we
 

inform you that any U. S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (or in any
 

attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
 

2 
(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue, 
 Code or (iil promoting, marketing or
 recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication
 

(or in any attachment) .
 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message and any attachments are confidential
 

property of the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the person to whom
 

it was addressed. Any other interception, copying, accessing, or disclosure of this
 

message is prohibited. The sender takes no responsibility for any unauthorized reliance on
 

this message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
 

sender and purge the message you received. Do not forward this message without permission.
 

(ppab_vl. OJ
 

3 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of CASE NO. 9327 

Polypore International, Inc.
 

a corporation.
 PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

DECLARATION OF JOEL KUNTZ IN SUPPORT OF
 

ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S
 

MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM
 

ISSUED TO GRAEME FRASER-BELL AND ROBERT KEITH
 

PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R § 3.34(c)
 

I, Joel Kuntz, under penalty of 
 perjury, declare that the following is true and 

correct to the best of my knowledge: 

1. I am Vice President and General Counsel for ENTEK International LLC
 

("ENTEK"). I have personal knowledge of 
 the matters stated herein and, if called upon, I could 

and would competently testify thereto. 

2.. Robert Keith is curently the President and Chief 
 Executive Offcer of
 

ENTEK. He is responsible for all aspects of 
 the company's business, including day-to-day 

operations. Mr. Keith is also President ofENTEK Membranes LLC, which makes separators for 

lithium batteries. His curent responsibilties require him to travel to England on a frequent basis
 

to oversee the commissioning of 
 two additional1ines at the UK production facilty. Should Mr. 

Keith be forced to prepare for and attend a deposition in this matter, his absence would be 

disruptive to this company's operations as well as those ofENTEK Membranes LLC. 
3. I have reviewed the subpoena ad testifcandum issued to ENTEK
 

International LLC ("Corporate Subpoena") and the specifications contained therein. It is 

ENTEK's intention to designate Mr. Daniel Weerts, who is currently Vice President of Sales & 

Marketing for ENTEK, as its witness most knowledgeable as to all of 
 the specifications 

contained in the Corporate Subpoena. 

4. Mr. Weerts has worked at ENTEK or its predecessor since 1989 and has
 

worked in the battery separator industry since 1976. He is a member of ENTEK's management 

team and is intimately involved in ENTEK's strategic planing. Mr. Weerts' background 

includes production and manufactung as well as sales and marketing. The decision to designate 

Mr. Weerts is based on his broad set of 
 responsibilties which include sales and marketing to all 

ENTEK customers in North America as well as global sales and marketing to ENTEK's largest 

customer, Johnson Controls Battery Group Inc. and its affiliates. Johnson Controls Battery 

Group Inc. and its affliates account for approximately 70 percent of 
 the world-wide sales of 

lead-acid battery separators by ENTEK and its affiliates. 

5. In light of 
 Mr. Weerts' vast knowledge about the company and its 

business, I have no reason to believe that Mr. Keith's testimony would yield any 
 additional 

information relevant to the allegations at issue in this adjudicative proceeding that Mr. Weerts 

canot provide. 

I declare, under the penalty of 
 perjur under the laws of the United States that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Signed this 9th day of Januar 2009, in San Francisco, California. 

2 
08 Ene 2008 22: 24 HOTEL PARQUEHAR 865728376 p.2 

FROM LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Fax Machine #2 ITHUI 1. 8' 09 12: 54/8T. 12: 52/NO. 486 i 909431 ? 2 

UNITED 81 ATES OF AMRICA 

BEFORE TH FEDERA TRADE COMMISSION
 

1n ilae Mattr ot CASE NO. "Z7
 

Polyporo laCtnaldoDl1, IDe.
 

. lorpontlo.. PUBC DOCUENT
 

D&CLARATION OF GHAEMI; FRSER-BELL IN SUPPORT OF
 

ENTEK 'NTERNATiO~AL LLC'S '
 

MOTION TO QUAS THE SUBPOENAS AD nSTIFICANÐVM 

ISSUED TO GRA 'RASER-BELL AND ROBERT KEITH
 

PURStlT TO 16 C.l.R I 
 3. 34lel 

J~ Oraein FtH"ler.B~U, wider penally 01 per,ury, deçlao tha tho foJlowins is tr
 

an corracl to the beil ofmr knowledge: 

J. I am Vice President of Jnicmationiù Sales for .ENTBK biteaiionliJ Ltd.,
 

il afJiai of EN1K Intetional LLC, which IR a United Stas-blUed copay. I have
 

peronal knwleclge of the matts .tiited herem an, if called upon, I could anet would
 

copo1ently testify thereto. 

2. I am a Rridir citian. 

3. I currently work and reside in ÜvcrpoJ. United kingdom. 

4. I am employe by .ENTEK Intetna.iona Ltd. and ENTEK Mcmbrs 

LI'C. 

5. I am not employe by ENTK Intertional LLC. 

6. In my poSition as Vice President for Intern.tiona! Sale~ i wn primaily 
08 Ene 2009 22; 24 HOTEL PARQUEMAR 965729376 p.3 

FROM LATJW &; WATKINS LLP FOl Machine #2 ' (THUl 'i, 8' 09 t 2: 54/ST. 12: S2/NO. 4861909431 P 3 

JUpOn,ibJe jin manglri¡ ENK lnteml:gnal Ltd', relationship with iion-Nort Amercan 

ewnomcrs. 

7, Tn my position as Vic. Preside of Solo$ " MlIkeiÙlg for ENTEK
 

Membranes LLC1 a inbstiaJ amoun or 
 my tlme is dedictod to the litum ion battry
 

bWlinesJ, as opposed to tho ilid-lIid batl:') bu.liiess.
 

8. My job ~uires rcg~lar tra..cl to visit cU/tomers thoU¡liout EW'o)' aicl 

Aliaj howeer. li do~¡i Dot require .at to U'vel to the United States OD a ',gular Of fRt ba,.
 

9. If forced to .uen a dcpo,itiOD in the Portlandi Oron. I would miss a
 

minimum offuur \Jy. of work. Travel time would amQunt to at least two full da;ys, the dircct 

flight alone frm Llndon to Ponland is o~er. 19 ooun. On day would be d~ica\C to preparin 

for Ihu depoition and the next day would be Spent attnding the deposition. Upon my ratu to 

England, I would suffer jet lag aLoi ther ¡I an eight hour dlfrcrce beiween Ncwcaslhi-uponlyne an Porland. Ths would impose in undue bu.en on me and would bt lX1ely 

disruptive to thc busines o~tionll ofBNlEK International Lid. and ENTBK. Membrareii LLC 

beciiia., 1 would be unable to tend to the: reiinslbUlties orrn)' job iud respond to my (ustome1t~ 

nees in . liely fashion.
 

i deç7ure, under tbe penalty of peur widct the Jaws of Ihe United Kingdom that 

the forcQOing is tnc uid C0not. Signed ths 81 diy of JlUuuvy 2009. in Spain.
 

, 

2 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

In the Matter of CASE NO. 9327 

Polypore International, Inc.
 

a corporation.
 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

PROPOSED ORDER 

Upon consideration ofENTEK International LLC's Motion to Quash the 

Subpoenas Ad Testifcandum issued to Graeme Fraser-Bell and Robert Keith Pursuat to 16 

C.F.R. § 3.34(c), and Respondent Polypore International, Inc.'s opposition thereto, and the Cour 

being fully informed, it is this _ day of Januar, 2009, hereby 

ORDERED, that the Motion is GRANTED; and it is fuher 

ORDERED, that the subpoena ad testifcandum issued to Graeme Fraser-Bell is 

hereby quashed; and it is fuher 

ORDERED, that the subpoena ad testifcandum issued to Robert Keith is hereby 

quashed. 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 
~-t
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

In the Matter of CASE NO. 9327 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation. PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 

I am employed in the District of 
 Columbia, D.C. I am over the age of 18 and not a pary to the within cause. My business address is Latham & Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh 

Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20004-1304. 

On January _, 2009, I served the following documents described as: 

· THIRD 
 PARTY ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S MOTION TO QUASH 

THE SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED TO GRAEME 

FRASER-BELL AND ROBERT KEITH PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R § 3.34(c) 

· THIRD PARTY ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S MEMORANDUM IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS AD 

TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED TO GRAEME FRASER-BELL AND ROBERT 

KEITH PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R § 3.34(c) 

· DECLARATION OF JOEL KUNTZ IN SUPPORT OF ENTEK 

INTERNATIONAL LLC'S MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS AD 

TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED TO GRAEME FRASER-BELL AND ROBERT 

KEITH PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R § 3.34(c) 

· DECLARATION OF GRAEME FRASER-BELL IN SUPPORT OF ENTEK 

INTERNATIONAL LLC'S 

MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED 

TO GRAEME FRASER-BELL AND ROBERT KEITH PURSUANT TO 16 

C.F.R § 3.34(c) 

· DECLARATION OF HANNO F. KAISER IN SUPPORT OF ENTEK 

INTERNATIONAL LLC'S MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS AD 

TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED TO GRAEME FRASER-BELL AND ROBERT 

KEITH PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R § 3.34(c) 

. PROPOSED ORDER
 

by serving a true copy of the above-described documents in the following maner: 

BY HAND DELIVERY 

I am familiar with the office practice of 
 Latham & Watkins LLP for collecting

and processing documents for hand delivery by a messenger courier service or a registered 

process server. Under that practice, documents are deposited to the Latham & Watkins LLP 

personnel responsible for dispatching a messenger courier service or registered process server for 

the delivery of documents by hand in accordance with the instructions provided to the messenger 

courier service or registered process server; such documents are delivered to a messenger courier 

service or registered process server on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I caused 

a sealed envelope or package containing the above-described document and addressed as set 

forth below in accordance with the offce practice of 
 Latham & Watkins LLP for collecting and processing documents for hand delivery by a messenger courier service or a registered process 

server. 

2 
Donald S. Clark, Secretary (Original + 12 copies)


Office of the Secretar 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell (I copy) Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of 
 the Bar of or permitted 

to practice before this cour at whose direction the service was made. 

Executed on January ï, 2009, at Washington, D.C.

Michael Songer .. ..
 rn T ,¿ ~

3