UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSI 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

In the Matter of 

Ardagh Group S.A., 

a public limited liability company, and 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a c01poration, and 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, a corporation. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PUBLIC 

Docket No. 9356 

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF NON-PARTY SBA-CCI, INC. FOR IN CAMERA 

TREATMENT OF PROPOSED TRIAL EXHIBITS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Non-party SBA-CCI, Inc. ("SBA-CCI"), through its lmdersigned cmmsel, respectfully 

submits this motion pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Rules ofPractice, 

16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b), and requests that this Court grant in camera treatment to exhibits DX408, 

DX386, DX505, PX2423 and PX2386 (the "SBA-CCI documents"), which Complaint Counsel 

or Respondents Ardagh Group S.A. ("Ardagh"), Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. ("SGCI") and 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain ("Saint-Gobain") have designated for possible introduction into 

evidence in the above-captioned action. 

SBA -CCI is not a pmiy to the above-captioned action. SBA -CCI is a consulting fum that 

has SGCI as a client. Within the scope of that client relationship, SBA-CCI has in the past 

provided presentations and reports to SGCI. These documents contain SBA -CCI' s proprietaty 

insights and analyses regm·ding the production and consumption of polyethylene terephthalate 

("PET") packaging in N01ih America, and were prepared solely for SBA-CCI's paying client 
Public

2

SGCI. During Complaint Counsel’s non-public investigation of Ardagh’s proposed acquisition 

of SGCI, Saint-Gobain produced to Complaint Counsel documents that SBA-CCI provided to 

SGCI, including the documents now designated DX408, DX386, DX505, PX2423 and PX2386.

SBA-CCI now moves for in camera treatment of the SBA-CCI documents because if made 

public, such disclosure would result in a clearly defined, serious competitive injury to SBA-CCI. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT

Materials merit in camera treatment when their disclosure would “result in a clearly 

defined, serious injury to the person or corporation whose records are involved.” H.P. Hood & 

Sons, Inc., 58 F.T.C. 1184, 1188 (1961); see also 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). An applicant for in

camera treatment can demonstrate serious injury by showing that the information at issue is 

“sufficiently secret and sufficiently material to the applicant's business that disclosure would 

result in serious competitive injury.” In re General Foods Corp., No. 9085 95 F.T.C. 352, 355, 

1980 WL 338997, at *4 (1980); In re Bristol-Myers Co., 90 F.T.C. 455, 456 (1977). “The likely 

loss of a business advantage is a good example of a clearly defined, serious injury.” In re Dura 

Lube, 1999 F.T.C. LEXIS 255, at *7 (Dec. 23, 1999). 

In considering whether to grant in camera treatment, the following factors are weighed: 

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

to which it 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 him and to his competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by him in 

developing the information; and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be 

properly acquired or duplicated by others. Bristol-Myers, 90 F.T.C. at 456-57. 

Administrative law judges have broad discretion in applying these factors to determine 
Public

3

whether information warrants in camera treatment. General Foods Corp., 1980 WL 338997, at 

*2. Moreover, a non-party requesting in camera treatment deserves “special solicitude” for its 

confidential business information. See In re Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co., 103 F.T.C. 500 

(1984); In re Crown Cork & Seal Co., 71 F.T.C. 1714 (1967) (“[P]etitioner's plea warrants 

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

proceedings[.]”). 

The Commission has recognized that it may be appropriate to provide in camera

treatment for certain business records. See, e.g., In re Mc Wane, Inc., No. 9351, 2012 WL 

3862131, at *2 (F.T.C. Aug. 17, 2012); In re Champion Spark Plug Co., 1982 F.T.C. LEXIS 85, 

at *2 (Apr. 5, 1982); Hood, 58 F.T.C. at 1188-89; Kaiser Aluminum, 103 F.T.C. at 500.

And it has recognized that in camera treatment may be granted for an indefinite period of time 

when the competitive sensitivity or the proprietary value of the information will not necessarily 

diminish over time. In re Coca Cola Co., No. 9207, 1990 WL 10081418, at *3 (F.T.C. Oct. 17, 

1990) (quoting 54 Fed. Reg. 49,278-79 (Nov. 30, 1989)). 

III. THE SBA-CCI DOCUMENTS SATISFY THE STANDARD FOR IN CAMERA

TREATMENT

The Bristol-Myers factors support granting in camera treatment to the SBA-CCI 

documents. 

First, the information in the SBA-CCI documents, specifically SBA-CCI’s analyses and 

insights regarding the production and consumption of PET packaging in North America, is not 

known outside of SBA-CCI and SBA-CCI’s customers who have entered into a contractual 

relationship with SBA-CCI and paid for the information.1

 SBA-CCI provides its paying 

customers with analyses, such as those in the SBA-CCI documents, that concern, for example, 

1

 Note that when Saint-Gobain produced the SBA-CCI documents to Complaint Counsel, it 

requested that the documents be granted confidential treatment. 
Public

4

trends in the cost of producing specific PET containers, the pricing of those containers, and 

demand for those containers in different end-uses. But SBA-CCI does not share the information 

contained in the SBA-CCI documents more broadly, and indeed guards it closely; otherwise 

SBA-CCI would be out of business. (Maddox Decl. ¶ 2.) 

Third, the information in the SBA-CCI documents is extremely valuable to the consulting 

firms that compete with SBA-CCI, as no other consulting firm has been able to prepare analyses 

similar to those contained in the SBA-CCI documents. If granted access to the documents, SBACCI’s competitors would be able to “reverse engineer” the proprietary analytical models 

constructed by SBA-CCI. This would destroy the value of clients subscribing to SBA-CCI’s 

modeling and services. (Maddox Decl. ¶ 4)

Fourth, SBA-CCI has expended significant time, money and effort in developing the 

analyses in the SBA-CCI documents. It has expended significant efforts in cultivating 

relationships with PET resin producers, developing its proprietary analytical model, and 

preparing the specific analyses reflected in the SBA-CCI documents. If the documents were 

REDACTED - IN CAMERA TREATMENT REQUESTED
Public

5

made public, SBA-CCI’s potential customers, not to mention competing consulting firms, would 

be able to obtain the benefit of SBA-CCI’s analyses without adequately compensating SBA-CCI 

for its efforts. (Maddox Decl. ¶ 5.) 

IV. IN CAMERA TREATMENT SHOULD EXTEND FOR THE SBA-CCI 

DOCUMENTS FOR TWENTY YEARS. 

SBA-CCI requests in camera treatment of twenty years for the SBA-CCI documents 

because the competitive sensitivity of the information contained therein is unlikely to diminish 

over time. See, e.g., McWane, Inc., 2012 WL 3862131; Coca Cola Co., 1990 WL 10081418, at 

*3; In the Matter of Union Oil Co. of Cal., 2004 WL 2458849, at *1 (F.T.C. Oct. 7, 2004) 

(granting in camera treatment for an indefinite period of time when the sensitivity of the 

information will not diminish with the passage of time). Without access to the SBA-CCI 

documents, SBA-CCI’s competitors are unlikely to derive the proprietary model SBA-CCI uses 

to analyze the production and consumption of PET packaging. Disclosure of these documents 

would impose serious competitive harm upon SBA-CCI into the foreseeable future. (Maddox 

Decl. ¶ 6.) This information should therefore receive in camera treatment for a period of twenty 

years.
Public

6

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, SBA-CCI respectfully requests that the SBA-CCI documents 

be afforded in camera treatment pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of the Federal Trade Commission 

Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). 

Dated: December 11, 2013 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BUCKLEYSANDLER LLP 

 By: /s/ Veena Viswanatha_

 Veena Viswanatha

 1250 24th Street, NW 

 Suite 700 

 Washington, DC 20037 

 (202) 461-2947 

 vviswanatha@buckleysandler.com 

Counsel for Non-Party SBA-CCI, Inc. 
Public

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Veena Viswanatha, an associate at BuckleySandler LLP, hereby certify that on December 11, 

2013, I caused the foregoing document to be filed using the FTC’s E-Filing System, which will 

send notifications of such filing to: 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 

Washington, DC 20580 

I also certify that I delivered via electronic mail and hand delivery a copy of the foregoing 

document to: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

I further certify that I delivered via electronic mail a copy of the foregoing document to: 

Complaint Counsel 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

Edward D. Hassi 

Catharine M. Moscatelli 

Brendan J. McNamara 

Sebastian Lorigo 

Victoria Lippincott 

Meredith Robinson 

Devon Kelly 

James Abell 

Teresa Martin 

Amanda Hamilton 

Counsel for Respondent Ardagh Group S.A. 

Shearman & Sterling LLP 

Alan Goudiss 

Wayne Dale Collins 

Richard Schwed 

Lisl Dunlop 

Heather Kafele 

Edward G. Timlin 

Jason M. Swergold 
Public

8

Counsel for Respondent Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. & Compagnie de Saint-Gobain 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

Christine A. Varney 

Sandra C. Goldstein 

Yonatan Even 

Rory A. Leraris 

Athena N. Cheng 

Pierre N. Gemson 

Sarah M. Colombo 

Counsel for Third Party Arkansas Glass Container Corp

Steptoe & Johnson LLP 

Chong Park 

Nathaniel Brower

Counsel for Third Party Piramal Glass – USA, Inc. 

Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP 

Curtis Crowther 

December 11, 2013 By: /s/ Veena Viswanatha__

 Veena Viswanatha
Public

9

CERTIFICATE FOR ELECTRONIC FILING 

I certify that the electronic copy sent to the Secretary of the Commission is a true and correct 

copy of the paper original and that I possess a paper original of the signed document that is 

available for review by the parties and the adjudicator. 

December 11, 2013 By: /s/ Veena Viswanatha__

Veena Viswanatha 
Public

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

 ) 

In the Matter of

Ardagh Group S.A., 

 a public limited liability company, and 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.,

 a corporation, and 

 Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, a corporation. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PUBLIC 

Docket No. 9356 

 )

DECLARATION OF JOHN C. MADDOX IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY SBA-CCI, 

INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF PROPOSED 

TRIAL EXHIBITS 

I, John C. Maddox, declare as follows: 

REDACTED - IN CAMERA TREATMENT REQUESTED
Public

2

REDACTED - IN CAMERA TREATMENT REQUESTED
Public 

REDACTED - IN CAMERA TREATMENT REQUESTED 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of pe1jmy that the foregoing is hue and 

conect. 

Executed this 11th day of December, 2013 

3 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

 ) 

In the Matter of

Ardagh Group S.A., 

 a public limited liability company, and 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.,

 a corporation, and 

 Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, a corporation. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PUBLIC 

Docket No. 9356 

 )

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION OF NON-PARTY SBACCI, INC. FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF PROPOSED TRIAL EXHIBITS 

Upon consideration of Unopposed Motion of Non-Party SBA-CCI, Inc. For In Camera

Treatment of Proposed Trial Exhibits, it is hereby ordered that the Motion is GRANTED and in

camera treatment will be given to the exhibits discussed therein for a period of twenty years. 

Dated: December ___, 2013 

 ______________________________ 

 Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

 Chief Administrative Law Judge