03 26 2012 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

 ) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

McWANE, INC., ) PUBLIC 

a corporation, ) 

) 

and ) Docket No. 9351 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, ) 

a limited partnership ) 

)

 )

 ) 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S SUPPLEMENTED OBJECTIONS AND 

RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT McWANE’S 

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
 

Pursuant to Rule 3.32 of the Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice, Complaint 

Counsel hereby supplements Complaint Counsel’s Objections and Responses to Respondent 

McWane Inc.’s First Set of Requests for Admissions (“Complaint Counsel’s Response”), dated 

February 27, 2012. Complaint Counsel has endeavored to offer a good faith response to 

Respondent McWane, Inc.’s First Set of Requests for Admissions (“First Requests for 

Admissions”), but reserves the right to further supplement our responses after the close of 

discovery, especially insofar as Respondents may produce additional documents and information 

before the close of discovery, the review of which may alter our responses herein. All General 

and Specific Objections set forth in Complaint Counsel’s Response are incorporated herein. 

1 
PUBLIC

REQUEST NO. 9: Admit that McWane’s annual domestic DIWF production in 2009 and 

2010 was less than half of Union Foundry’s 40,000-ton capacity, due to lower demand for 

Domestic Fittings. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “due to” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request 

for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as required by 

Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least two separate admissions of fact. Subject to the General and 

Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel admits that Respondent’s 

 as well as 

producing additional products manufactured by Respondent; and 

b) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny the reasons for McWane’s annual domestic DIWF production rates in 2009 and 2010. 

REQUEST NO. 10: Admit that in its 2003 investigation of imports in the ductile iron 

waterworks fittings market, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) reached a 

unanimous affirmative determination finding that “imported and domestic products are 

interchangeable,” that “the domestic and imported products are substitutable, and most 

purchasers rated them as comparable in quality,” and that Non-domestic Fittings were “being 

imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to 

cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like or directly competitive products,” 

and that Domestic Fittings accounted for 20% or less of all DIWF sales in the United States. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

this Request as unduly burdensome because it fails to identify the page number or general 

location of the quoted language in the 149-page report identified by Respondent. Complaint 

Counsel further objects to this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission 

is requested separately, as required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least four separate admissions 

2 
PUBLIC

of fact. Complaint Counsel also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks Complaint Counsel 

to admit the truth of the underlying assertions. Subject to the General and Specific Objections, 

Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel admits that the report from the U.S. International Trade 

Commission, “Certain Ductile Iron Waterworks Fittings from China,” Investigation No. TA-421-

4, Publication 3657, dated December 2003, (“TA-421-4”), states that, “imported and domestic 

products are interchangeable;” 

b) Complaint Counsel admits that TA-421-4 states that, “the domestic and imported 

products are substitutable and most purchasers rated them as comparable in quality;” 

c) Complaint Counsel admits that TA-421-4 states that, “certain DIWF from China 

are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as 

to cause, or threaten to cause market disruption of domestic producers of like or directly 

competitive products;” and 

d) Complaint Counsel, after a reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to 

admit or deny whether TA-421-4 states that Domestic Fittings accounted for 20% or less of all 

DIWF sales in the United States. 

REQUEST NO. 25: Admit that Star has more Domestic Fittings SKUs, a larger sales force, 

and a greater number of product depots than McWane. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as 

required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least three separate admissions of fact. Subject to the 

General and Specific Objection, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

3 
PUBLIC

a) Complaint Counsel denies that Star currently has more Domestic Fittings SKUs 

than Respondent; 

b) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether Star has, or has ever had, a larger sales force than Respondent; and 

c) Complaint Counsel admits that Star has had more product depots than 

Respondent. 

REQUEST NO. 26: Admit that there are more than 100 waterworks distributors in the United 

States that purchased few or no Domestic Fittings from McWane between September 2009 and 

September 2010. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “few” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to the General and Specific Objections, 

Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this 

Request. 

REQUEST NO. 27: Admit that McWane’s average price for DIWF products in the second 

half of 2008 was flat or declining despite a significant increase in scrap prices in the first six 

months of 2008. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “average price,” “significant increase,” and “scrap prices” as vague and ambiguous. 

Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request as premature to the extent it seeks information 

that relates to issues that may be the subject of expert testimony in this case. Complaint Counsel 

further objects to this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is 

requested separately, as required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least two separate admissions of 

fact. Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, 

except as follows: 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC

a) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether Respondent’s average price for DIWF products in the second half of 2008 was 

flat or declining; 

b) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether Respondent’s costs for scrap metals used in its production of DIWF were 

increasing in the first six months of 2008. 

I state under penalty of perjury that the above Complaint Counsel’s Objections and Responses to 

Respondent McWane’s First Set of Requests for Admissions was prepared and assembled under 

my supervision, and that the information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge, true 

and correct. 

Dated: March 26, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Linda M. Holleran 

Edward Hassi, Esq. 

Geoffrey M. Green, Esq. 

Linda Holleran, Esq. 

Thomas H. Brock, Esq. 

Michael J. Bloom, Esq. 

Jeanine K. Balbach, Esq. 

J. Alexander Ansaldo, Esq. 

Andrew K. Mann, Esq.

 Monica M. Castillo, Esq. 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

 Bureau of Competition

 Federal Trade Commission

 Washington, DC 20580 

 Telephone: (202) 326-2470 

 Facsimile: (202) 326-3496 

 Electronic Mail: ehassi@ftc.gov 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on March 26, 2012, I filed the foregoing document electronically 

using the FTC’s E-Filing System, which will send notification 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: 

Joseph A. Ostoyich 

Andreas Stargard 

William C. Lavery 

Baker Botts L.L.P. 

The Warner 

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

(202) 639-7700 

joseph.ostoyich@bakerbotts.com 

andreas.stargard@bakerbotts.com 

william.lavery@bakerbotts.com 

J. Alan Truitt 

Thomas W. Thagard III 

Maynard Cooper and Gale PC 

1901 Sixth Avenue North 

2400 Regions Harbert Plaza 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

(205) 254-1000 

atruitt@maynardcooper.com 

tthagard@maynardcooper.com 

Counsel for Respondent McWane, Inc. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC

Gregory S.C. Huffman 

William Katz 

Nicole Williams 

Brian Stoltz 

Thompson and Knight LLP 

One Arts Plaza 

1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 

Dallas, TX 75201 

(214) 969-1700 

Gregory.Huffman@tklaw.com 

William.Katz@tklaw.com 

Nicole.Williams@tklaw.com 

Brian.Stoltz@tklaw.com 

Counsel for Respondent Star Pipe Products, Ltd. 

March 26, 2012 By: s/ Linda Holleran 

Linda Holleran, Esq. 

Attorney 

7