Q' 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA =?~l, 7/$ BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ï 

5/f'l$33 

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9327

) 

) 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. ) PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 

a corporation )
 

)
 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER ALLOWING RESPONDENT
 

TO REVIEW THE DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS GILLESPIE
 

Pursuant to Rule 3.42 of the Federal Trade Commission Rules of Practice, Respondent 

Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore"), by and through counsel, submits its Motion for a Cour 

Order Allowing Respondent to Review the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie. 

The Commission has an interest in protecting the integrity of its administrative litigation 

process. As set forth below, without intervention from this Court, Respondent's ability to act in 

accordance with this Cour's October 2,2009 Order ("Order") wil be significantly hindered and 

Respondent wil suffer great prejudice as a result. Complaint Counsel's refusal to allow 

Respondent to review the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie ("Declaration"), despite the Cour's 

Order, has made it impossible for Respondent and its counsel to fully comply with the Order. 

Quite simply, without the ability to review the Declaration, Respondent cannot fully describe and 

set forth the evidence it possesses which disputes the assertions of fact in the Declaration. 

1. On September 25, 2009, Respondent fied its Second Motion to Reopen the
 

Hearing Record ("Motion") in order to permit the introduction of new and additional evidence at 

a half-day hearing before this Court. 

2. On October 1, 2009, Complaint Counsel submitted its Response to Respondent's
 

Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record in opposition to Respondent's Motion 

PPAB 1613846vl 
("Opposition"). As par of its Opposition, Complaint Counsel submitted the Declaration of
 

Douglas Gilespie, Vice President for Global Procurement for Exide Technologies, Inc. 

3. On October 2, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Chappell entered an Order
 

Requiring Reply Brief. 

4. Among other things, the Order requires Respondent's reply brief to "respond to 

all pertinent facts and arguents asserted in the Opposition, and (to) specifically address, 

without limitation, ... whether Respondent possesses evidence disputing the assertions of
 

fact in the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie, submitted with the Opposition as Attachment A."
 

(Order Requiring Reply Brief emphasis added).
 

5. Later that day, counsel for Respondent attempted to contact Complaint Counsel
 

by telephone and bye-mail to seek permission to disclose the Declaration, which had been 

identified as "In Camera" and "Confidential Pursuant To Protective Order", to Respondent so 

that Respondent could assess what evidence it possesses disputing the assertions of the 

Declaration, in accordance with the Order of this Court. 

Respondent's 

counsel and indicated its position that the Declaration could not be disclosed to Respondent 

despite the Order of this Cour. 

6. On October 5, 2009, Complaint Counsel responded to the inquiry of 


7. Respondent is greatly prejudiced by Complaint Counsel's interference and refusal 

to comply with the Order of this Cour. This Cour's Order unequivocally sets forth the topics 

Respondent's reply brief shall address. One such topic includes the assertions of fact made in 

the Declaration. 

2 

PPAB 1613846vl 
8. In fact, Complaint Counsel's Opposition, in an attempt to directly refute several
 

assertions made in Respondent's Motion, relied hcavily on the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie. i 

(Response to Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record; pp. 1, 5, 6, Exhibit A). 

9. Complaint Counsel's actions reflect an inappropriate interference with an Order
 

of this Court and have resulted in extreme prejudice to Respondent. Without the ability to 

review the Declaration, Respondent is prevented from specifically addressing all pertinent facts 

and arguments in the Opposition as required by this Cour's Order. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays that the Administrative Law Judge enter 

an Order permitting Respondent to review the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie so that 

Respondent can fully respond in accordance with this Court's Order, and that Respondent be 

granted leave to file an amended reply brief after it has had a reasonable amount of time to 

review the Declaration. 

CONCLUSION 

For all the foregoing reasons, Respondent Polypore International, Inc. respectfully 

requests that its Motion for a Court Order Allowing Respondent to Review the Declaration of 

Douglas Gilespie be granted in all respects, that the Administrative Law Judge enter an Order 

instructing Complaint Counsel and/or Exide to permit Respondent to review the Declaration of 

Douglas Gilespie, and that the Administrative Law Judge enter such other relief as he deems 

appropriate. 

i Curiously, Respondent's Motion was Filed Under Seal and contains an abundance of In Camera Material pursuant to 

Rule 3.45 of the Federal Trade Commission Rules of Practice and Confidential Material pursuant to the Protective Order, all of 

which was redacted from the public filing of Respondent's Motion. Nevertheless, the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie attached 

to Complaint Counsel's Opposition specifically addresses several issues raised by Respondent which were supported almost 

exclusively by In Camera or Confidential MateriaL. 

3 

PPAB 1613846vl 
Dated: October 7, 2009
 

PPAB 1613846vl 

Wiliam L. Rikar , Jr.
 

Eric D . Welsh
 

PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP
 

Three Wachovia Center
 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000
 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9689
 

wiliamikardCfparkerpoe.com
 

ericwelshCfparkerpoe.com
 

Attorneys for Respondent 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCHEDULING ORDER 

I, Eric D. Welsh, Esq., on behalf of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP ("Parker Poe") 

as counsel for Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore"), hereby represent that Parker Poe has 

conferred with Complaint Counsel in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues 

raised by the instant Motion and have been unable to reach such an agreement. Parker Poe and 

Complaint Counsel discussed these issues in e-mail correspondence on October 2,2009 and over 

the telephone on October 5, 2009. As a result of 
 these communications, Polypore and Complaint

Counsel are at an impasse with respect to the issue raised in Respondent's Motion.
 

Dated: October 7, 2009
 thl/~


Eric D. Welsh 

PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9689 

ericwelshCfparkerpoe.com 

PPAB 1613846vl 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

PROPOSED ORDER 

Upon consideration of Respondent's Motion for a Court Order Allowing Respondent to 

Review the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie, any opposition thereto, and the Court being fully 

informed, 

IT is HEREBY ORDERED, that Respondent's Motion is GRANTED. 

Specifically, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent shall be permitted to review the 

Declaration of Douglas Gilespie submitted with the Opposition as Attachment A, and it is 

fuher 

ORDERED that Respondent be granted leave to fie an amended reply brief after it has 

had a reasonable amount of time to review the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie. 

D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Date: 

PPAB 1613846vl 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 7, 2009, I caused to be fied via hand delivery and electronic mail 

delivery an original and two copies of the foregoing Respondent's Motion for a Court Order Allowing 

Respondent to Review the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie, and that the electronic copy is a true and 

correct copy ofthe paper original and that a paper copy with an original signature is being fied with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Offce of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

secretary(gftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on October 7, 2009, I caused to be served one copy via electronic mail 

delivery and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Respondent's Motion for a Court 

Order Allowing Respondent to Review the Declaration of Douglas Gillespie upon: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oali(gftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on October 7, 2009, I caused to be served via first-class mail delivery and 

electronic mail delivery a copy of the foregoing Respondent's Motion for a Court Order Allowing 

Respondent to Review the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie upon: 

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

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Cómmission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

rrobertson(gftc. gov sdahm(gftc. gov 

~~ 

Brian R. Weyhri sq. 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 335-9534 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9776 

PPAB 1613846vl