" ,,,,:,~;:;~r;,A\)~'"(~':~!:L;;,:":~~~'~,~'~ 

riSß"':;:;¡ ?¿;;:" 0,(~p\
 ORIGINAL (1 .' t,i ': 0/" 'L"'i"., Ii ~ ,t~":!1 '~' vth.; !i .\ ".
 \\ 5399(;/ i
 ""', JJS:CR~~;: . /


BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~y

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) 

) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF GRAEME FRASER-BELL IN THE UN1TED KINGDOM 

PURSUANT TO 16C.F.R. § 3.36(b)

Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") respectfully submits this 

memorandum in support of its Motion pursuant to Federal Trade Commission Rule of Practice 

3.36, 16 C.F.R. § 3.36, for the issuance of a subpoena ad testifcandum for the deposition of 

Graeme Fraser-Bell. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

On November 62008, ENTEK International LLC ("ENTEK"), a global battery separator 

manufacturer and a competitor of Polypore, after cooperating extensively with the Federal Trade

Commission ("FTC") during its investigation in this matter last summer and producing over 

62,000 of its documents to th~FTC (including customer contracts and feasibility studies to 

expand production) in response to a subpoena issued to it and responding to a Civil Investigative 

Demand, fied a motion with this Cour to attempt to block Polypore's access to these materials. i 

See Third Party ENTEK International LLC's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective 

Order Pursuant to 15 U.s.C. §§ 46(f), 57b-2(d)(I)(c) and 57b~2(d)(2), and 16 C.R.R. § 4.10, p. 

1 According to ENTEK's website, ENTEK manufactures and sells battery separators itself and through its wholly 

owned company, ENTEK International Ltd. See Exhibit A hereto ("Initially, ENTEK shipped its s\lparators to customers 

throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico, in 1989 it established a joint venture with Cookson Ltd, in Newcastle, called 

Cookson Entek Ltd, That structure changed when in 1996, ENTEK took complete control of the joint venture and became 

established worldwide, supplying cutting.edge technology products around the globe. In 1999, ENTEK purchased Cookson's 

equity and became sole owner ofENTEK International Ltd."). 

PPAB 1522740v1 ' 
1.1 On November 6, 2008, Polypore served a subpoena duces tecum on ENTEK; seeking access 

to the information that ENTEK previously provided to the FTC and other information and 

evidence relevant to Polypore's defense in this case. A copy of the Subpoena duces tecum was 

attached as Exhibit B to Polypore's Motion to Compel, fied on January 13, 2009. Over the 

course of a month, Polypore negotiated in good faith with ENTEK to address and resolve 

ENTEK's concerns over Respondent's subpoena duces tecum including issues of confidentiality 

(see e.g. Exhibit C hereto) and in early December 2008 an agreement in principle was reached 

between ENTEK and Polypore over that subpoena, memorialized by letter dated December 22, 

2008. See Exhibit D hereto. In those negotiations, ENTEK objected to reviewing fies from 

large numbers of custodians concerning ENTEK's communications with its customers (Exh. A 

(Request no. 5)) but agreed to limit the review to three people. Graeme Fraser-Bell, who
 

ENTEKTepresented was the Vice President oflnternational Sales, was one ofthe three. See Id 

The agreement reached between ENTEK and Pòlypore with respect to the subpoena 

duces tecum has proved ilusory. To date, ENTEK has produced very few documents to
 

Polypore. Polypore's counsel is reviewing ENTEK's production, but that review is ongoing and 

not complete. ENTEK's production, produced only in the first week of January, consists almost 

entirely of its response to the CID which it sent to the FTC in July of last year. From simple 

screen shots produced by ENTEK, it is evident that ENTEK produced documents from Mr. 

Fraser-Bell to the FTC as par of the response to the CID. Now, after. acknowledging the
 

importance of Mr. Fraser-Bell's fies to this matter, ENTEK attempts to distance itself from him, 

oddly arguing that discovery should riot be had of him. From simple screen shots produced by 

ENTEK, it is evident that ENTEK produced documents from Mr. Fraser-Bell to the FTC as par 

of the response to the CID. 

2 ENTEK subsequently withdrew that motion.
 

2
 

PPAB 1522740v1 
Prior to the institution of this action against it, Polypore had reason to believe that 

ENTt;K was expanding its capacity in the United Kingdom. Mr. Fraser-Bell, with his position as 

Vice President of International Sales, is a central actor, believed to have extensive knowledge of 

ENTEK's sale of battery separators to customers in this global market. Upon information and 

belief, Mr. Fraser-Bell is also knowledgeable of the other suppliers of battery separators located 

in Europe and Asia, again an important part of Respondent's defense in this matter, to wit that 

contrary to the FTC's charge, the market for battery separators is global, and not limited to North 

America. 

On December 30, 2008, Pölypore served a subpoena ad testifcandum on Mr. Fraser-Bell, 

as an agent of ENTEK ("Fraser-Bell Subpoena"). A copy of the Fraser-Bell Subpoena is 

as Exhibit E. Counsel for ENTEK accepted service of the Fraser-Bell Subpoena on 

December 30, 2008. On January 9, 2009, ENTEK filed a motion to quash the Fraser-Bell 

attached 

Subpoena. As par of its motion, ENTEK submitted a declaration from Mr. Fraser-Bell. In that 

declaration, Mr. Fraser-Ben states that he is a British citizen, and serves as the Vice President of 

International Sales for ENTEK International Ltd., an affiiate of ENTEK. As the Vice President 

oflnternational Sales, Mr. Fraser-Bell is "responsible for managing ENTEK International Ltd.'s 

relationship with non-Nort American customers" which "requires regular travel to customers 

throughout Europe and Asia." (See Declaration of Graeme Fraser-Bell in Support of ENTEK 

International LL's Motion to Quash the Subpoena Ad Testifcandum Issued to Graeme FraserBell and Robert Keith Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.34(c)). 

ENTEK refuses to make Mr. Fraser-Bell available for a deposition, whether here or in the 

United Kingdom. Mr. Fraser-Bell is believed to possess important evidence in this matter as he 

is intimately involved in ENTEK's battery separator sales to customers located throughout the 

3 

PPAB 1522740vl 
world and is believed to be knowledgeable of other suppliers of battery separators in the Europe. 

This evidence canot be obtained from sources other than Mr. Fraser-BelL.
 

ARGUMENT I: 

Practice requires the party seeking issuance ofa 

subpoena to be served in a foreign country to make a specific showing regarding the requested 

Rule 3,36(b) of the Commission Rules of 


subpoena. With respect to a subpoena to be served in a foreign country, the party must show: 

(1) the material sought is reasonable in scope;
 

(2) the material sought is reasonably expected to yield information relevant to the
 

allegations of the complaint, to the proposed relief, or to the defenses of the 

respondent; 

by other means; (3) the information or material sought cannot reasonably be obtained 


and 

(4) that the par seeking discovery has a good faith belief that the discovery
 

requested would be permitted by treaty, law, custom, or practice in the country 

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). The subpoena ad testifcandum sought by Respondent satisfies each of 

these requirements. 

Polypore seeks the issuance of a subpoena to' 
 take a deposition of Mr. Fraser-Bell in

more than seven hours in duration pursuant to the 

Scheduling Order in this case. Mr. Fraser,;Bell as Vice President of International Sales for 

ENTEK International Ltd. has intimate knowledge of the battery separator industry and is 

London, England. The deposition would be no 


believed to have knowledge of ENTEK's' business dealings with customers in the industry 

located in the United States and abroad, including on issues of pricing, capacity and competition. 

The deposition of Mr. Fraser-Bell is reasonably relevant to the allegations of the 

Complaint and to the Respondent's defenses. The FTC's Rules allow Polypore to "obtain 

discovery to the extent that it may be reasonably expected to yield information relevant to the 

4 

PPAB 1522740vl 
allegations in the complaint, to the proposed relief, or to the defenses of (the 1 respondent." 16 

C.F.R. § 3.31 (c)(I) (emphasis added). Throughout these proceedings, Respondent has asserted, 

as one of its defenses, that the market. for battery separators is global, not limited to Nort 

America as the FTC contends: 

. Respondent admits that it develops, manufactures and markets battery
 

separators in a global market. (Answer, ii 4)(emphasis added). 

. Respondent has denied that the relevant geographic market in which to
 

analyze the effects of this transaction is limited to North America.
 

(Answer, , 14). 

. Respondent has repeatedly denied the characterization of "automotive,
 

motive, UPS and all PE markets" as distinct and proper markets. 

(Answer, , 42). 

. Most importantly, as an affrmative defense, Respondent asserted that the
 

relevant product and geographic market definitions alleged in the 

Complaint fail as a matter of law. (Answer, Third Affrmative Defense; 

see also Resp. Mot. to Dismiss, n. S5 ("Polypore disputes the designations 

of the markets as alleged by the FTC and wil assert its defenses to the 

market claims as 
 necessary at the hearing before the ALl")).

Under the FTC's discovery standard, Polypore is entitled to seek evidence which wil support 

these defenses. 16 C.F.R. §3.31(c)(I). The testimony sought by Respondent from Mr. Fraser-


Bell goes directly to certain elements of Complaint Counsel's case and Respondent's defense 

that the alleged relevant product and geographic market of Complaint Counsel fails as a matter 

Respondent Polypore International, Inc.). 

The information sought through Mr. Fraser-Bell's deposition cannot be obtained by other 

means. Mr. Fraser-Bell, with his position as Vice President of International Sales, has relevant 

knowledge about customers and other suppliers in both Europe and Asia and any expansion 

effort by ENTEK in the United Kingdom to increase capacity for the sale of battery separators to 

customers located in the United States and elsewhere in the world. ENTEK in its motion to 

quash does not deny Mr. Fraeser-Bell's extehsive knowledge of matters relevant to this action. 

5 

PPAB 1522740,,1 

oflaw. (See Answer and Defenses of 

There is simply no other person at ENTEK that could substitute for the deposition testimony of 

Mr. Fraser-Bell. 

Finally, the Respondent has a good faith belief that the deposition of Mr. Fraser-Bell is 

permitted in the United Kingdom. and that any additional procedural requirements have been or 

will be met before the subpoena is served. Both the United States and United Kingdom are 

signatories to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial 

Matters, which provides the opportty to depose a witness overseas. 28 U.S.C.A. 1781 (1979).
 

Alternatively, Respondent can hire a British solicitor to take the deposition of Mr. Fraser-Bell in 

the U.K. U.S. Department of State, http://travel.state.gov/law/info/iudicialliudicial 671.htmL. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully petitions this court for an order 

granting Respondent's Motion for leave to depose Mr. Fraser-Bell's in the United Kingdom 

should this court grant Third Party ENTEK International LLC's Motion to Quash the Fraser-Bell 

Subpoena. 

6 

PPAB 1522740vl 
Dated: January 14,2009 Respectfully Submitted, 

~~
 Wil am L. 'K:ard, Jr. 

Eric D. Welsh 

PARKR POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9689 

willamrikard~parkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh~parkerpoe.com 

John F. Graybeal 

PARKR POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

150 Fayettevile Street
 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Telephone: (919) 835-4599 

Facsimile: (919) 828-0564 

iohngraybeal~parkerpoe.com 

Attorneys for Respondent 

PPAB 1522740vl 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on Januar 14, 2009, I caused to be fied via hand delivery and 

electronic mail delivery an original and two copies of 
 the foregoing Memorandum In Support of 

Motion for Leave to Take the Deposition of Graeme Fraser-Bell in the United Kingdom 

Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.36, and that the electronic copy is a true and correct copy of 
 the 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 January 14, 2009, I caused to be served one copy via electronic 

mail delivery and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Memorandum In 

Support of Motion for Leave to Take the Deposition of Graeme Fraser-Bell in the United 

Kingdom Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.36 upon: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oalj gov (gftc. 

I hereby certify that on Januar 14, 2009, I caused to be served via first-class mail 

delivery and electronic mail delivery a copy of the foregoing Memorandum In Support of 

Motion for Leave to Take the Deposition of Graeme Fraser-Bell in the United Kingdom 

Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.36 upon: 

1. Robert Robertson, Esq. Steven Dah, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

rrobertson(gftc.gov sdahm~ftc.gov 

Darius Ogloza, Esq.
 

LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
 

San Francisco, California 94111-6538
 

DARIUS.OGLOZA(gL W.com
 

PPAB 1522740vl 
Adam C. Shearer
 

ÚJ~

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP
 

Three Wachovia Center
 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 335-9050
 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

PPAB 1522740vl 
EXHIBIT A
 

PPAB 1017548v1 
HOME 

PRODUCT RAw MATERIALS
 

Te:Cl-NOLOGY 

i===~~~
 IaUT ENTEK
 IONTACT Us 

HISTORY 

ENTEK began the research and development of Polyethylene Battery (PE) Separator production in 1984. 

Commercial production began in 1987 when the primary manufacturing plant opened in Lebanon, Oregon during 1987. Annual capacity is currently over 200 milion m2 per year from production facilties in 

Lebanon, OR and Killngworth, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Our market share is estimated to.be +40% of 

the global Starting, Lighting and Ignition, PE Separators market. To date, we have shipped overone 

billion square meters of the best battery separator material in the wortd. Initially, ENTEK shipped its separators to customers throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico. In 

1989 it established a joint venture with Cookson Ltd. in Newcastle, called Cookson Entek Ltd. That 

structure changed when in 1996, ENTEK took complete control of the joint venture and became established worldwide, supplying cutting-edge technology products around the globe. In 1999, ENTEK 

purchased Cookson's equity and became sole owner of ENTEK International Ltd. ENTEK Manufacturing. Inc. 
 (EMl) has always designed and built all of our manufacturing, processing, and 

tooling equipment in-house, ensuring exact attention to detail and quality. ENTEK has multiple 

are capable of producing the industry-standard RhinoHid~ battery manufacturing lines all of which 


separators. All of our lines are based on continuous processing - from the raw materials to finished 

product winding. This manufacturing approach supports ENTEK's tireless attention to the tightest 

tolerances and process control. In 1997, ENTEK became the firs battery separator manufcturer in the 

world to achieve OS-9000 certification as then required by the Big Three automakers. 

of In April 1998, ENTEK recived its fift consecutive "Worldwide Supplier the Year" award from General 

Motors. In 1997, ENTEK was pleased to accept the Oregon Governor's Occupational Safety and Health 

Award. In 1996, ENTEK was awarded East Penn Manufacturing's Certified Supplier Award. In 1994, 

ENTEK's president, Jim Young, was named Manufacturing Entrepreneur of the Year in Oregon. ENTEK 

was the first-ever recipient of the International Battery Manufacturers Association (IBMA) Award for Ouality in 1992. . At the turn of this century, we realized that our core competence is the extrusion and extraction of filled or 

unfilled micro-porous polymer membranes. In 2003, after some years of research and development, we 

began producing commercial quantities of battery separator material for Lithium Ion and Lithium Ion 

Polymer battery systems. There is a prett good chance that lithium-ion battery in your cell phone has 

separator material in it from ENTEK. This is noW a signifcant part of our business model and contributes to the health and diversity of the companv. 

Currently we are actively pursuing 2 other avenues for product development 

. Electrode Films and Assemblies for Supercapacitors. Supercapacitors are expected to have a
 

, future in hybrid vehicles, as energy recuperation and restoration devices for regenerative breaking 

or idle start-stop systems. Electc power-assisted steering systems are expected to use 

'\ 
-.. ,-. .'­

supercapacitors in the future as welL. Supercapacitors can be used to eliminate electric power grid 

micro-shorts. With its UHMWPE processing capabilty, ENTEK is already produCing actvated 

carbon films, and laminating these films to both sides of a current collector. Our product is unique 

in the world: strong, clean, and capable of mass production quantities and lowest possible costs. 

. Breathable Membranes. For its first business venture outside the world of Energy Storage Devices, 

ENTEK is producing bi-axially oriented hydrophobic micro-porous films that are laminated to polyester arid nylon for the world's waterproof / breathable specialty fabric and industrial textile market. With excellent breathabilty, proven in 6 different international breathabilty test standards (including JIS 1099 B2), our products can be used in active and extreme sportswear, professional uniforms and outdoor wear, as well as numerous other outdoor work, miltary, and recreational 

activities. 

\. /

:,'-11---__ ,.-..,~. .....- '.i ...,,:"~"......:~ 

Home / Products /Raw Materials / Technology / Presentations/Exhibitions 

About ENTEK / Contact Us 

Contact us at contactttentek-international.com 

~ 2009 ENTEK International LLC 
EXHIBIT B
 

PPAB 1017S48vl 
S,VS:Pt:flNA fJUCf$sræCUM 

IS$'uedP'Q:rslJànt;,tõ:liUlétt3'4(b)',1'6:,a..i:~A. § 3.3~:(b)(1997) 

t.TO. 

. Itl.t'ê.rnaij¡â;øri'åJ 'L1.C
 

. ...... ':il¡ins'â:c~:~vß' 

L'~'1arion., .Olt~r¡$'.5,5 

" ,.-,' . --.:
 ... .... ."
 

: :P'atkerd~b'ê'Adß;ms,.&äatn8't'é.:ttl.


. il1røeWådb:ov':La'Gø;ilteÏ" .... .
 

401S;Tilyønstreet ~ Suite 3000
 

Oliattotte';NC 28202
 

.... .. .,- ...
 . 6,$U!3Ji;Òr'ö'FPRöêSEPING 

fÏ1,t1i:eM'âtteröf' lø1ý,ohimtedlational,llc;,UóêketN'ò. 932'1 

2. FRÖM 

.- -,
 

FEtlER.E TRAJ)E CGJ
 tJTŠlD,.,S~r~~ES ?'~

ø~lgn,âted~ookG,èfoöt¡l'ents(as 

~ànlie '(låteandtirië St)èclfiØdliï
 

. ltëtiß.. 

'MÃ'~RïÄL\NI(LBË,:PRØbùCêbTÒ 

lo:LY¡:'ótiê Int:èrnati:onal. lné.
 

. ",.
 

5~ ÒAT:e;ÄNöTIME OFPRODUCTIONORINSPEcrlON 

November 2.4. .2008 9:30 a.m.. 

1. MAtERiAi tcri3EPROOUCED'" 

See Attaèhed Rèauèsts. ¡iÍ'stt:uö#:tòrïs andP.e'fnitt.ioilS. 

8. . AOMINISTRATIVëiLAWJl,DGE .' . ,._. .,
 ,-- -- .
 ,'. . .


. Th~!.HPA()i'io,é,;(;MjdllIei':Uh~pi'~i~ '.... ----...-. .' .'- ....,. ,.':. , ....., -',-"-":''''. ,.'---,....
 . . - -,
 ",- ,"., '.. -- '''-'. -'
 . . ... ,,,_. ..-.. ,

.:,d. ~~wgT~~~b!~~ri~r:fn .

DATEiSS\J~b 

" ,


Oc,t'p!b;~;tr n2AJ 

; 

p; .GO\:NSEI. RË9UJ$$lING SUBPOENA 

"""..,,,.. '.', ,-:' '...... " .. . ,... 

. . .:C:'~~b4)'~h,~~~~~2 ¡

Î: 

¡ 

! 

~jN~TRUCTiQ'Na .'. 

TRAVEL, EXPENSES 

.. i'l1eCt)h1rnISsi0ri's:r~ulesQfPraotice require thaHees and 

mneãi:~'.bø paid by the. pt¡rttryeit requested your 

ap . nee.;. YQ~$hould prësenf Y9urclãlm toèounsel
 

Ust;. In Itêrn9,for paymeril. ..lfyouareperman¡;nUyòr

.teIlPorarily'JlvingsornElwhÈÌreötherthantheMdre,sSQh 

.thlssuPpO'ená '$ndlt wöuldrequlreø.xcesslve, travel 'fer.
 

yoatø appØâr,you mi:$f gøtptior approval ,from counsel
 

listëdirfltery9,. '
 

riotr~C:lJlr~ 13Pprbval';byOMB. under 

.tlol'iAotbf1980. 

I 
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED TO ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC 

A. TIONAL, INC. ON BEHALF OF'P()L YPORE INTERN 


FTC DOCKET NO. 9327 .
 

EXnJBIT, A 

I. REQUESTS'
 

. 1. .. All documents describing,. any product in development by ENTEK to compete
 

with PolypoI'e lead acid battery separators. . 

2. , All. documents .describlng . any product, in development by any Third Party to
 

compete with Polypore lead acid battery sepanitors. 

3. ' Alldo,cuments ,listing ,or describing any rIaßufacturing or piodu~iion faciltyfor lead acid battery
 

(including' any exp~nsion of the sW,e or additions of sepatator lines) 


, ,

any separators in which ENTEK mahitains any ownership interest including without limitation 

spch facility, whether' currently o~rational or under constrction or expansion, in the United 

States or the United Kingdom. 

, 4~ ,For aIlY facÜity rèspòrisÌve to'Request No. ~, all doëuïénts suffcient to reflect (a) .
 

the ca.pital expenditue for the constructioIl' and star..up ()l' expansionofSuch facilty, (b) the date 

on whichplljs for such facilty or e'lpansion of such facilty were approved, (c) ihe date on of such
 

which construction' began on such facilty , (d) the date of commissioning or startup 


h.Jacilty, (e) the proçluction calJacity of such -facilty; (f) the type of produ'ct(s) produced at such 

facility; (g) 
 the anticípated~nd use(s) of the products manufactured at s\lch facilty, (h) the

.technology used at such facilty to manufacture lead aciq battery separators and.( the c.ost of the 

. lead acid battery separators,m.anpfactured ,and gold at sBph facilty, including without limitatjon 

profit and loss 'statements -and other'documênts rëflecting th~dcost of Inallufacturing and selling such products, includingshippìngcosts~ . . 

.5. ,All. documents relatjng to" aly:cöirnl\i~ication5ètweeri ENTEK a.d(å) Johnson 

Techrolpgie's ("Exide"), (c) EnerSys,' (d) East' Penn
 Controls, Inc. ("Jei"), .(b) Exide . 


Manufact:uring Co. ("'Crown");(t)
 . Manufactuing Co.,. Inc. .('~East Penn"); '(~) CroWn Battery 


"Trojan 'Hattery Co. ("Trojai"), (g) OS' BtltÜ:ry M~ti\lfactuTil'gÇo. ("l)S BatterY")~ (h) C&U 

Technologies,.lnc. ("C&U"), or (i) any pth~:r entity mauufactiiÍng batte;ries.for sale in; Nort 

America, concerning: (i) àiy .actüaror potential oo~tra,ct oÌ~gieeaieiifbetWèen. such entity and or future
 

ENi'EK for the saleard purchåse of lead add battery sepm:ators.. (ii) cOntemporaneous 


plices of lead 
 'acid. battery separators, (ii) Pol'ypöre or (ív) Microporqus. . . .. .' . .
 

, 6., ,. All -d9~liIrëJitS ',9QnstitUtiilg_ q;r r~neëtin~' any . a~tUalô.r pÒteiitìal cöntract. Or
 

agrèement lietweeri' ENTE~-ånäEtt) ~JÇk(~) _lixide,_,(c)__Ê.iierSys,,_(d)-Easi-P~mn,_(e). CtØW'H,(i,_, 

TroJai;(g)US Batten" (h) C&p,qr (i)'aryothereiitìty rianufacturing led .actd bait~rIes for sale ­

, in North AIerfca; fot the. sale, byENlEK tq sRch entity' óf'ead acid båït~ry sepÌlrato.rs. . .' .'
 .. . ."'
 

. 7., Ail. doçumentsrehitirig to ENTEK's oraJiy'other ,;nanufacturer's share of any
 

market fór lead ac,Ídbattery'separators. .
 

PPAB 1489509vl 
8. 'All documents discussing ENTEK's. 'or' any other man~acturer's share of any
 

market for leaa acid battery separators by p.röduct end use or other' classification used by ENTEK 

to record market share for the sale of lead ácid battery sepanitors. 

9; All documenti¡ relating to any ,actUal or potential competitor of ENTEK for lead
 acid battery sepårators: " ' .' '.
 

., 1-0. All documents 'rehiting to the geographic scope of competition for battery
 

separators for lead'acid batteries, . ' , . '.
 

11. All documents relating to the scope of 
 competition acroSs 'products for battery

separators for lead acid batteries. 

12. All document~ relating to th,e level or state of competition in the lead acid battery 

separator business prior to February 29, 2008. 

state 01 competition in the lead acid battery 13. All documents relating to the level or 


29,2008; separator business'after February 


14. All documents relating tp ENTEI('s pricing,' incl'\ding. any database of pricing 

tranactions, ,and pndngsttategy 'for ïead 'acid'batteryseparatorsfromJänuary, 1, 2003 to Febnlar 29,:2008.' ,..'
 

, 15, All âOêument~ relatmg roENTEK'rprtciITg;clugiIlg-iuy-databasen0f~pfiGÌng
 

ttan'sactlons, ard pricing strategyfódead acidbattëry sepiiåtors áfiër'Februat 29, 2008. 

l6. All documents. suffcient to show Or explain the factors uSed in ENTEK's m!ling
 

any adjustrent to its price: fot lead 'acidbaitelyseparatò~Under ariy contract with its customers. 

i 7. All documents'discussing, desc.rlbing' or reftimng to, any product, either in
 

commercial production or Urder d'Ø"elopment, thiit'coiipetes or is'expected to compete with ariy

lead.acid'battery separatorm~Qufactured by ENTEK.. ' . 

18,., " For eàcli Entek fa~íltythØt hasmaiiufactuieq ods currently manufacturing lead
 

aQ,ld 'battery sèparators, all documents discussing, describirigor refl ecting ENTEK' s manufactUe
 

, and/or sale of lead .acid patteryseparatö.rs from such faciHty including dQcuments refiecting the
 

amount of proQuct sòJ.d bY donar, ûuìts;t sqiiaie meters; ånd próducttypè or brand; ard thè price
 

, ofall such product sold. . .
 

. , 19, )"()r ä1I pródlictsrëspori~íve lpReqûeštNo:Ù, audócumeiits reflecting the actUal
 the slípment of such Qr anticipa,ied:end useofthe'pródùct soldbý ENTEI(andtlëdèstin'ation of prodùct. ' ,. .
 

.. ' 20.. .Aii d9cUterltá r.~fI~cilh!rtQèJd~tìtity~n4rpcaiioii"af~1 customers ,pÜrchasing
 

lead acid'båtterý' separators from each ïjf ENr~K'smaniifactüriii,g 'tåcHities. ..
 , ,
 

2 

PPAB l489:í09vl 
, , '
 battery separators sold
 , 21. Documents suffcient to reflect the peroentage of lead acid 


by ENTEK anually under contract with a duration in excess of one year as compared to total
 

sales oflead acid btlttery separators.by ENTEK during the same period oftime.
 ..' . . .'
 , , ,
 by 22. Documents suffcieflt to reflect the prices of lead acid,baUery separators sold 


ENTEK on a spot basis or underpurGhase orders or contracts of one year or less. . 

23. All documents relating to any patent either, owned directly or. indirectly by . 

ENTEK, or for which ENTEK abtained either directly or indirectly a license, for technology or 

equipment-used by ENTEK in'the manÙfàcturëoflead add batterY separators. ..
 

24. All documents discussing or, describjngany technology used in UIe manufacture
 

of battery separators for lead~cíd,Qatteries. . . . '. ..J, ',.' . .
 

2S. All documents describing, discussing or reflecting productS that currently
 

compete or which could compete with lead acid battery separators including those products used
 

for the following end uses or applications: golf car or car; autÖmotive; motorcycle; truck; train; supply for hospitals, tel,eph,one cQmpanies or other . fork lift; submarine; uninterrpted. power 


uses; and/or nuclear power plant. 

26. Al1 docÛÏerits di.~èus~ing' or ~~fëiring tÓany týpe of lead acid' battery separtor; 

, ,


including AGM, separato,rs, other thlU ihosê used in flooded lead aCid battery separators. .. 

27 Alldo,cumeuts ,describing, discussing o.r reflecting bybrand namë or man4facturer

the' 'proôucts ,comprising' 
 lead á6id batt~ry separ¡;toiS'inclÙding those ,products Useg t6rthe

, folloWing end useS ,or ,appHcations: . golf car. or cart; automotive; motorcycle;' tnick; tr.ain; fork
 

'lift;::iiubmarne; uninterrpted power supply for hospjtals, telephone compi:ies or other uses;
 

and/or nuClear powër plart., .', '.,. ., .... .
 , , , " I
 , 28. Alldocunents relating to itny testirig or' qú~Üification öf any 'lead 'acid battery 

separator produced by ENrEKd~rin~ t~e pe~odofJanuar i, 2900 to the present.

, , , . ,
 , " '29. . All docuIents teiatiiig. Wriiy current producer (excluding ENTEK) 'or potential .
 

entrant into thè production'or man:tfacturd.' of lead acidhattery separators. , ..' . ., .', ..... . ." "r


. 30. All docum~nts ielaihig to any potential entr ofMicropòróus IIito'the business of
 

, iranufactUring lead acid battery sepáratÖrs fot: salt to. màriufactürets öf lead acid batteries for automotive use; .' . . ' .
 any potential entry or
 reentry of ENTEK into the 31- All dQcuments ,relating to 


. buslnes~öf manufactuririglèadaçid sepáiåtors' for sate tQrr~ufåcti:rers of (a) golf Ctlrt batteries: móiive use, ii:çluding fpr.usë 'in fork lift 'batteries or (c )batteries for (b YbatíØlies for indtistritihjr
 uninteJ1pteQ p.ower stipply. .' .­ . . . .
 32,..11 'dqcureiits discûssirig,' descrÌbirtg or: rêfleòtihg any açtualùf potentialbarlÍer
 

to entr
 for supplierš.qi: IraiUfactuersofleada.èid batteiy,sepaiators in (a) Nórth America and (b) tlw ~oi:d. ' .
 

3 

PPAB 1489509v1 
33. All documents
 'discussing or mentioning the' actÜal or potential acqui~ition of Microporous by Polypore. "', ' ,
 

,34. All documents discussing, mentioning or descnbiÏig any effect, actual, potential
 

or perceived,' on ENTEK's buSiness of an acquisition 'of Microporous by Polypore, and all
 

documents relating to any plan ,or GOurse öfaction co.nsidered, or adopted by ENTEK in response 

to s\lch actual or potential aaquisition. ' " , " " "
 "

35. All dQcuments reflecting 
 any product or technology that is a substitute product or

teCliology for leaq acid battery separators for flÇ)oded'lead acid batteries, 'including without


lirntati?n, those lead 
 acid bättery separators sold by ENTEK. ' " " "

36. All documents;'iJicii.ding 'affdavits and statements, which ENTEK provided to
 

the FTC relating iriany way to Polypore or Microporous. ' 

37. A copy of any transcript of any'testimony, deposition or investigational hearing 

conducted in the Polypore Matter. 

38. All documents' evidencing, relating or referring to communications between the
 

FTC' and ENTEK relating ip anywåy to Polyp()rç o,rMicroporolls. 

, 39. All docl.ents suffcient to show any contractÜal, or comrnercial relationship
 

betweenENTEK and Bernard Dum¡is (or l,s afflljates), fnclu4ing withouilimitatiop, documents 

, saOwliig or 'refleètlng: :(a) the daté'åiY 'such :còntract or relati'onship begàn,(b) the commercial 

nature'óf the' re,lat,ionship or 9o'Iittäd, (c) the"pl,ødticts' to' which such relationship or contr.act 

applied, ( d) the, amount of product' sold by either ENTEK or Beriárd Dumas (of its affliates).
 

Un~er such contract or rehition~hip, (e) the amount of revenue obtained from, such contract or
 or terminated, if
 relationship, and (f) the date such contract. Qr relatIonship ended, expired 


applicable, for the period otJariiary/l; 1999to thèpresenL' , . \
 

40. Any contractor other agréemeiit. between ENTEK and Bernard Dumas (or its
 

affliates) from January i, 1999 to thepr~sent. 

-; .
 

ì .
 

4 

PPAB 1489509v1 
n. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
 

I. "Document" means the complete original or a true, correct and complete copy and any 

how produced; recorded, stored non-identical copies of any written or graphic matter, no matter 


any 'writing, le1:er, e-mail, envelope, telegram, or reproduced, ínchiding, but not Iiriited to, 


. meeting minute, memorandum, . statement, affidavit, declaration, book, record, surey,


. . . . map, 

. study, 
 handWritten 'note,working paper, char, index tabulation, graph, tape, data sheet, data

processing card, printout, microfilm,' index, computer readable mëdia or other' electronically 

calendar, desk pad, telephone message slip, stored data, appointment book, diary, diar entr; 


note óf interview or communication or any other data compilation in your possession, cUstody or 

control,,including all drafts or all such dQcumènts. "Document" also includes every writing, 

drawing,' graph, char, photograph; phonörecord, tape and other data compilations from which 

information can be 
 obtained; 'tr~shited, .if 'necessary, by ENTEK International LLC though , ,
 

detection deviceáinto reasói1ably usäble fori,ähdin~ludes älI draft!! aid all copies ofeYery such 

wnting or record that contan any commenta, notes, or marking whatsoever 'not appearing on' 

the original.

2. "You" '~ýqur" ard "~ENTEK" for purposes dfthi; request, méans ENTEK International
 

, ,


\.directprs or nianagin:g agents, attorneys, employees, èonsultants,. agerits, as well as any

LLC or anyof'ts parents, 4ivisions, subdivisions; s~bsidiaries, affiliates, mert bers,~ffcer~, , "
 , ,


predecessors in interest, ård all otherpérsóns' actirig or purportihg to' act Òn its béhalf. , i '. " ~ .
 , ,


.' """: ....
 the Polypore International, Inc~ and 3. "Pol)'ohi" for the purposes of this 'request, means 

thereof, . hiclüdi~g' withòütliilitation, Daramic, LLC, including their 

respective employees. 

any subsidiary ot. division 


5 

PPAB 1489509yl 

i 
4. "Microporous" for the purposes of this request, means the Microporous Products, L.P.,
 

and any affliate, subsidiary or . division thereof, and their respective employees, offcers, 

directors, partner's, attorneys and agents. 

of its directors, commissioners, 5. "FtC" me.ans the Federal Trade Coi:ission, and any 


employees, consultants and agents. 

6. "Polypore matter" means the investigation conducted by the FTC under Rule No. 081 w
 

0131 and this Administrative Proceeding, Docket No.' 9327.
 

7. ¡¡Investigation" means any FTC investigation, whether formal or informal, public or non-


public. 

8. "Third Pary" means any person; corporate entity; parnership; association; joint venture; , ' 

state, feqeral or 10caJ governental agency, authority or offcial; rësearch or trade asso,ciation; or
 

any of its subsidiarie~ or affiliates.
 any other entity other than ENTEK Interratibnal LLC or 


9. . ¡¡Complaint" means the Complaint issued by the Federal Trade Commission to Polypore
 

International, Inc. in DocketNo. 9327.

, , ,means in whole or in par constituting, containing, concerning, discussing, 10. "Relatirig -to" 


describing,analyzing, ideiitifying orstatirig. 

11. Unless otherwise stated; the relevant time period for these requests is January 1, 2003 to 

the present.
 

12. The use of the singular be deemed t9 include the plural and vice versa. ,/ shall 

13. The' terms "and;' and' "or" 'snair be: :interpreted d iIberally asco~jùnctive, disjunctive, or
 

! 

both, depending Ón the context; 's.o äà to' have their broadest meårling.


i4. w:en~ver necessàr tohri'Iìg Withii;, tle,'scope of a'.reauest all docume~ts that might
 

. '
 ¡ otherwse be construed to 'be outside its scopé, the use of a verb in iûy tense shall he constred as
 

the use of the verb in aU other tenses. 

. 6 

PPAB 1489509vl 
is. The term "all" inoludes any and vice versa.


l . 

Practice §3,37(b),
 16. If you object to any part ofa document request under the FTC Rules of 


set forth the basis for your obj,eötion and respond to all part of the document request to which 

unanswered merely becl;lUse an .you do not obj~ct.No par of a document requestshall be left
 , , "'" ' \. objection is, interposed to ånothèr par of adocumeIit request' , 

17. ., All documents that respond, in' whole or in par, tò any portion of any document request
 

shall be produced in their entirety, including allattachments,enCiosures, cover memoranda and 

postMit notes. 

i 8. If a document database is provided, proviqe an explanation,of the definitions used and the
 

, ,


fields existing in such database. 

19. ,If any privilege is claimed iis a ground for not producing any document, provide for each
 

such document withheld on the 'basis of privilege all infòmiiition required by FTC Rules of 

Practice §3,38A. 

that .any ~espo~~ive dòcurtmt was, but is no longer in your possession, state
 20. In the 'event 
 . .' ~ '. . . .' .' .
 , , ,


what disposition was made ont; when, ij~' the reason for such disposition. In the event that a , ,
 . ," . responsive document h~ beën destroy~d Or retUTëd to à Third Par, state (i) the reas,on for such 

'document's destruction or retur, the' date orl which thedoc~rÍent was destroyed or retured, and 

the Third Pary to whom the document was returned or on whose behalf the document was 

destroyed; (ii) ihe name; iitle, 'and Jocati~ii 'thereOf within 'ENTEK ÚÙernational LLC of the

iiidividual in 'whose possession, custody or control the document was when it was destroyed or 

, , ,


retured; and (Hi) tle 'naI~, titIe, ãnd IocaJiQIi ther~of withiTiENTEl( Intettätional LLC of the 

individual who de.i;troyed or retumedipe document:' 

and during the course of the 21. These document requests .are continuing inna.ture, up to 


adjudicative heatng. All döcuments' souglifby 'these ,requests thatyåu, o,btaìn ör locate àfter you 

7' .,
 

PPAB 1489509v i 
serve your responses must be immediately produced to counsel for Polypore by suppleinenta 

response. 

\
 

8 

PPAB 1489509vl 
tERTIFICA TEOt? SERVICE 

copy of.a.8ubpaenaDuces Tecum 'lhtrep:;,,'c ',tl:ât,QI'l'No~ember(j, 20.08, ltaused' a 


dilçQteatô: . '. .. .. . '." " .'. .. 't ',alLL17,tobeserveôiip()Íl . the föllowingpersojis, at theaddrësses 

~dthoiighthti1eils noted oëløw:
 

.~: . . ':". . :. :.:':~(":.:::.'", : . ,", ":,:. .,...:.,...:,..........
 

.Yìäi'(j,lií'ifiêd~1\:i:åliz" 

ltNmEK1'ti1tétfiåti¡~harLLc 

25(),N. Hi:hsard Ave 

Lebanon,ûR 97355
 

Via Elee.tonicMail: 

J, Røbert RoIJertsOì1, Esq.
 

Federal Tra:de Commission 

,600RennsylvanraAvenue, NW 

W. 'ashîì1gtôh DC 20580 . -".., , . 

,rtobertsoht&ftc .gov 

Dahm, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission 

Steven 

Pennsyivania Avenue, NW 

Washington,.DC 20580 

$dahr~ftc;gov 

600 

. .,:: (.l~


EW--. Wwsh 

parKerPÓe Adains8tBernsteinLLP 

~

. Three WachoviaCenter 

401S'out1j'Ti'ònS'treet, Suite 3000 

. ,'th~fï()tte;NGd282Q~ ...' 

Tël~phone; (104)335"90.52 

Facsimile:('Ï04)334..41Q6 
fB~(QW:~J 

UNITED STATES OF AMElUCA 

FEDERA TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFlCl OF ADMJNISTRATTVE'LAW JUDGES
 

In the Matter of
 

Docket No, 9327
 

Polyporc Intcrnatlonal, Inc.
 

It corporation. 

PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCOVERY MATERIAL 

For the purpose of protecting the interests of the Parties and Third Parties in the above- . 

captioned matter against improper use and disclosure .of confidential information submitted or 

produced in connection with this Matter: 

IT is HEREBY ORDERED THAT this Protective Order Governing Confidential 

Mateiial ("Protective Order") shall govern the handling of l,ll Discovery Material, as hereafter 

defined. 

DEFINITIONS 

For purposes of this Protective Order, the following definitions app.ly: 

I. "Confidential Material" shall mean all Discovery Material that is confidential or
 

proprietar info~ation produced in discovery, Such matenal is referred to in, an~ protected by, 

. section 6(0 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 D.S.C. § 46(f); sectìon 2 I of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, 15 D,S.C. § 57b-2, the FTC Rules ofPractîce, Sections 4.9, 4.10, 16 

, , ,


C.P.R. §§ 4.9, 4.10; and pre'Cedents thereunder. Confidentìal Material shaH include non-public

trade secret or other researh, development, commercjal or financial information, the, disclosure , i' 

of which would likely cause .commercial har to the Producing Part or to Respondent. The 
foiiowing is a non-exhaustive iist of 
 examples ofinformation that likely wil qualify for 

treatment as Confidential Material: strategic plans (involving pricing, marketing, researh aid 

development; product road maps, corporate allances, or mergers and acquisitions) that havonot 

been fully !mplemented or revealed to the public; trade secrets; customer-specific evaluations or 

data (e.g., prices, volumes, or revenues); sales, contracts; system maps; personnel fles and. 

evaluations; information suhjectto confdentiality 'o non-disclosure agreements; proprietary
 

technical or engineering information; proprietary financial data or projections; and proprietary 

consumer,customer, or market research or analyses applicable to current or future market 

conditions, the disclosure ofwruch could reveal Confidential MateriaL. Discovery Material will 

not be considered confidential if it is in the public domain. 

2. "Document" means the complete origin~1 or a true, corrects and complete 'copy 

and any non-identical copies orany written or graphic maner, no maner how produced, 

recorded, stored, or reproduced. "Document" includes, but is not limited to, any wrting, letter, 

envelope, telegraph, e-mail, meeting minute, memorandum, statement, affdavit, declaration, 

transcript of oral testimony, book, record, surVey, map" study" handwrtteifnot~, working paper, 

char, index, tabuiation, graph, drawing, chart, printout, microfim i~dex', computer readable 

media or othereJectronicaHy stored data, appointment book, diary, diary entry, calendar, 

organi'zer, desk, pad, telephone IIes~age slip, note ot interview or commimicàti.on, and any other 

data compilation from which inronnaiion cart be obtained, and includes all ,drafts and all copies 

of such Documents and every wrting or record that contains ai:y commentar, notes, or marking

whatsoever,n0~ appearng ~n the originaL. 

3. ' "Discovery Matenal" includes without limitation deposition testimony,exhibits, 

interrogatory responses, admissions, affdavits, declarations, Oocuments, tangible thing or 

.2- ,
 
answers to questions prodtlced pursuant to compulsory process or voluntarily in lieu thereof, 

and any other Documents or ii1fonnation produced or given to one Part by another Part or by a 

Third Par in connection with discovery in this Matter; Information taken from Discovery
 

.Mat~iial that reveals its substance,shaU also be considered Discovery Materia!. 

4. "Commission" shall refer to the FederalTrade Commission, or iiny of its 

employees, agents', attorneys, and all.other persoiis actin~ on its behal f, excluding persons 

retained as consultants or experts for purposes ofthís pJ'ceeding. 

. 5. .'Polypore" means Polypore International, 'Inc., iind its predecessors, divisions, 

and subsidiaries, and all persons acting or puiportingto act on its behalf.. , , 1 ' 6. "Respondent" means Polypore.


7. "Par" means the Commission or Polypore.
 

8. "Thiiid Party" means any natural person, partnership, corporation, associa,tion"or
 

this Matter and its employees, directors, offcers, other legal entity not iimned as a Par to 


~3. 
TEItS ANP ÇQNPITIONS OF PROTECTJV' ORDER
 

i. Any Docwnent or portion thereof submitted, 
 by Respondent ora Third Par

during the ,Federal Trade Commission,("FTC")inyestigation preceding this Mi:tter or during the 

course of proceedings in this Matter that is .entitled to confidentiality under the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, or any regulaiion, interpretation, or precedent concerning documents in the 

possession of the Commission, as well as anY infònnation taken from aliy portion of such 

. docuinent, shall be treiitedas Confidential Material for purposes ofthìs Protective Order: For 

purposes of this Protective Order, the identity of a Third Part submitting such Confidential 

Material shall also be treated as Confidential Material where the submitter has requested in 

'writing such confidential treatment. 

2. The Parties and, any Third Parties, in complying with jnfor~al discovery requests, 

this Matter may designate any 

n;:sponsíve document or portion thereof Confidential Material; including documents obtained by 

them from Third Pttrties pursuant to discovery Dr as otherwise obtained. 

disclosur-e requirements,' discovery demands o,r forn:äl process in 


3. The Paries, in conducting discovery from Third Parties, shall provide to each
 

Third Part a copy of this Protective Order so as to ,inform each such Third Part of his, her or its 

rights herein.
 

4.. A designation of confidentiality shall con~titute it representation in good faith and
 

after oareful determination that the material is not reasonably believed to be already in the public 

. domain and that
 , "
 counsel believes'the material so designaiedconstitutes'Confidential Material as

scripts di:fined in Paragriiph 1 of the Definitions ofthis Protective Order. Alldepositon trim 

-4­
-. 

shall be trated asConfldential MateriaL.
 

Par's designation of material as
 5. If any Part seeks to challenge' th¥ Producing 


ConfidentialMiiterial, the challenging Par 'Shall notify the Producing Part and all other Paries 

of the challenge. ,Such notice shall identity with specificity (i.e., by document control numbers, 

deposition transcript page and line reference, or other means sufficient to locate easily such 

challenged; The Producing Par may preserve its designation 

the reasons for the 

.materials) the desígnation 'being 


by providing the challenging Part and all other P.arties a wrtten statement of 


designation within five (5) business days of receiving notice of the confidentiality challenge. If 

its rights, the, Parties shall continue to treat the challenged the Producing Pary timely preserves 


absent a wrtten agreement with the Producing.Par or order material as Confidential Materials, 


of the Com:ission providing otherwise. 

6. If any conflct r:gal'ding a confidentiality designation arises and the Pariesand
 

a Part . Producing Par involved have failed to resolve the conf1çt via good~faith negotiations, 


make seeking to disclose Confidential Material or challenging a confidentiality designation may 


the written application to the hearing offcer for telier. The application shall be served on 


accompanied by a certification Producing Part and thtother Partiesto tbis Matter; and shall be 


that good.faith negotiations have failed to resolve the outstanding jssues. Tlie ProducingPait 

days after receiving a copy ofthe motion to and any other Ptlly shall have fi"e (5) business 


respond to the applicàtion. While an application is pendin:g, the Paries sMll maintain the pre. 

. application status of the Confidential Materiål.. Nothing in this Protective Order shall create a 

persuading the hearing offcer Qrthe propriety of a requested
 pre,sumption or aIter the burden of 


,disclosure or change .in designation. 

wSw 
7. ' The Parties shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of any designation or,
 

treatment of information as Confidential Material and the failure to do so promptly shall not 

preclude any subsequent objection to such designation or tr~atment, or any motion seeking 

pennission to disclose such materi'al to Persons not otherwise entitled to access under the terms. 

. of this Protective Order. . If Confidential Materíal is produced without the designation attached, ' 

the material shall be ireated as Confidential from the time the Producing Pary advises 

Complaint Counsel and Respondent's Counsel in writing that such material should be so 

The Parties 

shall return promptly or destroy the unmarked materials. 

designated ahd provides all the Parties with an appropriately labded replacement. 


on 8. Material produced in this Matter may be designated asconfidential by placing 


or affxing to the docum~nt containing such material (in such manner as will not interfere with 

the 'legibilty thereQf), or if an entire folder or box of documents is confidential by placing or 

,affxing to that folder or box, thede.signatioii ¡'CONFIDENTIAL.~TC Docket No. 9327" or any 

other appropriate notice that considered to be confidential materiaL. Confidential information i 

the co~tained in electronic documènts may also be designated as confidential by placing 


designation "CONFIDENTIAL~FTC Docket Np. 9327" or Elny other appropriate notice that
 

identifies this proceeding, on the face of the CD or DVD or other medium on which the
 

document is produced. The foregoing desigriatioo,Qf"CONFlDENTIAL-FTC Docket No. 9327" 

shall not be required for confidentiality to apply to documents iind infonnatiòn previously
 

produced voluntarily or pursuant to a Çivil Investigative Demand or subpoena during the
 

inwstigational phrase preceding this Matter for which confdential treatment wa~ requested.
 

Masked or otherwise redacted copies of documents maybe produoed where the portions deleted 

-6­
contain privileged mauer, provided that the copy produced sh~JJ indicate at the 'appropriate point 

that portions have been deleted and the reasons therefor. 

9. Confidential MateriaL. shall be disclosed only to; (a) the Administrative Law
 

Judge presiding over this proceeding, personnel assisting the Administrative Law Judge, the 

Commission and its employees, and personnel retained by the commission as experts or
 

consultants for this procee~ing, (b) Judges and other court personnel of any court having 

jurisdìction over any appellate proceedings involving this matter, (0) court reporters iii this 

maUer, (d) outside counsel of record for Resp~ndent, its associated attorneys and other 

employees of its law fimì(s), provided they are not employees of Resp6ndent, (e) Michael Shor, 

the preparation of 

hearng of this' proceeding including consultants, provided they are not affliated in any way with 

Respondent and have signed Exhibit A hereto, (g) any witliess or deponent who may have 

authored 01' received the information in question; (h) any individual who.was in the direct chain 

Polypore Special Counsel, (t) anyone retained to assist outside counsel in 


'of supervision of the author at the time the Discovery Material was created or received, except 

that this provision does not permit di~closure ofIndustrial Growthpartner or Warburg Pincus 

International documents to Polypore or fonner Microporous personnel who would not otherwise 

hçive had access to the Discovery Material.; (i) any employee or agent of the entity that created or 

received the Discovery Material;,(j anyone representing the auihor or recipient of the Discovery 

. Material in this Matter; and (k) any other lerson(s) authorized in wrting by the Producing Par. 

i O. Disclosure of confidential material to any person described in Paragraph 9 of this 

Protective Order shall be only for ihe purposes of the preparation and hearng of.his Matter, or 

any appeal therefrom, and for no other purose whatsoever; provided, however, that the 

-7­
Commission may, subject to taking appropriate steps to preserve the confidentiality of such 

material, use or dis?lose con'fidential materials as provided by its Rules of Practice; Sections 6(f) 

and 21 of the Federal Trade Commission Act; or any other legaí obligation imposed upon the 

Commission. 

i 1. In the event that any Confidential Material is contained in any pleading, motion
 

exhibit or other paper fied or to be tìled with the Secretary of the Commission; the Secretary
 

shall be so infonred by the Part filing such papers, and such papers shall be fied LInder seaL.
 

To the extent that such material was originally submitted by a Third Part, the Party including 

'the Matcdals 'in its paper's shall immediátely notify the submitter of such inclusion. Confidential

Material còntained in the papers shall remain under seal until further order of the Administrative. 

, Law Judge,; provided, hòwevet, that such papers may be furnished' to persons or ,entities,who , ' \ 

any . may receive Confidential Material pursuant to Paragraphs 9 or 10. Upon or after fiing 


paper containing Confidential Material, the filing part shall fie' on the public record a duplicate 

COpY" of the paper that does not reveal confideniiiil materiaL. Further, jf the proteclioi1 of any , 

such material expire,S, a Part may fie on the public record a duplicate copy w.hkhalso'contains 

the formerly protected materiaL.
 

. 12. If counsel plans to introduce into evidence at the hearng any document or
 

Iranscr:iptcontainirigConfìdential Material produced by another Part or by a 11ird Par, they
 

shall provide ten (10) days advance notice to the other Part or Thil'd Part for purposes öf 

iillowing that Par or Third Part t.o seek an oròerthat the document or transcriptbegninted in 

camera treatment. If that Par or Third Par wisheS in camera.treatment for the document or 

transcript; the Par or Third Par shall fie an appropriate mqtion with the Admirústrative Law 

'.8. 
~ 

Judge. Where in camera treatment is grted, a duplicate copy of such document pr transcript 

with the .Confidential Material deleted therefrom may be placed on the,pubÚc record. 

13. If any Par receives a discovery request in another proÙeding that may require


, ,
 the disclosure of Confidential MatedÌll submitted by another Paj1 or Third Par, the recipient 

of the discovery request shall promptly not-ity the submitter of receipt of such request. Unless a 

shorter time is mandated by an order,of a court; such notification'shall be in writing am! be , , 

received by the submitter ~t .Ieastl Obusiness days before production, and sball include a copy of 

this Protective Order and a cover letter that wil apprise the submitter of its rights hereunder. 

Nothing herein shall be construed as requi ring the recipient of the discovery request or anyone 

Confidential order requiring production of else covered by thisOtder to.challenge or appeal any 


Material, to subject itself to any penaltie'g for n.on-compliance with flny such order, or to seek any 

. reliciffromthe Administrative Law Judge or the Commission. The recipient shall not oppose the 

. submitter's efforts 
 to challenge the disclosure of confidential materiaL. In addition,nothing

Practice,' 16 Rule 4.11(e) of the Coimnission's Rules of 
 lwrein shull limit the applicabilty of 


C,F.R. §4. i I (e), to discovery requests in another proceeding that are directed to the Commission. 

J 4. . ,At the time that ary consultant oj' other person retained to assist counsel in the
 

preparation of this aciion concludes participaÜon in the.action,such pe1"Sn shall retu to
 

in tbe . counsel all copies of documents or portions thereof designated cO,nfidential that are 


or other papers containing possession of such person~ together with all notes, memoranda 


judicial revieW. the paries shall retur documents obtained in this action to their submitters, 

provided, however, that the Conimission's obligation to retii documents shall be governed by 

the Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. §4.12. 

-9. 

the provisions ofRule 4.12 of 

i 5', The inadvertent production or disclosure of any Discovery Material, which a
 

Producing Par claims should .riot have been produced or disclosed because of a privilege, wil 

.not be deemed to be Ii waiver Qlany privilege to which the Producing Par wo,uld have been 

entitled had the privileged Discovery Material not inadvertently been produced or disclosed. 

document shall not in itself be ncemed a waiver of 

any privileged applicable to any other documents relating to the subject rratt~r. 

The inadvertent production of a privileged 


16. This Protective Order shall not apply to the disclosure by a Producing Party orits
 

counsel of its own Confidential MateriaL. 

Order, insofar as they restrict the 

communication wid use of co~fidential discovery matel'al, shall, without written p~rmission of 

the Commission, continue to be binding ufterthe conclusion of 

17. The provisions of this Protective 


the submitter or further order of 


this proceedin,g.
 

ORDERED: ()M~

D. Michael 'Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Date: October 23, 2008
 

.-10­
EXHIBIT A ,
 

UNTED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

PolypoJ'c Intcrrationa I, hie. 

) 

) 

Docket NQ. 9327 

a corporation. ) 

): 

DECLAlt TION CONCERNING PROTECTIVE oim,ER
 

GOVERNING: DISCOVERY MA TERlAL . 

I" , hereby declare and certify the following to be tnie: . ' 

1, (Statement of employment)
 

2, I have read the "Protective Order" governing Discovery Material ("Protective
 

. Order") issued, by 'the Commission On October 23,2008, in cpnhection wìth th.eabovo"captioned (as Matter. 1 undei'ståtid the restrctions on my access to and use,of any Confidential Material 


that term is used. ih the Pr,otective Order) in this ,Matter, and I agree to abide by thePrQtecti~e 

Order. . 

3, I understaçl that the restrictions on my use of such Confidentiality Material
 include: ' 

preparng . a. that I wíÎ\ use such Confidential Material only for the purpose of 


this proceeding and foi' this proceeding, and hearing(s),and any appeal of 


for no other purpose; 

b. that I wil not disclose such Confidential Material to anyone, expect as
 

pennitted by' the Protective Order; 

c. , thiit I will use, store and mainta.in the Co~fidential Material i~such a way
 

as to ensurè its continued protected status; and 

d. that, upon the termination ormy participation in tils proceeding, I wil ,
 

or other papers çontaining promptly return all Confidential Materials and all notes, memoranda, 


, Confid~ntiar Material, to Gomplaint Ci)unsel or Respondent's Outside Counsel as appropriate. 

4. 1 under$tad that 1fl,am receiving Confidentiál Material as an Ex;pertConsultat,
 

of Confidential ,as that term is definedlri this Protective Qrder, the restrictions on my use 


, -I i- . 
I 

i 

Material also include the duty lldobligation'to:
 

a. maintain such Confidential Material in separate locked room(s) or locked
 

cabinet(s) when such Confidential Material is not being reviewed; 

b, retum such Confidential Material to Complaint Counselor Respondent's
 

Outside Counsel, åS 'appropriate, upon the conclusion of my assignment or 

retention, or upon conclusion of this Matter; and 

c. use such' Confidential Material and the information contained therein 

solely for the purpose of rendering consulting services ton Part to ths 

Matter, including'províding testimony in 
 judicial or administrative 

proceedings arising out oftbis Matter. 

5. I am fully aware that, pursuant to Section 3A2(h) of the FTC Rules of Practice, 16
 

C.F.R. § 3.42(h), my failure to comply with the, terms of the Protective Order may constitute 

contempt of 
 the Conunission and may subject me to sanctions.

Date: 

.Full Name (Typed or Printed) 

Signature 

.12.
 

(
 
EXHIBIT C
 

PPAB 1017548v1 
Darius C. Ogloza 606 Montgomery Sfreel, Sulle 2000 

Direct Dial: 416-396-8149 San Francisco, California 94111-6638 

darlus.oglozatmlw.com	 Tel: +1,415,391,0600 Fax: +1,415.395.6096 

ww.lw.com 

FIRM I AFFILIATE OFFICES LA THAM&WATKI NSLLP Abu Dhabi Munich 

Barclona New Jersey 

Brussels New York 

Chicago Northern Virginia 

Doha Orange County 

December 3, 2008 Dubal Paris 

Frankfurt Rome 

VIA EMAIL Hamburg 

Hong Kong 

San Diego 

San Francisco 

London Shanghai 

Los Angeles Silcon Valley 

Eric D. Welsh Madrid Singapore 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Three Wachovia Center, Suite 3000 

Milan 

Moscow 

Tokyo 

Washington. P,C, 

401 South Tryon Street File No, 030380-0007 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Re: In the Matter of 
 Polyp ore International. Inc.. Case No. 9327

Dear Eric: 

Pursuant to a stipulated order dated November 18, 2008 entered in the above action, 

counsel for ENTEK International LLC ("ENTEK") and Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") 

have engaged in two telephonic meet and confer conferences with the goal of resolving all, or as 

many as possible, of the document discovery requests that have been directed at ENTEK 

documents in connection with the above proceeding. This letter memorializes our understanding 

of the curent status of the paries' areas of agreement and disagreement as to the document 

specifications that have to date been the subject of our discusstons. We intend to address 

additional issues of agreement and continuing contention concbrning the steps we believe must 

be followed in order to ensure that any confidential business infonnation produced to Polypore

.wil receive appropriate treatment.
 

In this regard, the paries have sought to balance the burden on ENTEK, a third.pary to

producing confidential business infonnation 

to a direct competitor or sole competitor, as the case may be, against enabling Polypore to obtain 

materials essential for its defense in the above proceeding. 

the above proceeding, and the special sensitivity of 


Counsel for ENTEK and Polypore have been 
 able to move substantially towards a

many ofthe objections to production advanced by ENTEK in connection with its 

previously-fied Motion for Protective OrdëI', dated November 6,2008 and in a letter dated 

November 18, 2008 to the Subpoena Duces Tecum served on ENTEK by Polypore on or about 

November 6, 2008. 

resolution of 


the areas of agreement between 

the paries; and (ii) our position as regards issues of continuing contention regarding the 

The proposals below summarze (i) our understading of 


document specifications put at issue by the paries. 
Erlç O. Welsh
 

Deçember 3, 2008
 

Page 2
 

LA THAM&WATKI NSLL 

The high-level contested issues include the following: 

(i) the default date cut off, which ENTEKproposes to set to January 1, 2006, the outside date of the Commission's request and the focus of 
 the Commission's complaint dated September 

20, 2008 ("Complaint"); 

customer pricing data on a "no names" basis, to 

protect against the potentially devastating consequences to ENTEK and competition in the (ii) the production of a limited set of 


industr from potential disclosure of ENTEK pricing information to Polypore. 

As to the date cut off, the wholesale request of documents and information going back to 

Januar 2003 is extremely unlikely to produce any materials relevant to the allegations in the 

Complaint. Specifically, the Complaint is focused on the effects of 
 the February 29,2008 

Microporous acquisition. Any "substantial lessening of competition," which is the core theory of 

harm put forward in Paragraphs 38 and 49 of 
 the Complaint, covers the period from February 29, 

2008 to the present. A closer look at the sub-parts of 
 Paragraph 38 in paricular (b) - (h) 

confirms that the Complaint is in this regard entirely forward looking as of 
 February 28, 2008.

Similarly, the monopolization claim in Paragraphs 39-46,53 is focused entirely on the 2006­

2007 period, with the sole exception of the alleged market division agreement with 

Hollngsworth & Vose, dating back to 2001 (see Paragraphs 40, 41, 47). As the complaint sets 

out two relevant time periods, Februar 29,2008 - present and 2006-2007, a wholesale request 

for information going back to 1/1/2003 is unjustifiably burdensome in light of the significant
 

costs to ENTEK and the lack of relevant information likely to be obtained as a result of a search 

past a general January 2006 cut off date. 

As discussed, we are not categorically opposed to reaching back past Januar 2006 in 

certain justified instances, for example with respect to information relating to Hollngswort &

V ose, we merely object to a default cut off date that arbitrarily imposes significant costs on 

ENTEK for no discernable purpose. We tliereforeask that Polypore indicate the specifications 

for which it believes a broaderproductiön is required and a brief explanation for why such a 

broader production is required. 

That said, here are our 
 proposals.

Proposals 

Request Nos. 1 and 2: ENTEK wil produce a wrtten response listing all products in 

development by ENTEK or any Third Pary to compete with Polypore lead acid battery 

separators dating back to on or after January 1, 2006 to the present. 

Request No.3 and 4: ENTEK wil produce a wrtten response listing manufacturing or 

production facilties for lead acid battery separators in which ENTEK maintains any ownership 

interest dating back to on or after Januar 1,2006 to the 
 present. The written response wil 

include the following information dating back to on or after January 1,2006 to the present: (a) 

the capital expenditure for the constnictionànd start-up or expansion of such facilty, (b) the date 

on which plans for such facilty or expansion of such facilty were approved, (c) the date on 
Ene D. Welsh 

Deeemblr 3, 2008
 

Piige3
 

LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP 

which constrction began on such facilty, (d) the date of commissioning or starp of such 

facilty, (e) the production capacity of such facilty, (f) the type ofproduct(s) produced at such 

facilty, (g) the anticipated enduse(s) of 
 the products manufactured at such facility, (h) the 

technology used at such facilty to manufacture lead acid battery separators and (i) the cost of the 

lead acid battery separators manufactured and sold at such facilty, including without limitation 

the. cost of manufacturng and sellng such products, including shipping costs. 

Request No.5: ENTEK wil produce responsive documents, dated on or after Januar i, 

2006 to the present, from the fies of no more than thee (3) custodians and on the basis of a list 

of specific Ilearch terms to be agreed upon by the paries. 

Request No.6: ENTEK wil produce copies of 
 the supply agreements and proposals for 

supply agreements, excluding drafs, dated on or after Januar 1, 2006 to the present, between 

ENTEK and (a) Jei, (b) Exide, (c) EnerSys, (d) East Penn, (e) Crown, (f) Trojan, (g) US Battery, 

(h) C&D, or (i) any other entity manufacturng lead acid battenes for sale in Nort America, for 

the sale by ENTEK to such entity of lead acid battery separators. 

Request Nos. 7-8. 10-13: ENTEK wil produce documents suffcient to show the 

information sought by these requests dated on or after Januar 1, 2006 to the present. 

Request Nos. 14- i 6: ENTEK wil produce a written response reflecting the information 

sought on a customer-blind basis dating back to on or after January i, 2006 to the present. 

Request Nos. 9. 17.25.29: ENTEK wil produce documents suffcient to show the 

information sought by these requests dated on or after Januar 1,2006 to the present. 

Request Nos. 18-23.27: ENTEK wil produce written responses reflecting information 

sought by these requests dating back to on or after January 1, 2006 to the present. 

Request No. 24: Polypore has withdrawn this request. 

Request Nos. 26. 35: ENTEK wil produce documents sufficient to show the information 

sought by these requests dated on or after January i, 2006 to the present. 

Request No. 28: ENTEK will produce documents suffcient to show customer testing or 

qualification of any lead acid battery separator produced by ENTEK dated on or after January 1, 

2003 to the present. 

30. 33. 34 and 36-38: ENTEK wil produce documents in response to these 

requests dated on or after Januar i, 2006 to the present. 

Request Nos. 


Request Nos. 3 i and 32: ENTEK wil produce documents sufficient to show the 

information sought by these requests dated on or after January 1, 2006 to the present. 

Request Nos. 39and 40: ENTEK wil produce documents in response to these requests. 
"rle D. Wehsh 

Døcember 3, 20D8 

Pege 4
 

LATHAM&WATKI NSm 

ENTEK will seek reimburse~ent for costs incured in connection with the search for and 

production of the materials requested by Polypore. 

As indicated above, ENTEK wil propose procedures for the handling of its responses by 

Polypore and the group of 
 individuals to whom ENTEK's documents may be disclosed in a 

separate letter which we wil send to your attention shortly. . 

Best regards, 

Darius Ogloza 

of 

a- q-. LA THAM & WATKIS LLP 

cc: Hano F. Kaiser
 
Message Page 1 of 1 

Welsh, Eric D. 

From: Welsh, Eric D. 

Sent: Friday, December 05,20086:21 PM
 

To: DARIUS.OGLOZA~LWcom; HannoXaiser(§lw.com; 'Brett.Collins~lw,com' 

Subject: In re Polypore International, Inc, Docket No 9327 

Darius 

I just left you a brief message concerning the subpoena. I spoke with my client. We agree with Hanno's 

proposaL. Mr. Shor will not have access to ENTEK's production and we will handle that in a letter between our 

firms. I wanted to get that to you quickly so you can talk with your client and draw our discussions to a 

conclusion, As I mentioned, if your client is not willing to provide documents and information for the time period of 

January 1, 2003 to the present, then please prepare the motion to the Administrative Law Judge. I think the clock 

should start on this issue today. 

Also, as I mentioned, we need to know the identity of three custodians, I would appreciate it if you would provide 

those names to me as soon as possible. As i also mentioned, we are willing to proceed with the "sufficient to 

show" and "written response" noted in your December 3 letter provided that it is without prejudice to our right to 

request specific additional information from ENTEK should we view it necessary and provided that a witness 

would be made available to testify about the written responses, Finally, as we discussed, we need the identity of 

the customers but I understand that ENTEK's objection there is now moot with our agreement about Mr, Shor, 

I look forward to hearing from you very soon with respect to ENTEK's compliance with the subpoena. Thank you 

again for your time and efforts. I thought the conversation was productive and, in light of what you said, this 

should expedite ENTEK's production. 

Best regards, 

Eric Welsh 

Eric Welsh 

Partner 

Ext. 9052 

1/14/2009
 
Welsh, Eric D. 

From: Welsh, Eric D, 

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:48 PM 

To: 'Hanno. Kaiser(glw .com' 

Cc: DARIUS. OGLOZA(gL Wcom; Brett. Collins(glw.com 

Subject: RE: ENTEK; discovery agreement 

Darius; 

Thank you for your letter. I have talked with my client and we have the following in
 

response. 

First, as we discussed over the telephone, Hanno's proposal on confidentiality was to
 

treat certain information as highly confidential, and it was that information that we
 

agreed with you Mr. Shor would not see. There was no discussion of "Safe Locations."
 

Now, the proposed agreement from you not only excludes Mr. Shor from all confidential
 

documents, but it also includes the restriction of having the "Most Sensitive
 

Information" reviewed at only "Safe Locations" during normal business hours. This is


unreasonable, excessive and unnecessary. In order to move this along, we wi 11 agree to 

exclude Mr. Shor as to all of Entek r s production, but I cannot agree to the Safe Location
 

provision as it is far too restrictive on my ability to engage in discovery and prepare
 

for trial and imposes undue expense to me and my economists. We have come quite far in
 

our repeated concessions to address confidentiality concerns of your client. If this is
 

not satisfactory, then please file your motion.
 

Second, as to the list of those individuals in the "Disclosure Group," it would need to
 

include our industry expert once we have notified you per paragraph 6. The Group would
 

also need to include Entek i s witnesses, court reporters, the court, and the others
 

referred to in paragraph 9 of the Protective Order (excluding Mr. Shor).
 

Third, we will agree to notify you of the industry expert, but absent your filing a
 

motion, we would be permitted to show the documents to such person ten days after our
 

notification to you.
 

Fourth, Entek Information must be able to be removed from Restricted Locations for
 

deposi tions and hearings. I assume the FTC would want to receive a copy too, but your
 

agreement excludes that ability.
 

Fifth, I would like the return of Entek information (paragraph 5) to parallel the language
 

in the Protective Order.
 

sixth, your letter does not mention our right to seek additional information should the
 

written responses or sufficient to show productions not fully respond to the level of
 

inquiry sought. As I said, you would reserve your right to object.
 

Seventh, your letter does not mention our right to have a witness tendered to respond to
 

questions regarding such responses.
 

Eighth, please verify that the response to Request Nos. 3 and 4 will cover any such
 

facility owned directly or indirectly by ENTEK.
 

Ninth, you have limited the custodian to Mr. Weerts. We understood that you were
 

proposing three custodians to search. We were agreeable to that proposal but needed to
 

know the identity of those custodians. I did no& think this was unreasoiiable. You have
 

now dropped the inquiry to a single person in this organization. We request you also


search Mr. Graham Fraser Bell's and Rob Keith i s files. 

Tenth, please include documents covering North America and the World in response to


Request No.6. 

I think we have now narrowed all of the issues down. If there is anything left that we
 

need to discuss, let me know today. Otherwise, please revise the letter accordingly and
 

send it to me for signature or file your motion with the ALJ.
 
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
 

Eric Welsh
 

Eric Welsh
 

Partner 

Ext. 9052
 

From: Hanno. Kaiser~lw. com (mailto:Hanno. Kaiser~lw. coml
 

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7: 32 PM
 

To: Welsh, Eric D.
 

Cc: DARIUS. OGLOZA~LW. com; Brett. Collins~lw. com
 

Subject: ENTEK; discovery agreement
 

Dear Eric: 

As discussed, please find attached our proposed discovery agreement. Please let us know if


you have any questions. 

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.kaiser~lw.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://ww.lw.com/docs/irs.pdf


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

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

. 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
 

2 
Welsh, Eric D. 

From: Hanno. Kaisen§lw.com 

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

To: Welsh, Eric D. 

Cc: DARIUS.OGLOZA~LW.com; Brett.Collns~lw.com 

Subject: DRAFT Discovery Agreement ENTEKlPolypore 

FinaIOO1.PDF (225
 

KB) 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) The Safe Location concept has been removed.
 

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

(3) As to the industry expert, the new provision strikes a reasonable compromise. We have
 

lQ 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) Documents may now be removed from Safe Locations for the purposes you identified.
 

(5) The process of returning ENTEK documents now follows the concept in the PO.
 

(6) polypore i s reservation of rights in case of claims of insufficient compliance with the agreement have been clarified.
 

(7) Polypore has the right to call a witness; that, in my view, had already been part of
 

the previous draft.
 

(8) Request Nos. 3 and 4 will cover facilities owned directly or indirectly by ENTEK; we
 

added language to clarify that point.
 

(9) We're fine with adding Graham Fraser Sell per your request. In lieu of Rob Keith,
 

however, we propose Greg Humphrey, North & South America Account Manager. Greg is a much
 

better and more direct source for detailed information about actual or potential
 

contracts, separator prices, pölypore and Microporous (i.e., the information requested in
 

Spec. 5) than Rob Keith. Moreoyer, the vast majority of relevant information requested in
 

Spec. 5 in Rob Keith' files would likely be duplicative 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 criticäi time of the business year would be significant and
 

harmful to the company .!ncluding Rob Keith would thus be unduly burdensome.
 

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

Best, 

Hanno 

Hanno F. Kaiser I LATHA & WATKINS LLP I 505 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111­

6538 I P: 415.395.8856, F: 415.395.8095, E: hanno.kaiserWlw.com I Admitted in NY. CA bar
 

admission pending.
 

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

1 
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://ww.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
 

2 
Darlu8 C. Ogloza	 505 Montgomeiy Street, Suite 2000 

Diret Dial: 41 S-395-8149 San Francisco. California 94111-6538 

darlus.ogloza\tlw.com Tel: +1.415.391.0800 Fax: +1,415.395.8095 

ww.lw.co 

FIRM I AFFILIATE: OFFICE:S 

LA T HAM & W AT KIN 5 UP	 Abu Dhebl Munich 

Bercelona New Jersey 

Brussels New York 

Chicago Northern Virginia 

Doha Orange County 

December 11, 2008	 Dubal Paris
 

Frankfurt Rome
 

Hamburg San Diego VIA EMAIL Hong Kong san FranciSco 

London Shanghai 

Los Angeles Silcon Valley 

Madrid Singapore Eric D. Welsh Milan Tokyo Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP Moscow Washington, D,C.

Three Wachovia Center, Suite 3000 

401 South Tryon Street
 File No. 030380-0007

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Re: In the Matter of Polyp ore International. Inc.. Case No. 9327 

Dear Eric: 

This letter, if countersigned by you, modifies the subpoena duces tecum served on 

ENTEK International LLC ("ENTEK") by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on 

November 6, 2008 ("Subpoena") and constitutes an agreement ("Agreement") between Polypore 

and ENTEK Gointly, the "paries"), resolving all discovery issues and disputes raised in 

connection with the Subpoena. The Agreement affords additional protection to documents and 

other information to be produced by ENTEK in response to the Subpoena ("ENTEK 

at the same time ensures that a group of outside counsel and advisors to 

Polypore, defined below, wil obtain access to ENTEK Information that Polypore requires for its 

defense in a timely manner. The Agreement shall Dot limit Polypore's right to seek relevant 

deposition testimony from ENTEK personnel, or additional ENTEK Information if Polypore 

Information"), and 


the level of inquiry described 

in this letter. Correspondingly,.ENTEK reserves it right to object to such requests. 

believes that the ENTEK Information pröducèd fails to respond to 


I. General Ae:reements 

for the Subpoena is Januar 1,2003. (1) Date cutoff: The default date cut off 


(2) Disclosure Group and Michael L. Shor: Disclosure ofENTEK Information is limited 

to the following individuals: (a) outside artitfstHtigätioQ cciUneI,Le., Parker Poe Adams & 

Bernstein LLP ("Parker Poe") attorneys stffed on the matter; (b) outside antitrust economists 

(e.g., CRAI, CompassLexecon, LECG, Brattle Group) retained by Polypore as consultants or

testifying experts for purposes of 
 this litigation (I'Economic 'experts"); (c) Approved Industry

Experts as defined in paragraph (5) below; Administtative Law Judge
 (d) 	 presiding over this 

proceeding, personnel assisting the AdministrativeLaw Judge, the Commission and its 

experts or consultants for 

this proceeding; (e) judges and other court personnel of any court having jurisdiction over any 

employees, and antitrst economists retained by the Commission as 

Eric D. Welsh
 

December 11, 2008
 

Page 2
 

LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP 

appellate proceedings involving this matter; (t) cour reporters in this matter; (g) any ENTEK 

witness or deponent who may have authored or received the ENTEK Information; and (h) any 

other person( s) to whom ENTEK agrees to in writing. Each individual member of the Disclosure 

Group identified in (2)(a)(b)(c) and (h) shall sign and retu a copy oftms letter to Brett CoIlns, 

Esq., LA TRAM & WATKINS LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Sari Francisco, CA 94111 

(brett.coIIns~lw.com) prior to accessing any ENTEK Information. For purposes of clarfication, 

Michael 1. Shor is not a member of the Disclosure Group, and no ENTEK Information may be 

shared, disclosed, or made available in any way, directly or indirectly, to him. 

(3) Access to ENTEK Information: In order to prevent disclosure ofENTEK Information 

to Polypore beyond the Disclosure Group, as defined in (2) above, all ENTEK Information shall 

only be maintained in and accessed from the offices of Parker Poe and/or those of the Economic 

Experts (together, the "Restricted Locations"). In the event that ENTEK Information is imported 

into a document review system, such ENTEK Information shall be accessed only from terminals 

located in a Restricted Location. Access to any document review system shall be password 

protected. The distribution of passwords shaH be limited to members of thè Disclosure Group. 

No ENTEK Information may be removed from the Restricted Locations except as necessary to 

transfer ENTEK Information from one Restrcted Location to another (e.g., from Parker Poe to 

the Economic Experts). ENTEK Information that will be used as exhibits at depositions, hearngs 

or tral may be removed from the Restricted Locations for that purose only and, after use, must 

be retured to a Restricted Location. For purposes of clarification, Polypore may provide the 

Commission with á copy of ENTEK Information produced in response to the Subpoena as 

required by the Scheduling Order, dated October 22, 20.oS. 

(4) Retum ofENTEK Information: Upon the completion of 
 the present proceedings, the

Disclosure Group shall retu all ENTEK Information obtained in this action to ENTEK and no 

copies may be maintained. 

(5) Industr experts: Should Polypore retain industr experts - as opposed to Economic 

Experts - in connection with tms proceeding and wish to disclose ENTEK information to such 

its intent and identify the industry expert(s) to whom it 

wishes to disclose such information along with suffcient information about the proposed 

experts, Polypore shall notify ENTEK of 


proposed expert is acceptable (including, but 

not limited to, a curculum vitae). Moreover, and to the same end, Polypore shall at ENTEK's 

expert(s) to permit ENTEK to ascertain whether the 


request make any proposed industr expert(s) available for one telephone interview not to exceed 

one (l) hour. Any industry expert shall not have any past or present connection with Polypore 

and shall not accept any employment, consulting, or similar position with Polypore for a period 

of two (2) years after the final resolution 'oftms proceeding. For puroses of clarfication, the 

industry expert must under no circumstances disclose ENTEK Information to anyone outside of 

the Disclosure Group. ENTEK shall have the opportty to fie a motion for protective order 

to stop disclosure ofENTEK Information to the 

noticed industr expert(s) within (10) business days of receipt of the notice. In the event that 

ENlEK does not seek a protective order, the noticed expert(s) shall be considered approved after 

with the Administrative Law Judge, seeking 


expiration of 
 the ten (10) business day period or written approval notice from ENTEK, 

wmchever is earlier ("Approved Industry Experts"). 
Eric O. Weliih 

December 11, 2008 

Page 3
 

LATHAMe.WATKI NSLLP
 

(6) No waiver of privilege: For puroses of clarification, the paries do not interpret this 

Agreement as requiring ENTEK to waive its right to witlùold from production any information 

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

interest doctrine or any other applicable discovery privilege or exemption. 

acknowledge and agree tht breach ofthe General Agreements (7) Remedies: The paries 


may cause irreparable injury to ENTEK for which monetary damages are not a suffcient 

remedy. Accordingly, ENTEK may seek injunctive relief and any other available equitable 

remedies to enforce these provisions without posting a bond if otherwise required by law, For 

puroses of clarification, this provision in no way limits ENTEK's rights to seek moneta, 

including puntive damages for breach of this agreement and/or improper disclosure of ENTEK 

Infonnation from Polypore, Parker Poe, the Economic Experts, and other natual persons or 

entities as the case may be. Moreover, this Agreement shall in no way limit ENTEK's rights 

under the Protective Order dated October 23,2008. 

II. Ael'eements With Respect to Specifc Requests 

Request Nos. 1 and 2: ENTEK shall produce a written response listing all products in 

development by ENTEK or any Third Pary to compete with Polypore lead acid battery 

separators. 

Request No.3 and4: ENTEK shall produce a written response listing manufacturng or 

direct or production facilties for lead acid battery ¡separators in which ENTEK maintains any 


indirect ownership interest. The wrtten response shall include the following information: (a) the 

capital expenditue for the constrction and start-up or expansion of such facilty, (b) the date on 

which plan for such facilty or expansion of such facilty were approved, (c) the date on which starp of such facilty, (e) construction began on such facilty, (d) the date of commissioning or 


such facilty, (g) the production capacity of such facilty, (f) the type ofproduct(s) produced at 


the anticipated end use(s) of 
 the products manufactured at such facilty, (h) the technology used

the lead acid battery
 at such facilty to manufacture lead acid battery separators and (i) the cost of 


separators manufactured and sold at such facilty, including without limitation the cost' of 

manufactung and sellng such products, including shipping costs. 

responsive documents from the fies of 

Dan Weerts, Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Graeme Fraser-Bell, Vice President 

International Sales, and Greg Humphrey, North & South America Account Manager, on the basis 

Request No.5: ENTEK shall produce copies of 


of a list of specific search terms to be agreed upon by the paries.
 

Request No.6: ENTEKshall produce copies of the supply agreements and proposals for

supply agreements, excluding drafts, between ENTEK and (a) JCI, (b) Exide, (c) EnerSys, (d)

East Penn, (e) Crown, (f) Trojan, (g) US Battery, (h) C&D, or (i) any other entity manufactung 

lead acid batteries for sale in North America, for the sale by ENTEK to such entity of lead acid 

battery separators.
 
Erlc D. Welsh
 

Dllember ii, 2008
 

Page 4
 

LATHAM&WATKINSup 

Request Nos. 7-8. 10-13 :ENTEK shall produce documents sufcient to show the 

information sought by these requests. .
 

Request Nos. 14-16: ENTEK shall produce a wrtten response reflecting the information 

sought. 

Request Nos. 9. 17.25.29: ENTEK shall produce documents sufficient to show the 

information sought by these requests. 

Request Nos. 18-23.27: ENTEK shall produce written responses reflecting information 

sought by these requests. 

Request No. 24: Polypore has withdrawn this request. 

Request Nos. 26. 35: ENTEK shall produce documents suffcient to show the information 

soüght by these requests. 

Request No. 28: ENTEK shall produce documents suffcient to show customer testing or 

qualification of any lead acid battery separator produced by ENTEK. 

Request Nos. 30. 33. 34 and 36-38: ENTEK shall produce documents in response to these 

requests. 

Request Nos. 3 I and 32: ENTEK shall produce documents suffcient to show the 

information sought by these requests. 

Request Nos. 39 and 40: ENTEK shall produce documents in response to these requests. 

ENTEK wil seek reimbursement for costs incurred in connection with the search for and 

production of the materials requested by Polypore. 

Best regards, 

~~O~/ß.t-. 

of LA THAM & WATKINS LLP 

Counsel for ENTEK International LLC 

Eric D . Welsh 

of PARR POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP 

Counsel for Polypore International, Inc. 

cc: Hano F. Kaiser
 
Eric D. Welih 

December 11, 2008 

Page 5
 

LA THAM&. W A TK IN SLLP 

Disclosure GrouD Siimatures 

! '
 

Name 

Affiliation 

Date 

Name 

Affliation 

Date 

Name 

Affiliation 

Date 

Name 

Affiliation 

Date 

Name 

Affiliation 

Date 

Name 

Affiliation 

Date 

., 
EXHIBIT D
 

PPAB 1017548,,1 
OlriUIl e. OglOZl	 606 Montgomery Street. Sulle 2000 

Dlrec; Dial: 41S.39ij.8149	 San FrancIsco, eillfomia 94111.8536 

d8rlus.ogloza~lw,com	 Tel; +1.416.91.0600 Fax: +1,41M96.6096 

ww.lw.com 

FIRM I MFILLiTë OFFICES LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP	 Abu Dhabi Munich 

Barcelona New Jersay 

Brussels New York 

Chicago Northam Virginia 

Doha Olange Co\inty 

December 22, 2008	 Oubll Pans 

Frinkfvrt Rome 

Hamburg San Diego VIA EMA1L Hong Kong San Franclsco 

London Shanghal 

Los Angalas Silcon Valley 

Madnd Singapore 

Milan Tokyo 

Eric D. Welsh 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP Moscow Washington, D.C,

Three Wachovia Center, Suite 3000 

401 South Tryon Street Fila No. 030360-0007 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Re: In the Matter ofPolYPQre International. Inc., Case No. 9327
 

Dear Eric: 

This letter, if countersigned by you, modifies the subpoena duces tec.um served on 

ENEK International LLC ("ENTEK") by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on 

an agreement ("Agreement") between Polypore 

and ENTK (jointly, the "parìes"),tesolving all discovery issues imd disputes raised in 

connection with the Subpoena. The Agreement affords additional protection to documents and 

other infonnation to be produced by ENTEK in response to the Subpoena ("ENTEK 

Infonnation"), and at the same time ensures that a group of outside counsel and advisors to 

Polypore, defined below, Will obtain access to ENTEK Information that Polypore requires for its 

November 6,2008 ("Subpoena") and constitutes 


defense in a timely maner. The Agreement shall not limit Polypore's right to interview or seek 

relevant deposition testimony from ENTEK personnel, or additonal ENTEK Information if 

Polypore believes that the ENTEK Infonnation produced fails to respond to the level öf inquiry 

described in this letter. Correspondingly, ENTEK reserves it right to object to such requests. 

I. General Aereements 

(1) Date cutoff: The default date cut off for the Subpoena is January I, 2003. 

(2) DisclosuriLQroup and MicÌ1ael L. S)Jor: Disclosure ofENTEK Inforration is limited to the following individuals: (a) 
 outside artitrustlitigätion counsel, Le., Parker Poe Adams & 

Bernsteiri LLP ("Parker Poe") attom~ys staffed on the matter; (b) outside antitrust economists 

(e.g., CRAI, CompassLexecon, LECG, Bratte Gtoup) retained by Polypore as consultats or 

testifying expert for purposes of this litigation ("Economic Experts"); (c) Approved Industry 

Experts as defined in paragraph (5) below; (d) Administrative Law Judge presiding over this 

Administrative Law Judge, the Qommission and its 

employees, and ailtitrusteconomists retained by the Commission as experts or consultants for 

this proceeding; (e) judges and other court personnel of any court having jurisdiction over any 

proceeding, personnel assisting the 

Eric: D. Wel,h 

Deçember 22, 2008 

Page 2
 

LATHAM&WATKI NS~L' 

appellate proceedings involving this matter; (f) court reporters in 
 ths matter; (g) any ENTEK 

witness or deponent who. may have authored or received tbe ENTEK Information; and (h) any 

other person(s) to whom ENTEK agrees to in writing. 
 Each individual member of 
 the Disclosure Group identified in (2)(a)(b)(c) and (h) shall sign and retu a copy of 
 this letter to Brett Collns, 

Esq., LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 941 1 I 

Qirett.collns(glw.com) prior .to accessing JUy ENTEK Information. For purposes of clarification, 

Michael L. Shor is DQ a member of the Disclosure Group, and no ENTEK Information may be 

shared, disclosed; ot made available in any Way, directly or indirectly, to him. 

(3) Access to BNTEK Infomation: In order to prevent disclosure ofENTEK Infoi'ation to Polypre beyond the 
 Disclosure,Group, as defined in (2) above, aU ENTEK Infonnatión shall 

only be maintained in.and accessed from the offioes of Parker Poe, those of the Economic Experts and/or thosè of 
 the Approved Industr Experts (tog~thet, the "Restricted Locations"). In 

the event that ENTEK lnforation is imported into â document review system, such ENTEK 

Information shall be accessed only from terminals located ina Restricted Location. Access to 

any document review system shall be password protected. The distribution of passwords shan be 

lißUted to members ofthe Oisclosure Group. NoENTEK Information may be removed from the 

Restricted Locations except as necessar to transfer ENTEK Information from one Restricted 

Location to another (e.g., from Parker Poe to the' Economic Experts). BNTK Information that 

wil be used as exhibits at depositions, hearings or trial may be removed from the Restrcted 

Locations for that purose only and, after use,.must be retured to a Restricted Location. For 

purposes of clarification, Polypöre rtây provide the Commìssionwith a 
 copy ofBNTEK 

Information produced in respofiše to the 
 Subpoena as required by the Scheduling Order, dated 

October 22, 2008. 

(4),RetUt off:~'TEK Informl:ti~i': Upon,the completion of the ptesent proceedings and 

JUy related appeal, the Disclosure Group shall tetu all ENTEK Information obtained in this 

action to ENTEK and no copies 
 may be maintained. 

(5) Industr experts': Should Polyporeretan industr expert - as opposed to Economic Expert - in connecIiöii .wlth this proceeding and wish to disclose ENTEK inforiätion to such 

experts, Polypore shall notif)ENTEKof its intent ánd Identify the industr expert(s) to whom it 

wishes to disclose such inforiation along with suffcient information about the proposed. 

expert(s) to pemiitENTEK to ascertain whether the proposedexpèrt is acceptable (including, but 

not limited to, a curiculum vitae). Moreover, and to thestte end, Polypore shall at ENTEK's 

request make ariy proposed industr expett(s) available foi one telephon"e interview not to exceed 

one (1) hour. Any industT expert shall not have been 
 employed by Polypore and shall not be 

employed by Polypòre or provide "consultihgservices to Polypore (outside of the present matter) 

for a period of two (2) years after the fiIialresolution of this proceeding.Fot purposes of . 

clarification, the industry expert Iillst under no circumstances disolose ENtEK Information to 

anyone outside of 
 the Disclosure Group. ENTEK sbaUhave the opportnity to fie a motion for 

protèctive ordel' with theAdministrati've Law Judge, 
 seeking to stop disclosure ofENTBK 

Information to the noticeØ industr expert(s) wi(hin (0) busine.ss dàys ofrecefpt of:the notice. In 

the event that BNTEK doès1'ot seek ii protective 
 order, the noticed expert(s) shall be considered 

approved afer expiration aftbe ten (10) business day period orwritten approvai notice from
 

ENTEK, whichever is eatlier ("Approved lndustry Expert"). 
Eric D. Welsh 

December 22, 2008 

1'.01 3 

LATHAMaiWATKINSm 

(6) No waiver of privilege: For purposes of clarification, the paries do not interpret this 

Agreement as requiring ENTEK to waive its right to withold from production any information 

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

interest doctrine or any other applicable discovery privilege or exemption. 

(7) Remedies: The paries acknowledge and agree that breach of the General Agreements 

may cause irreparable injur to ENTEK for which monetar damages are not a suffcient 

remedy. Accordingly, ENTEK may seek injùnctive relief and any other available equitable 

remedies to enforce these provisions without posting a bond if otherwise required by law. For 

puroses of clarification, this provision in no way limits ENTEK's rights to seek moneta, 

including pWltive damages for breach otthis agreement and/or improper disclosure ófENTEK 

Infonnation from Polypore, Parker Poe, the.Economic Expert, and other natual persons or
 

entities as the case may be. Moreover, this Agreément shall in no way limit ENTEK's rights 

under the Protective Order dated October 23, 2008. 

'n. Al!re~ments With Respect to Specifc Reauests 

Request Nos. 1 and 2: ENTEK shall produce a written response listing all products in 

development by ENTEK or any Third Pary to compete with Polypore lead acid battery 

separators. 

Request No.3 and 4: ENfEK shall produce a written response listing manufacturing or 

production facilities for lead acid battery separators in which ENTEK maintains any direct or 

indirect ownership interest. The wrtten response shall include the following information: (a) the 

capital expenditure for the CQ,nstrction afd start-up or expansion of such facilty, (b) the date on 

whichplans for such facilty or expansion of such facilty were approved, (c) the date on which 

constrction began on sl,ch facilty, (d) the date of c.ommissloning Or starp 
 of such facilty, (e) 

the production capacity of such facilty, (f) the type ofproduct(s) produced at such facilty, (g) 

the anticipated end use(s) of 
 the products manufactured at such faciHty, (h) the technology used 

àt such facilty to manufacture lead acid battery separators and (i) the cost of the lead acid batter 

separtors manufactued and sold at such facility, including without limitation the cost of 

manufacturing and selIng such products, including shipping costs. ' 

Request No.5: ENTEK shall produce copies of 
 responsive documents from the fies of 

Dan Weerts, Vice President of Sales &" Marketing, GraemeFraser-Bell, Vice President 

Interntional Sales, and Greg Humphrey, North & South America Account Manager, on the basis 

of a list of specific searh tenns to be agreed u:pçm by the paries. 

ReguestNo. 6: ENTEK shall produce copies of 
 the supply agreements and proposals for 

supply agreements, excluding drafts, between ENTEK and (a) iei, (b) Exide, (c) EnerSys, (d) 

East Perm, (e) Crown, (f) Trojan, (g) US Battery, (h) C&D, Or (i) any other entity manufacturing 

lead acid patteries for sale in North America, for the sale by ENTEK to such entity of lead acid 

battery separators.
 
I;rlç D.Wvlih 

, ì!lçember'2Z, %008 Paue4 

LA T HAM'&WAT KIN s,¡lP' 

~.' 

. .;
 

~....,

D",~.cøBI.za 

of'LATttA1& WATKINS .~p 

CöiisëlførENTEK lritertat .' ..... J LtC 

. , .,. . " ", . - .
 ;../" ,'- ..' .' ".": . ,",' -.' ,'. -'

ÌÚÚrD., 'WeI~h ,. . ," . .
 

; ..,............... ... '. .... .. '. '.. .
 ~L2 M~

ofPi\~R,POEADAMS&.BERNSTEINLLP 

CÔlln$t\l:,forPøiypotehiternational, Inc. 

cc:NanhoF, Kaiser 
Eric I), Wel.h 

Detmblr 22, 2008 

Pige 6
 

LATHAM&WATK/ N5m 

Disclosure Group Si~!Jature8 

Name 

Affliation 

Date 

Name 

Affiliation 

Date 

Name 

Affliation 

Date. 

Name 

Affliation 

Date 

Name 

AIñUation 

Date 

Nâre 

Affliation 

Date 
EXHIBIT E
 

PPAB ioi7548vI 
SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM
 

Issued Pursuant to Rule 3.34(a)(1), 16 C.ER. § 3.34(a)(1) (1997) 

1. TO 

Mr. Graeme Fraser-~eii 

ENTEK International,LLGc 

250 H. Hansàrd AVe.
 

Lebanon, OR 07355
 

2. FROM 

UNTED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

This subpoena requires .you to appear and give testimony, at the date and time specified in Item 5, at the 

request of Counsellis.ted in Item 8, in the proceeding described in Item 6. 

3. PLACE OF HEARING 

Miller Nash
 

ILL S.W. Fifth Avenue
 

Portland, Oregon 97204
 

6. SUBJECT OF PROCEEDING 

In the Matter of Polyp ore International, Inc., Docket No. 9327 

7. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Federal Trade Commission .
 

Washirigton, D.C. 20580
 

PATE ISSUED
 

December 10, 2008 

APPEARANCE 

The delivery of this subpoena to yol, by any. method 

prescribed by the Commission's Rules of Practice is 

legal service and may subject you tb. a penalty 

imposed by law for failure to comply. 

MOrlON TO LIMIT OR QUASH 

The Commission's Rules, of Practice require that any 

motion to limit or quash this subpoena be flied within 

the earlier of 1 o days after service or the time for 

compliance. The original and ten copies of the petition 

must be filed with the'Secretary of the Federal Trade 

Commission, accompanied by an affdavit 6f service of
 

the document upon counsel 
 listed in Item 8, and upon äii other partie,S prescribed by the Rules of Practice. 

4. YOUR APPEARANCE WILL BE BEFORE 

Counsel for Respondent and a person au thorized

by law to administer oaths. 

5. DATE AND TIME OF HEARING OR DEPOSITION 

1/19/09 at 2:00 PM
 

8. COUNSEL REQUESTING SUBPOENA 

Eric D; Welsh
 

Three Wachovia Center
 

Suite 300 

401 South Tryon Street ,
 

Charlotte, NC 28202-1935
 

~ 

TRAVEL EXPENSES 

The Commission's Rules,of Practicerèquire that fees and 

. mile¡ige be paid by the part that requested your 

appearance. You should present your claim to Counsel 

listed in ItE?m 8 for payment. If you are fiermanently or 

temporarily living somewhere other than the address on 

this subpoena and it would require excessive travel for 

you to appear, you must get prior app.roval from Counsel 

listed in Item 8. 

This subpoèna does not require approval by OMS under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 

FTC Form 70-A' (rev. 1/97) 
RETUR.N OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a duplicate original of the within
 

subpoena was duly served: (check lhe method used)
 

o in person.
 

o by registered mail.
 

o by leaving copy at principal offce or place of business, to wit: 

on the person named herein on: 

(Monlh, day, and year) 

(Nam of person making seive) 

(Olclaliiiie) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9327 

) 

Polypore International, Inc., ) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

a corporation. ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

Ad Testificandum via Certified MailRetur Receipt Requested upon: 

Mr. Graeme Fraser-Bell 

ENTEK International LLC 

250 N. Hansard Ave.
 

Lebanon, OR 97355 

I hereby certify that on December 29,2008, I caused to be served one copy via electronic 

mail delivery and two copies via overnight mi;il delivery of the foregoing Subpoena Ad,
 

Testificandum upon:
 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oalj(§ftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on December 29, 20å8, I caused to be served via first-class mail 

delivery and electronic mail delivery 
 a copy of the foregoing Subpoena Ad Testifcandum

upon: 

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

Federal Trade CoimissÍon Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

n:O berton(§fic. gov sdahm~ftc.gov 

PPAB 1516741vl 
Adam C. Shearer (1~

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Thte Wachovia Center
 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 335.9050 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

2
 

PPAB 1516741vl 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

Polypore International, Inc., 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

a corporation. ) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GRAEME FRASER-BELL 

PLEASE TAKE 
 NOTICE that pursuant to Rules 3.33 and 3.34 of the Federal Trade 

Commission's Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings (16 C.F.R. §§ 3.33 and 3.34), 

Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore"), will take the deposition of Oraeme Fraser~ 

Bell before a person authorized by law to administer oaths at the offces of Miler Nash, 11 i 

S.W. Fift Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 on Janua 19; 2009 at 2:00 p.m. The testimony 

wil be recorded by stenographic and/or video means.
 

Dated: December 29, 2008 Respectfully Submitted, ~- (/..
 Wii iam L. Rikard, 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 

wil1iamikard~parkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh~parkerpoe.com 

Attorneys for Respondent 

PPAB 1517907vl 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRAE COMMISSION
 

In the Matter of )

Polypore International, Inc., ) Docket No. 9327 

a corporation. ) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify 
 that on December 29, 2008, I caused to be served one copy via electronic 

mail delivery and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Notice of Deposition
 

of Graeme Fraser-Bell upon: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oalj~ftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on December 29, 2008, I caused to be served via first-class mail 

delivery and electronic mail delivery a copy of the foregoing Notice of Deposition of Graeme 

Fraser-Bell upon: 

1. Robert Robertson, Esq. Steven Dah, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580. Washington, DC 20580 

rrobertson~ftc.gov sdah(iftc. gov

Adam C. Shearer 

.Cl~

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 335-9050 

PPAB 1517907vl