UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

__________________________________________

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, N.V., ) 

a foreign corporation, ) 

)

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, ) Docket No. 9300

a corporation, )

)

and )

)

Pitt-Des Moines, Inc., )

a corporation. )

__________________________________________)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, please enter the 

appearance of Jeffrey S. Spigel and Kathryn E. Walsh as counsel on behalf of third party Project 

Technical Liaison Associates, Inc., in the above-captioned matter.

Dated: November 12, 2002 Respectfully submitted,

KING & SPALDING

Attorneys for Project Technical Liason 

Associates, Inc.

1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 737-0500

Facsimile: (202) 626-3737

By:________________________

Kathryn E. Walsh

Jeffrey S. Spigel
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

__________________________________________

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, N.V., ) 

a foreign corporation, ) 

)

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, ) Docket No. 9300

a corporation, )

)

and )

)

Pitt-Des Moines, Inc., )

a corporation. )

__________________________________________)

THIRD PARTY PROJECT TECHNICAL LIAISON ASSOCIATES, INC.’S

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF

DESIGNATED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

Project Technical Liaison Associates, Inc. (“PTLA”) moves for in camera treatment of 

designated portions of the deposition testimony given by Patricia A. Outtrim on June 4, 2002. 

The portions for which in camera treatment is sought are identified in the accompanying 

memorandum and in Exhibit 1. The designated portions include confidential client information 

and proprietary business information.

The facts and authorities in support of this unopposed motion are set forth in the 

accompanying memorandum and exhibits, including Ms. Outtrim’s declaration.
Dated: November 12, 2002 Respectfully submitted,

KING & SPALDING

Attorneys for Project Technical Liaison 

Associates, Inc.

1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 737-0500

Facsimile: (202) 626-3737

By:________________________

Kathryn E. Walsh

Jeffrey S. Spigel
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

__________________________________________

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, N.V., ) 

a foreign corporation, ) 

)

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, ) Docket No. 9300

a corporation, ) PUBLIC

)

and )

)

Pitt-Des Moines, Inc., )

a corporation. )

__________________________________________)

THIRD PARTY PROJECT TECHNICAL LIAISON ASSOCIATES, INC.’S

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF DESIGNATED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

Pursuant to Rule 3.45 of the Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice, third party 

Project Technical Liaison Associates, Inc. (“PTLA”) hereby submits this Memorandum in 

Support of is Motion for In Camera Treatment of Designated Deposition Testimony and the 

accompanying materials in support thereof. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Patricia A. Outtrim provided deposition testimony in this case on June 4, 2002. During 

that deposition, Ms. Outtrim made many statements that are protected by confidentiality 

agreements with clients and potential clients. As a result, the deposition was marked “Restricted 

Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only” pursuant to this Court’s protective order governing discovery 

material. The parties intend to use portions of Ms. Outtrim’s deposition testimony at trial. Ms. 
Outtrim desires to protect certain portions of her deposition testimony from being used at trial in 

order to preserve the confidentiality agreements between PTLA and her clients.

On October 15, 2002, PTLA filed a motion with this Court requesting in camera

treatment of the designated portions of her deposition testimony. On November 1, 2002, this 

Court found PTLA’s motion deficient and dismissed it without prejudice. This Court gave 

PTLA until November 12, 2002, to file an amended motion requesting in camera treatment.

Thus, PTLA respectfully requests that the designated portions of Ms. Outtrim’s 

deposition specified in Exhibit 1 be afforded in camera treatment. The designated portions of 

the deposition contain confidential client information and proprietary business information. The 

sensitive and proprietary nature of the information discussed in the deposition is described below 

as well as in the accompanying declaration of Patricia A. Outtrim, the President of PTLA.

II. STANDARD FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT

Under Commission Rule 3.45(b), materials merit in camera treatment when “public 

disclosure will likely result in a clearly defined, serious injury to the ...corporation requesting 

their in camera treatment.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). An applicant faces “serious injury” when the 

“information in question is secret and material to the applicant’s business...” In the Matter of 

Bristol-Meyers Co., 90 F.T.C. 455, 456 (1977). In order to determine whether the information is 

secret and material to the applicant’s business, the Commission looks to the following six 

factors: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside the business; (2) the extent to 

which it is known by employees and other involved in the business; (3) the extent of measures 

taken to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to the applicant 

and its competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended in developing the information; 
and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquir ed or 

duplicated by others. Id.

Third party requests for in camera treatment are entitled to “special solicitude.” In re 

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 1984 F.T.C. LEXIS 60 at *2 (“As a policy matter, 

extensions of confidential or in camera treatment in appropriate cases involving third party 

bystanders encourages cooperation with future adjudicative discovery requests.”) As discussed 

below, the designated portions of Ms. Outtrim’s deposition testimony meet the above standards 

and should be afforded in camera treatment.

III. THE DESIGNATED PORTIONS OF THE DEPOSITION WARRANT IN 

CAMERA TREATMENT

The portions of the deposition specified in Exhibit 1 contain two categories of 

information that merit in camera treatment: confidential client information gathered by PTLA in 

the course of its consulting work, and proprietary business information about PTLA itself. 

Several of the deposition’s designated portions discuss non-public information about 

current and potential clients. PTLA gathers information of this type in its role as a consultant, 

and it is crucial that PTLA protect this information from public dissemination. First, this 

information is protected under confidentiality agreements between Ms. Outtrim and these clients. 

In addition, public dissemination of these portions of the deposition would result in members of 

the industry having access to competitively sensitive, non-public information.

The designated portions of the deposition also refer to proprietary information concerning 

PTLA. PTLA, a non-public company, considers the information contained in the designated 

portions of the deposition proprietary. As a result, the dissemination of this information would 

result in damage to PTLA. 
IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, PTLA respectfully requests that of the designated 

portions of Patricia A. Outtrim’s June 4, 2002, deposition testimony be granted in camera

treatment indefinitely. When information that will remain competitively sensitive is at stake, the 

length of in camera treatment can be increased beyond the standard three-year period. See, e.g., 

In re DuPoint de Nemours & Co., 2000 F.T.C. LEXIS 177; Kaiser Aluminum, 1984 F.T.C. 

LEXIS at 533. The designated portions of the Ms. Outtrim’s deposition will remain sensitive for 

an indefinite period. The designated deposition testimony relates to current and future business 

practices of PTLA as a consultant in the NGL industry. Based on this continuing presence in the 

industry, the information contained within the designated portions of the deposition will remain 

highly confidential for the foreseeable future.

In the alternative, PTLA respectfully requests in camera treatment of the designated 

portions of Patricia A. Outtrim’s June 4, 2002, deposition testimony for five years.
Dated: November 12, 2002 Respectfully submitted,

KING & SPALDING

Attorneys for Project Technical Liaison 

Associates, Inc.

1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 737-0500

Facsimile: (202) 626-3737

By:________________________

Kathryn E. Walsh

Jeffrey S. Spigel