r'iR'G\~lAl UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION t.\. ,f\.tDE COMM~ OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ~~~RECEIVEO DOCUMENTS' IO.i\ ~ 6(¡/~Y0 "\
 AUG 1 7 2012
 

SECRETARY 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

McWANE, INC., 

a corporation, and 

) 

) 

) DOCKET NO. 9351 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

a limited parnership, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

I. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of 
 the Commissiori's Rules of 
 Practice and the Scheduling Order entered in this matter, Respondent McWane, Inc. ("McWane"), on July 31,2012, fied amotion 

for in camera treatment for materials that might be introduced at trial in this matter ("Motion"). 

Respondent's Motion states that counsel for McWane has conferred with Complaint Counsel 

regarding the issues raised in the Motion, and has been authorized to state that Complaint 

Counsel takes no position with respect to the Motion and does not intend to file an opposition. 

Complaint Counsel has not fied an opposition to the Motion. 

As set forth below, Respondent's Motion is GRANTED. 

II. 

The standard for evaluating Respondent's motion for in camera treatment is set forth in 

the Order on Non-Paries' Motions for In Camera Treatment, issued on August 17,2012. 

Respondent seeks in camera treatment for a narow set of documents that the parties 

intend to introduce at triaL. Of 
 the 2,612 exhibits identified by the paries, Respondent seeks in 

camera treatment for only 26 documents. Respondent states that 21 of the 26 documents are 

TylerlUnion'sl "Blue Books," which contain detailed financial statements, and the General 

Manager's Report, which discusses pending and potential 
 litigation and other liabilities. Respondent asserts that the disclosure of 
 these documents would substantially har McWane by 

i McWane's ductile iron fittings business is known as Tyler/Union, named after McWane's now-closed Tyler, Texas 

facility and Union Foundry in Anniston, Alabama. 
providing its competitors a wide open look into its innermost financial strengths and weakesses, 

which competitors could use to unfair advantage over Mc Wane. Respondent states that the 

remaining 5 documents consist of 
 monthly statements during the year 2011; TylerlUnion's 

current non-public job pricing information; and two of 
 TylerlUnion's 2012 customer-specific
 

rebate programs. Respondent asserts that disclosure of curent customer-specific price and
 

rebate plans would enable McWane's competitors to leverage more favorable prices and plans
 

for themselves.
 

Although 7 of the 26 documents contain information that is over three years old, 

Respondent has demonstrated that the information should be protected because the information 

either: (1) relates to ongoing 
 jobs, and would provide competitors with the identities of 

customers, locations of specific jobs, and sensitive pricing information not otherwise available to 

the public, which competitors could use to undermine McWane's internal pricing and business 

strategy and its relationships with customers; or (2) discusses pending and potential 
 litigation wholly unrelated to this action, the exposure of 
 which could expose McWane to liabilty, 

undermine McWane's reputation, or otherwise harm McWane. 

Respondent's motion is supported by the affdavit of 
 Rick Tatman, Vice President and
 

General Manager of TylerlUnion, who reviewed the documents and averred that the documents
 

subject to Respondent's motion are kept confidential and remain competitively sensitive in the
 

marketplace. The affidavit fuher supports Respondent's claims that the documents are
 

sufficiently secret and sufficiently material to its businesses that disclosure would result in 

serious competitive injur.
 

III. 

Respondent has met the standards for in camera treatment. Accordingly, Respondent's 

Motion is GRANTED. 

Respondent's Motion does not specify the length of 
 time for which it seeks in camera 

treatment. Where in camera treatment is granted for ordinary business records, such as business 

strategies, marketing plans, pricing policies, or sales documents, it is typically provided for two 

to five years. E.g., In re Union Oil Co. of 
 Cal., 2004 FTC LEXIS 223, at *2 (Nov. 22, 2004); In 

re Int'l Ass'n of Conference Interpreters, 1996 FTC LEXIS 298, at * 13-14 (June 26, 1996); 

Champion Spark Plug, 1982 FTC LEXIS 85 at *2 and 1982 FTC LEXIS 92, at *2 (March 4, 

1982). In this case, numerous non-parties fied motions for in camera treatment. By Order 

issued August 17,2012, those non-paries' motions were granted and in camera treatment was 

extended for a period of five years. So that the expiration date of in camera treatment is 

consistent across exhibits to be introduced at trial, which establishes consistency and furthers 

administrative efficiency, in camera treatment for a period of 
 five years, to expire on September 

1,2017, is GRANTED for the following exhibits: CX2135, CX2138, CX2394, CX2395, 

CX2396, CX2397, CX2398, CX2399, CX2400, CX2401, CX2402, CX2403, CX2404, CX2405,
 

CX2406, CX2415, CX2416, CX2417, CX2418, CX2419, RX0319, RX0361, RX0396, RX0630, 

RX0631, and RX0632. 

2
 
Respondent shall inform its testifying curent or former employees that in camera 

treatment has been extended to the exhibits listed in this Order. At the time that any documents 

that have been granted in camera treatment are offered into evidence, or before any of the 

information contained therein is referred to in cour, Respondent shall identify such documents 

and the subject matter therein as in camera, inform the court reporter of 
 the trial exhibit 

number(s) of such documents, and request that the hearng go into an in camera session 

ORDERED: :DM~ 

D. Michael Chap ell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: August 17,2012 

3