6"~¡;,~ "'e fi" "'" ~ I' G e N P\I t,-kmël",~i¡W !l ,-i 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation. 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

PUBLIC 

) 

JOINT MOTION TO REVISE SCHEDULING ORDER 

Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's Rules of Practice ("Rules"), 16 C.F.R. § 

3.21(c)(2), Complaint Counsel and Respondent (the "Parties") jointly move to modify the 

Scheduling Order to defer the deadline for fiing in camera motions for 'designated third party 

witness deposition transcripts, until it is determined whether the designated transcripts wil be 

offered and admitted into evidence. The parties also jointly move that in lieu of filing pretrial 

briefs that include findings of facts and conclusions of law, that they fie pretrial briefs with a 

maximum 40 page limit that address all contested issues with factual issues supported by 

document and/or deposition citations. The parties request a ruling on an expedited basis as the 

deadline for third parties to seek in camera treatment with respect to transcript designations is 

April 9, 2009, and the deadlines for Complaint Counsel's and Respondent's pretrial briefs and 

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are April 
 20 and May 5, respectively. 

The paries request that in camera motions for designated third party transcripts be 

deferred until it is determined that the third party witness wil not be testifying live, but rather by 

deposition. Rule 3.21(c)(2) authorizes the Court to grant a motion to extend any deadline or time 

specified in the Scheduling Order upon a showing of "good cause." As demonstrated below, the 

Parties jointly submit that there is good cause for the requested extension of the scheduling order 

deadline with respect to third party motions related to designated testimony. 
In the course of discovery, third party witnesses, without exception, requested that their 

deposition transcripts be marked confidential pursuant to the protective order entered into in this 

matter. In identifying its proposed exhibits, Respondent designated and marked as proposed 

exhibits portions of a number of third party witness transcripts. Likewise, Complaint Counsel 

designated and marked one third party witness transcript. Each party marked as exhibits their 

respective third party witness designations in the event that the Court permitted such third party 

witnesses to testify by deposition. Many of these third paries, which are in the process of 

preparing in camera motions for their company documents, have complained to the parties 

regarding the additional burden of having to go line by line through deposition testimony to 

determine whether they need to seek in camera treatment for each designated portion of their 

transcripts. They argue that if they testify live, as opposed to by deposition, their transcript may 

not be offered into evidence, and thus, their efforts in preparing the in camera motions wil be 

wasted. 

These third paries are also concerned that preparing in camera motions on designated 

deposition transcripts, which may not be offered into evidence, wil take valuable time away 

from the important task of preparing in camera motions for their business documents by the 

April 9 deadline. 

The parties are sympathetic to the concerns of the third paries and request that the Court 

defer third party in camera motions for designated deposition testimony until such time as it 

becomes apparent that the third party wil testify by deposition. The parties agree to provide 10 

days advance notice to a third party prior to offering such third party's designated testimony into 

evidence pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). 

The parties also request that in lieu of filing pretrial briefs that include findings of facts 

2
 
and conclusions of law, that they file pretrial briefs with a maximum 40 page limit that address 

all contested issues with factual issues supported by document and/or deposition citations. The 

Scheduling Order currently requires the Complaint Counsel to file a pretrial brief, including 

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 20, 2009, and Respondent to fie a 

pretrial brief, including findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 5, 2009. While the 

parties have exchanged exhibit lists and have conferred with respect to the documentary 

evidence that they propose to use at the hearing in this matter, agreement has not yet been 

reached on to which documents each party may object. The parties are thus reluctant to develop 

detailed proposed findings of fact that may not accurately reflect the actual evidence that wil be 

put on at triaL. Rather than burden the court with extensive pretrial findings that may not 

accurately reflect the documentary evidence that wil ultimately form the record in this matter, 

the parties propose that the Scheduling Order requirement that the parties file proposed findings 

of fact and conclusions of law be modified such that the parties need only file pretrial briefs that 

address all contested issues, with factual issues supported by document and/or deposition 

citations, and that the maximum page length for such briefs be 40 pages. 

Dated: April 7, 2009 Respectfully submitted, 

Ml 

obert Robertson 

omplaint Counsel 

Bureau of Competition 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (H-374) 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2008 

Facsimile: (202) 326-2214 

rrobertson êftc.gov 

3 
\. 

f 

Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr.
 

Eric D. Welsh
 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstei , LLP
 

Three Wachovia Center
 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 335-9011
 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

4 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LA W JUDGES
 

In the Matter of ))

Docket No. 9327 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC. )
 Respondent. )	 

)
 

)
 

PROPOSED
 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION
 

TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
 

Upon consideration of the Joint Motion to Revise Scheduling Order ("Motion") and the Court
 

being fully informed, it is this day of ,2009
 

hereby
 

ORDERED, that the Motion is GRANTED; and it is further
 

ORDERED, that in camera motions for designated third pary transcripts is deferred until 

it is determined that the third party witness wil not be testifying live, but rather by deposition; 

and 

ORDERED, that Complaint Counsel and Respondent need not file pretrial findings of 

fact and conclusions of law, The page limit for pretrial briefs is to be 40 pages. All additional 

provisions in the February 4, 2009 Scheduling Order remain in effect. 

ORDERED 

D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Date: 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 7, 2009, I filed via hand and electronic mail delivery an 

original and two copies of the foregoing Joint Motion to Revise Scheduling Order with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Offce of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-159 

Washington, DC 20580 

I hereby certify that on April 7, 2009, I filed via electronic and interoffice mail delivery 

two copies of the foregoing Joint Motion to Revise Scheduling Order with: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oali êftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on April 7, 2009, I fied via electronic and first class mail delivery a 

copy of the foregoing Joint Motion to Revise Scheduling Order with: 

Wiliam L. Rikard, J r. 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, Nort Carolina 28202 

wiliamrikard êparkcrpoc.com 

crIcwclsh ê parkcrpoc.com 

Linda D. Cunnin ham 

Federal Tradc Commissi n 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Tclephone: (202) 326-2638 

lcunningham ê ftc.gov 

5