UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSI 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

In the Matter of ) 


) 


Ardagh Group S.A., ) 


a public limited liability company, and ) 

) 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, ) 

a corporation, and ) PUBLIC 

) 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., ) 

a corporation. ) DOCKET NO. 9356 

) 

_____________________________) 

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF RESPONDENT ARDAGH GROUP S.A. TO 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's Rules ofPractice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.32, 

Respondent Ardagh Group S.A. ("Ardagh") hereby objects and responds to Complaint 

Counsel's Requests for Admissions to Ardagh Group S.A. dated September 6, 2013 (the 

"RFAs"). 

Ardagh reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise or correct these responses 

and objections. These responses are made without prejudice to, and are not a waiver of, 

Ardagh's rightto rely on other facts or documents at trial. In making these responses, 

Ardagh expressly reserves its right to assert any and all objections as to the admissibility of 

such responses into evidence in this action, or in any other proceedings. Ardagh makes 

these responses and objections without, in any way, implying that it considers the RF As, or 

responses thereto, to be relevant or material to the subject matter ofthis action. 

1 

Public 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

1. Ardagh objects to the RFAs to the extent that they seek to impose 

requirements and obligations in excess ofthose required or authorized by the Federal Trade 

Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.32, or any other applicable rules or law. 

2. Ardagh objects to the RF As to the extent that they seek information that is 

subject to the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege, immunity, or other protection 

against disclosure. Such information will not be provided. 

3. Ardagh objects to any explicit or implicit characterization of facts, events, 

circumstances, or issues in the RFAs. Ardagh's response to an RFA is not intended to 

mean or imply that Ardagh agrees with or accepts any explicit or implicit characterization 

of facts, events, circumstances, or issues in the RF As. 

4. Ardagh objects to the RF As to the extent that they are overbroad, vague, 

ambiguous, susceptible to multiple interpretations, or otherwise seek information that is 

not relevant to the issues in this action or calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. 

5. Ardagh objects to the RF As to the extent that they are unduly burdensome 

in light of the ten-day period in which Ardagh must respond to them. 

6. Ardagh objects to the RF As to the extent that they purport to require 

Ardagh to perform anything more than a reasonable inquiry into information readily 

accessible to Ardagh, 

7. Ardagh objects to the RF As to the extent that they purport to require 

information that is not within the possession, custody, or control ofArdagh or reasonably 

accessible to it. 

2 

Public 

8. Ardagh objects to the RF As to the extent that such discovery would violate 

applicable laws, rules or regulations offoreign jurisdictions, and/or applicable conventions 

or treaties with respect to information, documents, or electronically stored information 

located in a foreign country. 

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 

1. Ardagh objects to Definition 1 to the extent that it fails to identify the 

individuals or entities referred to with particularity. Ardagh further objects to this 

Definition to the extent that it is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, susceptible to multiple 

interpretations, or otherwise seeks information that is not relevant to the issues in this 

action or calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

RFAl 

Admit that all ofthe top 25 U.S. craft brewers (based on 2012 beer sales volume) 

package their beer in glass containers. 

Response to RFA 1 

In addition to the General Objections set forth above, Ardagh objects to RF A 1 on 

the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and purports to seek information outside of 

Ardagh's possession, custody or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing 

objections, Ardagh states that it believes all of the top 25 U.S. craft brewers (according to 

the statistics for 2012 beer sales volume maintained by The Brewers Association) package 

their beer in glass containers, and many also package their beer in aluminum cans. Ardagh 

further states that the 27th largest U.S. craft brewer (according to The Brewers Association) 

packages its beer only in aluminum cans. 

3 

Public 

RFA2 

Admit that, from 2008 to 2013, the Company has bid to supply (through an 

informal or formal bid), either directly or through a distributor, glass containers to a craft 

brewer located in California. 

Response to RFA 2 

In addition to the General Objections set forth above, Ardagh objects to RF A 2 on 

the grounds that the phrase "from 2008 to 2013" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and 

without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that, on one or more occasions 

between 2008 and 2013, the Company has bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, 

either directly or through a distributor, certain glass containers to a craft brewer located in 

California. 

RFA3 

Admit that, from 2008 to 2013, the Company has bid to supply (through an 

informal or formal bid), either directly or through a distributor, glass containers to a craft 

brewer located in Washington. 

Response to RFA 3 

In addition to the General Objections set forth above, Ardagh objects to RF A 3 on 

the grounds that the phrase "from 2008 to 2013" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and 

without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that, on one or more occasions 

between 2008 and 2013, the Company has bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, 

a distributor with certain glass containers, which it understands such distributor intended to 

supply to a craft brewer located in Washington. 

RFA4 

Admit that, from 2008 to 2013, the Company has bid to supply (through an 

informal or formal bid), either directly or through a distributor, glass containers to a craft 

brewer located in Oregon. · 

4 

Public 

Response to RFA 4 

In addition to the General Objections set forth above, Ardagh objects to RF A 4 on 

the grounds that the phrase "from 2008 to 2013" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and 

without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that, on one or more occasions 

between 2008 and 2013, the Company has bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, 

a distributor with certain glass containers, which it understands such distributor intended to 

supply to a craft brewer located in Oregon. 

RFA5 

Admit that, in 2005, more than.} ofthe gross output, measured by unit sales, 

from the Company's plant in Shakopee, Minnesota was beer bottles. 

Response to RFA 5 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh admits that, in 

2005, more than.} ofthe gross output, measured by unit sales, from the Company's 

plant in Shakopee, Minnesota was beer bottles. 

RFA6 

Admit that, in 2006, less than .}ofthe gross output, measured by unit sales, 

from the Company's plant in Shakopee, Minnesota was beer bottles. 

Response to RFA 6 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh admits that, in 

2006, less than-} of the gross output, measured by unit sales, from the Company's 

plant in Shakopee, Minnesota was beer bottles. 

RFA7 

Admit that, in 2005, more than.} ofthe gross output, measured by unit sales, 

from the Company's plant in Elmira, New York was beer bottles. 

5 

Public 

Response to RFA 7 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh admits that, in 

2005, more than-} ofthe gross output, measured by unit sales, from the Company's 

plant in Elmira, New York was beer bottles. 

RFA8 

Admit that, in 2006, less than -} ofthe gross output, measured by unit sales, 

from the Company's plant in Elmira New York was beer bottles. 

Response to RFA 8 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh admits that, in 

2006, less than-} ofthe gross output, measured by unit sales, from the Company's 

plant in Elmira New York was beer bottles. 

RFA9 

Admit that the Company bid to supply 

or through a distributor, from the Company's 

Response to RFA 9 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2012 

the Company bid to supply a distributor, which it understands was bidding to supply 

} , either directly 

· in 2012. 

}, with certain glass containers from the Company's plant in 

Warner Robins, Georgia. 

RFAlO 

Admit that craft beer bottles and mass beer bottles can be manufactured in the 

same plant. 

Response to RFA 10 

In addition to the General Objections set forth above, Ardagh objects to RF A 10 on 

the grounds that the terms "craft beer bottles" and "mass beer bottles" are vague and 

6 

Public 

ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that it 

is unaware of a technical reason why certain beer bottles manufactured for sale to craft 

brewers and certain beer bottles manufactured for sale to mass brewers cannot be 

manufactured in the same glass manufacturing plant. 

RFAll 

Admit that craft beer bottles and mass beer bottles can be manufactured using the 

same furnace and same individual setting machine. 

Response to RF A 11 

In addition to the General Objections set forth above, Ardagh objects to RF A 10 on 

the grounds that the terms "craft beer bottles," "mass beer bottles," and "individual setting 

machine" are vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing 

objections, Ardagh states that it is unaware of a technical reason why certain beer bottles 

manufactured for sale to craft brewers and certain beer bottles manufactured for sale to 

mass brewers cannot be manufactured using the same furnace and same individual section 

machine. 

RFA12 

Admit that the Company bid to supply (through an informal or formal bid) 

in 2009 

Response to RF A 12 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2009 

the Company bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, with 

certain glass containers in certain locations. 

RFA13 

Admit that the Company bid to supply (through an informal or formal bid) ­

in 2012. 

7 

Public 

Response to RFA 13 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2012 

the Company bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, 

-}with certain glass containers in certain locations. 

RFA14 

Admit that the Company bid to supply (through an informal or formal bid) 

in 2013. 

Response to RFA 14 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2013 

the Company bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, } 

with certain glass containers in certain locations. 

RFA15 

Admit that the Company bid to an informal or formal bid), either 

directly or through a distributor, in 2011. 

Response to RFA 15 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2011 

the Company bid to supply a distributor, through an informal or formal bid, with certain 

glass containers which it understands such distributor was intending to supply to ­

RFA16 


Admit that the Company bid to 


directly or through a distributor, in 2012. 


an informal or formal bid), either 

8 

Public 

Response to RFA 16 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2012 

the Company bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, 

-}with certain glass containers in certain locations. 

RFA17 

Admit that the Company ~ninformal or formal bid), either 

directly or through a distributor, -}in 2013. 

Response to RFA 17 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2013 

the Company provided with informal quotes to supply it with 

certain glass containers in certain locations. 

RFA18 

Admit that the Company ~y(through an informal or formal bid), either 

directly or through a distributor,-} in 2010. 

Response to RFA 18 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2009 

the Company bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, either directly or through a 

distributor, -}with certain glass containers in certain locations. 

RFA19 

Admit that the Company bid to """'"''" an informal or formal bid), either 

directly or through a distributor, } in 2012. 

Response to RFA 19 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2011 

the Company bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, either directly or through a 

9 

an informal or formal bid), either 

in 2012. 

Public 

distributor, with certain glass containers in certain 

locations. 

RFA20 

Admit that the Company bid to an informal or formal bid), either 

directly or through a distributor, in 2012. 

Response to RFA 20 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2012 

the Company bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, either directly or through a 

distributor, } with certain glass containers in certain 

locations. 

RFA21 

Admit that the Company bid to 

directly or through a distributor, 

Response to RFA 21 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2012 

the Company bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, a distributor with certain 

glass containers that it understands such distributor intended to supply to 

RFA22 

Admit that the Company b~han informal or formal bid), either 

directly or through a distributor, -}in 2009. 

Response to RFA 22 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ardagh states that in 2009 

the Company bid to supply, through an informal or formal bid, with 

certain glass containers in certain locations. 

10 

Public 

RFA23 

Admit that the capital investment needed to construct a new glass container 

manufacturing facility in the U.S. is at least $150-$200 million. 

Response to RFA 23 

In addition to the General Objections set forth above, Ardagh objects to RF A 23 on 

the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, purports to seek information that is outside of 

Ardagh's custody or control, and is both speculative and hypothetical. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, 

Ardagh admits that the capital investment needed to construct a new glass container 

manufacturing facility in the U.S. could be at least $150-$200 million. Ardagh further 

states that the specific costs required to construct a new glass container manufacturing 

facility in the U.S. would vary according to the facility. 

Dated: New York, New York 

September 16, 2013 

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 

By: 	 Heather L. Ka&le 

Heather L. Kafele 

801 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: (202) 508-8097 

Facsimile: (202) 508-8100 

heather.kafele@shearman.com 

Wayne Dale Collins 

Lisl J. Dunlop 

Richard F. Schwed 

Alan S. Goudiss 

599 Lexington A venue 

New York, New York 10022 

Telephone: (212) 848-4000 

Facsimile: (212) 848-7179 

wcollins@shearman.com 

ldunlop@shearman.com 

11 

Public 

rschwed@shearman.com 

agoudiss@shearman.com 

Counselfor Defendant Ardagh Group SA. 

12 
Public 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I hereby certify that on September 16, 2013, I filed a version ofthe foregoing document 

(with confidential material redacted) electronically using the FTC's E-Filing System, 

which will send notification of such filing to: 

DonaldS. Clark 


Secretary 


Federal Trade Commission 


600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 


Washington, DC 20580 


I also certify that I delivered via electronic mail and hand delivery a copy ofthe foregoing 

document to: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 


Administrative Law Judge 


Federal Trade Commission 


600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 


Washington, DC 20580 


I further certify that I delivered via electronic mail a copy ofthe foregoing document to: 

James E. Abell 


Monica Castillo 


Steven A. Dahm 


Joshua Goodman 


Edward D. Hassi 


Sebastian Lorigo 


Brendan J. McNamara 


Angelike Mina 


Catharine M. Moscatelli 


Angel Prado 


Kristian Rogers 


Danielle Sims 


Eric M. Sprague 


Steven L. Wilensky 


U.S. Federal Trade Commission 


600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 


Washington, DC 20580 


jabell@ftc.gov 


mcastillo@,ftc.gov 


sdahm(a)ftc.gov 


jgoodman@ftc.gov 


ehassi@ftc.gov 


slorigo@ftc.gov 


13 
Public 

bmcnamaralal,ftc.gov 


amina@ftc.gov 


cmoscatelli@ftc.!!ov 


apradolal,ftc. gov 


krogers@ftc.gov 


dsims 1 @ftc.gov 


esprague@ftc.gov 


swilenksv@ftc.gov 


Complaint Counsel 

Christine Varney 


Y onatan Even 


Athena Cheng 


Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 


825 Eighth A venue 


New York, NY 10019 


(212) 474-1140 


cvarnev@cravath.com 


veven@cravath.com 


Counselfor Respondent Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE FOR ELECTRONIC FILING 

I certify that the electronic copy sent to the Secretary ofthe Commission is a true and 

correct copy ofthe paper original and that a paper original ofthe signed document has been 

filed today with the Secretary ofthe Commission. 

September 16, 2013 By: 	 EdwardS. Timlin 

Attorney 

14