ORIGINAL
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

In the Matter of 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

) 

ORDER ON NON-PARTIES' SUPPLEMENTAL 

MOTIONS FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

I. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) ofthe Commission's Rules of 
 Practice, non-parties Johnson 

Controls, Inc., and The Moore Company separately filed supplemental motions for in camera 

treatment. Neither Complaint Counsel nor Respondent oppose these motions. 

An Order on Non-Paries' Motions for in Camera Treatment was entered in this matter 

on May 6,2009. An Order on Respondent's Second Motion for in Camera Treatment was 

entered in this matter on May 13, 2009. The legal standards that apply to motions for in camera 

treatment, including the instant motions, are set forth in those Orders. 

II. 

A. 

Johnson Controls submitted its Second Motion for In Camera Treatment on June 2, 

2009. Johnson Controls seeks in camera treatment for one exhibit, RX-41. Johnson Controls 

supports its supplemental motion with a declaration from Rodger M. Hall, Vice President Lead 

Business for the Power Solutions Division ("Hall Declaration"). Hall declares that RX-41 

identifies particular suppliers, identifies a particular technology, discloses long-term pricing, 

reveals inventory practices, and discusses confidential negotiations. Hall fuher declares that 

Johnson Controls wil suffer serious commercial injury if the information in RX-41 were to be 

publicly released. 

A review ofthe Hall Declaration and ofthe document reveals that RX-41 meets the 

standards for in camera treatment. Johnson Controls has shown that the document is 

sufficiently secret and sufficiently material to its business that disclosure would result in serious 

competitive injury. That showing has been balanced against the importance of the information 

in explaining the rationale of decisions at the Commission. Johnson Control's supplemental 

motion is, accordingly, GRANTED. 
In camera treatment for a period of 
 five years, expiring on June 1,2014, wil be 

extended to RX -41. 

B. 

The Moore Company submitted a Motion for In Camera Treatment of 
 Deposition 

Excerpts on May 28,2009. The Moore Company seeks in camera treatment for certain 

designated portions of deposition testimony provided by Guy Dauwe, Managing Director of 

Amer-Sil S.A., a subsidiary of The Moore Company and for the Declaration of Guy Dauwe 

("Dauwe Declaration") that the Moore Company provides in support of its motion. Dauwe 

declares that certain information in the Dauwe deposition testimony is highly confidential and 

that the disclosure of 
 such information would cause significant har to Amer-Sil's commercial 

and competitive interests. Dauwe further declares that the information is not disclosed outside 

of Amer-Sil, except insofar as it may be shared confidentially with Amer-Sil's business 

partners, and that such information is distributed within the company only to those who have a 

specific need for the information. 

A review of the Dauwe Declaration and of the designated deposition testimony reveals 

that the information in the excerpts for which The Moore Company seeks in camera treatment 

meets the standards for in camera treatment. The Moore Company has shown that the 

information is suffidently secret and sufficiently material to its business that disclosure would 

result in serious competitive injury. That showing has been balanced against the importance of 

the information in explaining the rationale of decisions at the Commission. The Moore 

Company's motion is, accordingly, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

In camera treatment for a period of 
 five years, expiring on June 1,2014, wil be 

extended to the deposition excerpts listed in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Guy Dauwe. 

In camera treatment wil not be extended to the Declaration of Guy Dauwe in support of 

The Moore Company's motion. The Moore Company did not indicate that the Dauwe 

Declaration would be offered into evidence by the paries. Accordingly, in camera treatment is 

not appropriate. In re Crown Cork & Seal Co., 71 F.T.C. 1669, 1671 (1967) ("The need for (in 

camera treatment) . . . does not arise until the material is about to be submitted in evidence."); 

In re Lehigh Portland Cement Co., 74 F.T.C. 1629, 1631 n.6 (1968) (premature to grant in 

camera treatment where there is a possibility that none of the information wil be offered into 

evidence). 

III. 

Complaint Counsel shall prepare an order, with a signature line for the Administrative 

Law Judge, that lists by exhibit number the documents or deposition excerpts that, by this 

Order, have been granted in camera treatment and that sets forth the expiration date of in 

camera treatment for each exhibit. 

2
 
The non-parties shall inform their testifyng current or former employees that in camera 

treatment has been extended to the material described in this Order. At the time that any 

documents, or portions of documents, that have been granted in camera treatment are offered 

into evidence, or before any of the information contained therein is referred to in court, the 

parties 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: ~ "" çf ;( D. Michael C appe~ 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: June 4, 2009 

3