UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

--------------------~) 

Docket No. 9327 

PUBLIC 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

OF MATERIAL PREVIOUSLY AFFORDED SUCH TREATMENT 

Respondent files this Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously Afforded 

Such Treatment pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Rules of 

Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). Respondent respectfully requests that the Commission enter an 

order directing in camera treatment of certain confidential and highly sensitive material 

contained in the Commission's Opinion and Order and a Concurring Opinion (collectively, the 

"Commission's Opinion"), which the Commission intends to place on the public record. 

I. 

INTRODUCTION 

On November 5, 2010, the Commission's Opinion in this proceeding was issued and later 

served upon Respondent on November 29,2010. The Commission's Opinion included material 

which had previously been afforded in camera treatment by the Administrative Law Judge 

pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of the FTC Rules of Practice! and/or which had been elicited during in 

camera sessions of the hearing in this adjudicative proceeding. 

I See Order on Respondent's Motions for In Camera Treatment, dated August 11, 2009; Order on Respondent's Fifth 

Motion for In Camera Treatment and Exide's Motion for In Camera Treatment, dated November 19, 2009; and Order on NonParties' Motions for In Camera Treatment, dated July 10,2009. 

PPAB I760024vI 
On November 23,2010, the Commission issued a Notice ofIntent to Disclose In Camera 

Information (the "Notice ofIntent"). The Commission's Notice ofIntent, which was also served 

upon Respondent on November 29, 2010, advised Respondent of the Commission's intention to 

place on the public record certain information contained in the Commission's Opinion which had 

previously been afforded in camera treatment. Such information was identified and described in 

an attachment to the Commission's Notice ofIntent. 

Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") asserts that the public disclosure of 

certain information identified in the attachment to the Commission's Notice of Intent, which 

Polypore has set forth in Exhibit A hereto, meets the Commission's criteria for granting in 

camera treatment, that public disclosure of such information would damage Polypore's business, 

and that the prospective injury from the public disclosure of this limited, but confidential 

information outweighs the public interest in such disclosure. Specifically, Polypore seeks to 

have the information set forth on Exhibit A afforded in camera treatment when the 

Commission's Opinion is placed on the public record. Exhibit A hereto includes all information 

cited in the attachment to the Notice of Intent as appearing in the Commission's Opinion on 

pages 2, 3, 29, 30, 31, and 38.2 

Public disclosure of this information would divulge Polypore' s sensitive and confidential 

business information to competitors and/or customers, and would cause irreparable harm and 

serious injury to Polypore. The material in question contains confidential, sensitive information 

which is material to Polypore's business, and which would substantially harm Polypore's 

business should it be disclosed. 

2 Respondent does not object to the public disclosure of the information cited in the attachment to the Notice of Intent 

as appearing on pages 4, 5, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 32, 34, 36, or page 5 of Commissioner Rosch's Concurring Opinion. 

2 

PPAB 1760024vl 
For these reasons, Polypore has previously sought in camera treatment for the 

information contained in the Commission's Notice of Intent. See Respondent's First Motion for 

In Camera Treatment (April 9, 2009), Respondent's Second Motion for In Camera Treatment 

(May 5, 2009), Respondent's Third Motion for In Camera Treatment (June 11, 2009), 

Respondent's Fourth Motion for In Camera Treatment (June 18, 2009), Respondent's Fifth 

Motion for In Camera Treatment (November 3, 2009). Moreover, after analyzing this 

information under Rule 3.45 and the FTC decisions that articulate the standard for placing 

materials in camera, the Administrative Law Judge in this adjudicative proceeding also 

determined that such information warranted in camera treatment. See Order on Respondent's 

Motions for In Camera Treatment, dated August 11,2009; Order on Respondent's Fifth Motion 

for In Camera Treatment and Exide's Motion for In Camera Treatment, dated November 19, 

2009; and Order on Non-Parties' Motions for In Camera Treatment, dated July 10,2009. 

Specifically, the Administrative Law Judge determined that even when balanced against 

the importance of the information in explaining the rationale of decisions at the Commission, the 

information was sufficiently secret and sufficiently material to Polypore's business that 

disclosure would result in a serious competitive injury to Polypore, and consequently it was 

necessary for the information to be afforded in camera treatment. See generally Order on 

Respondent's Second Motion for In Camera Treatment, p. 2. It is important to note that 

"administrative law judges have broad discretion in determining what information should be 

placed in camera and [the Commission does] not ordinarily disturb their determinations except 

on the basis of a showing of abuse." General Foods Corp., 95 F.T.C. 352 (1980). 

Finally, disclosing such limited and specific confidential business information of 

Respondent serves no purpose in explaining the rationale of the Commission's decision. Only 

information ofrelevance to the Commission's determination should be made available for public 

3 

PPAB 1760024vl 
inspection. RSR Corp., 88 F.T.C. 206 and 88 F.T.C. 734 (1976). Here, for example, disclosing 

the { 

} is not necessary for an 

understanding of the Commission's Opinion and is nothing more than gratuitous detail. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Polypore respectfully requests an order requiring 

that the materials identified on Exhibit A to the instant Motion be afforded in camera treatment 

and that such information not be disclosed in the public version of the Commission's Order. 

II. 

THE LEGAL STANDARD 

As Respondent will demonstrate herein and in the supporting Declaration of Harry D. 

Seibert ("Seibert Decl. "), attached hereto as Exhibit B, the public disclosure of certain 

information identified in the attachment to the Commission's Notice of Intent, and more 

particularly set forth in Exhibit A hereto, will result in a clearly defined, serious injury to 

Respondent, thus justifying in camera treatment under the standard articulated by the 

Commission even when weighed against the Commission's interest in public disclosure. 

In determining whether or not to release information for which Respondent has requested 

in camera treatment in the course of an adjudicative proceeding, the Commission is to balance 

the potential harm to Respondent of disclosure against the substantial interest in making publicly 

available the key facts and background underlying a Commission decision. Orkin Exterminating 

Co., 108 F.T.C. 147 (1986). Only information of relevance to the Commission's determination, 

however, needs to be part of the record available for public inspection. RSR Corp., 88 F.T.C. 

206 and 88 F.T.C. 734 (1976); see also 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(a)(it is within the Commission's 

authority to disclose in camera material to the extent necessary for the proper disposition of the 

proceeding)( emphasis added). Moreover, in camera treatment of relevant information is 

4 

PPAB 1760024vl 
appropriate where the prospective injury from disclosure outweighs the public interest in full 

knowledge. Id. Where the information in question satisfies the Commission's high in camera 

standard, the information should not be disclosed publicly. 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). 

Rule 3.45 governs in camera treatment of materials, stating that material shall be "placed 

in camera only after finding that its public disclosure would likely result in a clearly defined, 

serious injury to the person, partnership or corporation requesting in camera treatment." 16 

C.F.R. § 3.45(b). The rule also indicates the FTC decisions which articulate the standard for 

affording material in camera treatment. See HP. Hood & Sons, Inc., 58 F.T.C. 1184, 1188 

(1961); see also General Foods Corp., 95 F.T.C. 352, 355 (1980); Bristol-Myers Co., 90 F.T.C. 

455, 456 (1977); In re Dura Lube Corp., 1999 FTC LEXIS 255 (Dec. 23 1999); In re Hoechst 

Marion Roussel, Inc., 2000 FTC LEXIS 157 (Nov. 22, 2000) and 2000 FTC LEXIS 138 (Sept. 

19, 2000); and In re Basic Research, Inc., 2006 FTC LEXIS 14 (Jan. 25, 2006). According to 

this authority, applicants for in camera treatment must make a "clear showing that the 

information concerned is sufficiently secret and sufficiently material to their business that 

disclosure would result in serious competitive injury." General Foods Corp., 95 F.T.C. at 355. 

In Bristol-Myers, 90 FTC 455 (1977), the Commission outlined six factors to be weighed 

when determining materiality and secrecy: (1) the extent to which the information is known 

outside of the applicant's business; (2) the extent to which the information is known by 

employees and others involved in the applicant's business; (3) the extent of measures taken by 

the applicant 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 by the applicant in 

developing the information; and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be 

properly acquired or duplicated by others. Additionally, the Commission has expounded on the 

definition of "serious injury," stating "[t]he likely loss of business advantages is a good example 

5 

PPAB 1760024vl 
of a clearly defined, serious injury." Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 2000 FTC LEXIS 138 (Sept. 

19,2000). 

III. 

THE MATERIAL AT ISSUE MEETS THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR 

IN CAMERA TREATMENT - PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION 

WOULD RESULT IN A CLEARLY DEFINED, SERIOUS INJURY TO POL YPORE 

The material contained in the portions of the Commission's Opinion at issue, set forth in 

Exhibit A hereto, fall within the Commission's strict standards for in camera treatment. The 

information identified by Polypore contains sensitive business information that is "sufficiently 

secret and sufficiently material to [Polypore's] business that disclosure would result in serious 

competitive injury" and, even when balanced against the "importance of the information in 

explaining the rationale of Commission decisions," warrants in camera treatment. General 

Foods Corp., 95 FTC 352 (1980). 

Polypore has for several decades driven itself to set the standard and meet the 

competition in the battery separator market, including spending significant time and resources 

developing its product line and developing relationships with its customers. In doing so, 

Polypore has amassed significant competitively sensitive and confidential information, which, if 

disclosed, would result in a "clearly defined, serious injury." 

The public disclosure of the information set forth in Exhibit A would damage Polypore's 

business by (1) { 

} (among other things); and (2) { 

}. (Seibert Decl., ,-r 5). Quite 

simply, the information Polypore seeks to protect contains confidential information that is 

paramount to Polypore's business, competitiveness, and profitability. 

6 

PPAB 1760024vl 
The information at issue also meets the six criteria set forth by the Commission for use in 

evaluating the need for in camera treatment. First, this information is not known publicly 

outside of Polypore's business. (Seibert Decl. ~~ 6-7). Second, within Polypore's business this 

information is known to only a handful of high level executives. (Seibert Decl. ~~ 6-7). Third, 

Polypore has taken all due precautions to safeguard the confidential nature of this information, 

including seeking in camera protection for such material during the adjudicative proceeding and 

filing the information in camera with the Secretary of the Commission. (Seibert Decl. ~~ 7-8). 

Fourth, this information is of great value to Polypore, as it relates to commercially sensitive 

business information,considerations and strategies. (Seibert Decl. ~~ 5, 9-10). Finally, this is 

the type of information that Polypore would not allow to be obtained by anyone outside of its 

organization and which could not be duplicated by anyone outside of Polypore. (Seibert Decl. ~~ 

7,9). 

Moreover, the information set forth in Exhibit A is not necessary to explain the rationale 

of the Commission's decision. For example, { 

}, set forth in the Commission's Opinion as mere background 

information, is not necessary for the public to understand the Commission's conclusion 

{ 

{ 

}. (Comm. Opin., p. 2). Similarly, the 

}, also provided as background information, is not necessary for an understanding of 

the rationale of the Commission's decision. (Comm. Opin., p. 3). Nor are the { 

} . 

(Comm. Opin., pp. 29-30). 

7 

PPAB 1760024vl 
In sum, the public disclosure of specific information related to Polypore's 

{ 

}, by way of information such entities would 

otherwise have no way to know. (Seibert Decl. ,-r,-r 4-10). Because the public disclosure of the 

information set forth on Exhibit A would cause substantial competitive harm to Respondent, the 

need for in camera treatment of this information outweighs the public's interest in such 

disclosure, particularly when considering that most of the information is not necessary to explain 

the basis for the Commission's Opinion. 

IV. 

THE MATERIAL AT ISSUE SHOULD BE KEPT IN CAMERA FOR 

THE PERIOD OF TIME SET FORTH IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE 

LAW JUDGE'S PREVIOUS ORDERS GRANTING IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

Once it is established that material deserves in camera treatment, the duration of such 

treatment must be determined. See 16 C.F.R. § 3.4S(b). Previously in this adjudicative 

proceeding, the information contained in the material Polypore seeks to protect was granted in 

camera protection for a period of three or five years (ending June 1,2012 or June 1,2014). See 

Order on Respondent's Motions for In Camera Treatment, dated August 11, 2009; Order on 

Respondent's Fifth Motion for In Camera Treatment and Exide's Motion for In Camera 

Treatment, dated November 19, 2009; and Order on Non-Parties' Motions for In Camera 

Treatment, dated July 10,2009. Accordingly, Polypore requests that the material at issue here be 

granted in camera treatment until June 1,2012 or June 1,2014, based upon the in camera period 

set forth in the previous Orders of the Administrative Law Judge. (Seibert Dec!. ,-r 11). 

8 

PPAB 1760024vl 
WHEREFORE, Polypore respectfully requests that the Commission enter an Order 

granting in camera treatment for those portions of the Commission's Opinion set forth on 

Exhibit A to the instant Motion and requiring such portions to be redacted from the public record 

for a period of time through and including June 1,2012 or June 1,2014. 

9 

PPAB 1760024vl 
Dated: December 14, 2010 

PPAB 1760024vl 

Respectfully submitted, 

William 6~~ L. Rikard, Jr. 

Eric D. Welsh 

PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9689 

williamrikard@parkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh@parkerpoe.com 

John F. Graybeal 

PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

150 Fayetteville Street 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Telephone: (919) 835-4599 

Facsimile: (919) 828-0564 

johngraybeal@parkerpoe.com 

Attorneys for Respondent 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

--------------------~) 

Docket No. 9327 

PROPOSED ORDER 

Upon consideration of Respondent's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material 

Previously Afforded Such Treatment, any opposition thereto, any hearing thereon, and the entire 

record in this proceeding, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Respondent's Motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CF.R.§ 3.45 (b) , those portions of the Commission's Order set 

forth in Exhibit A to Respondent's Motion shall be subject to the requested in camera treatment 

and will be kept confidential and not placed on the public record of this proceeding for a period 

of three to five years ending on June 1,2012 or June 1,2014. 

By direction of the Commission. 

ORDERED: --------

PPAB 1760024vl 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 14, 2010, I caused to be filed via hand delivery and 

electronic mail delivery an original and twelve (12) copies of the foregoing Respondent's 

Motion for Tn Camera Treatment of Material Previously Afforded Such Treatment [Public], 

and that the electronic copy is a true and correct copy of the paper original and that a paper copy 

with an original signature is being filed with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

secretary@ftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on December 14, 2010, I caused to be served via first-class mail 

delivery and electronic mail delivery a copy of the foregoing Respondent's Motion for In 

Camera Treatment of Material Previously Afforded Such Treatment [Public], upon: 

PPAB 1760024vl 

Steven Dahm, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

sdahm@ftc.gov 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 335-9050 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Docket No. 9327 

In the Matter of Polypore International, Inc., a corporation 

EXHIBIT A 

TO 

Respondent's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously Afforded Such 

Treatment 
MATERIAL REDACTED PURSUANT TO RULE 

3.45(b) OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

RULES OF PRACTICE, 16 C.F.R. ~3.45(b) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Docket No. 9327 

In the Matter of Polypore International, Inc., a corporation 

EXHIBITB 

TO 

Respondent's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously Afforded Such 

Treatment 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

PUBLIC 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

DECLARATION OF HARRY D. SEIBERT 

HARRY D. SEIBERT, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am the Senior Vice President of Global Sales & Business Development of 

Daramic LLC ("Daramic"), a Polypore company. I am over the age of eighteen years and I 

make this affidavit on personal knowledge of its content. 

2. I am familiar with the documents and other information maintained by Polypore 

and the level of confidentiality associated with the subject matter therein. 

3. I submit this declaration in support of Polypore's Motion for In Camera 

Treatment of Material Previously Afforded Such Treatment, requesting in camera treatment of 

certain material included in the Commission's Opinion in the proceeding. 

4. I have reviewed the material appearing on Exhibit A of Polyp ore's Motion for In 

Camera Treatment of Material Previously Afforded Such Treatment and believe that such 

material contains highly sensitive and confidential information, which is material to Polypore's 

business, and which would result in serious competitive injury to Polypore should it be made 

public. 

5. As set forth in the sub-paragraphs herein, the information contained in the 

material appearing on Exhibit A of Polypore's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material 

PPAB 1756812v4 
Previously Afforded Such Treatment contains highly sensitive information including, but not 

limited to, { 

} . The public 

disclosure of any of this confidential business information would be highly detrimental to 

Polypore as it { 

} 

and result in a clearly defined, serious injury to Polypore. 

PPAB 1756812v4 

a. Confidential Information Contained on Commission Opinion - Page 

Number 2. 

{ 

}. 

b. Confidential Information Contained on Commission Opinion - Page 

Number 3. 

{ 
PPAB 1756812v4 

}. 

{ 

}. 

c. Confidential Information Contained on Commission Opinion - Page 

Number 29. 

The confidential information Polypore seeks to protect { 

}. 

Significantly, access to this information would { 
}. 

PPAB 1756812v4 

e. Confidential Information Contained on Commission Opinion - Page 

Number 31. 

{ 

}. 

f. Confidential. Information Contained on Commission Opinion - Page 

Number 38. 

{ 
}. 

6. The information contained in the material appearing on Exhibit A of Polypore's 

Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously Afforded Such Treatment has been 

maintained internally by Polypore in a confidential manner, only being shared with those 

individuals requiring such knowledge. 

7. Prior to this administrative proceeding, the information contained in the material 

appearing on Exhibit A of Polypore's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously 

Afforded Such Treatment, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has been revealed only to 

appropriate Polypore personnel and any contracting parties to particular documents. General 

Polypore employees do not have access to the information contained in the material appearing on 

Exhibit A of Polypore's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously Afforded Such 

Treatment. Such information is not in the public domain and cannot be obtained through other 

means. 

8. Polypore has taken, and continues to take, all due precautions to safeguard the 

confidential nature of the information contained in the material appearing on Exhibit A of 

Polypore's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously Afforded Such Treatment. 

In particular, Polypore has previously sought and been granted in camera treatment for this 

material by way of the following motions to the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding: 

Respondent's First Motion for In Camera Treatment (April 9, 2009), Respondent's Second 

PPAB 1756812v4 
Further Declarant sayeth not. 

I declare, under penalty of peljury, that the above statements are true and COlTect. 

Sworn to December3vtA ,2010. 

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG 

I, ~~ ~~ ,a Notary Public of l0.eddut/~~ County, State of North Carolina, do hereby ce11ify that HARRY D. SEIBE personally 

appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution ofthe forgoing instrument. 

Witness my hand and seal, this 2> ,J,day of Decembe ',2010. 

My Commission Expires: 

[NOTARY SEAL] 

PPAB 1756812vl