~_ ~.h"iì ri Úl..D~

""/ ~ t! ,i '?~\. 1RADE CO/t1fi/ll.l; 

S'~ RFCr-IVFD Dn"", 1'" .. '" '\/

~,y - - -'li/ eN rs "'-/'
 a:~7 'r3D .,trWV 1 0 Z009
 

UNITED,STATES OF AMERICA " 5',155;1
 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION "',.-~~~," 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUGES 

)


In the Matter of
 ) 

)
 Docket No. 9327

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
 )
 

Respondent.
 ) 

) 

ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S FIFTH 

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

I. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) ofthe Commission's Rules of 
 Practice and the October 15, 2009 

Order Granting Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record and Setting Hearing 

Schedule, as revised by the October 23,2009 Order Granting Motion to Revise Hearing 

Schedule, Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polyp 
 ore") submitted its fifth motion for in 

camera treatment on November 3, 2009 ("motion"). Respondent's motion seeks in camera 

treatment for certain tral exhibits and for possible trial testimony by Polypore witnesses. 

Complaint Counsel's submitted its opposition on November 6,2009. Complaint Counsel 

takes no position with respect to Respondent's motion for in camera treatment of 
 its proposed 

trial exhibits, but does oppose Respondent's motion for in camera treatment for possible trial 

testimony by Polypore witnesses. 

For the reasons set forth below, Respondent's motion is GRANTED in par and DENIED 

in part. 

II. 

The legal standards that apply to motions for in camera treatment, including the instant 

motion, are set forth in the May 6,2009 Order on Non-Parties' Motions for In. Camera 

Treatment and the May 13, 2009 Order on Respondent's Second Motion for In Camera
 

Treatment.
 

A. 

Respondent's motion seeks in camera treatment for certain proposed tral exhibits 

containing confidential information. Respondent asserts that these proposed exhibits are highly 

sensitive and proprietary and that public disclosure would divulge Polypore's most sensitive and 

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

- ., ----ï .. ...
serious injury to Polypore. Respondent supports its motion with a Declaration from Michael 

Shor, Special Counsel for Polypore. Shor describes the documents for which in camera 

treatment is sought and declares that each document contains sensitive and confidential 

information, the disclosure of which would seriously injure Respondent. Shor further declares 

that each document has been maintained internally by Respondent in a confidential manner, and 

is shared only with those individuals requiring the information contained therein. According to 

his Declaration, the documents that Respondent designates as proposed trial exhibits are 

organized into five categories: (1) business plans and strategies, (2) contract negotiations and 

customer contracts, 
 (3) customer-specific documents, (4) costing data, and (S) sales and financial 

information. 

Shor's Declaration supports Respondent's claims that the documents are sufficiently 

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

injury. That showing was balanced against the importance of the information in explaining the 

rationale of decisions at the Commission. 

Respondent requests in camera treatment for the proposed trial exhibits for a period of 

three or five years, depending on the document type. While in camera treatment wil be granted 

for the periods requested, the expiration date of in camera treatment wil be altered for 

administrative convenience. Previously issued orders which granted in camera treatment for 

periods of 
 three or five years set expiration dates of June 1,2012 and June 1,2014. So that all in 

camera treatment orders wil expire at the same time, the expiration dates of the in camera 

treatment granted in this order wil also expire on June 1,2012 and June 1,2014. 

With respect to the documents for which Respondent seeks in camera treatment, 

Respondent's Fifth Motion for In Camera Treatment is GRANTED. 

In camera treatment for a period ofthree years, expiring on June 1,2012, wil be 

extended to the documents for which Respondent requests in camera treatment of that duration, 

in accordance with Section III of this Order. 

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

to the documents for which Respondent requests in camera treatment of that duration, in 

accordance with Section II of 
 this Order. 

B. 

Respondent's motion also seeks in camera treatment for possible trial testimony by 

Polypore witnesses. Complaint Counsel opposes that request. 

It is not appropriate to designate all tral testimony as in camera before any of it has 

taken place. If counsel wishes to elicit testimony on information that has been granted in camera 

treatment, questions pertaining to in camera information shall be segregated into a separate 

portion of the examination of the witness. Trial wil go into an in camera session when 

testimony on in camera documents is elicited. 

2 

. ., -----.. 
Accordingly with respect to the testimony to be offered by Polypore witnesses, 

Respondent's Fifth Motion for In Camera Treatment is DENIED. 

III. 

At the conclusion of 
 the hearng scheduled for November 12, 2009, Respondent shall 

prepare a proposed order, with a signature line for the Administrative Law Judge, that lists, by 

exhibit number, the documents which have been admitted and have been granted in camera 

treatment by this order and that sets forth the expiration date of in camera treatment for each 

exhibit. 

ORDERED: ::M. (~ D. Michael Ch ppell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: November 10, 2009 

., 

3 

-----,