UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9327 

) 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

) 

) 

a corporation ) PUBLICI 

) 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

OF CERTAIN TRIAL EXHIBITS 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Rules of 
 Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 

3.45 (b), and the October 22, 2008 Scheduling Order2 ("Scheduling Order"), Respondent 

Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore"), by and through counsel, seeks in camera treatment for 

certain documents containing confidential information produced in this proceeding. These 

documents are highly sensitive and proprietary in nature. Public disclosure of such information 

would divulge Polypore's most sensitive and confidential information to competitors and/or 

customers, and would cause irreparable harm and serious injury to Polypore. Accordingly,
 

Polypore respectfully requests an order requiring these materials to be used at the hearing only in 

camera and maintained under seaL. 

The specific pages and documents which have been identified by Polypore, after a 

thorough review of Complaint Counsel's and Polypore's own Final Exhibit Lists, fall within the 

Commission's guidelines for appropriate in camera treatment as set forth in the opinions of this 

i This Motion refers to and contains information subject to Respondent's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain 

Trial Exhibits pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of the FTC's Rules of Practice. Such information has been redacted and labeled 

"(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment)" in the public version of this Motion. 

2 As amended by Order dated February 4, 2009. 

PPAB 1553037vl 
Commission.3 Each document identified by Polypore contains sensitive 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" warants in camera treatment. 

General Foods Corp., 95 FTC 352 (1980). The documents at issue in this motion are listed in 

the index attached hereto as Exhibit A. For ease of reference, Polypore has grouped the items 

identified in Exhibit A into the following categories: 

1. Category 1 - Business Plans & Strategies 

2. Category 2 - Contract Negotiations & Customer Contracts 

3. Category 3 - Intellectual Property & Proprietary Information 

4. Category 4 - Market Analysis Documents 

5. Category 5 - Pricing Strategy Documents 

6. Category 6 - Customer-Specific Documents 

7. Category 7 - Costing Data
 

8. Category 8 - Sales & Financial Information
 

9. Category 9 - Multiple Category Documents 

The grounds for this Motion are set forth herein, and this Motion is fully supported by the 

sworn Declaration of Michael Shor ("Shor Decl.") attached hereto as Exhibit B and which 

individually analyzes each item listed on Exhibit A. The documents themselves are attached to 

the Motion in electronic form as Exhibit C. 

3 See In re Dura Lube Corp., 1999 FTC LEXIS 255 (Dec. 231999); 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) 

2 

PPAB 1553037v1 
Introduction 

On March 20, 2009, Complaint Counsel served Respondent with its Final Proposed 

Exhibit List4 which identified Complaint Counsel's potential trial exhibits. Complaint Counsel's 

Final Proposed Exhibit List included approximately 1,364 exhibits. Respondent's Final 

Proposed Exhibit List was served upon Complaint Counsel on March 27, 2009.5 Respondent's 

Final Proposed Exhibit List identified approximately 1,500 potential trial exhibits. 

In preparation of this motion, Respondent carefully reviewed each document identified 

on either Complaint Counsel's or Polypore's Final Proposed Exhibit List to determine whether 

the confidential material warranted in camera treatment. From a business perspective, 

Respondent would prefer that any information it considers confidential remain outside the public 

domain. However, Respondent understands that its own treatment of that information does not 

mean the materials merit in camera protection and, consequently, Respondent has carefully
 

limited the number and nature of documents for which it requests in camera protection. As 

Respondent wil demonstrate herein and in the supporting Declaration of Michael Shor, the 

public disclosure of the documents identified in Exhibit A wil 
 likely result in a clearly defined, 

serious injury to Respondent, thus justifying in camera treatment under the standard articulated 

by the Commission in 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). 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

4 As subsequently amended.
 

5 As subsequently amended.
 

3 

PPAB l553037vl 
Argument 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.45(b), the Administrative Law Judge may order material, 

or portions thereof, offered into evidence. . . to be placed in camera on a finding that their public 

disclosure wil 
 likely result "in a clearly defined, serious injury to the. . corporation requesting

in camera treatment." 16 C.F.R. § 3. 
 45(b)(emphasis added). Establishing that a "serious injury' 

would ensue with disclosure requires a demonstration that serious and irreparable harm wil 

result from the Court's publication of the confidential documents. Meeting such a standard 

requires Respondent to make a clear showing that the information concerned is "sufficiently 

secret and sufficiently material to (Respondent's) business that disclosure would result in serious 

competitive injury." See Bristol-Myers Co., 90 FTC 455 (1977), General Foods Corp., 95 FTC 

352 (1980). 

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 diffculty 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 

ofa clearly defined, serious injury." Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 2000 FTC LEXIS 138 (Sept. 

19,2000). 

As set forth below and in the Declaration of Michael Shor, the documents list in Exhibit 

A, and grouped by the previously identified nine categories, contain information sufficiently 

4 

PPAB l553037vl 
secret, and suffciently material to Polypore's business, that disclosure constitutes a serious
 

competitive injury under the Bristol-Myers factors and prevailng Commission law. 

I. IN CAMERA TREATMENT IS WARRTED FOR THE FOLLOWING
 

POLYPORE DOCUMENTS 

A. Category One - Business Plans & Strategies
 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

B. Category Two - Contract Negotiations & Customer Contracts
 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

C. Category Three - Intellectual Property & Proprietary Information
 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

D. Category Four - Market Analysis Documents
 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

E. Category Five - Pricing Strategy Documents
 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

F. Category Six - Customer-Specific Documents
 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

G. Category Seven - Costing Data
 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

H. Category Eight - Sales and Financial Information
 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

I. Category Nine - Multiple-Category Documents
 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment) 

II. IN CAMERA TREATMENT IS ALSO WARRNTED FOR POSSIBLE TRIAL
 

TESTIMONY BY POL YPORE'S WITNESSES 

5 

PPAB l553037v1 
Both Respondent and Complaint Counsel have designated several Polypore employees as 

potential trial witnesses. Polypore's employees wil likely be questioned about the topics 

covered by this motion. Testimony on all of these topics could result in the disclosure of the 

same information contained in the documents described above. Thus, Polypore also requests that 

any trial testimony, either upon direct examination or cross examination by either party on any of 

these topics, be subject to in camera treatment for a period of 
 three (3) to five (5) years from the 

date of this motion. 

Conclusion 

(Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment). For the foregoing 

reasons and those articulated in the Declaration of Michael Shor, Polypore respectfully requests 

that this Cour grant in camera protection to all the documents identified on Exhibit A and any 

trial testimony related to the topics covered by the documents in Exhibit A. 

6 

PPAB 1553037v1 
Dated: April 9, 2009 Respectfully submitted, W~ 2l a /W?W 

Willam L. Rikard, Jr. 

Eric D. Welsh 

PARKR POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Three Wachovia Center 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9689 

wiliarikardtfparkerpoe.com 

ericwelshtfparkerpoe.com 

John F. Graybeal 

PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

150 Fayettevile Street 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Telephone: (919) 835-4599 

Facsimile: (919) 828-0564 

j ohngraybealtfparkerpoe.com 

Attorneys for Respondent 

PPAB l553037vl 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCHEDULING ORDER 

I, Brian R. Weyhrich., Esq., on behalf of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP ("Parker 

Poe") as counsel for Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore"), hereby represent that Parker Poe 

has conferred with Complaint Counsel in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the 

issues raised by its Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain Trial Exhibits and have been 

unable to reach such an agreement. Parker Poe and Complaint Counsel discussed these issues in 

e-mail communication on April 8, 2009 and April 9, 2009. As a result of these communications 

it was concluded that Polypore and Complaint Counsel were at an impasse with respect to the 

issue raised in Respondent's motion. 

PPAB l553037vl 
Dated: April 9, 2009 '6.: W~ 

Brian R. Weyhrich. 0 

PARKR POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

Three Wachovia Center
 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 372-9000
 

Facsimile: (704) 335-9689
 

brianweyhrichtfparkerpoe.com
 

PPAB l553037vl 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

) 

PROPOSED ORDER 

Upon consideration of Respondent's Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain Trial 

Exhibits, 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), the documents identified in the index

attached as Exhibit A to the Motion, and any related trial testimony, shall be subject to the 

requested in camera treatment and wil be kept confidential and not placed on the public record 

of this proceeding. 

D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Date: 

PPAB l553037v1 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 9, 2009, I caused to be fied via hand delivery and electronic 

mail delivery an original and two copies of the foregoing Respondent's Motion for In Camera 

Treatment of Certain Trial Exhibits (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 fied with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

secretarytfftc. gov 

I hereby certify that on April 9, 2009, I caused to be served one copy via electronic mail 

delivery and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Respondent's Motion for 

In Camera Treatment of 
 Certain Trial Exhibits (PUBLIC) upon:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oaljtfftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on April 9, 2009, 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 Certain Trial Exhibits (PUBLIC) upon: 

J. Robert Robertson, Esq. Steven Dah, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

rrobertsontfftc.gov sdahtfftc. gov 

PPAB l553037vl 
~-= t/P


Brian R. Weyhrich ?J 

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP
 

Three Wachovia Center
 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
 

Charlotte, NC 28202
 

Telephone: (704) 335-9050
 

Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
 

PPAB 1553037vl 
~ ~~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ .~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 8 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 .. 0\ $ 0\ $ 0\ 0\ ~ ~ 0\ 0\ 0\ VI ~ VI ~ VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI .t .t w 0 c: c: \D \D \D 00 VI ~ w tv tv 00 00 00 .. 0\ VI VI VI VI VI .t .t .t ~ 0 0 w tv .. 0 \D 00 .. 0\ VI ~. W 00 0 00 00 .. .. 0\ 0 .. tv VI .t W .. 0 \D 00 0\.0 .t tv 0 

"t "t "t ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0\ 0\ 0\ 

VI ¡1 VI tv \D 

~ 

..0.t 

"t 

~ 

...t

.. 

. 

.... 

~ 

I 

....... 

'.' 

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - - .. .. - .. - - .. .. .. .. .. - - - .. .. .. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9327 

) 

) 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation 

) 

) 

) PUBLIC DOCUMENTI 

) 

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL SHOR 

I, Michael Shor, being duly sworn and based upon my personal knowledge, declare and 

state as follows: 

1. I am Special Counsel of Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore").
 

2. I am familar with the documents of Polypore and the level of confdentiality associated
 

with the subject matter therein. 

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

Certain Trial Exhibits, requesting in camera treatment of certain documents, identified by 

Complaint Counsel and/or Polypore as potential trial exhibits at the hearing of this 

matter. 

4. A small number of agents acting at my direction assisted me in multiple reviews of each 

of the documents appearing on Exhibit A of Polyp ore's Motion for In Camera Treatment 

of Certain Trial Exhibits. These comprehensive reviews were conducted for the purose 

i This Declaration refers to and contains information subject to Respondent's Motion for In Camera Treatment of 

Certain Trial Exhibits pursuant to Rule 3.4S(b) of the FTC's Rules of Practice. Such information has been redacted and labeled 

"fRedacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment)" in the public version of this Declaration. 

PPAB 1553028v1 
of determining which designated exhibits contai confdential information, the public 

disclosure of which would cause a clearly defined, serious injur to Polypore. 

5. I am personally informed of the content of the individual documents and groups of
 

documents that were reviewed, and the specific bases upon which Polypore is moving for 

in camera treatment of such documents. 

6. Each of the documents identified in Exhibit. A of Polypre's Motion for In Camera
 

Treatment of Certin Trial Exhibits, and individually descrîbed herein, contains sensitive 

and confidential material and/or information that would result in competitive injur to
 

Polypore should it be made public. 

7. Each document identified by Polypore as requiring in camera treatment has been 

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

individuals requiring the knowledge contained within 
 the documents. Additionally, each

such, document has, upøn production in this case, been designated "Confdential 

Material'; pursuant to the Protective Order entered on October 23,2008. 

8. Exhibit A to Polypore's Motion for In Camera 	 Treàtment of Certain Trial Exhibits is an 

index which lists each document for which Polypore seeks in camera treatment. This 

index contains the ,exhibit designation (i,e" "RX" or "PX"), the exhibit number, a 

description of the exhibit, the date of the exhibit, the individual pages (if applicable)
 

requiring in camera treatment, the categorical reason for seeking, in camera treatment, . ' and the length of 
 time for which in camera treatment is sought.

9. The documents identified in Polypore's Motion for In Camera Treatment of 	 Certain Trial 

Exhbits contain (Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment). 

PPAß l553028v1 
The public disclosure of any of this critically sensitive information would be highly 

detrimental to Polypore (Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera 

Treatment). Each document is individually reviewed in tur below, and for 

convenience's sake, organized by the following categories: 

(a) Category 1 - Business Plans & Strategies.
 

(b) Category 2- Contract Negotiations & Customer Contracts
 

( c) Category' 3 - Intellectual Propert & Proprietar Information
 

, (d) Category 4 - Market Analysis Documents
 

( e) Category 5 - Pricing Strategy Documents
 

, (f) Category 6 - Customer~Specific Documents
 

(g) Category 7 - Costing Data
 

(h) Category 8 - Sales & Financial Information
 

(i) Category 9 - Multiple Category Documents
 

i O. Also for convenience sake, the subject documents are also summarized in the index
 

attched as Exhbit A to Respondent's Motion.
 

CATEGORY ONE - BUaINESS PLANS & . . ......... ,. . .
 , ,
 STRATEGIES

Ii. (Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment).
 

CATEGORY TWO - CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS & CUSTOMER CONTRACTS . 

12. (Redacted -Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment).
 

CATEGORY THRK- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & PROPRIETARY 

INFORMATION' 

13. (Redacted -. Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment).
 

PPAB J553028vl 

. 
CATEGORY FOUR - MARKT ANALYSIS DOCUMENTS 

14. (Redacted - Subject to Pending MotionforInCamera Treatment).
 

CATEGORY FIVE - PRICING 
 STRATEGY DOCUMENTS 

15. (Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment).
 

CATEGORY SIX- CUSTOMER~SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS 

16. (Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment).
 

CATEGORY SEVEN - COSTING DATA 

17. (Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment).
 

CATEGORY EIGHT - SALES & FINANCIAL INFORMATION 

18. (Redacted - Subject 
 to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment). 

CATEGORY NINE - MULTIPLE-CATEGORY DOCUMENTS 

19. (Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment).
 

20. Prior to this administrative proceeding, the information contained in the documents
 

identified byPolypore for in 
.' ,"
 camera treatment has been revealed only to appropriate

Polypore personnel and any contracting paries to the paricular documents. General 

_ --o1y£~re employees do not have access to the documents containing in camera materiaL. 

Such information is not in the public domain and cannot be obtained though other 

means. 

21. (Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment).
 

22. (Redacted - Subject to Pending Motion for In Camera Treatment).
 

PPAB lSS3028vl 
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above statements are true and correct. 

This 1f day of April, 2009.
 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

NOTARIZED: 

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

COUNTY OF UNION 

I, Marsha Barnes, a Notary Public of Union County, State of 
 North Carolina, do hereby 

certify that Michael Shor personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the 

execution of the foregoing instrument. 

Witness my hand and seal, this r day of April, 2009.
 

My Commission Expires: d I 'il ~l
 

(NOTARY SEAL) 

PPAB l553028vl