OBJGtNAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ;i .."/'7;¿O;; "'.' /~~~s)'~\;1~lJ";!:',dr,~:':~;)~;~;.:\

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ~~ N()~/ f (; .,..,'9 't,::,,;;, \\ 

"\" S-l .rJ-~!;- ii 

"'''C''~:2::'==CC=C'5'.f/'

) In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327

Polypore International, Inc.
 

a corporation. )

) Public Document
 

)
 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIFTH MOTION FOR 
 IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRIAL EXHIBITS 

Although the bulk of Respondent's exhibits are not admissible, Complaint Counsel takes 

no position with respect to Respondent's Motion for in camera treatment of 
 its proposed trial 

exhibits. Complaint Counsel does oppose Respondent's motion for in camera treatment for 

possible trial testimony by Polypore witnesses as premature. 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION IS PREMATURE 

The Federal Trade Commission strongly favors making available to the public the full 

record of its adjudicative proceedings to permit public evaluation of the fairness of the 

Commission's work and to provide guidance to persons affected by its actions. In re Crown 

Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 71 F.T.C. 1714, 1714-15 (1967); In re HP. Hood & Sons, Inc., 58 F.T.C. 

1184, 1186 (1961). 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 injur." In re General Foods Corp., 95 F.T.C. 

252, 355 (1980). Respondent cannot make a clear showing that the information is secret and 

material because it canot predict what questions might be asked by Complaint Counsel, nor 

exactly what a witness might say on the stand. 

The Scheduling Order for this hearng provides only that on November 3, 2009 

Respondent may fie "motions for in camera treatment of 
 proposed exhibits." The scheduling 
order makes,no allowance for designating trial testimony in camera at this time. Respondent's 

Motion is premature. In the previous proceeding in this matter, the Cour provided a mechansm 

whereby the paries could review the testimony and designate portions as public. A similar 

mechansm would likely be appropriate here. On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to 

designate all of the trial testimony as in camera before any of it has taken place. 

CONCLUSION 

Complaint Counsel respectfully requests that the Cour deny Respondent's Fifth Motion 

for In Camera Treatment of Certain Trial Exhibits, at least with respect to the designation of trial 

testimony as in camera. 

Dated: November 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted, 

Steven A. Dah 

. 

~

Bureau of Competition 

Federal Trade Commission 

601 New Jersey Ave. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2192 

Facsimile: (202) 326-2071 

2
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on November 6,2009, I filed via hand delivery an original and two 

copies of 
 the foregoing Complaint Counsel's Response to Respondent's Fifth Motion for In 

Camera Treatment of Certain Trial Exhibits with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretar 

Office of the Secretar 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

I hereby certify that on November 6,2009, I served via hand and electronic mail delivery 

two copies ofthe foregoing Complaint Counsel's Response to Respondent's Fifth Motion for In 

Camera Treatment of Certain Trial Exhibits with: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oali(qftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on November 6, 2008, I served via electronic and first class mail 

delivery a copy of the foregoing Complaint Counsel's Complaint Counsel's Response to 

Respondent's Fifth Motion for In Camera Treatment of Certain Trial Exhbits with: 

William L. Rikard, Jr., Esq. 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

williamikard(qparkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh(qparkerpoe.com