02 28 2012 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

 ) 

In the Matter of ) 

) PUBLIC 

McWANE, INC., ) 

a corporation, ) 

) 

and ) Docket No. 9351 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, ) 

a limited partnership ) 

)

 )

 ) 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

RESPONDENT McWANE’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

Pursuant to Rule 3.32 of the Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice, Complaint 

Counsel hereby responds to Respondent McWane Inc.’s First Set of Requests for Admission 

(“First Requests for Admission”). Complaint Counsel has endeavored to offer a good faith 

response to the First Requests for Admission, but reserves the right to supplement our responses 

after the close of discovery, especially insofar as Respondents may produce additional 

documents and information before the close of discovery, the review of which may alter our 

responses herein. 

Subject to the General and Specific Objections below, Complaint Counsel answers as 

follows: 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

The following General Objections apply to each request for admission (“Request”) in the 

First Requests for Admission, and are incorporated by reference into each response. The 

assertion of the same, similar or additional objections, or partial answers in response to an 

1 
individual Request, does not waive any of Complaint Counsel’s General Objections as to the 

other Requests. 

1. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission because 

Respondent McWane, Inc. failed to file a copy of its First Requests for Admission with the 

Secretary, as required under Rule 3.32(b). 

2. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission to the extent the 

Requests are directed to the Federal Trade Commission rather than to Complaint Counsel. 

3. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission to the extent they 

seek to impose duties and obligations upon Complaint Counsel beyond the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. Complaint Counsel’s responses will comply with the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. 

4. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission to the extent the 

Requests do not separately set forth each matter for which an admission is requested as required 

under Rule 3.32(a). 

5. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission to the extent the 

Requests, including all separate and distinct subparts, exceed the 50 requests for admission 

allowed in Paragraph 10 of the February 15, 2012, Scheduling Order. 

6. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission as premature to 

the extent the Requests seek information that relates to expert testimony prior to the dates 

prescribed by the February 15, 2012, Scheduling Order. 

7. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission to the extent the 

Requests are overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and are not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

2 
8. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission to the extent the 

Requests call for information previously provided to Respondent McWane or for information 

that may be less onerously obtained through other means. 

9. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission to the extent the 

Requests seek information protected by deliberative process privilege, law enforcement 

investigative privilege, informant’s privilege, or the attorney work product doctrine. Complaint 

Counsel does not, by any response to any Request, waive or partially waive any applicable 

privilege or attorney work product claim. 

10. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission to the extent the 

Requests do not relate to statements or opinions of fact, or to the application of law to fact, and 

thereby exceed the scope of Rule 3.32 governing requests for admission. 

11. Complaint Counsel objects to the First Requests for Admission to the extent that 

any Request that quotes from a document, or references a statement, solicits or implies an 

admission that the quote or statement is evidence of the truth of the matter asserted. 

12. Complaint Counsel reserves all of its evidentiary objections or other objections to 

the introduction or use of any response herein at the hearing in this action, and does not, by any 

response to any Request, waive any objection to that Request, stated or unstated. 

13. Complaint Counsel does not, by any response to any Request, admit to the 

validity of any legal or factual contention asserted in the text of any Request. 

14. Complaint Counsel’s discovery and investigation in this matter are continuing. 

Complaint Counsel reserves the right to assert additional objections to the First Requests for 

Admission, and to amend or supplement these objections and responses as necessary. 

3 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
 

REQUEST NO. 1: Admit that at all relevant times, Domestic Fittings and Non-domestic 

Fittings competed against each other in Open Preference jobs including before, during, and 

after ARRA. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “all relevant times” and “competed against” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to the 

General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, but admits that 

Domestic Fittings and Non-domestic Fittings have been substitutes for Open Preference jobs 

before, during, and after the passage of ARRA in 2009. 

REQUEST NO. 2: Admit that Domestic Fittings and Non-domestic Fittings are functionally 

interchangeable. 

RESPONSE: Subject to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel admits that Domestic 

Fittings and Non-domestic Fittings are functionally interchangeable generally, but denies that 

Domestic Fittings and Non-domestic Fittings can be used interchangeably by consumers for 

Domestic Preference jobs. 

REQUEST NO. 3: Admit that, from at least 2003, the vast majority of requests for proposal 

and specifications that include DIWF that are issued in the United States are Open 

Preference. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “vast majority” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to the General and Specific 

Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, but admits that the majority of requests for 

proposal and specifications that include DIWF in the United States have been Open Preference 

since at least 2007. Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to 

admit or deny the number of Open Preference jobs prior to 2007. 

4 
 

REQUEST NO. 4: Admit that Non-domestic Fittings have accounted for the majority of all 

sales of DIWF in the United States in the last five years. 

RESPONSE: Subject to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel admits that Non-domestic 

Fittings have accounted for the majority of sales of DIWF in the United States in the last five 

years. 

REQUEST NO. 5: Admit that DIWF customer preferences have shifted away from Domestic 

Fittings toward Non-domestic Fittings over the last fifteen years. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “customer preferences” and “shifted away” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to the 

General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel, after a reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient 

information to admit or deny this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 6: Admit that between 2000 and 2007, according to the U.S. ITC, sales of 

Non-domestic Fittings into the United States have increased by 47.2%. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “sales” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request as 

unduly burdensome to the extent it requires Complaint Counsel to research all ITC decisions to 

determine if the ITC made the finding attributed to it by Respondent. Complaint Counsel also 

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks Complaint Counsel to admit the truth of the 

underlying assertion. Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel, after a 

reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 7: Admit that according to discovery obtained by the FTC in its DIWF 

Investigation, including but not limited to FTC TU-FTC000727 – TU-FTC002034, McWane’s 

average price for Non-domestic Fittings was lower in 2010 than in 2008. 

5 
RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “average price” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this 

Request as premature to the extent it seeks information relating to issues that may be the subject 

of expert testimony in this case. Complaint Counsel also objects to this Request inasmuch as the 

cited document does not list or identify “average prices” for Non-domestic fittings. Subject to 

the General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel, after a reasonable inquiry, lacks 

sufficient information to admit or deny this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 8: Admit that, according to the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) cast iron 

scrap price series, in the first half of 2008 scrap prices increased by almost 50%, and from the 

end of 2009 to early 2010 increased by more than 15%. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “almost” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request 

for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as required by 

Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least two separate admissions of fact. Complaint Counsel also 

objects to this Request as unduly burdensome to the extent it requires Complaint Counsel to 

research and analyze all BLS cast iron scrap price data to determine if they support the findings 

attributed to the BLS by the Respondent. Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request to 

the extent it seeks Complaint Counsel to admit the truth of the underlying assertions. Subject to 

the General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether the BLS cast iron scrap price series indicates that scrap prices increased by 

almost 50% in the first half of 2008; and 

6 
b) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether the BLS cast iron scrap price series indicates that scrap prices increased by more 

than 15% from the end of 2009 to early 2010. 

REQUEST NO. 9: Admit that McWane’s annual domestic DIWF production in 2009 and 

2010 was less than half of Union Foundry’s 40,000-ton capacity, due to lower demand for 

Domestic Fittings. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “due to” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request 

for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as required by 

Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least at least two separate admissions of fact. Subject to the General 

and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether McWane’s annual domestic DIWF production in 2009 and 2010 was less than 

half of Union Foundry’s capacity or whether Union Foundry’s capacity was 40,000 tons in 2009 

and 2010; and 

b) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny the reasons for McWane’s annual domestic DIWF production rates in 2009 and 2010. 

REQUEST NO. 10: Admit that in its 2003 investigation of imports in the ductile iron 

waterworks fittings market, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) reached a 

unanimous affirmative determination finding that “imported and domestic products are 

interchangeable,” that “the domestic and imported products are substitutable, and most 

purchasers rated them as comparable in quality,” and that Non-domestic Fittings were “being 

imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to 

cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like or directly competitive products,” 

and that Domestic Fittings accounted for 20% or less of all DIWF sales in the United States. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

this Request as unduly burdensome because it fails to identify the page number or general 

7 
 

location of the quoted language in the 149-page report identified by Respondent. Complaint 

Counsel further objects to this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission 

is requested separately, as required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least five separate admissions 

of fact. Complaint Counsel also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks Complaint Counsel 

to admit the truth of the underlying assertions. Subject to the General and Specific Objections, 

Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel admits that the report from the U.S. International Trade 

Commission, “Certain Ductile Iron Waterworks Fittings from China,” Investigation No. TA-421-

4, Publication 3657, dated December 2003, (“TA-421-4”), states that, “imported and domestic 

products are interchangeable;” 

b) Complaint Counsel admits that TA-421-4 states that, “the domestic and imported 

products are substitutable and most purchasers rated them as comparable in quality;” 

c) Complaint Counsel admits that TA-421-4 states that, “certain DIWF from China 

are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as 

to cause, or threaten to cause market disruption of domestic producers of like or directly 

competitive products;” 

d) Complaint Counsel, after a reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to 

admit or deny whether TA-421-4 states that Domestic Fittings accounted for 20% or less of all 

DIWF sales in the United States; and 

e) Complaint Counsel admits that TA-421-4 relates to an investigation of Certain 

Ductile Iron Waterworks Fittings from China, and was a unanimous and affirmative 

determination. 

8 
REQUEST NO. 11: Admit that during 2009 and 2010, annual imports of DIWF were 53,561 

and 62,955 tons, respectively, according to public U.S. ITC data, while McWane’s domestic 

DIWF sales were only 14,957 and 22,343, according to TylerUnion’s Waterworks Fittings 

Financial Statements. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel further objects to the 

term “sales” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request for 

failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as required by 

Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least two separate admissions of fact. Complaint Counsel also 

objects to this Request as unduly burdensome to the extent that it requires Complaint Counsel to 

research all ITC decisions to determine if the ITC made the findings attributed to it by 

Respondent. Complaint Counsel also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks Complaint 

Counsel to admit the truth of the underlying assertions. Subject to the General and Specific 

Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel, after a reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to 

admit or deny whether, according to public US ITC data, annual imports of DIWF were 53,561 

and 62,955 tons during 2009 and 2010, respectively; and 

b) Complaint Counsel, after a reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to 

admit or deny whether, according to TylerUnion’s Waterworks Fittings Financial Statements, 

McWane’s domestic DIWF sales were 14,957 and 22,343 tons in 2009 and 2010, respectively. 

REQUEST NO. 12: Admit that DIFRA began gathering DIWF shipment tonnage data in the 

Spring of 2008, first published aggregated DIWF shipment tonnage data for all DIFRA 

members in June 2008, and that DIFRA issued its last report of aggregated DIWF shipment 

tonnage data for all DIFRA members in December 2008. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as 

9 
required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least three separate admissions of fact. Subject to the 

General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel admits that DIFRA began gathering DIWF shipment tonnage 

data in the Spring of 2008; 

b) Complaint Counsel admits that DIFRA first published aggregated DIWF 

shipment tonnage data to DIFRA members in June 2008; and 

c) Complaint Counsel admits that the most recent report issued by DIFRA regarding 

aggregated DIWF shipment tonnage data to DIFRA members was in December 2008. 

REQUEST NO. 13: Admit that DIFRA was briefly operational from mid-2008 through to the 

end of 2008, was defunct by the beginning of 2009, and that there is no evidence that DIFRA 

will become operational again or will gather and disseminate DIWF sales or any other volume 

data at any point in the future. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “briefly,” “operational,” and “defunct” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel 

further objects to this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is 

requested separately, as required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least three separate admissions of 

fact. Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, 

except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel admits that DIFRA existed for the period of mid-2008 

through to the end of 2008, but denies that this was the only time period of its existence; 

b) Complaint Counsel denies that DIFRA ceased to exist as a corporation by the 

beginning of 2009; and 

10 
c) Complaint Counsel denies that there is no evidence that DIFRA will become 

operational again or will gather and disseminate DIWF sales or any other volume data at any 

point in the future. 

REQUEST NO. 14: Admit that DIFRA and its members were counseled by antitrust lawyers 

regarding compliance with the antitrust laws and that antitrust counsel attended and oversaw 

all communications and meetings of the DIFRA members and that a third-party accounting 

firm, SHRW, gathered, aggregated, and disseminated only DIWF shipment tonnage data from 

the DIFRA members between mid-2008 and Spring 2009 and at no other time. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “counseled” and “oversaw” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further 

objects to this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested 

separately, as required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least three separate admissions of fact. 

Complaint Counsel also objects to this Request as irrelevant and not likely to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence because Respondent has not asserted an advice of counsel 

defense. Subject to the General Objections and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies 

this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel admits that the third-party accounting firm, SHRW, gathered, 

aggregated, and disseminated DIWF shipment tonnage data for at least the time period of mid2008 through to the end of 2008; 

b) Complaint Counsel denies that antitrust counsel attended and oversaw all 

communications and meetings of the DIFRA members; and 

c) Complaint Counsel, after a reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to 

admit or deny the subjects about which DIFRA and its members received counsel. 

11 
REQUEST NO. 15: Admit that the DIWF shipment tonnage data gathered by SRHW was 

aggregated across broad size ranges that mirrored major size groupings of pipe: 3-12," 14-

24," and over 24", that there was no geographic breakdown of where the tonnage was sold, 

and that there was no breakdown of tonnage sold in any of the thousands of different casting 

diameters, configurations, or finishes, other than joint type. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “broad size ranges” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this 

Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as 

required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least three separate admissions of fact. Subject to the 

General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel admits that the DIWF shipment tonnage data gathered by 

SRHW was aggregated across size ranges that mirrored major size groupings of pipe: 3-12”, 14-

24”, and over 24"; 

b) Complaint Counsel admits that the aggregated DIWF shipment tonnage data did 

not report the geographic area to which the tonnage was sold other than specifying that the data 

was limited to the United States and Puerto Rico; and 

c) Complaint Counsel admits that the aggregated DIWF shipment tonnage data did 

not breakdown tonnage by casting diameters, configurations, or finishes, other than joint type. 

REQUEST NO. 16: Admit that the shipment tonnage data gathered by SRHW did not 

distinguish between Domestic Fittings and Non-domestic Fittings and did not indicate whether 

the tonnage was sold into Open Preference or Domestic Preference jobs. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel objects to this Request 

for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as required by 

Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least two separate admissions of fact. Subject to the General and 

Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

12 
a) Complaint Counsel admits that the shipment tonnage data gathered by SRHW did 

not distinguish between Domestic Fittings and Non-domestic Fittings; and 

b) Complaint Counsel admits that the shipment tonnage data gathered by SRHW did 

not indicate whether the tonnage was sold into Open Preference or Domestic Preference jobs. 

REQUEST NO. 17: Admit that the shipment tonnage data gathered by SRHW was historic; 

each DIFRA member reported its shipment tonnage several weeks after compiling its monthly 

sales, the shipment tonnage reflected jobs that were bid months earlier, and SRHW then spent 

weeks combining the shipment tonnage data provided by each member and subsequently 

disseminated the aggregated volume data back to the DIFRA members. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “historic,” “several weeks,” “months earlier” and “prices” as vague and ambiguous. 

Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which 

an admission is requested separately, as required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least four 

admissions of fact. Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies 

this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether each DIFRA member reported its shipment tonnage several weeks after 

compiling its monthly sales; 

b) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether the shipment tonnage reflected jobs that were bid months earlier; 

c) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether SRHW then spent weeks combining the shipment tonnage data provided by 

each member; and 

13 
d) Complaint Counsel admits that, subsequent to DIFRA members reporting their 

shipment tonnage to DIFRA, SRHW disseminated aggregated volume data to the DIFRA 

members. 

REQUEST NO. 18: Admit that the aggregated shipment tonnage data reported by DIFRA 

could not be used to determine a DIWF manufacturer’s or supplier’s DIWF prices. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “determine” and “prices” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to the General and Specific 

Objections, Complaint Counsel admits that the aggregated tonnage data reported by DIFRA did 

not specify a DIWF manufacturer’s or DIWF supplier’s prices, but denies that the aggregated 

shipment tonnage data reported by DIFRA could not be used by Respondent or others to 

ascertain information about a DIWF manufacturer’s or supplier’s DIWF prices. 

REQUEST NO. 19: Admit that there is no evidence that McWane directly communicated its 

prices to any other DIWF manufacturer or supplier in advance of communicating them to its 

customers or potential customers. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “directly communicated,” “prices” and “in advance of” as vague and ambiguous. 

Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel, after a reasonable inquiry, 

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 20: Admit that there is no evidence that any other DIWF manufacturer or 

supplier learned of McWane’s prices in advance of McWane informing its customers. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “in advance of” and “prices” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to the General and 

Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel, after a reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information 

to admit or deny this Request. 

14 
REQUEST NO. 21: Admit that there is no evidence that the conduct under or terms of the 

MDA will recur or become effective again or that McWane and Sigma will enter into any such 

supplier-purchaser agreement at any point in the future. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “conduct under” and “become effective” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to the 

General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 22: Admit that McWane did not, as a result of McWane’s Domestic Rebate 

Policy or otherwise, sell DIWF to purchasers at prices that were below the average variable 

costs or average marginal costs of producing them. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “average variable costs” and “average marginal costs” as vague and ambiguous. 

Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request as irrelevant and not likely to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence because Complaint Counsel does not claim that Respondent 

engaged in predatory pricing. Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Complaint 

Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 23: Admit that McWane did not artificially decrease its output of any DIWF 

products. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “artificially decrease” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to the General and Specific 

Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 24: Admit that in June 2009 – four months after ARRA was enacted – Star 

announced at an AWWA industry conference in San Diego that it would begin selling fittings 

made by a number of unidentified third-party foundries in the United States, and that by 

September 2009, Star had issued a price list containing at least 4,500 Domestic Fittings and 

4,500 Non-domestic Fittings, that it has publicly stated in its September 2010 Newsletter, 

published on its web site, that “We are very proud of what we have been able to achieve in 

such a short period, and we could not have done it without the support and backing of our 

15 
customer partners. We are committed to manufacture both domestically and globally for the 

Waterworks Industry for a long time to come,” and that Star has offered for sale and actually 

sold Domestic Fittings. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as 

required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least four separate admissions of fact. Subject to the 

General and Specific Objections, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether Star announced in June 2009 at an AWWA industry conference in San Diego 

that it would begin selling fittings made by a number of unidentified third-party foundries in the 

United States; 

b) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether by September 2009, Star had issued a price list containing at least 4,500 

Domestic Fittings and 4,500 Non-domestic Fittings; 

c) Complaint Counsel admits that a demonstrative used by Counsel for Respondent 

McWane at the February 13, 2012 Hearing in this matter, which Counsel for Respondent 

identified as a screen shot from Star’s website, states “We are very proud of what we have been 

able to achieve in such a short period. And we could have not done it without the support and 

backing of our customer partners. We are committed to manufacture both domestically and 

globally for the Waterworks Industry for a long time to come;” and 

d) Complaint Counsel admits that Star has offered for sale and actually sold 

Domestic Fittings. 

REQUEST NO. 25: Admit that Star has more Domestic Fittings SKUs, a larger sales force, 

and a greater number of product depots than McWane. 

16 
RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

this Request for failing to set forth each matter for which an admission is requested separately, as 

required by Rule 3.32(a), by seeking at least three separate admissions of fact. Subject to the 

General and Specific Objection, Complaint Counsel denies this Request, except as follows: 

a) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether Star has more Domestic Fittings SKUs than McWane; 

b) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether Star has a larger sales force than McWane; and 

c) Complaint Counsel, after reasonable inquiry, lacks sufficient information to admit 

or deny whether Star has a greater number of product depots than McWane. 

REQUEST NO. 26: Admit that there are more than 100 waterworks distributors in the United 

States that purchased few or no Domestic Fittings from McWane between September 2009 and 

September 2010. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “few” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request 

because Respondent has exceeded its allotted number of requests for admission, including all 

subparts, as specified in Paragraph 10 of the February 15, 2012, Scheduling Order, and therefore 

denies this Request in its entirety. 

REQUEST NO. 27: Admit that McWane’s average price for DIWF products in the second 

half of 2008 was flat or declining despite a significant increase in scrap prices in the first six 

months of 2008. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “average price” and “significant increase” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint 

Counsel further objects to this Request because Respondent has exceeded its allotted number of 

17 
requests for admission, including all subparts, as specified in Paragraph 10 of the February 15, 

2012, Scheduling Order, and therefore denies this Request in its entirety. 

REQUEST NO. 28: Admit that McWane’s average price for DIWF products sold into Open 

Preference jobs declined throughout 2008 and in August 2010 was approximately 27% below 

McWane’s January 2008 price. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “average price” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this 

Request as premature to the extent it seeks information that relates to issues that may be the 

subject of expert testimony in this case. Complaint Counsel also objects to this Request for 

failing to set forth each matter of which an admission is requested separately, as required by Rule 

3.32(a), by seeking at least two separate admissions of fact. Complaint Counsel further objects 

to this Request because Respondent has exceeded its allotted number of requests for admission, 

including all subparts, as specified in Paragraph 10 of the February 15, 2012, Scheduling Order, 

and therefore denies this Request in its entirety. 

REQUEST NO. 29: Admit that the passage of ARRA appears to have had no, or only a de 

minimis, effect on the demand for fittings. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the terms “appears,” “de minimis” and “demand for fittings” as vague and 

ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this Request because Respondent has 

exceeded its allotted number of requests for admission, including all subparts, as specified in 

Paragraph 10 of the February 15, 2012, Scheduling Order, and therefore denies this Request in 

its entirety. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REQUEST NO. 30: Admit that fittings suppliers sell DIWF to distributors, pipe 

manufacturers, pipe fabricators, contractors, and municipalities. 

RESPONSE: In addition to the General Objections, Complaint Counsel specifically objects to 

the term “pipe fabricators” as vague and ambiguous. Complaint Counsel further objects to this 

Request because Respondent has exceeded its allotted number of requests for admission, 

including all subparts, as specified in Paragraph 10 of the February 15, 2012, Scheduling Order, 

and therefore denies this Request in its entirety. 

I state under penalty of perjury that the above Complaint Counsel’s Objections and Responses to 

Respondent McWane’s First Set of Admissions was prepared and assembled under my 

supervision, and that the information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge, true and 

correct. 

Dated: February 28, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/ Thomas H. Brock 

Edward Hassi, Esq. 

Geoffrey M. Green, Esq. 

Linda Holleran, Esq. 

Thomas H. Brock, Esq. 

Michael J. Bloom, Esq. 

Jeanine K. Balbach, Esq. 

J. Alexander Ansaldo, Esq. 

Andrew K. Mann, Esq.

 Monica M. Castillo, Esq. 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

 Bureau of Competition

 Federal Trade Commission

 Washington, DC 20580 

 Telephone: (202) 326-2470 

 Facsimile: (202) 326-3496 

 Electronic Mail: ehassi@ftc.gov 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 

I hereby certify that on February 28, 2012, I filed the foregoing document electronically 

using the FTC’s E-Filing System, which will send notification of such filing to: 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

 Federal Trade Commission 

 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 

 Washington, DC 20580 

 I also certify that I delivered via electronic mail and hand delivery a copy of the 

foregoing document to: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

 Administrative Law Judge 

 Federal Trade Commission 

 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

 Washington, DC 20580 

 I further certify that I delivered via electronic mail a copy of the foregoing document to: 

Joseph A. Ostoyich 

Andreas Stargard 

William C. Lavery 

Baker Botts L.L.P. 

The Warner 

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

(202) 639-7700 

joseph.ostoyich@bakerbotts.com 

andreas.stargard@bakerbotts.com 

william.lavery@bakerbotts.com 

J. Alan Truitt 

Thomas W. Thagard III 

Maynard Cooper and Gale PC 

1901 Sixth Avenue North 

2400 Regions Harbert Plaza 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

(205) 254-1000 

atruitt@maynardcooper.com 

tthagard@maynardcooper.com 

Counsel for Respondent McWane, Inc. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregory S.C. Huffman 

William Katz 

Nicole Williams 

Brian Stoltz 

Thompson and Knight LLP 

One Arts Plaza 

1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 

Dallas, TX 75201 

(214) 969-1700 

Gregory.Huffman@tklaw.com 

William.Katz@tklaw.com 

Nicole.Williams@tklaw.com 

Brian.Stoltz@tklaw.com 

Counsel for Respondent Star Pipe Products, Ltd. 

February 28, 2012 By: s/ Thomas H. Brock 

 Thomas H. Brock

 Attorney 

21