UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

04 23 2012 

____________________________________ 

In the Matter of PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

MCWANE, INC., 

 a corporation , and Docket No.: 9351 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD.,

 a limited partnership. 

____________________________________ 

SIP INDUSTRIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 


MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
 

Serampore Industries Private (Ltd.), Inc., d/b/a SIP Industries, a non-party served with a 

Subpoena Duces Tecum by Defendant McWane, Inc., files this Reply in support of SIP Industries’ 

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, and respectfully states: 

On or about March 5 and 13, 2012, SIP Industries filed its Motion to Quash Subpoenas 

Duces Tecum (“SIP Motion”). On or about April 6, 2012, following discussions between counsel 

and two unopposed extensions, McWane filed Respondent McWane, Inc.’s Opposition to SIP 

Industries’ Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum (“McWane Response”). 

As indicated in the McWane Response, most of the issues raised in the SIP Motion have 

been resolved by agreement. However, the parties have not agreed with respect to certain of 

McWane’s document requests. McWane has refashioned those requests in its Response, but the 

revised requests are still inappropriate and overbroad. SIP Industries files this brief Reply in order 

to address the revised requests described in the McWane Response. 
 

 

Request No. 2: Documents “sufficient to identify” purchases of DIWF products from 2003 

to the present: 

In its Response, McWane states that this request is narrowed to seek only “summary level 

sales and purchase data, from January 1, 2007, to the present.” SIP Industries objects that this 

information is highly confidential and proprietary. SIP Industries recognizes that any production 

would be subject to the Protective Order entered in this case, but whether that Order is sufficient 

to protect SIP Industries is impossible to determine without an explanation of (i) the relevance of 

this information to this proceeding and (ii) what will be done with this data. SIP Industries has 

posed these questions but has received no response. On the record as it stands today, McWane has 

failed to explain the relevance of this request or the use that will be made of SIP Industries’ 

confidential data. 

Request Nos. 3 and 5: Documents “sufficient to identify” sales of DIWF products and 

communications regarding DIWF products from 2003 to the present: 

In its Response, McWane states that this request is narrowed to seek only “emails from one 

custodian, the Vice President of Business Development at SIP, from January 1, 2007, to present.” 

In practice, this does not substantially reduce McWane’s overbroad requests. The Vice President 

of Business Development is Bharat Agarwal, who signed the Declaration in support of the SIP 

Motion. Mr. Agarwal is the primary company representative who dealt with third parties with 

respect to the purchase and sale of DIWF products. However, Mr. Agarwal routinely deals with 

many parties with respect to many different types of products. Emails are not sorted or identified 

as “DIWF emails,” and many emails contain references to both DIWF and other types of products. 

Moreover, there is no practical way to electronically search for emails referencing one or more 

2
 
 

DIWF products. Such products may be identified by different names or in different manners 

including product numbers. 

It would be an extreme burden, if possible at all, to review thousands of emails over a five 

year period for references to DIWF products. At the same time, the relevance of these emails is 

marginal at best. Most are order inquiries and responses, with questions and answers regarding 

available products, shipping times and so forth. As stated, this request remains overbroad and 

unduly burdensome. 

Conclusion 

All issues except those discussed in the McWane Response and this Reply have been 

resolved by the parties. For the reasons set forth in the SIP Motion and this Reply, McWane’s 

remaining refashioned requests remain overbroad and objectionable and the SIP Motion should thus 

be granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SHEINESS, SCOTT, GROSSMAN & COHN, L.L.P. 

By: /s/ H. Miles Cohn 

H. Miles Cohn 

Texas State Bar No. 04509600 

1001 McKinney, Suite 1400 

Houston, Texas 77002-6323 

(713) 374-7020 Telephone 

(713) 374-7049 Facsimile 

Attorneys for Non-Party 

SERAMPORE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE (LTD.), 

INC., D/B/A SIP INDUSTRIES 

3
 
 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true copy of SIP Industries’ Reply in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena 

Duces Tecum has been served, by United States mail, on the 23rd day of April, 2012, to the 

Administrative Law Judge and to all counsel of record, as follows: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
 

Federal Trade Commission
 

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

Washington, D.C. 20580
 

Donald S. Clark
 

Secretary
 

Federal Trade Commission
 

600 Pennsylvania, Ave. NW, Rm H-113
 

Washington, D.C. 20580
 

Joseph A. Ostoyich
 

Andreas Stargard
 

William C. Lavery
 

Baker Botts L.L.P.
 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
 

Washington, DC 20004
 

J. Alan Truitt
 

Thomas W. Thagard III
 

Maynard Cooper and Gale, P.C.
 

1901 Sixth Avenue North
 

2400 Regions Harbert Plaza
 

Birmingham, AL 35203
 

J. Alexander Ansaldo
 

Attorney, Division of Anticompetitive Practices
 

Bureau of Competition
 

Federal Trade Commission
 

601 New Jersey Ave., NW
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

4
 
 

Douglas M. Jasinski 

J. Frank Hogue 

White & Case L.L.P. 

701 13th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Gregory S.C. Huffman 

Thompson & Knight L.L.P. 

172 Routh Street, Suite 1500 

Dallas, Texas 75201

 /s/ H. Miles Cohn 

H. Miles Cohn 

H:\HMC\Serampore\FTC\Reply.Motion.Quash.wpd 

5