ORIGINAL
 

~rG,,~,~CR J~:J L iJ LUUJ
 

UNITED STATES OF Al\RICA
 5"'1'17 ()D FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

) 

ORDER GRANTING El\RGENCY MOTION BY HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE
 

COMPANY SEEKING CLARFICATION OF ORDER ON MOTION TO INTERVENE 

I. 

On September 28,2009, Intervenor Hollingsworth & Vose ("H&V") submitted an 

emergency motion for clarification of the order on H& V's motion for leave to intervene 

("Emergency Motion"). H&V had previously, on September 2,2009, filed a motion seeking 

leave to intervene in this action for the "limited purose of opposing any order or remedy 

affecting its rights and in particular its contractual rights arising under the March 23, 2001 Cross 

Agency Agreement between H&V and Daramic, Inc. (the "Cross Agency Agreement")." Motion 

for Limited Intervention, at 1. Neither Complaint Counsel nor Respondent filed a response or 

objection to that motion. By Order dated September 23,2009, H&V's motion for limited 

intervention was granted in par and denied in par. H& V now seeks clarification of the 

September 23,2009 Order. As discussed below, the Emergency Motion is GRATED. 

II. 

The September 23,2009 Order provided that "H&V's motion to intervene is granted only 

for the limited purose of providing a brief and any proposed findings of fact on the issue of how 

the proposed remedy might affect H&V's rights under the Cross Agency Agreement." The 

September 23,2009 Order also detailed why H&V's motion to intervene for purposes of 

allowing H& V to present evidence or conduct cross-examination at the trial in this matter was 

untimely and, thus, denied in that respect. Accordingly, the September 23,2009 Order addressed 

all issues that were appropriate prior to the issuance of the Initial Decision in this matter. 

H& V seeks clarification as to "whether it has been granted or denied the right to appeal to 

the Commission on the initial decision in this proceeding on issues relating to (H& V's) rights 

under the Cross Agency Agreement." Emergency Motion, at 2. H&V's request is clarified as 

follows: The September 23,2009 Order did not and would not address whether H&V should 

- .. --_._--..-----­
have the right to paricipate in an appeal to the Commission. Furer, the order did not deny any 

right to appeal issues as to which intervention has been granted. 

Under Commission Rule 3.14(a), "(t)he Administrative Law Judge or the Commission 

may by order permit the intervention to such extent and upon such terms as are provided by law 

or as otherwise may be deemed proper." 16 C.ER. § 3.14. The September 23,2009 Order 

specified the extent to which H& V's paricipation prior to the issuance of the Initial 

Decision was deemed to be proper. Any issue regarding the rights of an intervenor in an appeal 

of an initial decision to the Commission would be raised with the Commission afer an initial 

decision is issued. 

III. 

H&V's motion is GRATED and the September 23,2009 Order is clarified to state that 

the Order did not address and did not deny any right H& V might have to paricipate in an appeal 

to the Commission. 

ORDERED: .jW)~

D. Michael CHappel
 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: September 29, 2009 

2