UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUD 

In the Matter of 

Ardagh Group S.A., 

a public limited liability company, and 

Saint-Gobain Containers, lnc., 

a corporation, and 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, 

a corporation, 

Respondents. 

Docket No. 9356 

Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

PUBLIC 

567627 

~ 

NON-PARTY ANCHOR HOCKING, LLC'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA 

TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED HEARING EXHIBITS 

Non-Party Anchor Hocking, LLC ("Anchor Hocking") hereby files its Motion for In 

Camera Treatment of Certain Hearing Exhibits that Ardagh Group S.A., Saint-Gobain 

Containers, Inc. and Compagnie de Saint Gobain ("Respondents") and the Federal Trade 

Commission ("FTC") have designated for possible introduction in the administrative trial in this 

matter. Anchor Hocking respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter an Order 

pursuant to Rule 3 .45(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. 

§ 3.45(b), granting in camera treatment for five years, to the documents listed in Exhibit A 

attached to this Motion and the proposed Order. The documents are secret and material to 

Anchor Hocking's on-going and future business, and their disclosure would harm Anchor 

Hocking. In support of this Motion, Anchor Hocking respectfully refers the Court to the 

accompanying Declaration of Bert Filice attached as Exhibit B and submits as follows: 
ARGUMENT 

I. Introduction 

A description of each document identified by the FTC and Respondents as potential trial 

exhibits for which Anchor Hocking seeks in camera treatment is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

All of the documents were treated as "Confidential Discovery Material" or "Restricted 

Confidential Discovery Material" under the July I, 2013 Protective Order Governing Discovery 

Materials ("Protective Order") entered by D. Michael Chappell, Chief Administrative Law 

Judge. 1 The documents contain information that is secret, commercially sensitive, and material to 

Anchor Hocking's current and prospective business. Accordingly, Anchor Hocking respectfully 

requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter an Order pursuant to Section 3.45(b) of the 

Federal Trade Commission Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b), granting in camera treatment 

to these documents for a period of no less than five years. 

II. Standard for In Camera Treatment 

Materials merit in camera treatment when public disclosure of the documents "will result 

in a clearly defined, serious injury to the person or corporation whose records are involved." 

HP. Hood & Sons, Inc., 58 F.T.C. 1184, 1188 (1961). Such serious injury requires that that 

information in question is secret and material to the applicant's business. In the Matter of Bristol 

Meyers Co., 90 F.T.C. 455,456 (1977). The following factors should be weighed in considering 

both secrecy and materiality: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside the 

applicant's business; (2) the extent to which the information is known by employees and others 

1 The documents and deposition testimony at issue were either originally produced to the FTC as confidential 

material in response to its investigative subpoenas and subsequently produced to the Respondents during the 

discovery proceedings of the above-captioned matter as "Confidential Discovery Material" under the Protective 

Order, or was produced to the parties during the discovery proceedings of the above-captioned matter and marked as 

either "Confidential" or "Restricted Confidential-Attorney Eyes Only" in accordance with the terms of the 

Protective Order. 
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 difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired 

or duplicated by others. !d. A showing of injury may consist of extrinsic evidence or, in certain 

instances, may be inferred from the nature of the documents themselves. In the Matter of E. I. 

Dupont de Nemous & Co., 97 F.T.C. 116 (1981). Administrative law judges have broad 

discretion in applying these factors to determine whether information warrants in camera 

treatment. See In re General Foods Corp., 95 F.T.C. 352 (1980). Third party requests for in 

camera treatment, in particular, deserve special solitude. In the Matter of Kaiser Aluminum & 

Chern. Corp., 103 F.T.C. 500, 500 (1984). 

The Anchor Hocking documents identified in Exhibit A attached to this Motion meet the 

above standards for in camera treatment. 

III. The Anchor Hocking Documents Meet the Standard for In Camera Treatment 

The documents and deposition testimony for which Anchor Hocking seeks in camera 

treatment are both secret and material to Anchor Hocking's business. The materials at issue 

contain information of competitive significance to Anchor Hocking, including production 

capacity, production costs, quotes, capital investment in infrastructure, customer specific sales 

information, detailed sales revenue, quantities sold by Anchor Hocking. Such information is not 

widely known outside of the business. Further, when they were produced, Anchor 'Hocking took 

steps to maintain confidentiality by designating the documents "Confidential." Moreover, the 

information contained in the documents is material to Anchor Hocking's business and directly 

related to and details Anchor Hocking's sales of wine and spirits bottles and identifies customers 
and each customer's volume of sales. Because of the confidential nature of the information and 

its materiality to Anchor Hocking's business, in camera treatment is appropriate. 

Further, disclosure of the competitively sensitive materials will likely result in the loss of 

a business advantage. See In re Dura Lube Corp., Dkt. No. 9292, 1999 FTC LEXIS 255, at *7 

(Dec. 23, 1999) ("The likely loss of business advantages is a good example of a 'clearly defined, 

serious injury."') (citing In re General Foods Corp., 1980 WL 338997, at *3). The documents at 

issue are material to Anchor Hocking's quotes and sales with its customers. Making such 

documents public will likely result in a loss of any business advantage Anchor Hocking has with 

both the customers and competitors. 

IV. In Camera Treatment for the Documents Listed in Attached Exhibit A Should 

Extend for a Period of Five Years 

As a non-party seeking in camera treatment for its confidential business information, 

Anchor Hocking's request should be treated with "special solicitude." Kaiser Aluminum, 103 

F.T.C. at 500. Reasonable periods of in camera treatment encourage non-parties to cooperate 

with future discovery requests in adjudicative proceedings. Id Anchor Hocking has cooperated 

with the discovery demands of both parties to this case including a 30(b)(6) deposition. The 

subject documents and deposition testimony have been made available for use by Complaint 

counsel and Respondents in accordance with the terms of the Protective Order, and their 

disclosure will not materially promote the resolution of this matter nor lend measurable public 

understanding of these proceedings. See In re Bristol-Myers, 90 F.T.C. at 456. 

Anchor Hocking requests in camera treatment for a period of five years for the 

documents identified herein. 
V. Conclusion 

As set out above, disclosure of these materials would result in a clearly defined serious 

injury to Anchor Hocking, severely undercutting Anchor Hocking's efforts in a competitive 

industry. For these reasons, and for those set out in the declaration of Bert Filice, Anchor 

Hocking respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion directing in camera treatment for 

the subject documents. 

Dated: December 6, 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

DINSMORE 

Kcl~ft~n=3~ & SHOHL, LLP 

191 W. Nationwide Blvd, Suite 300 

Colwnbus, OH 43215 

Telephone: 614-628-6880 

Fax: 614-221-6890 

E-mail: kelly .kauffinan@dinsmore. com 

Attorney for Anchor Hocking, LLC 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of · 

Ardagh Group S.A., 

a public limited liability company, and 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a corporation, and 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, 

a corporation, 

Respondents. 

Docket No. 9356 

ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY ANCHOR HOCKING, LLC'S MOTION FOR 

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED HEARING 

EXHIBITS 

Upon consideration ofNon-Party Anchor Hocking, LLC's ("Anchor Hocking's") Motion 

for In Camera Treatment of Certain Designated Hearing Exhibits and the Declaration in support 

thereof, it is hereby ORDERED that Anchor Hocking's motion is GRANTED. It is further 

ordered that the documents identified in Exhibit A of Anchor Hocking's Motion for In Camera 

Treatment of Certain Designated Documents are afforded in camera treatment for five years. 

Dated: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served by regular U.S. 

Mail, postage prepaid, this 6th day of December, 2013, upon the following: 

Sandra C. Goldstein (Attorney) 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth A venue 

New York, NY 10019 

Phone: (2 1 2) 474-1 000 

E-mail: sgoldstein@cravath.com 

Athena N. Cheng (Attorney) 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth A venue 

New York, NY 10019 

Phone: (212)474-1000 

E-mail: acheng@cravath.com 

Sarah M. Colombo (Attorney) 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019 

Phone: (212) 474-1000 

E-mail: scolombo@cravath.com 

Lisl Joanne Dunlop 

Shearman & Sterling LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 1 0022 

Phone: (212) 848-80 10 

E-mail: ldunlop@shearman.com 

Heather Kafele 

Shearman & Sterling LLP 

80 1 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 

Washington D.C. 

Phone: (202) 508-8097 

E-mail: hkafele@shearman .com 

Rory A. Leraris (Attorney) 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth A venue 

New York, NY 10019 

Phone: (2 12) 4 74- 1000 

E-mail: rleraris@cravath.com 

Pien·e N. Gemson (Attorney) 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth A venue 

New York, NY 10019 

Phone: (212) 474-1000 

E-mail: pgemson@cravath.com 

Wayne Dale Collins 

Shearman & Sterling LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY I 0022 

Phone: (212) 848-4 127 

E-mail: wcollins@shearman.com 

Alan Goudiss 

Shearman & Sterling LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 1 0022 

Phone: (212) 848-4906 

E-mail: agoudiss@shearman.com 

Richard Schwed 

Shearman & Sterling LLP 

599 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY I 0022 

Phone: (212) 848-5445 

E-mail: rschwed@shearman.com 
D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Room 110 

Washington, DC 20580 

Via Email and Ordinary Mail 

oalj@ftc.gov 

James E. Abell 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-2289 

Email: jabell@ftc.gov 

Steven A. Dahm 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-2192 

Email: sdahm@ftc.gov 

Joshua Goodman 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvan ia Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-3665 

Email: jgoodman@ftc.gov 

Michael B. Kades 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-3681 

Email: mkades@ftc.gov 

Y onatan Even 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth A venue 

New York, NY 10019 

Phone: (212) 474-1000 

E-mail: yeven@cravath.com 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

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

Washington, DC 20580 

ViaE-Filing 

Monica Castillo 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-32 I 1 

Email: mcastillo@ftc.gov 

Edward D. Hassi 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: ehassi@ftc.gov 

Thomas A. Brock 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-2813 

Email: tbrock@ftc.gov 

Christine A. Varney 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth A venue 

New York, NY 100 19 

Phone: (212) 474-1000 

E-mail: cvarney@cravath.com 

Kristian Rogers 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-321 0 

Email: krogers@ftc.gov 
Danielle Sims 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-3241 

Email: dsims I @ftc.gov 

Steven L. Wilensky 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-2650 

Email: swilensky@ftc.gov 

Brendan J. McNamara 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-3703 

Email: bmcnamara@ftc.gov 

Catharine M. Moscatelli 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-2749 

Email: cmoscatelli@ftc.gov 

731222vl 

Eric M. Sprague 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-2 I 01 

Email: esprague@ftc.gov 

Sebastian Lorigo 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-3717 

Email: slorigo@ftc.gov 

Angelike Mina 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: (202) 326-3119 

Email: amina@ftc.gov 

Angel Prado 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: aprado@ftc.gov 

~- ~\r(V an (0070365)