PUBLIC VERSION
 

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, LTD., ) a limited partnership. ) 

RESPONDENT MCWANE, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND 

RESPONSES TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

COMES NOW, McWane, Inc. ("McWane"), and objects and responds as follows to 

Complaint Counsel's Requests for Admission ("Requests"): 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

1. McWane objects to the Definitions and Instructions to the extent they seek to 

impose discovery obligations exceeding the requirements of the Federal Trade Commission's 

Rules of Practice. 

2. McWane submits its objections and responses without conceding the relevancy or 

materiality of the subject matter of any of the Requests, and without prejudice to all objections to 

the admissibility of any response. McWane's responses are made without waiving, or intending 

to waive, the right to object on the grounds of incompetency, privilege, relevancy, or materiality 

(or any other grounds) to the use of any documents provided in response to the Requests, in any 

subsequent proceeding in this action or any other action. McWane reserves the right to object on 

- 1 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

any and all grounds, at any time, to subsequent interrogatories and requests, or any other
 

discovery procedures, involving or relating to the subject matter of 
 the Requests. 

3. McWane objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek (a) confidential 

communications between McWane or its representatives and its counselor its counsel's 

representatives; (b) the work product of McWane's attorneys; (c) information compiled in 

anticipation of litigation by, on behalf of, or at the direction of McWane's in-house or outside 

counsel; (d) information protected by the common interest privilege; ( e) information protected by 

the First Amendment associational privilege; or (f) any other applicable privilege or protection. 

4. McWane objects to the Requests to the extent they improperly seek from a party 

legal conclusions or expert opinions, the latter of which may be discovered only through expert 

reports or expert depositions. 

5. McWane's responses to the Requests shall not be deemed or construed to be a 

waiver of any privilege, right or objection. In the event privileged or work product information 

is inadvertently produced by McWane, such production is not and shall not be deemed or 

construed as a waiver of any privilege, right or objection, and McWane hereby reserves the right 

to claw back such inadvertently produced information. 

6. McWane objects to the Requests to the extent that they are not 
 reasonably limited 

II time, geographic, or subject matter scope; to the extent they seek information outside
 

McWane's custody and control; or to the extent they seek information regarding third parties 

with no relationship to the claims set forth in the Federal Trade Commission's January 4,2012 

administrative complaint ("Complaint"). The disclosure of the latter information would be 

unduly and unnecessarily invasive of the privacy of third parties with no relationship to the 

Complaint. 

- 2 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

7. McWane objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information in the 

public domain, within Complaint Counsel's or the Commission's possession, or obtainable from 

a source other than McWane at less cost or burden to Complaint Counsel than to McWane. 

8. McWane objects to the Requests to the extent they are duplicative; call for the 

disclosure of information irrelevant to any claim or defense in this action; are not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; or are overly broad or unduly 

burdensome. 

9. McWane reserves the right at any time to revise, correct, add to, or clarify its 

objections or responses to the Requests. 

10. Each of the above General Objections shall be deemed to apply to each of
 

McWane's specific responses set forth below. 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 

In response to Complaint Counsel's requests that McWane admit the following, McWane 

responds as follows, subject to the General Objections set forth above: 

1. All ARRA Waterworks Projects are subject to a Buy American requirement. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as seeking a legal conclusion, seeking information equally available to Complaint 

Counsel as to McWane, and prematurely and improperly seeking expert opinion. Discovery of 

expert opinion in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the 

exchange of expert reports and depositions of experts. To the extent McWane can answer this 

- 3 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

Request, it avers that to the best of its knowledge, ARRA provided a number of waivers and 

exemptions that permitted Waterworks Projects to buy non-domestic fittings and/or other 

products under certain circumstances and, thus, denies this Request. 

2. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") must grant or approve any and all
 

waivers to the Buy American requirement of ARRA for any ARRA Waterworks Project. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as seeking a legal conclusion, seeking information equally available to Complaint 

Counsel as to McWane, and prematurely and improperly seeking expert opinion. Discovery 
 of 

expert opinion in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the 

exchange of expert reports and depositions of experts. 

3. Respondent cannot Identify any sale of Imported Relevant Product for use in an
 

ARRA Waterworks Projects pursuant to a Public Interest Waiver other than the three Public 

Interest Waivers set forth in Exhibit A. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to this 

Request as vague, ambiguous, and misleading as to the phrase "any sale of Imported Relevant 

Product for use in". McWane also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 

beyond McWane's custody and control, and is more properly directed to third parties. Subject to 

- 4 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

and without waiving its objections, and to the extent it understands this Request, 

After reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient 

information to admit or deny whether third parties sold Imported Relevant Product pursuant to 

additional Public Interest Waivers, beyond the three Public Interest Waivers set forth in Exhibit 

A to the Requests and, thus, denies this Request. 

4. Respondent is unaware of any statement or opinion by the EPA that Imported
 

Relevant Product is an "incidental component," as described in 74 Federal Register No. 152 

(Monday, August 10, 2009) 39959-60. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as seeking a legal conclusion, seeking information equally available to Complaint 

Counsel as to McWane, and prematurely and improperly seeking expert opinion. Discovery of 

expert opinion in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the 

exchange of expert reports and depositions of experts. 

5. Respondent cannot Identify any sale of any Imported Relevant Product for use in
 

any ARRA Waterworks Projects pursuant to the waiver for de minimus incidental components as 

described in 74 Federal Register No. 152 (Monday, August 10,2009) 39959-60. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

- 5 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to this 

Request as vague, ambiguous, and misleading as to the phrase "any sale of Imported Relevant 

Product for use in". McWane also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 

beyond McWane's custody and control, and is more properly directed to third parties. Subject to 

and without waiving its objections, and to the extent it understands this Request, 

after reasonable inquiry, lacks 

suffcient information to determine whether third parties sold Imported Relevant Product for use 

in any ARRA Waterworks Project pursuant to the waiver for de minimus incidental components 

as described in 74 Federal Register No. 152 (Monday, August 10, 2009) 39959-60, and thus 

denies this Request. 

6. Respondent cannot Identify any sale of any Imported Relevant Product that was
 

Manufactured in Mexico or Canada for use in any ARRA Waterworks Project. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to the 

Complaint Counsel's definition of "Manufactured", which incorrectly lumps together use of 

one's own foundry to produce fittings (manufacturing) with contracting with a third-party 

foundry to produce fittings (more accurately described as "Sourcing"). McWane further objects 

to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the undefined term "any sale". McWane also 

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information beyond McWane's custody and control, 

- 6 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

and is more properly directed to third parties. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and 

to the extent it understands this Reques
 

After reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient information to 

determine whether any third parties sold Imported Relevant Product that was Manufactured in 

Mexico or Canada for use in any ARRA Waterworks Project, and thus denies this Request. 

7. The ARRA increased the number of 
 Waterworks Projects being built, repaired or 

otherwise commissioned in the United States. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as calling for speculation, and as vague, ambiguous and unspecified in time and 

frame of 
 reference with respect to the term "increased the number". McWane further objects to 

this Request as seeking information equally available to Complaint Counsel as to McWane, and 

as prematurely and improperly seeking expert opinion. Discovery of expert opinion in this case 

is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the exchange of expert reports 

and depositions of experts. 

8. Respondent competed for sales of Domestic Relevant Product for use in ARRA
 

Waterworks Projects after February 2010. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

- 7 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to this 

request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by the terms "competed for sales" and "for 

use in". McWane also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information beyond 

McWane's custody and control, as McWane has sold the vast majority of 
 its domestic fittings to 

distributors rather than end users. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and to the 

extent McWane understands this Request, 

9. Respondent continues to compete for sales of 
 Domestic Relevant Product for use 

in ARRA Waterworks Projects today. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to this 

request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by the terms "continues to compete for 

sales" and "for use in". McWane also objects to this Request as seeking information outside of 

McWane's custody and control, and as being more properly directed to third parties. After 

reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient information to admit or deny whether it continues 

to compete for sales of 
 Domestic Relevant Product for use in ARRA Waterworks Projects today 

and, thus, denies this Request. 

10. The only Persons that currently Manufacture a Full-Line of Domestic Relevant 

Product that is 24" in diameter or smaller are Respondent and Star. 

- 8 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to the 

Complaint Counsel's definition of 
 "Manufacture", which incorrectly lumps together use of one's 

own foundry to produce fittings (manufacturing) with contracting with a third-party foundry to 

produce fittings (more accurately described as "Sourcing"). McWane also objects to Complaint 

Counsel's definition of "Full-Line" as vague, ambiguous and overbroad. McWane further 

objects to this Request as seeking information outside of 
 McWane's custody and control, and as 

being more properly directed to third parties. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and 

based on information and belief, 

-

11. Respondent is unaware of any Person that has Plans to begin Manufacturing
 

Domestic Relevant Product that is 24" in diameter or smaller within the next two years. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to the 

Complaint Counsel's definition of "Manufacturing", which incorrectly lumps together use of 

one's own foundry to produce fittings (manufacturing) with contracting with a third-party 

foundry to produce fittings (more accurately described as "Sourcing"). McWane further objects 

to this Request as calling for rank speculation, and to the extent it seeks information beyond 

McWane's custody or control. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and after 

- 9 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request and, thus, 

denies this Request. 

12. Prior to Star's entry in 2009 when it began Manufacturing Domestic Relevant
 

Product, Respondent was the only Manufacturer of Full- Line of Domestic Relevant Product that 

was 24" in diameter or smaller. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to the 

Complaint Counsel's definition of "Manufacturing", which incorrectly lumps together use of 

one's own foundry to produce fittings (manufacturing) with contracting with a third-party 

foundry to produce fittings (more accurately described as "Sourcing"). McWane further objects 

to this Request as unspecified in time scope. Subject to and without waiving its objections, 

13. At least 90% of all Relevant Products sold in the United States, as measured by
 

revenue, are 24" in diameter or smaller. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

- 10­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as calling for speculation, not reasonably limited in time scope, seeking information 

outside of 
 McWane's custody and control, and unanswerable as written. Subject to and without 

waiving its objections, and after reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient knowledge to 

admit or deny this Request and, thus, denies this Request. 

14. Any Relevant Product that meets A WW A standards and a particular specification 

is functionally interchangeable with any other Relevant Product that meets the same standards 

and specifications. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as not reasonably limited in time or geographic scope, and as vague, ambiguous and 

unanswerable as written as to the undefined terms "particular specification" and "functionally 

interchangeable". McWane further objects to this request as prematurely and improperly seeking 

expert opinion. Discovery of expert opinion in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling 

Order, which provides for the exchange of expert reports and depositions of experts. Subject to
 

and without waiving its objections, 

15. Imported Relevant Products are not a substitute for Domestic Relevant Products
 

when the specification for a Waterworks Project has a Buy American requirement. 

- 11 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request to the extent it seeks information beyond McWane's custody and control, and is 

more properly directed to third parties. McWane also objects to this Request to the extent it calls 

for speculation, is not reasonably limited in time scope, seeks a legal conclusion and prematurely 

and improperly seeks expert opinion. Discovery of expert opinion in this case is governed by the 

Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the exchange of expert reports and depositions of 

experts. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on its current understanding
 

and interpretation of Buy American requirements 

16. Certain municipalities, counties, and states in the United States have regulations,
 

codes or statutes that require publicly funded Waterworks Projects to be built or repaired with 

Domestic Relevant Products. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as unspecified in time scope, seeking information equally available to Complaint 

Counsel as to McWane, seeking information beyond McWane's custody and control, seeking 

legal conclusions, and as being more properly directed to third parties. Subject to and without 

- 12 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

waiving these objections, and based on its existing understanding, information and belief, 

17. When a regulation, code or statute requires Domestic Relevant Products be used 

for publicly funded Waterworks Projects, Imported Relevant Products generally cannot be used 

for those projects. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as more properly directed to third parties, seeking information equally available to 

C~mplaint Counsel as to McWane, seeking a legal conclusion, and prematurely and improperly 

seeking expert opinion. Discovery of expert opinion in this case is governed by the Court's 

Scheduling Order, which provides for the exchange of expert reports and depositions of experts. 

After reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient information to determine when and where 

Imported Relevant Products sold by third parties are "generally" used and, thus, denies this 

Request. 

18. Respondent has historically offered less Job Pricing on its Domestic Relevant 

Product than its Imported Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

- 13 ­
PUBLIC VERSION 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as vague and ambiguous with respect to the undefined term "historically", and as 

not reasonably limited in time scope. Mc Wane also objects to Complaint Counsel's use of "less 

Job Pricing" as vague and ambiguous, as it is unclear whether it is referrng to a percentage of 

total jobs or the amount of discount on each job. McWane further objects to this Request as 

argumentative, misleading and assuming facts not in evidence, to the extent it implies that Job 

Pricing is the only type of discount available for McWane's domestic or non-domestic fittings. 

In fact, such implication is factually incorrect. Subject to and without waiving its objections, to 

the extent it understands this Request, and after reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient 

information to admit or deny this Request and, thus, denies this Request. 

19. Respondent has lowered its pnce on sales of Domestic Relevant Product in
 

response to competition from Star's Domestic Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane also objects to this 

Request as argumentative, misleading, assuming facts not in evidence, unspecified in time and 

geographic scope, and vague and ambiguous as to the term "price". Subject to and without 

waiving its objections, and to the extent it understands this Request, McWane denies this 

Request as written. 

- 14 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

20. Respondent's share of sales of Domestic Relevant Products has been greater than
 

80% since at least 2007. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as calling for speculation, seeking information beyond McWane's custody and 

control, and as vague, ambiguous, and unanswerable as written as to the undefined term "share 

of sales". After reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this 

Request and, thus, denies this Request. 

21. Demand for the Relevant Product is Inelastic. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as prematurely and improperly seeking expert opinion. Discovery of expert opinion 

in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the exchange of 

expert reports and depositions of experts. McWane also objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks information outside ofMcWane's custody and control. 

22. The Relevant Product represents five percent (5%) or less of 
 the cost of a typical
 

Waterworks Project. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

- 15 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to this 

Request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by the term "typical", and as unspecified in 

time and geographic scope. McWane further objects to this Request as prematurely and 

improperly seeking expert opinion. Discovery of expert opinion in this case is governed by the 

Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the exchange of expert reports and depositions of 

experts. McWane also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information outside of 

McWane's custody and control. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and to the extent 

it understands this Request,
 

. Thus, after reasonable
 

inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request as stated. 

23. Respondent does not consider the price of any other type of fittings when it sets 

the price of the Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to this 

request as vague and ambiguous as to the terms "price" and "any other type of fittings". Subject 

to and without waiving its objections, and to the extent it understands this Request, McWane 

denies this Request as stated. 

24. No other product constrains the price of 
 the Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

- 16 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further also objects 

to the undefined terms "product" "price" and "constrains" as vague and ambiguous. McWane 

further objections to this Request prematurely and improperly seeking expert opinion. Discovery 

of expert opinion in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for 

the exchange of expert reports and depositions of experts. Subject to and without waiving its 

objections, and to the extent it understands this Request, McWane denies this Request as stated. 

25. Respondent sells all, or nearly all, of its Relevant Product to distributors. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. Subject to and without 

waiving its objections 

26. Distributors are critical to the success of 
 Respondent. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the undefined terms "critical" and "success" and as 

calling for speculation, given that McWane has not attempted to sell fittings other than through 

distribution and thus does not know if such an attempt would be "success(ful)" (as McWane 

understands the meaning of that term). Subject to and without waiving its objections, and to the 

extent it understands this Request, 

- 17 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

.. 

27. Distributors sell Relevant Products in local geographic markets.
 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane also objects to this 

Request because it seeks information beyond McWane's custody or control, and is more properly 

directed to third parties (namely, distributors). McWane further objects to this request as vague 

and ambiguous as to the undefined term "local geographic markets". Subject to and without 

waiving its objections, McWane denies this Request. On information and belief, national 

distributors such as HD Supply and Ferguson sell fittings across the entire United States. 

28. Distributors typically sell to end users all of the products needed for a specific 

Waterworks Project (e.g., pipe, hydrants, valves, fittings, etc.). 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane also objects to this 

Request because it seeks information beyond McWane's custody or control, and is more properly 

directed to third parties (namely, distributors). McWane further objects to this request as vague 

and ambiguous as to the undefined term "typically". Subject to and without waiving its 

objections, McWane denies this Request. On information and belief, distributors "typically" (as 

- 18 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

McWane understands the meaning of that term) sell to contractors, rather than end users. 

29. To begin selling Relevant Product in the United States, a new entrant must secure 

Manufacturing through one or more foundries. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to the 

Complaint Counsel's definition of "Manufacturing", which incorrectly lumps together use of 

one's own foundry to produce fittings (manufacturing) with contracting with a third-pary 

foundry to produce fittings (more accurately described as "Sourcing"). Subject to and without 

waiving its objections, 

30. To begin sellng Relevant Product in the United States, a new entrant must
 

develop, purchase or otherwise obtain forms for casting numerous fittings in different shapes and 

sizes. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

- 19 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to this 

Request as calling for speculation, and as vague and ambiguous as to the undefined term 

"numerous fittings in different shapes and sizes" - which fails to identify the specific SKUs to 

which that term is referring. Subject to and without waiving its objections, and to the extent it 

understands this Request, 

31. To sell Relevant Product Successfully in the United States, a new entrant must 

develop a distribution network with a sufficient number of distributors that allows the entrant to 

sell a minimum amount of Relevant Product to be efficient. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to 

Complaint Counsel's definition of "Successfully" as argumentative, arbitrary and capricious. 

McWane further objects to this Request as calling for rank speculation, and as vague and 

ambiguous as to what is meant by the undefined terms "minimum amount" and "efficient". 

McWane further objects to this Request as improperly and prematurely seeking expert opinion. 

Discovery of expert opinion in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which 

provides for the exchange of expert reports and depositions of experts. After reasonable inquiry, 

McWane lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request and, thus, denies this 

Request. 

- 20­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

32. To sell Relevant Product Successfully in the United States, a new entrant must 

develop a reputation for quality and service with distributors and end users. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to 

Complaint Counsel's definition of "Successfully" as argumentative, arbitrary and capnclOUS.
 

McWane further objects to this Request as calling for rank speculation, and as improperly and 

prematurely seeking expert opinion. Discovery of expert opinion in this case is governed by the 

Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the exchange of expert reports and depositions of 

experts. 

33. Distributors need access to a Full-Line of 
 Domestic Relevant Product that can be 

delivered in a timely fashion, i.e. generally less than 12 weeks. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as misleading, argumentative, assuming facts not in evidence, and vague and 

ambiguous with regard to the undefined term "need". McWane further objects to this Request on 

the basis that Complaint Counsel has defined "Full Line of Domestic Relevant Product" to limit 

the definition to "A" items only. McWane also objects to this Request as unspecified in time and 

geographic scope. After reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient information to admit or 

deny this Request and, thus, denies this Request. 

- 21 ­
PUBLIC VERSION 

34. In 2009, Respondent perceived that Sigma had an incentive to begin
 

Manufacturing Domestic Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to the 

Complaint Counsel's definition of "Manufacturing", which incorrectly lumps together use of 

one's own foundry to produce fittings (manufacturing) with contracting with a third-party 

foundry to produce fittings (more accurately described as "Sourcing"). McWane further objects 

to this Request as vague, ambiguous, speculative, argumentative and assuming facts not in
 

evidence with respect to the undefined terms "perceived" and "incentive." Subject to and
 

without waiving its objections, 

35. One factor that Respondent considered when deciding to enter into the Master 

Distribution Agreement ("MDA") with Sigma was the likelihood of Sigma Manufacturing its 

own Domestic Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to the 

Complaint Counsel's definition of "Manufacturing", which incorrectly lumps together use of 

one's own foundry to produce fittings (manufacturing) with contracting with a third-party 

foundry to produce fittings (more accurately described as "Sourcing"). Subject to and without 

- 22­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

waiving its objections, 

By way of further response, 

36. On or about November 23, 2009, Respondent put all Hajoca orders for Domestic 

Relevant Product on hold. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to this 

request as not reasonably limited in time or subject matter scope, and as vague and ambiguous as 

to the term "on hold". Subject to and without waiving its objections, 

- 23 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

37. Respondent does not assert a free-riding justification for its Exclusive Dealing 

Arrangements. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects to 

Complaint Counsel's definition of Exclusive Dealing Arrangement and denies that it had any 

exclusive agreements. McWane also objects to Complaint Counsel's use of 
 "free-riding" as
 

vague and ambiguous. McWane further objects to this Request as seeking a legal conclusion, 

rather than an admission of fact or the application oflaw to fact. McWane also objects to this 

Request to the extent it improperly and prematurely calls for expert opinion. Discovery of expert 

opinion in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the 

exchange of expert reports and depositions of experts. Subject to and without waiving its 

objections, and to the extent it understands this Request, McWane denies this Request. 

38. The MDA between Respondent and Sigma did not lower the price of Domestic 

Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. Subject to and without 

waiving its objections, McWane lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request and, 

thus, denies this Request.
 

- 24­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

39. The MDA between Respondent and Sigma did not increase the output of 

Domestic Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objections 

to this Request prematurely and improperly seeking expert opinion. Discovery of expert opinion 

in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the exchange of 

expert reports and depositions of experts. Subject to and without waiving its objections, 

McWane denies this Request. 

40. Sigma, Star and Respondent together account for 90% or more of the sales in
 

Imported Relevant Product in the United States. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objects to 

this Request as unspecified in time frame. Subject to and without waiving its objections, 

- 25 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

. By way of further response, 

41. In the first half of 2008, the costs of the raw materials used to Manufacture
 

Imported Relevant Product were increasing faster than the costs of the raw materials used to 

Manufacture Domestic Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane further objections 

to this Request prematurely and improperly seeking expert opinion. Discovery of expert opinion 

in this case is governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides for the exchange of 

expert reports and depositions of experts. After reasonable inquiry, McWane lacks sufficient 

information to admit or deny this Request as stated. 

42. In 2008, Respondent, Sigma and Star sold Imported Relevant Product pursuant to
 

nearly identical 
 list prices. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane also objects to this 

Request to the extent it seeks information beyond McWane's custody and control, and is more 

properly directed to third parties. McWane further objects to this Request as misleading, 

- 26­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

argumentative, vague and ambiguous, because it does not identify a specific list price, does not 

define "nearly identical", and does not account for all of 
 the methods of discounting available to 

and employed by all of the competitors in the market. 

43. In 2008, Respondent, Sigma and Star sold Imported Relevant Product pursuant to
 

nearly identical multiplier maps. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane also objects to this 

Request to the extent it seeks information beyond McWane's custody and control, and is more 

properly directed to third parties. McWane further objects to this Request as misleading, 

argumentative, vague and ambiguous, because it does not identify a specific multiplier map, does 

not define "nearly identical", and does not account for all of 
 the methods of discounting available 

to and employed by all of the competitors in the market. 

44. In January 2008, Respondent announced its intention to reduce or eliminate the 

Job Pricing it offered to customers. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. Subject to and without 

waiving its objections, McWane denies this Request. 

- 27­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

45. Job Pricing IS a form of competition among or between Sigma, Star and
 

Respondent. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. Subject to and without 

waiving its objections, 

46. Job Pricing reduces the stability of 
 pricing of Relevant Product. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane also objects to this 

Request as vague and ambiguous as to the undefined term "stability", which has been used in 

different ways by different witnesses in this proceeding. Subject to and without waiving its 

objections, 

- 28­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

47. Job Pricing reduces the transparency of pricing of Relevant Product.
 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane also objects to this 

Request as vague and ambiguous as to the undefined term "transparency of 
 pricing". McWane 

further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous in that it does not identify to whom the 

"transparency of pricing" is allegedly "reduce 
 ( dJ." 

Subject to and without 

waiving its objections 

As a 

matter of common sense, selling at any price that is not published is less transparent to others 

than selling at a price that is published. 

48. Respondent did not use data obtained from the DIFRA Information Exchange to,
 

manage its inventory. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects, as 

misleading, argumentative, and assuming facts not in evidence, to Complaint Counsel's
 

- 29­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

characterization of DIFRA as an "Information Exchange." 

Subject to and without waiving its objections, McWane 

denies this Request. 

49. Respondent did not use data obtained from the DIFRA Information Exchange to
 

manage its production schedules. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects, as 

misleading, argumentative, and assuming facts not in evidence, to Complaint Counsel's
 

characterization of DIFRA as an "Information Exchange." 

Subject to and without waiving its objections, McWane 

denies this Request. 

50. Respondent did not use data obtained from the DIFRA Information Exchange to
 

reduce its costs. 

RESPONSE/OBJECTIONS: 

- 30 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

McWane incorporates by reference its General Objections. McWane objects, as 

misleading, argumentative, and assuming facts not in evidence, to Complaint Counsel's
 

characterization of DIFRA as an "Information Exchange." 

Subject to and without waiving its objections, McWane 

denies this Request. 

Is. Joseph A. Ostoyich 

Joseph A. Ostoyich 

One of the Attorneys for McWane, Inc. 

OF COUNSEL: 

Joseph A. Ostoyich 

William C. Lavery 

Baker Botts L.L.P. 

The Warner 

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.e. 20004-2420 

Phone: 202.639.7700 

Fax: 202.639.7890 

joseph.ostoyich@bakerbotts.com 

andreas.stargard@bakerbotts.com 

J. Alan Truitt 

Thomas W. Thagard, III 

Julie S. Elmer 

Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.e. 

1901 Sixth Avenue North 

2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2608 

(205) 254-1000 

(205) 254-1999 (facsimile) 

atruitt@maynardcooper.com 

tthagard@maynardcooper.com 

jelmer@maynardcooper.com 

- 31 ­
PUBLIC VERSION
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 15,2012, 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-II0 

Washington, DC 20580 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-l13 

Washington, DC 20580 

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

document to: 

Edward Hassi, Esq. 

Geoffrey M. Green, Esq. 

Linda Holleran, Esq.
 

Thomas H. Brock, Esq. 

Michael L. Bloom, Esq. 

Jeanine K. Balbach, Esq.
 

J. Alexander Ansaldo, Esq. 

Andrew K. Mann, Esq. 

By: /s/ William C. Lavery 

One of 
 the Attorneys for McWane 

- 32­