0, R~C~f!-m ~ m u' - ~ ~ n n'ig !..,, ~

ß' .. ~ "'~J ~ ~ &dH ~ ¡=

/,?;:;".;~::'1?7S;:~~~~

I~~'/' :e:;fY¡7;'7;TS 0/qj', II j,4i~ i. .~ LÛOU P ~ _ h

,~ S ~s,,~~~"?il-~~ /// ..~-i '

UNITED STATES OF Al\RICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION

In the Matter of CASE NO. 9327

Polypore International, Inc.

a corporation. PUBLIC DOCUl\NT

TIDRD PARTY ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S OPPOSITION TO POL YPORE

INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUl\NTS

REQUESTED BY SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

ENTEK International, LLC ("ENTEK"), a third-party to this adjudicative

proceeding brought by the Federal Trade Cornission against Polypore International, Inc.

("Pol ypore"), submits this Opposition to Pol ypore' s Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Requested by Subpoena duces tecum and in support states as follows:

Polypore's Motion to Compel Production of Documents ("Motion to Compel")

has been rendered moot by ENTEK's substantial compliance with the subpoena duces tecum

served on November 10, 2008 ("Subpoena")!, as m~dified by a discovery agreement between

ENTEK and Polypore dated December 22, 2008 ("Discovery Agreement"). As of today, ENTEK

has produced to Polypore 15,514 pages of documents, responsive to all major categories 'of

information requested in the Subpoena. ENTEK's productions, which in part reach back to 1995,

provide detailed information about every material aspect ofENTEK's lead acid battery separator

Polypore's subpoena duces tecum was actually served on ENTEK on November 6,2008.
business in the U.S. and abroad, including products, prices, capacity, customers, markets, market

shares, competition, competitors, and ENTEK's strategic plans going forward.

Substantively, the Motion to Compel is without merit. ENTEK informed counsel

for Polypore of its intention to substantially complete the production by January 23,2009 and

began its rollng production on January 5, 2009, seven days before Polypore fied the Motion to

CompeL. At the time that Polypore fied the Motion to Compel, it knew that it was already in

possession of ENTEK information covering more than 70% of ENTEK's business.

Lastly, ENTEK is not responsible for any time crunch that Polypore may

presently find itself in. Polypore, not ENTEK, wasted at least 10 days in December by not

responding to ENTEK' s drafts of the Discovery Agreement in a timely maner until December

22,2008. Similarly, to this day, Polypore has not responded to ENTEK's próposed dates for the

deposition of Daniel Weerts.

ARGUl\NT

I. The Motion to Compel Should be Denied as Moot Because ENTEK Has

Substantially Complied with the Subpoena as Modified and Expects to Complete the

Rollng Production of any Remaining Materials by January 29, 2009

Polypore's Motion to Compel Production of Documents should be denied as moot

because ENTEK has substantially responded to the discovery requests contained in the Subpoena

as modified and is currently completing a rolling production in a reasonable time and maner.

See, e.g., Brown v. Artus, 2008 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 43297 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (denying plaintiff's

motion to compel as moot where defendants had substantially complied with the proffered

discovery).

The purpose of producing ENTEK materials on a rolling basis is to provide

Polypore (that is, the outside group identified in the Discovery Agreement) with documents as

soon as possible once they are assembled and reviewed. To date, ENTEK has made 10

2
productions of 15,514 pages to Polypore. Specifically:

On January 5,2009, ENTEK made the first production toPolypore, which

consisted of an affidavit from Daniel Weerts d~scribing ENTEK's operations, corporate strategy,

its main products as well as other major product categories in the battery industry, and the

geographic market for "SLI" (starting-lighting-ignition) battery separators.2 Mr. Weerts'

affidavit also includes a description of the end use applications for ENTEK's battery separators

that Polypore alleges is necessary in order to rebut the FTC's allegation that battery separators

manufactured for a particular application canot be effectively used for other applications.3

On January 7,2009, ENTEK made two productions to Polypore. The first

consisted of 190 pages of documents and included ENTEK's United States contracts with Delphi

Energy and Chassis Systems Division, Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., and the Ramcar

Group.4 These contracts together represent over 70% of ENTEK's business, and provide the

pricing information Polypore identifies in its Motion to Compel as necessary for its defense.5

The second January 7, 2009 production consisted of 246 pages of documents and

included descriptions of ENTEK' s battery separator products and applications, sales summaries

providing monthly sales averages for each ENTEK customer from 2006-2008, spreadsheets

listing capacity and production information for each of ENTEK's facilities, a flow diagram

ilustrating ENTEK's production process, a feasibility study for the production of industrial

polyethylene separators at ENTEK's U.K. CMP facility, information about ENTEK's

'competitive proposals since January 1, 2006, and copies of discussions with customers regarding

2

Exhibit 5, a true and correct copy of an EmaIl communication from Brett Collns to Eric D.

Welsh; titled: "In the matter of Polypore International, Inc., Case No. 9327 (Document

Submission" dated January 5,2009, at 6:51 PM PDT.

Memorandum in Support of Respondent's Motion to Compel ENTEK International LLC to

Produce Documents Requested by Subpoena Duces Tecum ("Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel") at

5.

Exhibit 6, a true and correct copy of an Email communication from Brett Collns to Eric D.

Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission"

dated January 7,2009, at 10:37 AM PDT.

Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel at 5.

3

4

5

3
the supply of battery separators.6 These documents provide information regarding markets,

entry, capacity, testing and capital requirement barriers to entry that Polypore describes in its

Motion to Compel.7

ENTEK made its fourth and fifth productions to Polypore on January 9,2009,

consisting of 652 pages of documents. These productions included detailed information about

pricing negotiations, additional contracts, and communications with customers ofENTEK's U.K.

facility. 

8

On January 12,2009, ENTEK made a sixth production to Polypore, which

included an agency agreement between ENTEK and Bernard Dumas, and a 1995 purchase

agreement between ENTEK and Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. along with a 1997

amendment to that agreement. 9

ENTEK produced over 5,000 pages of documents in a seventh production on

January 15,2009, which contained the files of Greg Humphrey, ENTEK's Account Manager for

North and South American Sales.1O These documents included customer visit reports,

communications with customers, market share analyses, and spreadsheets containing pricing

information.

ENTEK's eighth production sent to Polypore on January 16, 2009, contained

5,117 pages of documents and included the files of Graeme Fraser-Bell responsive to Subpoena

6

8

Exhibit 7, a true and correct copy of an Email communication from Brett Collns to Eric D.

Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polyp ore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission"

dated January 7,2009, at 3:06 PM PDT.

Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel at 5, citing Subpoena Nos. 3-4, 28. 32.

Exhibit 8, a true and correct copy of an EmaIl communication from Brett Collns to Eric D.

Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission"

dated January 9,2009, at 3:05 PM PDT. Exhibit 9, a true and correct copy of an EmaIl

communication from Brett Collns to Eric D. Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polyp ore

International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission" dated January 9,2009, at 3:09 PM

PDT.

7

9

Exhibit 10, a true and correct copy of an Email communication from Brett Collins to Eric D.

Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission"

dated January 12,2009, at 3:01 PM PDT.

10 Exhibit 11, a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent on January 15, 2009 from Brett

Collins to Eric D. Welsh with ENTEK's seventh document submission.

4
Request 36 that were originally produced to the Federal Trade Commission, :¡s well as the fies

of Dan Weerts containing communications between ENTEK and certain battery manufacturers

listed in Subpoena Request 5.11

On January 17,2009 ENTEK turned over 638 documents totaling 3,250 pages in

its ninth submission, which included files from Greg Humphrey and Graeme Fraser-Bell

containing hundreds of emaIl communications with battery manufacturers reflecting price

discussions, supply agreements, and product specifications. 

12 This production also included the

fies of Dan Powell responsive to Subpoena Request 36 that were originally submitted to the

Federal Trade Commission.

In its most recent submission to Polypore, sent on January 20,2009, ENTEK

produced 751 pages of documents in 363 fies.13 The files submitted in this tenth production

contain Graeme Fraser-Bel1's communications with Johnson Controls, Inc. responsive, inter alia,

to Subpoena Request 5, as well as Robert Keith's documents responsive to Subpoena Request 36

that were originally submitted to the Federal Trade Commission.

Taken together, these productions substantially comply with the Subpoena as

modified and enable Polypore to adequately prepare its defense and move forward with the

deposition of Daniel Weerts. ENTEK expects that any remaining documents wil be produced by

January 29, 2009.

II. Polypore, not ENTEK, is Responsible for any Alleged Delays in Preparing its Case

for Trial

Polypore's contention that ENTEK has dragged its feet in producing documents

11 Exhibit 12, a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent on JanuaryJ6, 2009 from Brett

Collns to Eric D. Welsh with ENTEK's eighth document submission.

12 Exhibit 13, a true and correct copy of the cover letter sent on January 17, 2009 from Brett

Collns to Eric D. Welsh with ENTEK's ninth document submission.

13 Exhibit 14, a true and correct copy ofthe cover letter sent on January 20,2009 from Brett

Collns to Eric D. Welsh with ENTEK's tenth document submission.

5
responsive to Polypore's Subpoena is manifestly without merit. At the outset, it is important to

understand that ENTEK, as Pol ypore' s sole competitor in several lines of business, had serious

confidentiality concerns with turning over any of its competitively sensitive business records to

Polypore. The nature and scope of these concerns are set forth in ENTEK's Motion for

Protective Order which was filed with the Administrative Law Judge on November 6, 2008, prior

to its receipt of Polypore's Subpoena. 

14 In order to resolve ENTEK's confidentiality concerns

and to facilitate and expedite the discovery process, ENTEK and Polypore thereafter negotiated

the DiscoveryAgreement, which modifies the Subpoena in several material ways as well as the

October 23,2008 Protective Order entered in this case ("Protective Order") as it pertains to

ENTEK's documents. 

15 Specifically, the Discovery Agreement modifies not only the scope of

ENTEK's discovery obligations, but also, more importantly, the disclosure group identified in

the Protective Order, restricting access to ENTEK'sdocuments to a more limited group.

Polypore's assertion that the Discovery Agreement was "reached in principal on

December 11, 2008" is both misleading and revealing. 

16 The assertion is misleading, because

Polypore, not ENTEK, waited until December 22, 2008 - the eve of the Christmas and New

Year holidays - to finalize and execute the Discovery Agreement. The assertion is revealing,

because if - from Polypore's point of view - all material issues had been resolved by December

11,2008, then Polypore could have executed the agreement at that time. Had Polypore executed

the agreement on December 11, ENTEK would have been able to begin its production at least 10

days earlier. In light of its significant confidentiality concerns and its need to limit the disclosure

group, ENTEK could not begin producing documents until an enforceable agreement was

reached that provided the necessary assurances and protections. 

17 Accordingly, the earliest

14 On November 18, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that ENTEK's motion was

moot in light of a stipulation of the parties by which they agreed to attempt to resolve all

outstanding discovery issues between them. The Discovery Agreement was the fruit of this

prior stipulation.

15 Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel, Tab E.

16 Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel at 2.

17 ENTEK filed a Motion for Protective Order on November 6,2008 seeking to prevent

disclosure of documents originally produced to the FTC in compliance with the

6
ENTEK could have begun its production was sometime in early January 2009, which is exactly

what happened in this case.18

Under these circumstances, Polypore could not have had any justified expectation

that ENTEK would begin its document production prior to the winter holiday season. Had

ENTEK first produced documents and then attempted to finalize the Discovery Agreement, it

would have had no adequate protections in the event that negotiations had come to an impasse.

At no point in time did ENTEK or counsel for ENTEK suggest that ENTEK would begin its

document production efforts prior to finalizing the Discovery Agreement.

III. Polypore, not ENTEK, Delayed the Signing of the Discovery Agreement in

December 2008 by at least 10 Days, and Continues to Drag out the Discovery

Process

Any purported delay in finalizing the Discovery Agreement was the result of

Polypore's dIlatory conduct. Specifically, Polypore twice allowed five days to pass before

providing comments and edits to the draft Discovery Agreement circulated by ENTEK. On

December 10,2008, Polypore, through counsel, sent ENTEK an email requesting ten revisions to

the working draft of the Discovery Agreement. 19 One day later, on December 11, 2008, ENTEK

replied with an updated draft of the discovery agreement accepting virtually all of Pol ypore' s ten

proposed revisions?O Polypore thereafter allowed five days to elapse before responding to

Commission's CivIl Investigative Demand. ENTEK withdrew the motion on November 17,

2008 pending the outcome of a discovery agreement between Polypore and ENTEK.

18 Declaration of Hano Kaiser in Support of Third Pary ENTEK International LLC' s

Opposition to Pol ypore International's Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Requested by Subpoena Duces Tecum ("Kaiser Decl.") ll6.

19 Exhibit 1, a true and correct copy of the Email chain between Eric D . Welsh and Hano

Kaiser; titled: "RE: ENTEK; discovery agreement" dated December 10, 2008, at 10:48 AM

PDT.

20 Exhibit 2, a true and correct copy of the EmaIl chain between Eric D . Welsh and Hano

Kaiser; titled: "Re: DRAFT Discovery Agreement ENTEK/olypore" dated December 16,

2008, at 3:01 PM PDT.

7
ENTEK's re-circulated draft on December 16, 2008.21 ENTEK again responded within a day, on

December 17, 2008 accepting Polypore's proposed revisions and including them in a proposed

final draft.22 Polypore thereafter allowed another five days to pass before responding to that

draft, ultimately agreeing to the final form of the agreement on December 22, 2008.23

In the same vein, Polypore, not ENTEK, continues to drag out the discovery

process. In its Motion to Compel, Polypore argues that ENTEK's purorted delay in producing

documents has prevented it from preparing for the ENTEK depositions; however, Polypore has

exhibited no urgency in actually scheduling the deposition of the agreed upon ENTEK witness,

Mr. Daniel Weerts.24 OnJanuary 14,2009 ENTEK sent Polypore an emaIl with proposed

deposition dates for Daniel Weerts. 25 As of the date of the filng of this Opposition, seven days

have passed since ENTEK sent that emaIl, and Polypore has yet to respond.26

iv. ENTEK Has Been Working Dilgently to Substantially Comply With the Subpoena

as Modified

Since the Discovery Agreement's execution, ENTEK has been working diligently

to produce responsive documents to Polypore on a rolling basis and has produced more than

15,000 pages as of the date of this filng. In the thirty days that have passed since the Discovery

Agreement was signed, ENTEK has made 10 productions to Polypore, submitting responsive

documents as soon as they are available for production. The documents produced to Polypore in

the earliest productions, many of which Polypore received before fiing its Motion to Compel,

21 ¡d.

22 Exhibit 3, a true and correct copy of the Email chain between Eric D. Welsh and Hano

Kaiser; titled: "RE: ENTEK; discovery agreement" dated December 22,2008, at 8:12 AM

PDT.

23 Discovery Agreement, Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel, Tab E.

24 Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel at 4.

25 Exhibit 4, a true and correct copy of an Email communication between Brett Collns and Eric

D. Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore International Inc. - Deposition dates for Daniel

Weerts" dated January 14,2009, at 1:55 PM PDT.

26 Kaiser Decl.ll16.

8
contain the most important information, covering more than 70% of ENTEK' s revenues and

providing Polypore with the information regarding pricing, end use, and manufacturing capacity

necessary to its defenses as outlined in its Motion to CompeL. 27

ENTEK is not a large company with massive resources. It is assembling,

reviewing, and producing responsive files as expeditiously as it can. Dan Weerts and Dan

Powell, ENTEK's Vice President of Sales and Marketing and Vice President of Finance,

respectively, have spent a substantial amount of time and effort on compilng responses to

Polypore's Subpoena.28 Graeme Fraser-Bell, the Vice President of International Sales for

ENTEK International Ltd., has also been significantly diverted from his normal business duties

as he works to comply with the Subpoena.29 Mssrs. Weerts, Powell, Fraser-Bell, Kuntz and

others within ENTEK have been working in good faith to respond to the Subpoena, and wil

continue working in good faith on this matter untIl production is completed. ENTEK presently

expects to complete its production on January 29,2009, an eminently reasonable timeline

considering the scope of the production required under the Subpoena, as modified by the

Discovery Agreement.

Polypore's contention that ENTEK refused to provide any commitment as to

when ENTEK would complete its production (citing a January 7,2009 e-mail from Eric D.

Welsh, Esq.) is, again, misleading.3o On January 6,2009, Polypore demandedfor the first time

that ENTEK commit to a date certain by which its production would be completed. When

ENTEK indicated that it needed additional time to determine a plausible completion date,

Polypore demanded that production be completed by January 12 - a mere 6 days later. Given the

expected volume of material covered by the Subpoena, even as modified, this date was

completely unrealistic and ENTEK so informed Polypore immediately of this fact. Specifically,

27 Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel at 5-6.

28 Declaration of Joel Kuntz in Support of Third Party ENTEK International LLC's Opposition

to Polypore International's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Requested by

Subpoena Duces Tecum ("Kuntz Decl.") llll2,3.

29 Kuntz. Decl. ll4.

30 Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel at 3-4.

9
ENTEK responded to Polypore's concerns via Email on January 7,2009, explaining, "we cannot

commit to completing ENTEK's production by January 12 as you requested for the first time in

yesterday's 'meet and confer' session. We wil continue to produce documents as quickly as

possible and commit to substantially completing ENTEK's production by January 23, 2009.,,31

Although it continues to produce additional documents and expects to do so until January 29,

2009, ENTEK submits that its production of more than 15,000 pages to date constitutes

substantial completion of its production.

CONCLUSION

ENTEK has worked in good faith to complete production pursuant to the

Subpoena as modified by the Discovery Agreement. The vast majority of documents responsive

to the Subpoena have already been produced to Polypore, and ENTEK continues to work

dilgently to complete production as promptly as it reasonably can. For the reasons set forth

above, the Administrative Law Judge should deny Respondent's Motion to Compel as moot. In

the event that the Administrative Law Judge has additional questions not addressed in this

memorandum, ENTEK respectfully requests a hearing.

'-

31 Exhibit 6, a true and correct copy of an EmaIl communication from Brett Collns to Eric D.

Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission"

dated January 7,2009, at 10:37 PDT.

10
Dated: January 21,2009 ::S~ÖSUbmiitoo, ~

Darius Ogloza

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, California 94111-6538

Telephone: +1.415.391.0600

Facsimile: + 1.415.395.8095

hano.kaiserê lw .com

darius.ogloza ê IW.com

* Admitted in New York only. Not admitted in

California.

Attorneys for ENTEK International LLC

11
;.~#~~"""";:.::"::.i:~~'é.~.~.:.3~g~:it;:::;;;;:¿;;,~:;~,,~i:2;;,,~;-;,,;;;:'t.;;::;¡'.:$;.~,=..:,.:~~¡;:~.~;~i:~.;:;:::..-.~¡;;;~.~~:2:.:'.:;:;::~Æ:~r:.:"'t.-'-'"~".~r~:;.:~:":~:;;.':;":~::~~~l;,~~Z:$:",;:~~:;":i.~,::8;¡;,;;:-:~:i~;':::7:;\~~;:,:~~¡¡.~:#,;',:::;";::;?:;t.::-,:!s;~;;:;:;:':;;;";::"f:;.::-:$:;'6'.::i;::"~(:L:~;:;:;!~;~~;;:;~¿'ì,::;,:~~;

\

UNITED STATES OF AMRICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRAE COMMSSION

In the Matter of CASE NO. 9327

Polypore International, Inc.

a corporation. PUBLIC DOCUMENT

DECLARATION OF JOEL KUZ IN SUPPORT OFTHIRD PARTY ENTEK

INTERNATIONAL LLC'S OPPOSITION TO POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL,INC.'S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

I, Joel Kuntz, under penalty of peijur, declare that the following is tre and

correct to the best of my knowledge:

1. I am Vice President and General Counel for ENTEK International LLC

("ENTEK"). I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon, I could

and would competently testify thereto.

2. Dan Weerts, the current Vice President of Sales & Marketing for ENTEK,

has been pulled away from his regular professional duties in order to assemble and process

documents responsive to the subpoena duces tecum issued to ENTEK International LLC by

Polypore International, Inc. on November 6, 2008, and as modified by the agreement reached

between the paries on December 22, 2008 ("Subpoena"). This has taken a substatial amount of

time and effort. Mr. Weerts has spent over 100 hours dedicated to this task.

3. Dan Powell, the curent Chief Financial Officer for ENTEK, has been
pulled away from his regular professional duties in order to assemble and process documents

responsive to the Subpoena. This has taken a substantial amount of time and effort. Mr. Powell

has spent over 50 hours dedicated to this task.

4. Graeme Fraser-Bell, the current Vice President of International Sales for

ENTEK International Ltd, has been pulled away from his regular professional duties in order to

assemble and process documents responsive to the Subpoena. This has taken a substantial

amount of time and effort. Mr. Fraser-Bell has spent over 30 hours dedicated to this task.

5. Resources within ENTEK, including the technology deparment, have

been dedicated to processing and producing the company's files that are responsive to the

Subpoena.

6. ENTEK's normal business operations have been disrupted as a result of

the divergence of human and technological resources to the expeditious production of documents

in compliance with the Subpoena. Ths divergence has occurred while ENTEK is trng to close

its books for 2008 and prepare budgets for 2009.

I declare, under the penalty ofpeijury under the laws of the United States that the

foregoing is tre and correct. Signed this 21st day ofJanuary 2009, in Lebanon, Oregon.

2
UNITED STATES OF Al\RICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION

In the Matter of CASE NO. 9327

Polypore International, Inc.

a corporation. PUBLIC DOCUl\NT

DECLARATION OF HANNO F. KAISER IN SUPPORT OF

THIRD PARTY ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S OPPOSITION TO POL YPORE

INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUl\NTS

REQUESTED BY SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

I, Hano F. Kaiser, under penalty of perjury, declare that the following is true and

correct to the best of my knowledge:

1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before the courts of the State of

New York. I am a parner with the law firm of Latham & Watkins LLP, legal counsel for

ENTEK International LLC ("ENTEK"). I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein

and, if called upon, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy the EmaIl chain

between Eric. D. Welsh and Hanno Kaiser; titled: "RE: ENTEK; discovery agreement" dated

December 10, 2008, at 10:48 AM PDT.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Email chain

between Eric D. Welsh and Hanno Kaiser, titled: "Re: DRAF Discovery Agreement

ENTEK/olypore" dated December 16, 2008, at 3:01 PM PDT.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the EmaIl chain

between Eric D, Welsh and Hanno Kaiser; titled: "RE: ENTEK; discovery agreement" dated

December 22, 2008, at 8: 12 AM PDT.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of an EmaIl

communication between Brett Collns and Eric D. Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore

International Inc. - Deposition dates for Daniel Weerts" dated January 14, 2009, at 1:55 PM

PDT.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of an Email

communication from Brett Collns to Eric D. Welsh; titled: "In the matter of Polypore

International, Inc., Case No. 9327 (Document Submission)" dated January 5,2009, at 6:51 PM

PDT. This Email communication contains the first of ten document submissions made by

ENTEK to Polypore in its ongoing document production pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum

served on November 6,2008 ("Subpoena") and as amended by a letter agreement reached

between the paries on December 22, 2008 ("Discovery Agreement").

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of an Email

communication from Brett Collins to Eric D. Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore

International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission" dated January 7,2009, at 10:37 AM PDT.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an EmaIl

communication from Brett Collns to Eric D. Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore

International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission" dated January 7,2009, at 3:06 PM PDT.

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of an EmaIl

communication from Brett Collns to Eric D. Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore

International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission" dated January 9,2009, at 3:05 PM PDT.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of an Email -

2
communication from Brett Collns to Eric D. Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polypore

International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission" dated January 9,2009, at 3:09 PM PDT.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of an Email

communication from Brett Collns to Eric D. Welsh; titled: "In re matter of Polyp ore

International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission" dated January 12,2009, at 3:01 PM PDT.

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter

sent on January 15, 2009 from Brett Collns to Eric D. Welsh with ENTEK's seventh document

submission.

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter

sent on January 16,2009 from Brett Collns to Eric D. Welsh with ENTEK's eighth document

submission.

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter

sent on January 17, 2009 from Brett Collins to Eric D. Welsh with ENTEK's ninth document

submission.

15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the cover letter

sent on January 20,2009 from Brett Collns to Eric D. Welsh with ENTEK's tenth document

submission.

16. Neither I nor any of my parners or associates at Latham & Watkins LLP

have received a response from Polypore's counsel regarding the proposed deposition dates for

Daniel Weerts.

3
I declare, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the

foregoing is true and correct. S-Igned this 21st day of January 2009, in San Francisco, California.

By

~ 0 F. Kaiser

LA HAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, California 94111-6538

Telephone: + 1.415.395.8856

FacsimIle: + 1.415.395.8095

hano.kaiserê lw .com

* Admitted in New York only. Not admitted in

California.

Attorney for ENTEK International LLC

4

,2ielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Welsh, Eric D. rericwelsh(§parkerpoe.com)

Wednesday, December 10, 200810:48 AM

Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Collins, Brett (SF)

RE: ENTEK; discovery agreement

Darius:

Thank you for your letter. I have talked with my client and we have the following in

response.

First, as we discussed over the telephone, Hanno' s proposal on confidentiality was to

treat certain information as highly confidential, and it was that information that we

agreed with you Mr. Shor would not see. There was no discussion of "Safe Locations."

Now, the proposed agreement from you not only excludes Mr. Shor from all confidential

documents, but it also includes the restriction of having the "Most Sensitive

Information" reviewed at only "Safe Locations" during normal business hours. This is

unreasonable, excessive and unnecessary. In order to move this along, we will agree to

exclude Mr. Shor as to all of Entek' s production, but I cannot agree to the Safe Location

provision as it is far too restrictive on my ability to engage in discovery and prepare

for trial and imposes undue expense to me and my economists. We have come quite far in

our repeated concessions to address confidentiality concerns of your client. If this is

not satisfactory, then please file your motion.

Second, as to the list of those individuals in the "Disclosure Group, "

it would need to include our industry expert once we have notified you per paragraph 6.

The Group would also need to include Entek i s witnesses, court reporters, the court, and

the others referred to in paragraph 9 of the Protective Order (excluding Mr. Shor).

Third, we will agree to notify you of the industry expert, but absent your filing a

motion, we would be permitted to show the documents to such person ten days after our

notification to you.

Fourth, Entek Information must be able to be removed from Restricted Locations for

depositions and hearings. I assume the FTC would want to receive a copy too, but your

agreement excludes that ability.

Fifth, I would like the return of Entek information (paragraph 5) to parallel the language

in the Protective Order.

Sixth, your letter does not mention our right to seek additional information should the

written responses or sufficient to show productions not fully respond to the level of

inquiry sought. As I said, you would reserve your right to object.

Seventh, your letter does not mention our right to have a witness tendered to respond to

questions regarding such responses.

Eighth, please verify that the response to Request Nos. 3 and 4 will cover any such

facility owned directly or indirectly by ENTEK.

Ninth, you have limited the custodian to Mr. Weerts. We understood that you were

proposing three custodians to search. We were agreeable to that proposal but needed to

know the identity of those custodians. I did not think this was unreasonable. You have

now dropped the inquiry to a single person in this organization. We request you also

search Mr.

Graham Fraser Bell i s and Rob Keith' s files.

Tenth, please include documents covering North America and the World in response. to

Request No.6.

I think we have now narrowed all of the issues down. If there is anything left that we

need to discuss, let me know today. Otherwise, please revise the letter accordingly and

i
send it to me for signature or file your motion with the ALJ.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Eric Welsh

-----Original Message-----

From: Hanno. Kaiser&lw. com (mail to: Hanno. Kaiser&lw. com)

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:32 PM

To: Welsh, Eric D.

Cc: DARIUS. OGLOZA&LW. com; Brett. Collins&lw. com

Subj ect: ENTEK; discovery agreement

Dear Eric:

As discùssed, please find attached our proposed discovery agreement.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best,

Hanno

Hanno F. Kaiser I LATHAM & WATKINS LLP I 505 Montgomery Street, San

Francisco, CA 94111-6538 I P: 415.395.8856, F: 415.395.8095, E:

hanno. kaiser&lw. com I Admitted in NY. CA bar admission pending,

*** *** * **** ***** * * ********* * * * *** * * * ** * ****   ** * * ****** *** * ** * ** * *****

*******

To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of

Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be

used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed

under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend

to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

For more information please go to http://ww.lw.com/docs/irs.pdf

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*******

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or

attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any

review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express

permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

La tham & Watkins LLP

2

,2ielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Welsh, Eric D. (ericwelsh(§parkerpoe.comJ

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:01 PM

Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Collins, Brett (SF)

RE: DRAFT Discovery Agreement ENTEKJPolypore

Hanno

I think we are very close. Here are my additional thoughts.

Para 3 of your letter (Access to Entek Information) needs to include industry expert, upon

approval.

Para 4 of your letter needs to include the use of the documents through appeal.

Para 5, I propose the following language: "Any industry expert shall not have been

employed by Polypore and shall not be employed by Polypore or provide consulting services

to Polypore (outside of the present

matter) for a period of two years from the final resolution of this matter."

I did not see points 6 and 7 of your email actually in the letter. Let me know if I

missed it. Otherwise, I would like to add it just so there is no misunderstanding down

the road.

We will agree to substitute Mr. Humphrey for Mr. Keith for the custodian to be searched.

I appreciate your efforts and look forward to hearing back from you so that we can get

this wrapped up.

Best regards,

Eric

Eric Welsh

Partner

Three Wachovia Center I 401 South Tryon Street I Suite 3000 I Charlotte, NC 28202

Phone: 704.335.9052 I Fax: 704.335.9755 I http://ww.parkerpoe.com

From: Hanno .Kaiser&lw. com (mailto:Hanno.Kaiser&lw. com)

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:10 PM To: Welsh, Eric D. _

Cc: DARIUS. OGLOZA&LW. com; Brett. Collins&lw. com

Subject: DRAFT Discovery Agreement ENTEK/Polypore

Dear Eric:

Please find attached, as discussed, a further revised version of the

Discovery Agreement. As you will see, we accepted virtually all of your

proposed changes and requests. Specifically:

(1) The Safe Location concept has been removed.

(2) The Disclosure Group has been expanded per your request.

(3) As to the industry expert, the new provision strikes a reasonable

compromise. We have 10 days in which to file a motion; in return we get

i
information about the proposed expert and one short interview if

required. The new provision also clarifies that the expert must be a

Polypore outsider. That should not be controversial.

(4) Documents may now be removed from Safe Locations for the purposes

you identified.

(5) The process of returning ENTEK documents now follows the concept in

the PO.

(6) Polypore's reservation of rights in case of claims of insufficient

compliance with the agreement have been clarified.

(7) Polypore has the right to call a witness; that, in my view, had

already been part of the previous draft.

(8) Request Nos. 3 and 4 will cover facilities owned directly or

indirectly by ENTEK; we added language to clarify that point.

(9) We're fine with adding Graham Fraser Bell per your request. In lieu

of Rob Keith, however, we propose Greg Humphrey, North & South America

Account Manager. Greg is a much better and more direct source for

detailed information about actual or potential contracts, separator

prices, Polypore and Microporous (i. e., the information requested in

Spec. 5) than Rob Keith. Moreover, the vast majority of relevant

information requested in Spec. 5 in Rob Keith' files would likely be

duplicative with the much more detailed set contained in the files of

Dan Weerts. As a result, the benefit to Polypore of including Rob Keith

would be minimal, whereas the burden on ENTEK of having its. CEO divert

significant time and attention away from operations at a time of overall

financial and economic crisis and at a critical time of the business

year would be significant and harmful to the company. Including Rob

Keith would thus be unduly burdensome.

(10) As discussed yesterday, we did not make any changes to Spec. 6.

Best,

Hanno

Hanno F. Kaiser I LATHAM & WATKINS LLP I 505 Montgomery Street, San

Francisco, CA 94111-6538 I P: 415.395.8856, F: 415.395.8095, E:

hanno.kaiser&lw.com I Admitted in NY. CA bar admission pending.

* *** * * **** * ** * *** * * * * ***** * **** * *** ** * * *** * ** ** * ***** ****** ** * * * * ****** *

*******

To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of

Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be

used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed

under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend

to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

For more information please go to http://ww.lw.com/docs/irs.pdf

* ** *** ** *** ** *** * ** * ** * * ** *** * *** * * ** * ** * ** * ** ***   ** ** * ** * * * * * **** * * *

*******

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or

attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any

review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express

permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Latham & Watkins LLP

IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we

inform you that any U. S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (or in any

attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of

2
(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or

recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication

(or in any attachment) .

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message and any attachments are confidential

property of the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the person to whom

it was addressed. Any other interception, copying, accessing, or disclosure of this

message is prohibited. The sender takes no responsibility for any unauthorized reliance on

this message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the

sender and purge the message you received. Do not forward this message without permission.

(ppab_vl.O)

3

~ielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Welsh, Eric D. (ericwelsh(Qparkerpoe.com)

Monday, December 22,20088:12 AM

Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Collns, Brett (SF)

RE: Entek; discovery agreement

Hanno

We are fine with the changes. Please send me the final letter so that I can sign it and

return it to you.

Thanks.

Eric

Eric Welsh

Partner

Three Wachovia Center I 401 South Tryon Street I Suite 3000 I Charlotte, NC 28202

Phone: 704.335.9052 I Fax: 704.335.9755 I http://ww.parkerpoe.com

From: Hanno . Kaiser&lw . com (mailto:Hanno .Kaiser&lw. com)

Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:02 PM

To: Welsh, Eric D.

Cc: DARIUS. OGLOZA&LW. com; Brett. Collins&lw. com

Subj ect: Entek; discovery agreement

~~REDLINE - ENTEK - Ltr re Discovery Agreement 12 vs 11 (683636_1_SF)

(2) .pdf~~ Dear Eric:

Please find attached a revised, redlined version of the agreement,

including the changes that you requested. This version is acceptable to

ENTEK. If you are on board, let me know and I will send you a signed

copy.

Best,

Hanno

Hanno F. Kaiser I LATHAM & WATKINS LLP I 505 Montgomery Street, San

Francisco, CA 94111-6538 I P: 415.395.8856, F: 415.395.8095, E:

hanno.kaiser&lw.com I Admitted in NY. CA bar admission pending.

* ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * *** * * * ***** * * *** ** ******** * * * *** ***** * * * * ******

*******

To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of

Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be

used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed

under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend

to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

For more information please go to http://ww.lw.com/docs/irs.pdf

** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * *** * * *** * ***** * * ****** * * * * ** * ** * * * * * * * ** ***

*******

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or

attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any

1
review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express

permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Latham & Watkins LLP

IRS CIRCULAR 230.NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we

inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (or in any

attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of

(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or

recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication

(or in any attachment) .

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message and any attachments are confidential

property of the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the person to whom

it was addressed. Any other interception, copying, accessing, or disclosure of this

message is prohibited. The sender takes no responsibility for any unauthorized reliance on

this message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the

sender and purge the message you received. Do not forward this message without permission.

(ppab_vl.O)

2
.,116
lPielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Collns, Brett (SF)

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 1 :55 PM

'Welsh, Eric D.'

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

In re matter of Polypore International Inc. - Deposition dates for Daniel Weerts

Eric,

Daniel Weerts is available for deposition on the following dates: 1/27, 1/28,2/4,2/9 and 2/10. We propose having the

deposition take place in San Francisco. Please let us know which dates work for your schedule.

Best regards,

Brett

Brett D. Collns

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street

Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111-6538

Direct Dial: +1.415.395.8233

Fax: + 1.415.395.8095

Email: brett.collns(llw.com

http://www.lw.com

i
.
.2ielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Collins, Brett (SF)

Monday, January 05, 2009 6:51 PM

'Welsh, Eric D.'

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

In the matter of Polypore International, Inc., Case No. 9327 (Document Submission)

Attachments: Scan001.PDF; Scan001.PDF

Eric,

Please see the attached correspondence regarding ENTEK International LLC's first submission in response to the

subpoena duces tecum servad on it by Polypore.

Best regards,

Brett

Brett D. Collns

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street

Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111-6538

Direct Dial: +1.415.395.8233

Fax: +1.415.395.8095

Email: brett.collins(glw.com

http://www.lw.com

m II

ScanOO1.PDF (38 ScanOO1.PDF (496 KB) KB)

1

.2ielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Collins, Brett (SF)

Wednesday, January 07,200910:37 AM

'Welsh, Eric D.'

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

In re matter of Polyp ore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission

Attachments: JCI ENTEK L TA FINAL SIGNED June 4 2007.pdf; DELPHI.51W.EXECUTED.pdf;

DELPHI.118.EXECUTED.pdf; Scan4304.pdf

Eric,

Attached is ENTEK International LLC's ("ENTEK") second submission in response to the subpoena duces tecum served

on it by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on November 6, 2008, and as modified by the agreement reached

between the parties on December 22,2008 ("Subpoena"). This submission, with bates range ENTEK_000007-000196,

includes ENTEK's current contract with JCI, which represents 70% of the company's business.

These materials are highly confidential and are being provided to you with the understanding that they will be afforded the

full protection provided by the Protective Order dated October 23, 2008, as amended and supplemented by the agreement

between Polypore and ENTEK signed on December 22, 2008. If your understanding is inconsistent with ours, we ask that

you immediately return the attached materials to us unopened.

ENTEK has been working diligently to produce responsive documents to you on a rolling basis and will continue to do so;

however, we cannot commit to completing ENTEK's production by January 12 as you requested for the first time in

yesterday's "meet and confer" session. We wil continue to produce documents as quickly as possible and commit to

substantially completing ENTEK's production by January 23, 2009. Immediately thereafter, ENTEK will make Mr. Weerts

available for deposition in both his personal and corporate representative capacities.

Best regards,

Brett

Brett D. Collns

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street

Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111-6538

Direct Dial: + 1.415.395.8233

Fax: + 1.415.395.8095

Email: brett.collinscælw.com

http://www.lw.com

~

JCI ENTEK LTA DELPHI.51W.EXEC DELPHI.118.EXECU Scan4304.pdf (1

~ m

:INAL SIGNED Jun.. UTED.pdf (2 MB)... TED.pdf (880 K.. MB)

1

~ielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Collins, Brett (SF)

Wednesday, January 07,20093:06 PM

'Welsh, Eric D.'

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

In re matter of Polypore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission

Attachments: 20090107 _2.zip

Eric,

Attached is ENTEK International LLC's ("ENTEK") third submission in response to the subpoena duces tecum served on it

by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on November 6, 2008, and as modified by the agreement reached between the

parties on December 22,2008 ("Subpoena"). This submission, with bates range ENTEK_000197-000442, includes

ENTEK's written responses to the Federal Trade Commission's Civil Investigative Demand. Please note that Attachments

4(iv) and 5 will be provided to you in their entirety shortly.

These materials are highly confidential and are being provided to you with the understanding that they wil be afforded the

full protection provided by the Protective Order dated October 23, 2008, as amended and supplemented by the agreement

between Polypore and ENTEK signed on December 22,2008. If your understanding is inconsistent with ours, we ask that

you immediately return the attached materials to us unopened.

Best regards,

Brett

Brett D. Collns

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street

Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111-6538

Direct Dial: +1.415.395.8233

Fax: + 1.415.395.8095

Email: brett.collins(§lw.com

http://www.lw.com

20090107 _2.zip (7

MB)

1

!pielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subjéct:

Collins, Brett (SF)

Friday, January 09, 2009 3:05 PM

'Welsh, Eric D.'

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

In re matter of Polypore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission

Attachments: Attachment 4(iv) UK Contracts.zip .

Eric,

Attached is ENTEK International LLC's ("ENTEK") fourth submission in response to the subpoena duces tecum served on

it by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on November 6, 2008, and as modified by the agreement reached between

the parties on December 22, 2008 ("Subpoena"). This submission, with bates range ENTEK_000443-000900, includes

Attachment 4(iv) to ENTEK's written responses to the Federal Trade Commission's Civil Investigative Demand.

These materials are highly confidential and are being provided to you with the understanding that they will be afforded the

full protection provided by the Protective Order dated October 23, 2008, as amended and supplemented by the agreement

between Polypore and ENTEK signed on December 22,2008. If your understanding is inconsistent with ours, we ask that

you immediately return the attached materials to us unopened.

Best regards,

Brett

Brett D. Collns

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street

Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111-6538

Direct Dial: + 1.415.395.8233

Fax: +1.415.395.8095

Email: brett.collns(Qlw.com

http://www.lw.com

Attachment 4(iv)

UK Contract....

1
,.
,2ielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Collins, Brett (SF)

Friday, January 09, 2009 3:09 PM

'Welsh, Eric D.'

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

In re matter of Polypore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission

Attachments: Attachment 5.zip

Eric,

Attached is ENTEK International LLC's ("ENTEK") fifth submission in response to the subpoena duces tecum served on it

by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on November 6, 2008, and as modified by the agreement reached between the

parties on December 22,2008 ("Subpoena"). This submission, with bates range ENTEK_000901-001094, includes

Attachment 5 to ENTEK's written responses to the Federal Trade Commission's Civil Investigative Demand.

These materials are highly confidential andare being provided to you with the understanding that they wil be afforded the

full protection provided by the Protective Order dated October 23, 2008, as amended and supplemented by the agreement

between Polypore and ENTEK signed on December 22, 2008. If your understanding is inconsistent with ours, we ask tha.t

you immediately return the attached materials to us unopened.

Best regards,

Brett

Brett D. Collns

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street

Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111-6538

Direct Dial: +1.415.395.8233

Fax: + 1.415.395.8095

Email: brett.collins(glw.com

http://www.lw.com

tittachment 5.zip (1

MB)

1

,2pielman, Katie (SF)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Collins, Brett (SF)

Monday, January 12, 2009 3:01 PM

'Welsh, Eric D.'

Ogloza, Darius (SF); Kaiser, Hanno (SF)

In re matter of Polypore International, Inc. - ENTEK Document Submission

Attachments: Entek_001095.pdf; Scan6034.pdf; Scan6035.pdf

Eric,

Attached is ENTEK International LLC's ("ENTEK") sixth submission in response to the subpoena duces tecum served on it

by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on November 6, 2008, and as modified by the agreement reached between the

parties on December 22, 2008 ("Subpoena"). This submission, with bates range ENTEK_001 095-001127, includes the

contract with Bernard Dumas as well as an early contract and related amendment with Johnson Controls.

These materials are highly confidential and are being provided to you with the understanding that they will be afforded the

full protection provided by the Protective Order dated October 23, 2008, as amended and supplemented by the agreement

between Polypore and ENTEK signed on December 22, 2008. If your understanding is inconsistent with ours, we ask that

you immediately return the attached materials to us unopened.

Best regards,

Brett

Brett D. Collns

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 .

San Francisco, CA 94111-6538

Direct Dial: +1.415.395.8233

Fax: +1.415.395.8095

Email: brett.collins(§lw.com

http://www.lw.com

II

Entek_001095.pdf 5can6034.pdf (545 Scan6035.pdf (915 (533 KB) KB) KB)

1

Brett D. Collns

Direct Dial: 415-395-8233

brettcollns ~ Iw.com

505 Montgomeiy Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, Califomia 94111-6538

Tel: +1.415.391.0600 Fax: +1.415.395.8095

wwJw.com

LA THAM&WATKI N SLLP FIRM I AFFILIATE OFFICES

January 15, 2009

Abu Dhabi

Barcelona

Brussels

Chicago

Doha

Dubai

Frankfurt

Hamburg

Hong Kong

London

Los Angeles

Madrid

Milan

Moscow

VIA FEDERAL-EXPRESS

Eric D. Welsh

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Three Wachovia Center, Suite 3000

401 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

File No, 030380-007

Re: In the Matter of Polypore InternationaL. Inc.. Case No. 9327

Dear Eric:

Munich

New Jersey

New York

Northern Virginia

Orange County

Paris

Rome

San Diego

San Francisco

Shanghai

Silcon Valley

Singapore

Tokyo

Washington, D.C.

Enclosed is ENTEK International LLC's C'ENTEK") seventh submission in response to

the subpoena duces tecum served on it by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on November

6, 2008, and as modified by the agreement reached between the paries on December 22, 2008

("Subpoena"). This submission includes the fies of Greg Humphrey produced to the Federal

Trade Commission on July 3, 2008, with the bates range ENTEK_001128-006396.

These materials are highly confidential and are being provided to you with the

understanding that they wil be afforded the fun protection provided by the Protective Order

dated October 23,2008, as amended and supplemented by the agreement between Polypore and

ENTEK signed on December 22, 2008. If your understanding is inconsistent with ours, we ask

that you immediately return the enclosed materials to us unopened.

Best regards, k~Brett D. Collns

of LA TRA & WATKINS LLP

cc: Hano F. Kaiser

Darius Ogloza

SF\686774.J
~
Brett D. Collns

Direct Dial: 415-395-8233

breti-collns~lw.com

505 Montgomery Street. Suite 2000

San Francisco, Califomia 94111-6538

Tel: +1.415.391.0600 Fax: +1.415.395.8095

ww-lw.com

VIA FEDERAL-EXPRESS

FIRM I AFFIUA TE OFFICES

Abu Dhabi Munich

Barcelona New Jersey

Brussels New York

Chicago Northern Virginia

Doha Orange County

Dubai Pans

Frankfurt Rome

Hamburg San Diego

Hong Kong San Francisco

London Shanghai

Los Angeles Silcon Valley

Madnd Singapore

Milan Tokyo

Moscow Washington, D.C.

LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP

January 16, 2009

Eric D. Welsh

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Thee Wachovia Center, Suite 3000

401 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

File No. 030380-007

Re: In the Matter of Polvpore InternationaL. Inc.. Case No. 9327

Dear Eric:

Enclosed is ENTEK International LLC's ("ENTEK") eighth submission in response to

the subpoena duces tecum served on it by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on November

6, 2008, and as modified by the agreement reached between the paries on December 22, 2008

("Subpoena"). This submission includes the fies of Graeme Fraser-Bell responsive to Subpoena

Requests 36-38 that were produced to the Federal Trade Commission on May 9, 2008, with the

bates range ENTEK__006397-009160, as well as the fies of Dan Weerts responsive to Subpoena

Request 5, with the bates range ENTEK_009161-011513.

These materials are highly confidential and are being provided to you with the

understanding that they wil be afforded the full protection provided by the Protective Order

dated October 23,2008, as amended and supplemented by the agreement between Polypore and

ENTEK signed on December 22, 2008. If your understanding is inconsistent with ours, we ask

that you immediately return the enclosed materials to us unopened.

Best regards,

rett D. Collins

of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

cc: Hano F. Kaiser

Darus Ogloza

Sf\686935.1

Brett D. Collns

Direct Dial: 415-395-8233

brelt.collns~lw.com

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, California 94111-6538

Tel: + 1.415.391.0600 Fax: +1.415,395.8095

ww.lw.com

January 17, 2009

FIRM I AFFILIATE OFFICES

Abu Dhabi Munich

Barcelona New Jersey

Brussels New York

Chicago Northern Virginia

Doha Orange County

Dubai Pans

Frankfurt Rome

Hamburg San Diego

Hong Kong San Francisco

London Shanghai

Los Angeles Silcon Valley

Madnd Singapore

Milan Tokyo

Moscow Washington, D.C.

LA T HAM & W AT KIN S LLP

VIA FEDERAL-EXPRESS

Eric D. Welsh

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Thee Wachovia Center, Suite 300

401 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

File No. 0300-0007

Re: In the Matter of Polypore InternationaL. ¡nc.. Case No. 9327

Dear Eric:

Enclosed is ENTEK International LLC's ("ENTK") ninth submission in response to the

subpoena duces tecum served on it by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on November 6,

2008, and as modified by the agreement reached between the paries on December 22, 2008

("Subpoena"). This submission includes the files of Dan Powell responsive to Subpoena

Requests 36-38 that were produced to the Federal Trade Commission on May 9, 2008, as well as

the fies of Greg Humphrey and Graeme Fraser-Bell responsive to Subpoena Request 5, with the

bates range ENTEK_011514-014763.

These materials are highly confidential and are being provided to you with the

understanding that they wil be afforded the full protection provided by the Protective Order

dated October 23,2008, as amended and supplemented by the agreement between Polypore and

ENTEK signed on December 22, 2008. If your understanding is inconsistent with ours, we ask

that you immediately return the enclosed materials to us unopened.

Best regards,

Rd t~ ßf

Brett D. Collns

of LATHAM & W ATKINS LLP

cc: Hanno F. Kaiser

Darius Ogloza

SF\687085.1
.,

~.
Brett D. Collins

Direct Dial: 415-395-8233

brett.collns ~ IW.com

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco. California 94111-6538

Tel: +1.415.391,0600 Fax: +1.415.395.8095

ww.lw.com

LA THAM&WATKI NSlLP

January 20, 2009

FlAM I AFFILIATE OFFICES

Abu Dhabi Munich

Barcelona New Jersey

Brusels New York

Chicago Northern Virginia

Doha Orange County

Dubai Pans

Frankfurt Rome

Hamburg San Diego

Hong Kong San Francisco

London Shanghai

Los Angeles Silicon Valley

Madri Singapore

Milan Tokyo

Moscow Washington, D.C.

VIA FEDERAL. EXPRESS

Eric D. Welsh

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Thee Wachovia Center, Suite 3000

401 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

File No. 030380-0007

Re: In the Matter of Polvpore InternationaL. Inc.. Case No. 9327

Dear Eric:

Enclosed is ENTEK Intemational LLC's ("ENTEK") tenth submission in response to the

subpoena du.ces tecum served on it by Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore") on November 6,

2008, and as modified by the agreement reached between the paries on December 22, 2008

("Subpoena"). This submission includes the fies of Robert Keith responsive to Subpoena

Request 36 that were produced to the Federal Trade Commission on May 13,2008, as well as the

files of Graeme Fraser-Bell responsive to Subpoena Request 5(a) (documents relating to

communications between ENTEK and Johnson Controls, Inc.), with the bates range

ENTEK_014764-015514.

These materials are highy confdential and are being provided to you with the

understanding that they wil be afforded the fuii protection provided by the Protective Order

dated October 23, 2008, as amended and supplemented by the agreement between Polypore and

ENTEK signed on December 22, 2008. If your understanding is inconsistent with ours, we ask

that you immediately return the enclosed materials to us unopened.

Best regards,

,.

Brett D. Collns

of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

cc: Hanno F. Kaiser

Darius Ogloza

SF\687239.i
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of CASE NO. 9327

Polypore International, Inc.

a corporation. PUBLIC DOCUMENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE

I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the

age of 18 years and not a pary to this action. My business address is Latham & Watkins LLP,

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 941 i 1-6538.

On January 21, 2009, I served the following documents described as:

· THIRD PARTY ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S

OPPOSITION TO POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 'S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

REQUESTED BY SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

· DECLARATION OF JOEL KUNTZ IN SUPPORT OF THIRD

PARTY ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S OPPOSITION TO

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S MOTION TO

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

· DECLARATION OF HANNO F. KAISER IN SUPPORT OF

THIRD PARTY ENTEK INTERNATIONAL LLC'S

OPPOSITION TO POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

REQUESTED BY SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

by serving a true copy of the above-described documents in the following maner:

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

The above-described document was transmitted via electronic mail to the following part on January 21, 2009: .

Donald S. Clark, Secretar

Office of the Secretar

Federal Trade Commission

secretary~ftc.gov

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

oalj~ftc.gov

Robert Robertson, Esq.

Federal Trade Commission

rrobertsun~ftc.gov

J. Steven Dahm, Esq.

Federal Trade Commission

sdahm~ftc.gov

Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr.

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

williamrikard~parkerpoe.com

Eric D. Welsh

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

ericwelsh~parkerpe.com

The part on whom this electronic mail has been served has agreed in writing to such

fonn of service pursuant to agreement.

2
BY OVERNIGHT MAIL DELIVRY

I am familiar with the offce practice of Latham & Watkins LLP for collecting and

processing documents for overnight mail delivery by Express Mail or other express service carrier. Under

that practice, documents are deposited with the Latham & Watkins LLP personnel responsible for

depositing documents in a post office, mailbox, subpost office, substation, mail chute, or other like

facilty regularly maintained for receipt of overnight mail by Express Mail or other express service

carrier; such documents are delivered for overnight mail delivery by Express Mail or other express

service carier on that same day in the ordinar course of business, with delivery fees thereon fully

prepaid and/or provided for. I deposited in Latham & Watkins LLP' interoffice mail a sealed envelope or

package containing the above-described document and addressed as set forth below in accordance with

the office practice of Latham & Watkins LLP for collecting and processing documents for overnight mail

delivery by Express Mail or other express service carrier:

Donald S. Clark, Secretary

Office of the Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135

Washington, DC 20580

(Original + 12 copies)

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

(1 copy)

Robert Robertson, Esq.

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

(1 copy)

Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr.

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Three Wachovia Center

401 South Tyson St., Suite 3000

Charlotte, NC 28202

(1 copy)

J. Steven Dah, Esq.

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

(1 copy)

Eric D . Welsh

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Three Wachovia Center

401 South Tyson St., Suite 3000

Charlotte, NC 28202

(1 copy)

I declare that I am employed in the offce of a member of the Bar of, or permitted

to practice before, this Court at whose direction the service was made and declare under penalty

of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on January 21, 2009, at S.~. ,r rau:ciS.co, Californan _ /

ø!dh 71~tUai~

Beth A. Davis

3