UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

Ardagh Group S.A., 

a public limited liability company, and 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a corporation, and 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, 

a corporation, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET NO. 9356 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE MOTIONS FORINCAMERA TREATMENT 

I. 

On November 20, 2013 Respondents Ardagh Group S.A., Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, 

and Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. ("Respondents") filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Motions for In Camera Treatment ("Unopposed Motion"). 

The Scheduling Order issued in this case, as revised on October 18, 2013, set November 

26, 2013 as the deadline for filing motions for in camera treatment of proposed trial exhibits, 

with responses due on December 4, 2013; and set December 5, 2013 as the deadline for motions 

for in camera treatment of expert related trial exhibits, with responses due on December 12, 

2013. The Unopposed Motion requests an extension ofboth of the in camera motion deadlines 

to December 9, 2013, and an extension of both of the response deadlines to December 13, 2013. 

II. 

Rule 3.21(c)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provides in 

pertinent part: 

The Administrative Law Judge may, upon a showing of good cause, grant a motion to 

extend any deadline or time specified in this scheduling order other than the date of the 

evidentiary hearing .... In determining whether to grant the motion, the Administrative 

Law Judge shall consider any extensions already granted, the length of the proceedings to 

date, the complexity of the issues, and the need to conclude the evidentiary hearing and 

render an initial decision in a timely manner. 
16 C.F.R. § 3.21(c). 

Respondents state that there are ongoing settlement negotiations between the parties, and 

that the requested extension may avoid the necessity of filing any in camera treatment motions, 

which will relieve both the parties and affected nonparties ofthe burden of preparing such 

motions. In addition, Respondents state, the extension will allow the parties to continue to focus 

on their settlement negotiations. Respondents further note that this is the Respondents' first 

request for an extension of the in camera treatment motion deadlines and that Complaint Counsel 

has consented to the requested extensions of time. Respondents also state that the parties have 

already notified nonparties ofthe intent to use some of their confidential materials as exhibits at 

trial, pursuant to the Scheduling Order, and that, should the Unopposed Motion be granted, 

Respondents and Complaint Counsel will promptly notify all affected nonparties of the 

extensions ofthe filing deadlines. 

Based on the foregoing, there is good cause to extend the deadlines for filing and 

responding to motions for in camera treatment, as requested in the Unopposed Motion. 

Moreover, there have been no previous extensions of these deadlines and the requested 

extensions will not adversely affect the timely conclusion of the evidentiary hearing or the 

rendering of an initial decision. 

III. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the Unopposed Motion is GRANTED and it is hereby 

ORDERED that the deadlinesror filing and responding to motions for in camera treatment shall 

be as follows: 

December 9, 2013 - Deadline for filing motions for in camera treatment of 

proposed trial exhibits and expert related exhibits 

December 13, 2013 - Deadline for filing responses to motions for in camera 

treatment of proposed trial exhibits and expert related 

exhibits 

Except as set forth herein, all other Scheduling Order deadlines and Additional 

Provisions are unchanged. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappe 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: November 21,2013 

2