Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1-4 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Star Pipe Products, Ltd., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-) 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("Commission"), having filed its Complaint in the 

above-captioned case, and having filed on this date a Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment, 

hereby moves this Court for entry of a Final Judgment against Defendant Star Pipe Products, 

Ltd. ("Star Pipe"). By agreement of the parties, the Final Judgment against Star Pipe, authorized 

by Sections 5([) and 16(a)(l) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45([) and 

56(a)(l ), provides for the payment of civil penalties totaling one hundred twenty thousand 

United States dollars ($120,000). The parties have agreed in the Stipulation that the Final 

Judgment may be entered on the motion of either party. 1 

BACKGROUND 

The Commission has filed this action pursuant to its above-cited authority to seek relief 

for violations of one of its final administrative orders. As alleged in the Complaint, Star Pipe 

violated the Commission's 2012 final order by attempting to reach an understanding with one of 

1 Settlement of this proceeding is not subject to the notification requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and 

Penalties Act ("Tunney Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), because this is not a civil proceeding brought by or on behalf 

of the United States under the antitrust laws. See, e.g., Federal Trade Commission v. Onkyo U.S.A. Corp., 1995-2 

Trade Cas. (CCH) P71,l l l, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21222, (D.D.C. 1995) at 5, n.2. See, also, Federal Trade 

Commission v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., Civ No. 11-0635, (D.D.C. 2011). 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1-4 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 5

its competitors to communicate Competitively Sensitive Information (as defined in the 

Commission's order) and failing to report those communications in its required reports of 

compliance. That conduct continued for almost a year. The Complaint also alleges that Star 

Pipe filed incomplete reports of compliance, and failed in those reports to alert the Commission 

that it had been receiving Competitively Sensitive Information. Following an investigation by 

the Commission, Star Pipe and the Commission reached a settlement of the allegations. One part 

of that settlement is the Stipulation in this matter for entry of a judgment to pay civil penalties. 

In addition, as discussed below, Star Pipe agreed that the Commission may modify the original 

final administrative order, and impose additional training, monitoring, and reporting obligations. 

This two-part resolution of the Commission's allegations will both penalize and deter Star Pipe 

from further violations of the Commission's order, and will deter similarly situated respondents 

from violating the Commission's orders. 

STATEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

The Complaint in this action alleges that the Defendant Star Pipe violated a final order of 

the Federal Trade Commission in FTC Docket No. 9351 ("Order"). Section 5(l) of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(!) authorizes the imposition of civil penalties of not more 

than $16,000 per violation for violations of Federal Trade Commission orders.2 In the case of a 

continuing violation, each day is considered a separate violation. Accordingly, the Complaint 

seeks "an appropriate civil penalty." As the Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment indicate, 

Defendant Star Pipe has agreed to pay a civil penalty of one hundred twenty thousand United 

States dollars ($120,000), payable within thirty (30) days after entry of the Final Judgment. 

2 For violations that occurred on or before February 9, 2009, the maximum penalty was $11,000. See Debt 

Collection Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-134 § 31001 (s) (amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461), and FTC Rule 1.98, 16 C.F.R. § 1.98, 61 Fed. Reg. 54549 (Oct. 21 , 1996), 74 Fed. Reg. 

858 (Jan. 9, 2009). 

2 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1-4 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 5

The Commission submits that the proposed civil penalty settlement in this action is in the 

public interest because it is fair, adequate and reasonable based on consideration of the factors 

discussed below.3 These factors include, among others: the need to deter similar conduct by this 

defendant and others; and the need to vindicate the authority of the Commission and the rule of 

4 law. 

The civil penalty settlement is only one part of the Commission's overall resolution of 

Star Pipe's violation. Simultaneous with filing this action in this Court, the Commission has also 

issued, with Star Pipe's consent, an administrative order that reopens and modifies the 

Commission's original final Order to impose additional training, monitoring, and reporting 

obligations on Star Pipe. For example, Star Pipe must distribute the Commission's Order to a 

broader group of employees, and must train them annually on the Order's requirements. In 

addition, Star Pipe must notify the Commission within thirty days of learning about any 

prohibited communications, and must annually certify to the Commission that no prohibited 

communications have taken place. Those additional obligations are designed to enhance the 

prophylactic provisions of the Commission's Order, and thus reduce the risk that Star Pipe may 

engage in future conduct of the type that has led to this enforcement action. 

Defendant Star Pipe is a small company, and it recently agreed to pay $4,275,000 to settle 

private plaintiff litigation triggered by the Commission's original case. Considering Defendant 

Star Pipe's ability to pay, its payment to the United States Treasury of the $120,000 civil penalty 

set by the Final Judgment therefore is appropriate and is in the public interest. This penalty will 

produce the desired deterrent effect, by signaling to Defendant Star Pipe, and other industry 

participants and other respondents to Commission orders, that Commission orders cannot be 

3 See Securities and Exchange Commission v. James H. Randolph, Jr., et al. , 736 F.3d 525, 529 (911i Cir. 1984) 

("[u]nless a consent decree is unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable, it ought to be approved."). 4 See United States v. Boston Scientific Corp., 253 F. Supp. 3d 85, 98 (D. Mass. 2003). 

3 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1-4 Filed 04/25/16 Page 4 of 5

violated without consequence. It will also demonstrate the Commission's commitment to 

monitoring the compliance by respondents subject to its orders with the terms of such orders, as 

well as the Commission's willingness to enforce its orders. In addition, entry of the proposed 

Final Judgment is in the public interest because it will vindicate the authority of the Commission 

and the rule of law. 

For the above reasons, the Federal Trade Commission asks the Court to enter the Final 

Judgment in this case. 

Dated: April 25, 2016 

4 

Respectfully submitted, 

Deborah L. Feinstein 

D.C. Bar No. 412109 

Daniel P. Ducore 

Assistant Director 

D.C. Bar No. 933721 

Anne R. Schenof 

D.C. Bar No. 185454 

Thomas H. Brock 

D.C. Bar No. 939207 

Marian R. Bruno 

D.C. Bar No. 414126 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1-4 Filed 04/25/16 Page 5 of 5

FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; 

David Shonka 

Acting General Counsel 

Deborah L. Feinstein 

Director Bureau of Competition 

D.C. Bar# 

5 

Daniel P. Ducore 

Assistant Director 

D.C.Bar # 933721 

Anne R. Schenof 

D.C. Bar# 185454 

Thomas H. Brock 

D.C. Bar# 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

By: b.L'.l~~ ..L 

Bureau of Competitwn 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580