UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRA TIVE LAW JUDGES

Washington, D.C.

-

'., il~l jiJ~.

t\\. iRADE COMiiii?"'",,,

" x.~X.'?RECEIVED DOCU, MEC)!HlS/Ò ", ~ 5¿ ? ,?33 '4, Ðæ 1 3 10'13 -

SECAlïAR'f

In the Matter of

Docket No. 9358

ECM BioFilms, Inc.,

a corporation, also d/b/a

Enviroplastics International,

PUBLIC DOCUMENT

Respondent.

RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS TO

COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's Rules of Practice ("Rules"), 16

C.F.R. 3.32, Respondent ECM BioFilms, Inc. ("ECM") submits its Answers and

Objections to Complaint Counsel's First Request for Admissions ("Requests").

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1 . ECM objects to Complaint Counsel's Requests to the extent that they call

for information protected from discovery pursuant to sections 3.31 (c )(2)-( 4) of the Rules.

2. ECM objects to Complaint Counsel's Requests to the extent that they call

for information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work

product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.

3. ECM objects to Complaint Counsel's Requests to the extent they call for

disclosure of its trade secrets and/or confidential and proprietar commercial and

financial information. ECM wil provide responses containing its confidential and

proprietary information subject to the terms of the Protective Order Governng Discovery

Material issued by Judge Chappell on October 22,2013.

1
4. ECM objects to Complaint Counsel's Requests to the extent they are

overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and are not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ECM denies each request,

and/or each portion of a request, unless expressly admitted.

5. ECM objects to Complaint Counsel's Requests to the extent that they call

for information previously provided to Complaint Counselor information that may be

less onerously obtained through other means.

6. ECM objects to Complaint Counsel's Requests to the extent they are not

relevant to the pending proceeding against ECM and/or do not relate to statements or

opinions of fact or of the application oflaw to fact, and thereby exceed the scope of Rule

3.32, governing admissions.

7. ECM objects to Complaint Counsel's Requests to the extent that any

Request quotes from a document or references a statement and solicits an admission that

the quote or statement is evidence of the truth of the matter asserted.

8. ECM reserves all of its evidentiary objections or other objections to the

introduction or use of any response at any hearing in this action and does not, by any

response to any Request, waive any objections to that Request, stated or unstated.

9. ECM does not, by its response to any Request, admit to the validity of any

legal or factual contention asserted or assumed in the text of any Request.

10. ECM objects to Complaint Counsel's Requests on the ground that its

discovery and analysis are ongoing and reserves the right to assert additional objections,

2
as appiopiiate, and to amend or supplement these objections and responses as

appropriate.

The foregoing general objections shall apply to each of the following Requests

whether or not restated in the response to any particular response.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1

"The website URL known as ww.ecmbiofims.com ("ECM Website") has been

controlled at all times by ECM."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2

"Since its creation, the ECM Website has been publically available on the

Internet."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied. Denied to the extent that few individuals other than plastics

manufacturers and plastics distributors have accessed the site and none other than plastics

manufacturers and plastics distributors has purchased product from ECM. Admitted to

the extent that it is on the internet.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3

"Plastic is not inherently biodegradable"

RESPONSE:

3
AnSWCI. Denied. ECM objects to the iequest as argumentative, prejudicial,

improper, incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous, paricularly with respect to the terms

"inherently biodegradable." Subject to such objections, ECM denies the allegation.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.4

"Exhibit CX -00001, "Certificate of Biodegradability of Plastics" is representative

of the certificates that ECM provided to at least some of its customers."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied; Exhibit CX-00001 is not "representative." Without waiving the

foregoing and the following objections, ECM admits that the document contained in CX00001 has been received by some entities that have purchased products from ECM.

ECM objects to and denies this Request to the extent that it assumes that ECM

insinuated, implied, marketed, or advertised any undefined message, meaning, and/or

paricular advertisement through use of Exhibit CX-OOOOl. ECM also objects to the

request as argumentative, prejudicial, improper, incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous,

paricularly with respect to the terms "representative," "some," and "customers."

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5

"Exhbit CX-00002, ECM-FTC-000066, a biodegradable logo ("Logo"), is

representative of the logos that ECM provided to at least some of its customers."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied; Exhibit CX-00002 is not "representative." Without waiving its

objections, ECM admits that the image depicted in CX-00002 is located on commercial

4
documents received by some entities that have purchased products from ECM. ECM

objects to and denies this Request to the extent that it assumes that ECM insinuated,

implied, marketed, or advertised any message, meaning, and/or paricular advertisement.

ECM also objects to the request as argumentative, prejudicial, improper, incorrect, vague,

and/or ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "representative" and "some."

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6

"The documents that ECM submitted to Federal Trade Commission staff, with

Bates numbers between ECM-FTC-000001 and ECM-FTC-000241, constitute all of the

scientific tests and studies that ECM submitted in response to the FTC Access Letter

requesting substantiation for its claims that ECM Plastics are Biodegradable ("ECM

Substantiation Materials").

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied; documents other than those supplied provide scientific

substantiation for ECM claims. Denied also,to the extent the Response depends on

expert opinion before the time designated for identification of experts and issuance of

expert reports. See Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 9358 (Nov. 21, 2013). Denied also to the

extent that what is shown or demonstrated by testing calls for an ultimate legal

conclusion; thus, the request is incompetent because it is not a request for admission of

fact. ECM admits that it provided the Commission staff with the documents identified in

this request, but denies that they constitute all support for ECM's advertising claims.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7

5
"None of the ECM Substantiation Materials are based on testing protocols that

state that they simulate conditions typically found in Landfills."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied. Denied also to the extent the Response depends on expert

opinion before the time designated for identification of experts and issuance of expert

reports. See Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 9358 (Nov. 21,2013). Denied also to the extent

that what is shown or demonstrated by testing calls for an ultimate legal conclusion; thus,

the request is incompetent because it is not a request for admission of fact.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8

"ECM does not possess or rely on any scientific test that showed, during the

course of the test, complete Biodegradation ofECM Plastics."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied. Based on generally recognized scientific principles, ECM's

tests were suffcient to reveal that ECM plastics wil completely biodegrade. Denied also

to the extent the Response depends on expert opinion before the time designated for

identification of experts and issuance of expert reports. See Scheduling Order, Dkt. No.

9358 (Nov. 21, 2013). Denied also to the extent that what is shown or demonstrated by

testing calls for an ultimate legal conclusion; thus, the request is incompetent because it is

not a request for admission of fact.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9

6
"EOM does not possess oi ¡ely on any scientifc test that showed, duiIng the

course of the test, that 90% or more of the ECM Plastic Biodegraded."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied. Based on generally recognized scientific principles, tests relied

upon by ECM do support products containing the ECM additive product wil degrade

above 90%. Denied also to the extent the Response depends on expert opinion before the

time designated for identification of experts and issuance of expert reports. See

Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 9358 (Nov. 21,2013). Denied also to the extent that what is

shown or demonstrated by testing calls for an ultimate legal conclusion; thus, the request

is incompetent because it is not a request for admission of fact.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10

"ECM bases its claims that ECM Plastics wil completely Biodegrade in some

period greater than a year on extrapolations of test results obtained in tests conducted

over periods less than a year in which the test sample did not completely Biodegrade."

RESPONSE

Answer: Denied. ECM objects to the request as argumentative, prejudicial,

improper, incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous particularly with respect to the terms

"some period" and "extrapolations." Denied also to the extent the Response depends on

expert opinion before the time designated for identification of experts and issuance of

expert reports. See Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 9358 (Nov. 21,2013). Denied also to the

extent that what is shown or demonstrated by testing calls for an ultimate legal

7
eenehlsien, tlms, the ieallest is irieJllfetent beeause it Is not a iequest Em admIssion of

fact.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11

"ECM based its claim that ECM Plastics wil completely Biodegrade in nine

months to five years on extrapolations of results obtained in tests conducted over periods

less than a year in which the test sample did not completely Biodegrade."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied. ECM objects to the request as argumentative, prejudicial,

improper, incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous paricularly with respect to the term

"extrapolations." ECM objects to this Request in that it mischaracterizes ECM's claim

language and excerpts such claims out of context from disclaimers and qualifying

language. Denied also to the extent the Response depends on expert opinion before the

time designated for identification of experts and issuance of expert reports. See

Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 9358 (Nov. 21, 2013). Denied also to the extent that what is

shown or demonstrated by testing calls for an ultimate legal conclusion; thus, the request

is incompetent because it is not a request for admission of fact.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12

"ECM does not possess or rely on any consumer perception evidence supporting

how ECM's customers or end-use consumers interpret the term "biodegradable."

RESPONSE:

8
Aiiswci. DenIed. ECM solely sells its pioduet to plastic pioduct maiiufactuieis

and distributors, not end-use consumers. ECM objects to the request as argumentative,

prejudicial, improper, incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous, particularly with respect to the

terms "evidence" and "biodegradable." Subject to such objections, ECM denies the

Request. The Request calls for responsive information related to legal standards put in

issue by Complaint Counsel in this proceeding. Denied also to the extent the Response

depends on expert opinion before the time designated for identification of experts and

issuance of expert reports. See Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 9358 (Nov. 21, 2013).

Denied also to the extent that what is shown or demonstrated by testing calls for an

ultimate legal conclusion; thus, the request is incompetent because it is not a request for

admission of fact.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13

"ECM does not possess or rely on any consumer perception evidence supporting

how ECM's customers or end-use consumers interpret the term "biologically active

landfilL. "

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied. ECM objects to Request No. 13. ECM solely sells its product

to plastic product manufactuers and distributors, not end-use consumers. ECM objects

to the request as argumentative, prejudicial, improper, incorrect, vague, and/or

ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "evidence," and "biologically active

landfiL." The Request calls for responsive information related to legal standards put in

issue by Complaint Counsel in this proceeding. Denied also to the extent the Response

9
depends on expei t opinion befoie the time designated foi identification of expei ts and

issuance of expert reports. See Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 9358 (Nov. 21,2013).

Denied also to the extent that what is shown or demonstrated by testing calls for an

ultimate legal conclusion; thus, the request is incompetent because it is not a request for

admission of fact.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14

"ECM does not possess or rely on any consumer perception evidence supporting

how ECM's customers or end-use consumers interpret a "reasonable" period of time for

complete biodegradation."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied. ECM solely sells its product to plastic product manufacturers

and distributors, not end-use consumers. ECM also objects to the request as

argumentative, prejudicial, improper, incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous, paricularly

with respect to the terms '''reasonable' period oftime" and "biodegradation." The

Request cal1s for responsive information related to legal standards put in issue by

Complaint Counsel in this proceeding. Denied also to the extent the Response depends

on expert opinion before the time designated for identification of experts and issuance of

expert reports. See Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 9358 (Nov. 21, 2013). Denied also to the

extent that what is shown or demonstrated by testing calls for an ultimate legal

conclusion; thus, the request is incompetent because it is not a request for admission of

fact.

10
REQUEST FOR ABi\llSSION NO. 1:5

"ECM does not possess or rely on any consumer perception evidence supporting how

ECM's customers or end-use consumers interpret the phrase 'some period greater than one

year. '"

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied. ECM solely sells its product to plastic product manufacturers

and distributors, not end-use consumers. ECM also objects to the request as

argumentative, prejudicial, improper, incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous, paricularly

with respect to the term "evidence." The Request calls for responsive information related

to legal standards put in issue by Complaint Counsel in this proceeding. Denied also to

the extent the Response depends on expert opinion before the time designated for

identification of experts and issuance of expert reports. See Scheduling Order, Dkt. No.

9358 (Nov. 21, 2013). Denied also to the extent that what is shown or demonstrated by

testing calls for an ultimate legal conclusion; thus, the request is incompetent because it is

not a request for admission of fact.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16

"ASTM test protocols do not permit extrapolation of the results of ASTM tests to

prove complete Biodegradation."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Denied. ECM also objects to the request as argumentative, prejudicial,

improper, incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous, paricularly with respect to the term

"ASTM test protocols" and "the results." Subject to such objections, ECM denies the

11
Reqnest Denied also to the extent the Response depends on expen opinion bewl'e the

time designated for identification of experts and issuance of expert reports. See

Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 9358 (Nov. 21,2013). Denied also to the extent that what is

shown or demonstrated by testing calls for an ultimate legal conclusion; thus, the request

is incompetent because it is not a request for admission of fact.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL REQUESTS

FOR ADMISSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF AUTHENTICITY AND

ADMISSIBILITY OF EXHIBITS

ECM reserves the right to object to the admission or use of any document at

hearing if, in context, its admission or use would be objectionable on grounds of hearsay,

relevance, materiality, prejudice, or any other cognizable objection under Rule § 3.43 of

the Commission's Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. Subject to those

reserved objections, ECM responds as follows:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1

"Exhibit CX -00001 attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of the Certificate of Biodegradability of Plastic Products that ECM provided to SL Plastic

Co. LTD, a customer ofECM. Exhibit CX-OOOOI is admissible into evidence in this matter

under Rule 3.43(e).

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2

"Exhibit CX -00002 attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of a promotional logo that ECM produced in response to the FTC Access Letter with Bates

12

" -~1-._.---_._---~_.~--------7---- --- ---~----_.__.-------------------- it
RWmger ¡¡CM fTC QQQQ~~. EJdiiBit ex QQQQ2 is aàmissihle ¡nta e, ¡àenee in this iiattei

under Rule 3.43(e)."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3

"Exhibit CX -00003 attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of promotional materials that ECM made available on the ECM Website from at least August

2010 until October 2012. Exhibit CX-00003 is admissible into evidence in this matter under

Rule 3.43(b).

RESPONSE:

Answer: ECM objects to the request as argumentative, prejudicial, improper,

incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous, paricularly with respect to the terms "promotional

materials" and "made available." ECM's website ww.ecmbiofims.com did display

content depicted in Exhibit CX-00003, however such content was not for promotional

reasons, but instead for informational and/or educational puroses for a narow industry

audience.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.4

"Exhibit CX -00004 attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of promotional materials that ECM made available on the ECM website after October 2012.

Exhibit CX-00003 is admissible into evidence in this matter under Rule 3.43(b)."

RESPONSE:

13
i\nSJt¥@r: EC~f 6l.ee1s 16 tlie ieqaest as mgwiiciitatIvc, picjadIcial, IiiipiOPCI,

incorrect, vague, and/or ambiguous, paricularly with respect to the terms "promotional

materials" and "made available." ECM's website www.ecmbiofims.com did display

content depicted in Exhibit CX-00004, however such content was not for promotional

reasons, but instead for informational and/or educational puroses for a narow industry

audience.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5

"Exhibit CX-00005 attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of a promotional flyer that ECM that disseminated. Exhibit CX-00005 is admissible into

evidence in this matter under Rule 3.43(e)."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6

"Exhibit CX-00006 attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of a promotional brochure that ECM disseminated. Exhibit CX-00006 is admissible into

evidence in this matter under Rule 3.43(e)."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7

"Exhbit CX-00007, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct

copy of the report "Anaerobic Biodegradation ofbioPVC" by ENVIRON International

Corporation, Aug. 2008, produced by ECM in response to the FTC Access Letter with

14
lJegilIiig Bates llei ECM FTO 888869. Exhibit CJE-ßßßß9 is admissible into

evidence in this matter under Rule 3.43(e)."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8

Exhibit CX -00008, attched hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of the "Ecological Assessment ofECM Plastic" by ChemRisk, a service ofMcLaren/art,

Inc., Feb. 16, 1999, produced by ECM in response to the FTC Access Letter with beginning

Bates number ECM-FTC-000106. ECM also produced a copy of this document with

beginning Bates number ECM-FTC-000283. Exhibit CX-00008 is admissible into evidence

in this matter under Rule 3.43(e).

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9

Exhibit CX-00009, attched hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of the Final Report by O.W.S. Inc. of Biodegradation Testing, "Aerobic Biodegradation

Under Controlled Composting Conditions for 40-gal trash bags," Study PFR-5, Mar. 3, 2000,

produced by ECM in response to the FTC Access Letter with beginning Bates number ECMFTC-000124. ECM also produced a copy of this document with beginning Bates number

ECM-FTC-000244. Exhibit CX-00009 is admissible into evidence in this matter under Rule

3.43(e).

RESPONSE:

15
Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10

"Exhibit CX-000I0, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of"SEM imaging ofEPS samples" by Electron Microprobe Lab at the University of New

Mexico, Mar. 6, 2007, produced by ECM in response to the FTC Access Letter with

beginning Bates number ECM-FTC-000163. Exhibit CX-OOOLO is admissible into evidence

in this matter under Rule 3.43(e)."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11

"Exhibit CX-OOOI 1, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of"SEM imaging of green PET bottles" by Electron Microprobe Lab at the University of

New Mexico, Feb. 8,2007, produced by ECM in response to the FTC Access Letter with

beginning Bates number ECM-FTC-000171. Exhibit CX-OOOI 1 is admissible into evidence

in this matter under Rule 3.43(e).

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12

"Exhibit CX-00012, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of "SEM imaging of bubble wrap" by Electron Microprobe Lab at the University of New

Mexico, Dec. 12, 2006, produced by ECM in response to the FTC Access Letter with

beginning Bates number ECM-FTC-000186. Exhibit CX-00012 is admissible into evidence

in this matter under Rule 3.43(e)."

16
RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13

"Exhbit CX-00013, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct

copy of the "SEM imaging of PVC samples" by Electron Microprobe Lab at the

University of New Mexico, Mar. 5,2007, produced by ECM in response to the FTC

Access Letter with beginning Bates number ECM-FTC-000198. Exhibit CX-00013 is

admissible into evidence in this matter under Rule 3.43(e).

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14

"Exhibit CX-00014, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct

copy of the "SEM Examination ofECM Plastic" by Prof. Morgan Litt, Macromolecular

Science Department, Case Western Reserve University, produced by ECM in response to

the FTC Access Letter with beginning Bates number ECM-FTC-000206. ECM also

produced a copy of this document with beginning Bates number ECM-FTC-00030l.

Exhibit CX-00014 is admissible into evidence in this matter under Rule 3.43(e)."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15

"Exhibit CX-00015, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of the "Report about biodegradability of a plastic artefact (sic J . . ." by Ecologia Applicata

17
srI, Cert NO J 30/bjgIJ 80/10, I~Üw 19, 2010, pn~Qll,"@Q ey ~CM iR l@8~€lR8@ t€l tf@ fTC

Access Letter with beginning Bates number ECM-FTC-000226. Exhibit CX-OOOI5 is

admissible into evidence in this matter under Rule 3.43(e)."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16

"Exhibit CX-00016, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct

copy of the "Biopolymers and additived (sic) plastics: biodegradability, degradability and

compostability. Basic concepts, comparisons and legislation: The case of ECM

MasterBatch Pellets additive," Edited by Paolo Broglio, Oct. 23, 2008, produced by ECM

in response to the FTC Access Letter with beginning Bates number ECM-FTC-000230.

Exhibit CX-00016 is admissible into evidence in this matter under Rule 3.43(e).

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17

"Exhibit CX-OOOI 7, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of the Standard Test Method for Determining Anaerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials

Under High-Solids Anaerobic-Digestion Conditions, ASTM D 5511 - 02."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18

18
"EJæièit ex 88818, attaeheti lieieto is autliciilic, gCiiuIïic, diid a hue dIid coiiect copy

of the Standard Test Method for Determining Anaerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials

Under High-Solids Anaerobic-Digestion Conditions, ASTM D 5511 - 1 I."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19

"Exhibit CX -00019, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of the Standard Test Method for Determining Anaerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials

Under High-Solids Anaerobic-Digestion Conditions, ASTM D 5511 - 12."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20

"Exhibit CX-00020, attached hereto is authentic, genuine, and a true and correct copy

of the Standard Test Method for Determining Anaerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials

Under High-Solids Anaerobic-Digestion Conditions, ASTM D 5526 - 94 (Reapproved

2002)."

RESPONSE:

Answer: Admitted.

DATED this 9th day of December 2013

J than W. Emord

EMORD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

19
20

11 gSg 'nTelf Rw Lane

Clifton, VA 20124

Telephone: 202-466-6937

Facsimile: 202-466-6938

Email: jemord@emord.com
CERTIFICATE OF 8ERJ.qCE AND ELECTRONIC FILING

I hereby certify that on December 11,2013, I caused a true and correct copy of

the paper original ofthe foregoing RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS TO COMPLAINT

COUNSEL'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS to be filed and served as

follows:

One electronic copy to the Office of the Secretary:

Donald S. Clark, Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvana Ave., NW, Room H-159

Washington, D.C. 20580

Email: secretary@ftc.gov

One electronic couresy copy via email to the Office of the Administrative Law Judge:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room H-1 10

Washington, D.C. 20580

One electronic copy to Counsel for Complainant:

Katherine Johnson

Division of Enforcement

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvana Avenue, NW

Mail stop M-8102B

Washington, D.C. 20580

Email: tiQhl1s~m3@ftc.gov

Elisa Jilson

Division of Enforcement

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvana Avenue, NW

Mail stop M-8102B

Washington, D.C. 20580

Email: ej ilsonúlftc. gov

I fuher certify that I retain a paper copy of the signed original of the foregoing

document that is available for review by the paries and ad 1 ator consistent with the

Commission's Rules.

J nathan W. Emord

EMORD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

1 1808 Wolf Run Lane

Clifton, VA 20124

Telephone: 202-466-6937

Facsimile: 202-466-6938

Email: jemord@emord.com

21
VERIICATION

I, Robert Sinclair, declare as follows:

I have read to the foregoing document entitled Respondent's Answers to Complaint

Counsel's First Request for Admissions and know its contents.

I am the President of ECM BioFilms, Inc., a part to this action, and am authorized to

make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I am

informed and believe that the matters stated herein are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the

State of Ohio.

Executed on December 11, 2013,

7~

Robert Sinclair