UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ORIGINAL

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

GRACOINC., ) 

-a-corporation, and ) 

) DOCKET NO. 9350 

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) 

) 

ITW FINISHING LLC, ) 

a limited liability company, ) 

Respondents. ) 

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

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMPLETE AUTOMATION, 

INC.'S MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR LIMIT SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 

I. 

On January 18, 2012, third party Complete Automation, Inc. ("Complete") filed a 

Motion to Quash and/or Limit Subpoena Duces Tecum ("Motion"). On January 30,2012, 

Respondent Graco Inc. ("Graco") filed an Opposition to the Motion. For the reasons set 

forth below, Complete's Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

II. 

Complete states that the Subpoena Duces Tecum served on it by Graco on January 

9,2012 ("Subpoena") is overly broad and unduly burdensome; that the documents and 

information demanded contain privileged, confidential, proprietary, and trade secret 

information; and that the short time for response make compliance impossible. As part of 

its motion, Complete includes a "Certificate ofConference" which recites that counsel 

for Complete left one voice mail message for Graco's counsel at approximately 4:00 p.m. 

on January 17, 2012 "in an attempt to resolve any disputes concerning the Subpoena" and 

that counsel for Complete sent one email message to Graco' s counsel attaching a draft of 

the instant Motion. The Motion was filed the next day, January 18,2012. 

Respondent Graco, among other arguments, asserts that the Motion should be 

denied because Complete failed to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing the 

Motion, as required by Commission Rule 3.22(g), and because the Motion was not filed 

within the deadlines set in Commission Rule 3 .34( c). 
i' ": 

III. 


Rule 3 .22 ofthe Commission's Rules ofPractice requires that each motion to 

quash shall be accompanied by a signed·statementrePiesen'1li1igithat ~oW1sel for the 

moving party has conferred with opposing counsel in an effort in good faith to resolve by 

agreement the issues raised by the motion and has been unable to reach such an 

agreement. 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(g). Since Complete failed to confer with or negotiate with 

Respondent Graco before Complete filed its Motion, the efforts undertaken by Complete 

do not equate to a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. Accordingly, Complete has 

failed to comply with Rule 3.22(g). 

Rule 3.34 (c) ofthe Commission's Rules of Practice requires that any motions to 

quash or limit subpoenas shall be filed within the earlier of 10 days after service thereof 

or the time for compliance therewith. 16 C.F.R. § 3.34(c). Complete represents that the 

Subpoena was served on it on January 9,2012. Respondent provides an Affidavit of 

Service that shows that the Subpoena was served on January 5,2012. The discrepancy in . 

the date of service is not explained in the pleadings. 

Complete shall fully comply with Rule 3.22(g). If necessary and appropriate, 

following compliance with Rule 3.22(g), Complete may re-file its motion to limit or 

quash the Subpoena, including an explanation regarding the discrepancy in the service 

date, no later than February 9,2012. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Ch ppell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: February 2,2012 

2