¡r,\jt"tR ~~ fil ''' ri 

~ ¥l 01 ""'¡ " 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

In the Matter of 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

) 

ORDER ON NON-PARTY EXIDE'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

I. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) ofthe Commission's Rules of 
 Practice and the October 22, 

2008 Scheduling Order in this matter, non-party Exide Technologies ("Exide") submitted on 

May 13,2009 a supplemental motion for in camera treatment. Neither Complaint Counsel nor 

Respondent oppose Exide's supplemental motion. 

An Order on Non-Paries' Motions for in Camera Treatment was entered in this matter 

on May 6,2009. An Order on Respondent's Second Motion for in Camera Treatment was 

entered in this matter on May 13,2009. The legal standards that apply to motions for in camera 

treatment, including the instant motion, are set forth in those Orders. 

II. 

In an earlier motion, submitted on April 9, 2009, Exide sought in camera treatment for 

materials including certain documents over three years old, bearing Bates stamps EX002390 

through EX002451. The May 6,2009 Order on Non-Paries' Motions for in Camera Treatment 

denied without prejudice in camera treatment for the documents bearing those Bates stamps, "to 

allow the company an opportnity to demonstrate, if it can, that in camera treatment would be 

warranted." 

Exide's supplemental motion asserts that in camera treatment is warranted not only for 

those documents, which Complaint Counsel designated as proposed trial exhibit PX 1049, but 

also for additional documents that Complaint Counsel 
 later identified as proposed trial exhibits. 

Exide avers that on May 4,2009, it received notice that those additional documents had been 

designated by Complaint Counsel as PX 2295 and PX 2296. 
Exide supports its supplemental motion with a Declaration from Pradeep Menon, the 

Vice President of Commodities and Strategic Supplier Development at Exide ("Menon 

Declaration"). Menon declares that Exide wil suffer serious commercial or competitive harm 

if the information in the documents appended to his Declaration - i.e., the proposed tral 

exhibits PX 1049 at Tab 1, PX 2295 at Tab 2, and PX 2296 at Tab 3 - were publicly released. 

Menon further declares that the material for which in camera treatment is sought is regarded by 

Exide as highly confidential; is distributed within Exide only to those who have a specific need 

for it, who are typically bound by confidentiality agreements that would prohibit them from 

disclosing the information if they left Exide; and is not disclosed to others outside of Exide. 

The Menon Declaration describes the documents at Tab 1 as contracts and contract 

amendments that were executed at varous times from 1999 to 2002, but that remain in effect 

today, and that wil continue to govern the battery separator supply arrangements b~tween 

Exide and Daramic until December 2009. Exide seeks redactions of the portions of those 

documents that it has indicated by yellow highlighting, because those highlighted portions 

contain, according to the Menon Declaration, information about prices, payment terms, 

volumes, and other competitively sensitive information. 

Menon states that the documents at Tabs 2 and 3 relate to the most recent proposal by 

Daramic for a new supply contract with Exide. Menon further states that these documents 

include minutes and notes reflecting Exide's internal analysis of Daramic's proposal, as well as 

documents created by Daramic to explain its proposal. 

A review of the Menon Declaration and of the documents themselves reveals that the 

documents meet the standards for in camera treatment. Exide has shown that the documents are 

sufficiently secret and sufficiently material to its business that disclosure would result in serious 

competitive injury. That showing has been balanced against the importance of the information 

in explaining the rationale of decisions at the Commission. Exide's supplemental motion is, 

accordingly, GRANTED. 

Exide requests in camera treatment for one year for the highlighted information at Tab 

1, for which it proposes redaction. Exide requests in camera treatment for three years for the 

documents at Tabs 2 and 3. 

In camera treatment for a period of one year, expiring on June 1,2010, wil be extended 

to the documents at Tab 1, in accordance with Section II of this Order. In camera treatment for 

a period ofthree years, expiring on June 1, 2012, wil be extended to the documents at Tabs 2 

and 3, in accordance with Section II of this Order. 

III. 

In camera treatment is appropriate only for information that is offered into evidence. 

Complaint Counsel shall prepare an order, with a signature line for the Administrative Law 

Judge, that lists by exhibit number the documents that, by this Order, have been granted in 

camera treatment and that sets forth the expiration date of in camera treatment for each exhibit. 

2
 
Exide shall inform its testifying curent or former employees that in camera treatment 

has been extended to the material described in this Order. At the time that any documents, or 

portions of documents, that have been granted in camera treatment are offered into evidence, or 

before any of the information contained therein is referred to in cour, the paries shall identify 

such documents and the subject matter therein as in camera, inform the cour reporter of the 

tral exhibit number( s) of such documents, and request that the hearing go into an in camera 

seSSlOn. 

ORDERED: 

D.~~(~ Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: May 18, 2009