,-.'~,,- , QRIGJNAL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l'""'/ ~~tp G'Ss /.:_d~~;:~):~~' ti:~G~~;..,'c:: ' '_'

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRAE COMMISSION ;\ /JÜ 8 2009 

\ S~'I95~
 

)


In the Matter of
 ) 

) . Docket No. 9327 

Polyp ore International, Inc. ) PUBLIC 

a corporation. ) 

) 

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER ALLOWING 

RESPONDENT TO REVIEW THE DECLARTION OF DOUGLAS GILLESPIE 

l, 

Respondent ("Polypore") improperly seeks to gain access to the declaration provided to the 

Cour by a senior executive at Exide responsible for negotiating with Respondent. Mr. 

Gillespie's declaration is entitled to protection pursuant to paragraph 1 ofthe Protective Order in 

this matter. Mr. Gilespie's declaration is replete with highly confidential information about 

l. The information provided in
 

the declaration restates and reinforces much of 
 the testimony provided by Mr. Gillespie during in 

camera sessions of 
 the hearing in May. This testimony is not available to Respondent's business 

executives under the protective order in this matter for the obvious reason that disclosure of such 

non-public confidential information to Respondent would open Exide to serious and irreparable 

commercial harm. Polypore executives have no greater right today to Exide's confidential 

information than they did during the hearing in this matter. 

Furer, Respondent has failed to challenge the confidentiality of the information 

provided by Mr. Gilespie in the declaration as provided in paragraph 5 of the Terms and 

Conditions ofthe Protective Order issued on October 23,2008 in this matter. 
Nor is it even necessary for Respondent's counsel to provide Mr. Gillespie's declaration 

to Polypore executives in order to elicit responses to the facts stated in the declaration. The facts 

provided in Mr. Gilespie's declaration fall into three main categories: 

l. Respondent's Reply
 

Memorandum in Support of its Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing addresses the first and 

second categories above, presumably without the need to show Mr. Gilespie's declaration to 

Polypore executives. Regarding the third category, Respondent's counsel should be capable of 

questioning its client concerning the status of any factual information it possesses regarding II 

without the need to disclose Exide's confidential information. 1 Moreover, Respondent claimed 

to have evidence in the first instance that 

l, any such evidence should have been provided to the Cour without the 

need to disclose Exide's confidential information. 

F or the foregoing reasons, the Cour should deny Respondent's motion to review the 

declaration ofMr. Gilespie with its client. 

Respondent's suggestion that Complaint Counsel improperly revealed in camera material to Exide in order 

to obtain Mr. Gillespie's declaration is false, baseless, and inappropriate. 

2
 
Dated: October 8, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
 

J. obert Robertson
 

omplaint Counsel
 

Bureau of Competition
 

Federal Trade Commssion
 

600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (H-374)
 

Washington, DC 20580
 

Telephone: (202) 326-2008
 

Facsimile: (202) 326-22l4
 

3
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 

I hereby certify that on October 8, 2009, I filed via hand and electronic mail delivery an original 

and two copies of the foregoing public version of 
 Response to Respondent's Motion for a Court 

Order Allowing Respondent to Review the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Office of the Secretar 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

I hereby certify that on October 8, 2009, I filed via hand delivery two copies ofthe 

foregoing public version of 
 Response to Respondent's Motion for a Court Order Allowing 

Respondent to Review the Declaration of 
 Douglas Gilespie with: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

oali(cftc.gOV 

I hereby certify that on October 8, 2009, I filed via electronic mail delivery a copy ofthe 

foregoing public version of Response to Respondent's Motion for a Cour Order Allowing 

Respondent to Review the Declaration of 
 Douglas Gillespie with: 

William L. Rikard, Jr 

Eric D. Welsh 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

wiliamkard(qparkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh(qparkerooe. com 

By" 

inda D. Cunningham 

Federal Trade Commis ion 

600 Pennsylvania Aven , 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2638 

lcunningham(qftc.goV