UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FEDERAL TRADE COMM1SSION 


) 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9350 

Graco Inc., et al. . ) Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Respondent ) 

) 

MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR LIMIT SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 


) 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9350 

Graco Inc., et al. ) Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Respondent ) 

------------------------------) 

MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR LIMIT SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 

Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.34 and Rule 3.34(c) of the Rules of Practice for 

Adjudicative Proceedings before the United States Federal Trade Commission, Complete 

Automation, Inc. ("Complete"), a non-party to this proceeding, files the following Motion to 

Quash and/or Limit Subpoena. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On January 9,2012, Complete was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued 

December 29,2011 at the behest ofRespondent Graco, Inc. ("Graco"). (A copy ofthe Subpoena 

is attached as Exhibit A.) Complete moves to quash or limit the Subpoena on three main 

grounds. First, the Subpoena is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Second, some of the 

documents to be produced are confidential and proprietary and/or are considered trade secrets, 

and therefore should be protected from discovery, and particularly from Graco. Third, assuming 

even that the scope of the Subpoena was manageable, and the responsive documents not 

privileged, the timing of the Subpoena and the short time frame for response make compliance 

impossible. 

1 

II. ARGUMENT 

A. Overview 

First, and importantly, Complete is not a party to this proceeding, and has no 

direct interest in its outcome. The Subpoena would be burdensome even ifissued against 

a party. Because it. is issued against a non-party, it is unreasonably burdensome, and 

should be either quashed in its entirety or dramatically limited. 

Like a federal court, an Administrative Law Judge in an FTC proceeding should 

quash or limit any subpoena that is unduly burdensome or requires the disclosure of 

privileged or confidential and proprietary information, or information rising to the level 

oftrade secrets. 16 C.F.R. §3.31 (c)(1)(iii) (use of subpoena and other discovery methods 

"shall be limited by the Administrative Law Judge" where the "burden and expense ofthe 

proposed discovery outweigh its likely benefit"); 16 C.F.R. §3.31 (c)(2) (authorizing 

Administrative Law Judge to "enter a protective order denying or limiting discovery to 

preserve" a privilege); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3) (a court "shall quash or modify the 

subpoena ifit ...requires disclosure ofprivileged or other protected matter ... [ or] subjects 

a person to undue burden"). Moreover, an Administrative Law Judge has the power to 

modify the subpoena and limit the scope ofpeimissible discovery. 16 C.F.R. §3.31(d)(1) 

(authorizing Administrative Law Judge to "deny discovery or make any order which 

justice requires to protect a party or other person from annoyance, embarrassment, 

oppression, or undue burden or expense"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (court may grant 

a protective order to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 

undue burden or expense). See also Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 

F. 3d 1151, 1163 (lOth Cir., 2010) (discovery has "never been a license to engage in an 

unwieldy, burdensome and speculative fishing expedition."). 

2 
Information is not discoverable if it is not relevant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Further "discovery in Commission adjudicatory proceedings under Part 3 of the 

Commission's Rules is limited to matters that are relevant to the allegations of the 

Commission's complaint, to the relief proposed therein, or to the Respondents' defenses, 

none ofwhich is at issue in this Discovery Motion. See 16 C.F .R. 93.31." 

Moreover, discovery requests are overbroad, even if some responsive information 

is conceivably relevant, when only a fraction of the millions of documents requested are 

relevant Nugget Hydroelectric L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 438-39 

(9th Cir. 1992). The Subpoena in this case calls for the production of probably tens of 

thousands of pages of documents, by a non-party, which Graco has not shown to be 

relevant. The Subpoena should be quashed, or at least should be limited in several 

significant respects. 

B. General Objections to Scope of Subpoena 

Complete first objects to the scope of the Subpoena. It demands production of 

documents from January 1,2007 to the present, a period offive years. 

Moreover, as explained below, some of the document requests themselves are 

unreasonably broad to a point of being incomprehensible. In addition, and again as set 

forth more fully below, the Subpoena· requests production of documents containing 

privileged or confidential and commercially sensitive information, including 

competitively sensitive pricing information and Complete trade secrets, disclosure of 

which should not be required. 

C. Specific Objections to Document Request 

Complete asserts the following specific objeCtions to the categories of documents 

the Subpoena requires to be produced: . 

3 
1. Transactional level sales data from January 1, 2007, to the present, 

identifying all of your worldwide sales of liquid or.powder industrial fmishing 

systems, lines, services or individual rmishing products, the buyer in each 

transaction, and setting forth the sales price for the system, line or individual 

product or products. 

Assuming Graco is referring to business level sales data from all customers of 

Complete, various confidentiality agreement and non disclosure agreements exist 

amongst various parties to such business level sales that warrant notification, opportunity 

to be heard and object, and conditions and requirements imposed upon Complete and 

such third party customers. Assuming such consents can be reasonably obtain, and 

assuming no objections and other motions are filed, Graco should pay all costs and 

expenses for obtaining such consents, providing such notices, arid for possibly producing 

any and all documents. 

2. Annual or quarterly sales summaries, aggregating sales of liquid or 

powder fllrlshing systems, lines or products 1) in the United States, and 2) globally 

from January 1. 2007, to the present. 

This document request can be more readily obtained by Graco, but Graco should 

pay all the costs and expense incurred by Complete to produce same. Provided, however, 

this request is specifically limited to summaries. And provided, further, this information 

is confidential and consists ofsensitive financial information guarded by Complete. 

3. Transactional level purchase data and/or documents from January 1, 

2007, to the present, by product description/name or part number, indentifying all 

of your purchases of liquid powder industrial finishing products (including, but not 

limited to, applicators, pumps and proportioners) and the manufacturer or supplier 

in each transaction, and setting forth the list price, and any discounts or rebates. 

This request is not reasonably limited. Compliance with this overly broad request 

would require Complete to accumulate information on literally thousands of parts that 

compose each of its paint distribution systems, including its manufacturer and/or 

4 

supplier. Further, discounts and rebates are proprietary and guarded as trade secrets of 

Complete. 

4. Copies of all sales, marketing or promotions materials describing the 

services and products now being sold by you in the United States. 

This requested information is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it is limited in scope to some time frame and affords ample 

opportunity to produce. As it is currently presented, no time frame exists which would 

allow Complete to more readily ascertain the degree and scope ofthe request. 

5. Any business plans or market analyses relating to liquid or powder 

industrial f"mishing systems, lines, services or prodU:cts that have been prepared by 

you or on your behalf from January 1. 2007~ to the present. 

This information provided to either Graco or lllinois Tool Works can provide 

either of them with an unfair business advantage over Complete, a nonparty to this 

matter. The future business and development plans of Complete, along with its 

perspective of market trends and analyses in a guarded trade secret, and consist of 

proprietary information, in some instance developed solely by Complete. 

6. All documents from January 1, 2009 to the present that identify 

companies, manufacturers, integrators or products with which your liquid or 

powder f"mishing systems, services or products compete in the United States and 

worldwide. 

This requested information is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

. provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

7. Any communications between you and the Federal Trade Commission 

relating to liquid or powder industrial f"mishing products, systems or services. 

This requested information is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

5 

8. All requests for proposal or bids that you have received from buyers 

or end users of liquid or powder industrial ("mishing products from January 1, 2009 

to the present; all responses that you have submitted in response to such requests; 

and any documents showing the outcome of such responses to request for proposals 

or bids. 

This request appears to essentially call for the production of every contract or 

other communication between Complete and its customers from January 1, 2009. It is 

overly broad and unduly burdensome. Further, such communications routinely contain 

privileged and confidential information concerning product purchases which in the 

possession ofGraco can be detrimental to Complete's business interest. 

9. All analyses or reports prepared by you or on your behalf relating to 

competition in liquid or powder industrial ("mishing systems, lines or products. 

This requested information is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

10. Copies of all sales, marketing Qr promotional materials describing 

liquid ("mishing equipment products now being sold by a manufacturer of such in 

the United States. 

This request appears to require Complete to perform Graco's discovery for it! It 

is also not limited in scope. It is also vague and ambiguous, and it is not clear to 

Complete exactly what documents are being sought. If it is referring to Complete's 

sales, marketing and promotional materials, Complete can provide same. However, if it 

is referring to other third party sale, marketing and promotional materials, such request 

will have to be directed to such other third parties. 

11. All documents related to any communication between you and a 

manufacturer of liquid fmishing equipment products, excluding communication 

between you and Graco, Inc. or Dlinois Tool Works, Inc. 

This request is not reasonably limited in time or scope. 

6 

12. All documents reflecting, including, or related to an assessment of 

manufacturers of liquid f"mishing equipu:..ent and/or the liquid f"mishing equipment 

sold by those manufacturers. 

This requested infonnation is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

13. Product catalogs and price lists identifying all liquid and powder 

industrial f"mishing products being sold by you in the United States. 

This requested infonnation is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

14. All written plans for new product development in liquid or powder 

industrial f"mishing products that you now have planned or in progress. 

Assuming Graco is referring to work in process and that being developed from all 

customers of Complete, various confidentiality agreements and non disclosure 

agreements exist amongst various parties to such projects and programs that warrant 

notification, opportunity to be heard and object, and conditions and requirements 

imposed upon Complete and such third party customers. Even if such consents can be 

reasonably obtained, and assuming no objections and. other motions are filed, this 

information provided to either Graco or Illinois Tool Works can provide either of them 

with an unfair business advantage over Complete~ a nonparty to this matter. The current 

and future business and development plans of Complete consist of proprietary 

information, in some instance, developed solely by Complete. 

15. Any communication between you and any distributor or any other 

person, f"rrm, business, or company concerning the proposed sales of ITW' f"mishing 

businesses to Graco. 

This requested infonnation is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

7 

16. Any documents that constitute or refer to your efforts to expand 

distribution of your products. 

This request would appear to have no relevance to the matter at hand before the 

FTC other than to obtain sensitive and confidential information relating to Complete's 

business and its related and affiliated entities. Further, it is objected to as being overly 

broad and not limited in scope. 

17. All sales forecasts or fmancial projections for liquid rmishing 

products in the United States or North America from January 1, 2008 to the 

present. 

Similar to item #14 above, assuming Graco is referring to specific customer 

proposed projects (captured and otherwise), proposed costs, work in process, and any 

other such information developed. a customers of Complete, various confidentiality 

agreements and non disclosure agreements exist amongst various parties to such projects 

and programs that warrant notification, opportunity to be heard and object, and conditions 

and requirements imposed upon Complete and such third party customers. Even if such 

consents can be reasonably obtained, and assuming no objections and other motions are 

filed, this information provided to either Graco or lllinois Tool Works can provide either 

of them with an unfair business advaritage over Complete, a nonparty to this matter. The 

current and future sales, and business development plans of Complete consist of 

proprietary information, in some instance, developed solely by Complete. 

18. All documents that refer or related to your decision to expand your 

liquid rmishing line in North America through acquisitions, joint ventures and 

partnerships, or otherwise. 

This information provided to either Graco or lllinois Tool Works can provide 

either of them with an unfair business advantage over Complete, a nonparty to this 

matter. The future business and development plans of Complete in the hands of Graco or 

lllinois Tool Works may very well prove detrimental to Complete and third parties. 

8 

Further, the attorney-client privilege extends over communications between a client and 

his or her attorney when legal advice or counsel is sought. 

19. Documents sufficient to itemize expenses and investments you have 

incurred in expanding your liq~id f"mishing line in North America through 

acquisitions, joint ventures and partnerships, or otherwise. 

This requested information is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

20. All documents created or modified from January 1, 2009, to the 

present, relating to any analysis of your· share of sales in the United States or 

elsewhere in the world, or your share of sales to any geographic or end-user segment 

of the United States, for any of the following industrial f"mishing products: liquid 

f"mishing pumps, liquid f"mishing proportioners, liquid f"mishing applicators (spray 

guns), or liquid or powder f"mishing equipment generally. 

This requested information is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

21. All documents discussing or analyzing the Acquisition, the FTC 

Acquisition Review, and the Action. 

To the extent that this request extends over coinmunications between a client and 

his or her attorney when legal advice or counsel is sought, this request is objected to on 

the grounds of the attorney-client privilege. Otherwise, this requested information is 

neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; provided, however, it affords ample 

opportunity to produce. 

22. Documents sufficient to identify all of your actual or potential 

competitors with respect to the sale of liquid or powder industrial f"mishing products 

in North America. 

This requested information is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

9 

23. All documents relating to any discounts given to any distributor or 

end user customer for the purchase of any liquid or powder industrial fmishing 

products from January 1, 2009 to the present. 

This requested infonnation is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. Further, discounts and 

rebates are proprietary and guarded as trade secrets ofComplete. 

24. All documents discussing your attempts to sell liquid fmishing 

products directly to end users from January 1, 2008 to the present. 

This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Further, such 

communications and documents routinely contain privileged and confidential 

information concerning product purchases which in the possession of Graco can be 

detrimental to Complete's business interest. 

25. Documents sufficient to show all entities that distribute liquid or 

powder industrial finishing products for Complete Automation, Inc., in the United 

States from January 1, 2009 to the present. 

This requested information is neither objected to nor is it required to be quashed; 

provided, however, it affords ample opportunity to produce. 

D. Unreasonable Time Periods 

As noted above, the Subpoena seeks documents generated or received over a five 

year period. The amount of effort, time and expense necessary to respond to the 

Subpoena grows in proportion to the length of time covered by the Subpoena. Complete 

requests that if it is required to respond to it, the Subpoena be expressly limited to the 

last two years. 

10 

Moreover, while the time period covered by the Subpoena is too long, the time 

allotted to Complete to respond is too short. If compliance is required, Complete should 

be granted significantly more time to provide responsive information. 

E. The Existing Protective Order Does Not Adequately Protect Complete. 

As set forth above, many of the documents requested by the Subpoena contain 

sensitive and confidential information. Complete would be competitively disadvantaged 

if such information were disclosed to Complete's competitors, Graco orlllinois Tool 

Works or their customers. If such information IS to be disclosed, it should be subject to a 

protective order more narrow than the one already in effect. 

A Protective Order was issued in this proceeding on December 16, 2011. 

Complete was not .invited to participate in the drafting of that Order. While the 

Protective Order places some restrictions on certain categories of documents, the Order 

does not adequately protect Complete. 

F. Graco Should Reimburse Non-Party Complete for Its Expenses~ 

In the event Complete is required to produce information responsive to the 

Subpoena, even if its scope is narrowed considerably, the cost of production will be 

substantial, requiring the work of numerous employees reviewing, organizing, and 

copying thousands and thousands of documents. Further, Complete has incurred and will 

continue to incur legal expenses contesting the scope of the Subpoena. Under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45, the issue is whether the subpoena imposes expenses on a non-party, and if so, 

whether those expenses are significant. If they are, the court must protect the non-party 

by requiring the party seeking discovery to bear at least enough of the expense to render 

11 

the remainder "non-significant." Linder v. Calero-Portocarrero, 251 F.3d 178, 182 

(D.C. Cir. 2001). At a nrinimum, Graco must be required to bear some of the expense of 

production. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, non party Complete respectfully requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge quash, modify, or limit the Subpoena. Ifthe Subpoena is not quashed 

in its entirety (1) Complete should not be required to produce documents over a five year period; 

(2) the .overly broad document requests should be narrowed considerably; (3) Complete should 

not be required to produce confidential information, but if required to do so, only under a 

narrowly-drawn protective order; and (4) Graco should reimburse Complete's expenses related 

to responding to the Subpoena. 

IV. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

Daniel E. Chapman, counsel for non-party Complete, left a voice mail message 

for John Hinderaker, counsel for Graco, at approximately 4:00 pm EST on January 17,2011, in 

an attempt to resolve any disputes concerning the Subpoena that is the subject of the foregoing 

motion. Daniel E. Chapman, counsel for non-party Complete, then emailed on or about 4: 15pm 

EST on January 17, 2011 a draft ofthis motion seeking concurrence pr resolution ofsame. As of 

the time this motion is filed, the issues in dispute have not been fully resolved. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Complete respectfully requests the 

Subpoena Duces Tecum be quashed and/or limited, and that it be awarded its reasonahle 

12 . 

attorney.s fees and costs, as well as such other relief, both legal and. equitable, to which it may 

show itself justly entitled. 

Dated: January 18,2012 	 Respectfully submitted, 

THE TROY LAW FIRM 

lsi Daniel E. Chapman 


Daniel E. Chapman (P41043) 


Kimberly A. Cochrane (P73032) 


Attorneys for Non-Party, Complete 


Automation, Inc. 


755 W Big Beaver Rd, Ste 1800 


Troy, MI 48084 . 


(248) 244-9100 

dchapman@troylawfirrn.com 

kcochrane@troylawfirrn.com 

13 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on January 18, 2012 I electronically filed a document entitled "Motion to 

Quash and/or Limit Subpoena Duces Tecum" with the Federal Trade Commission using the FTC 

E-Filing System, and that I served the same document upon the following: 

John H. Hinderaker, Esq. J. Robert Robertson, Esq. Katrina Robson 

Richard A. Duncan, Esq. Logan Breed, Esa. O'Melveny& Myers LLP 

Randall E. Kahnke, Esq. Hogan, Lovells US LLP 1625 Eye St., N.W. 

Faegre & Benson LLP Columbia Square Washington, DC 20006 

90 South Seventh Street, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW 

Suite2200 Washington, DC 20004 

Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 

Phillip L. Broyles 

Peter Richman 

Marc W. Schneider 

Brian J. Telpner 

Robert E. Friedman 

Amanda Hamilton 

Cathlin Tully 

Anna Chehtova 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

by placing the document in an envelope properly addressed, with First Class postage affixed~ and 

depositing it in a receptacle ofthe United States MaiL 

In addition, this document was also served upon the following: 

Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

via UPS Next Day Air (Tracking Number: lZ 562 R3W 23 1000 0585) 

14 

I declare that the above statements are true to the best ofmy information, knowledge, and 

belief 

Dated: January 18,2012 	 Respectfully submitted, 

THE TROY LAW FIRM 

/s/ Daniel E. Chapman . 


Daniel E. Chapman (P41 043) 


Kimberly A. Cochrane (P73032) 


Attorneys for Non-Party, Complete 


Automation, Inc. 


755 W Big Beaver Rd, Ste 1800 


Troy, MI 48084 


(248) 244-9100 

dchapman@troylawfirm.com 

kcochrane@troylawfirm.com 

15 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 

Provided by the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission. and 

1. TO 

KENNETH J. MATHEIS, SR.. REGISTERED AGENT 

1776-D W. CIJ\RKSTON ROAD 

LAKE ORION, MI 4R'U.~~---.-... 

ON BEHALF 

16 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

This subpoena inspection and copying of designated books, documents (as defined in 

Rule 3.34(b», or tangible things, at the date and time specified in Item 5,and at the request of Counsel listed in Item 9, in 

the proceeding described in Item 6. 

3. PLACE OF PRODUCTION 

SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO: 

Susan M. Lahr, Paralegal 

Faegre & Benson LLP 

2200 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street 

Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 

(612)-766-8071 

6. 	SUBJECT OF PROCEEDING 

In the Matter of Graco Inc., et aI., Docket No. 9350 - -.~ 

.. .. . ".:'\": ,~ ..:: ::.:....': .: ::.~: :;.. : ;:." .' .' '.' .. . . 

7. MATERIAL TO BE PRODUCED 

4. MATERIAL WILL BE PRODUCED TO 

Susan M. Lahr, Paralegal, Faegre & Benson LLP 

:.".:::.'. "::. 

See attached Exhibit A and the Protective Oreler Goveming Discovery Material. Documents descnbed in the attached 

Exhibit A must be submitted to Susan M. Lahr, Paralegal, Faegre & Benson LLP, as listed above, no later than January 

5,2012. If you have any questions please call Susan M. Lahr at 612-766-8071 . ...,., ..,... ,....... ":',..... ", ... . 


8. ADMINISTRATIve LAW JUDGE 

Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

9. COUNSEL AND PARTY ISSUING SUBPOENA 

John H. Hinderaker 

Faegre &BensomLlP 

2200 Wells FargoJCenter 

90 South Sevent Street 

Minneapolis, M~ 55402-3901 

Katrina Robson 

O'Melveny &Myers LLP 

1625 Eye St. N.W. 

, Washington, D.C. 20006 

DATE SIGNED SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL ISSUING SUBPOENA ,

- .. GENERI\L .INSTRUCTIONS 

APPEARANCE 

The delivery of this subpoena to you by any method 

prescribed by the Commission's Rules of Practice is 

legal service and may subject you to a penalty 

imposed by law for failure to comply. 

MOTION TO LIMIT OR QUASH 

The Commission's Rules of Practice require that any 

motion to limit or quash this subpoena must comply 

with Commission Rule 3.34(c), 16 C.F.R~'§ 3.34(c), 

and in particular must be filed within the earlier of 10 

days after service or the time for comPliance. The 

original and ten copies of the pe~ti6n must be filed 

before the Administrative Law'Judge and with the 

Secretary of the CommiSSion, accompanied by an 

affidavit of service of the document upon counsel 

listed in Item 9, and upon all other parties prescribed 

TRAVEL EXPEN.SES 

. The Commission's Rules of Practice require that fees and 

mileage be paid by the party that requested your 

appearance. You should present your claim to counsel 

listed in Item 9 for payment. If you are permanently or 

temporarily living somewhere other than the address on this 

subpoena and it would require excessive travel for you to 

appear, you must get prior approval from counsel listed in 

Item 9. 

A copy of the Commission's Rules of Practice is available 

online at http://bit,ly/ETCRulesotpractice. Paper copies are 

available upon request. 

This subpoena does not require approval by OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 
RETURN OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a duplicate original ofthe- within 

subpoena was duly served: (check \he method used) 

("' in person. 

("' by registered mail. 


r by leaving copy at principal office orplace ofbusiness, to wit: 


on the person named herein on: 

(Month. day. and year) 

(Nama of person making service) 

(Official iiUe) 
COMPLETE AUTOMATION, INC. 


EXHmITA 


DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 


A. The terms ''you,'' "your" or "yours" mean the company named on the attached 

subpoena, and any parent, subsidiary, division or other affiliated company engaged in· the 

manufacture, marketing or sale of liquid or powder industrial finishing products, and 

specifically pumps suitable for use in industrial fInishing applications, in the United States or 

elsewhere in the world, and anybody acting on its behalf. 

B. If, after conducting a reasonable investigation, a complete production cannot 

be provided for any request for the production ofdocuments, answer to the fullest extent 

possible, stating what responsive documents or information are available, what documents or 

information cannot be provided, and why the documents or infonnation are unavailable. 

c. If any document responsive to these document requests has been destroyed, 

describe the contents of such document, the date ofsuch destruction and the name ofthe 

person who ordered or authorized such destruction. 

D. Ifthe production ofany documents responsive to these document requests is 

objected to on the ground of privilege or work product, or for any other reason, provide a 

privilege log identifying the responsive document, its author and recipients, its date, and the 

basis for the claim ofprivilege. 

E. As used herein, "and" includes the word "or" and vice versa, and the singular 

includes the plural, and vice versa. 

F. As used herein, "communication" shall mean any transmission ofinformation 

by one or more persons and/or between two or more persons by any means, including 
telephone conversations; letters; telegrams; teletypes; telexes; telecopies; electronic mail; 

other computer linkups; written memoranda, and face-to-face conversations. 

O. As used herein, "document" includes any written or graphic matter or any 

medium ofany type or description upon which information is recorded or from which 

information can be gathered, which is or has been in your possession, control, or custody, or 

ofwhich you have knowledge, including the original and any non-identical copy; electronic 

documents and mail or "e-mail;" summaries of meetings or discussions (including any 

memoranda, minutes, notes, records, or summary of any (a) telephone or intercom 

conversation or message, (b) personal conversation or interview, or (c) meeting or 

conference); video or voice recordings; and any writing or other handwritten, printed, 

reproduced, recorded, typewritten, or otherwise produced graphic material from which 

information responsive to these requests may be obtained, or any other documentary material 

of any nature, in your possession, custody, or control. 

H. The "FTC," means the United States Federal Trade Commission. 

I. "Action," as used herein, means the above-captioned FTC administrative 

proceeding entitled In the matter ofGraco Inc., et aI., Docket No. 9350. 

J. The "FTC Acquisition Review," as used herein, refers to any investigative 

steps, including, but is not limited to, the issuance ofsubpoenas or civil investigative 

demands, formal or informal requests for Documents or testimony, the taking of any 

testimony, the conduct ofany interviews or hearings, market research, and any other 

gathering offacts, that were taken in connection with a review ofthe Acquisition, FTC File 

No. 111-0169and/or Docket No. 9350, under either Part 2 or Part 3 ofthe FTC Rules of 

Practice. 
K. "Relevant Equipment." as used herein, refers to pumps, pump parts, pump 

accessories, andlor any equipment used for or related to industrial liquid or powder finishing. 

L. Provide all electronically stored information ("ESI") and hard copy documents 

in standard, single-page Group IV TIFF format with accompanying extracted text and 

metadata in a Concordance load file. Provide Microsoft Access, Excel, and PowerPoint files, 

as well as audio, audiovisual, and video files, in their native formats. Produce the metadata 

for any responsive ESI with the responsive data, including the following fields: custodian, 

author(s), recipient(s), blind copy recipient(s). subject, file sent date/time, file creation 

date/time, file modification date/time, file last accessed data/time, beginning bates, ending 

bates, parent beginning bates, attachment(s) beginning bates. hash value, application type, 

file type, file name, file size, file path, and f<?lder path. Documents produced in native 

format shall be accompanied by a native link field. 
I . Transactional level sales data from January 1, 2007, to the present, identifying all of 

your worldwide sales ofliquid or powder industrial fmishing systems, lines, services or 

individual fmishing products, the buyer in each transaction, and setting forth the sales price 

for the system, line or individual finishing product or products. 

2. Annual or quarterly sales summaries, aggregating sales ofliquid or powder finishing 

systems, lines or products 1) in the United States, and 2) globally from January 1,2007, to 

the present. 

3. Transactional level purchase data and/or documents from January 1,2007, to the 

present, by product description/name or part number, identifying all ofyour pUrchases of 

liquid or powder industrial finishing products (including, but not limited to, applicators, 

pumps and proportioners) and the manufacturer or supplier in each transaction, and setting 

forth the list price, sales price, and any discounts or rebates. 

4. Copies ofall sales, marketing or promotional materials describing the services and 

products now being sold by you in the United States. 

5. Any business plans or market analyses relating to liquid or powder industrial finishing 

systems, lines, services or products that have been prepared by you or on your behalf from 

January 1,2007, to the present. 

6. All documents from January 1,2009, to the present that identify comp3;nies, 

manufacturers, integrators or products with which your liquid or powder finishing systems, 

services or products compete in the United States or worldwide. 

7. Any communications between you and the Federal Trade Commission relating to 

liquid or powder industrial finishing products, systems or services. 

8. All requests for proposals or bids that you have received from buyers or end userS of 

liquid or powder industrial finishing products from January 1, 2009 to the present; all 

responses that you have submitted in response to such requests; and any documents showing 

the outcome ofsuch responses to requests for proposals or bids. 

9. All analyses or reports prepared by y~>u or on your behalf relating to competition in 

liquid or powder industrial finishing systems, lines or products. 

10. Copies ofall sales, marketing or promotional materials describing liquid finishing 

equipment products now being sold by a manufacturer ofsuch in the United States. 
11. All documents related to any communication between you and a manufacturer of 

liquid finishing equipment products, excluding communication between you and Graco, Inc. 

or Illinois Tool Works Inc. 

12. All documents reflecting, including, or related to an assessment of manufacturers of 

liquid finishing equipment and/or the liquid finishing equipment sold by those 

manufacturers. 

13. Product catalogs and price lists identifying all liquid and powder industrial finishing 

products now being sold by you in the United States. 

14. All written plans for new product development in liquid or powder industrial finishing 

products that you now have planned or in progress. 

15. Any communications between you and any distributor or any other person, firm, 

business, or company concerning the proposed sales ofITW's finishing businesses to Graco. 

16. Any documents that constitute or refer to your efforts to expand distribution of your 

products. 

17. All sales forecasts or financial projections for liquid finishing products in the United 

States or North America from January 1, 2008 to the present. 

18. All documents that refer or relate to your decision to expand your liquid finishing line 

in North America through acquisitions, joint ventures and partnerships, or otherwise. 

19. Documents sufficient to itemize expenses and investments you have incurred in 

expanding your liquid finishing line in North America through acquisitions, joint ventures 

and partnerships, or otherwise. 

20. All documents created or modified from January 1,2009, to the present, relating to 

any analysis of your share ofsales in the United States or elsewhere in the world, or your 

share of sales to any geographic or end-user segment ofthe United States, for any ofthe 

following industrial finishing products: liquid finishing pumps, liquid finishing 

proportioners, liquid finishing applicators (spray guns), or liquid or powder finishing 

equipment generally. 

21. All documents discussing or analyzing the Acquisition, the FTC Acquisition Review, 

and the Action. 

22. Documents sufficient to identify all of your actual or potential competitors with 

respect to the sale of liquid or powder industrial finishing products in North America. 
23. All documents relating to any discounts given to any distributor or end user customer 

for the purchase of any liquid or powder industrial finishing products from January I, 2009 

to the present. 

24. All documents discussing your attempts to sell liquid finishing products directly to 

end users from January I, 2008 to the present. 

25. Documents sufficient to show all entities that distribute liquid or powder industrial 

finishing products for Complete Automation, Inc., in the United States from January 1, 2009 

to the present. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 


OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 


In the Matter of 

GRACOINC., 

a corporation, and 

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., 

a corporation, and 

DOCKET NO. 9350 


PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCOVERY MATERIAL 

Commission Rule 3.31(d) states: "In order to protect the parties and third parties 

against improper use and disclosure ofconfidential information, t,he Administrative Law 

Judge shall issue a protective order as set forth in the appendix to this section." 16 C.F.R. 

§ 3.31(d). Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.31(d), the protective order set forth in the 

appendix to that section is attached verbatim as Attachment A and is hereby issued. 

ORDERED: 


D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: December 16, 2011 
ATTACHMENT A 

For the purpose ofprotecting the interests ofthe parties and third parties in the 

above~captioned matter against improper use and disclosure ofconfidential information 

submitted or producedin connection with this matter: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this Protective Order Governing 

Confidential Material ("Protective Order") shall govern the handling ofall Discovery 

Material, as hereafter defmed. 

1. As used in this Order, "confidential material" shall refer to any document or portion 

thereof that contains privileged, competitively sensitive information, or sensitive personal 

information. "Sensitive personal information" shall refer to, but shall not be limited to, 

an individual's Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, fmancial account 

number, credit card or debit card number, driver's license number, state-issued 

identification number, passport number, date ofbirth (other than year). and any sensitive 

health information identifiable by individual, such as an individual's medical records. 

"Document" shall refer to any discoverable writing, recording, transcript oforal 

testimony, or electronically stored information in the possession of a party or a third 

party. "Commission" shall refer to the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), or any ofits 

employees, agents, attorneys, and all other persons acting on its behalf, excluding persons 

retained as consultants. or experts for purposes ofthis proceeding. 

2. Any document or portion thereof submitted by a respondent or a third party during a 

Federal Trade Commission investigation or during the course ofthis proceeding that is 

entitled to confidentiality under the Federal Trade Commission Act, or any regulation, 

interpretation, or precedent concerning documents in the possession ofthe Commission, 

as well as any infonnation taken from any portion of such documen~ shall be treated as 

confidential material for purposes ofthis Order. The identity ora third party submitting 

such confidential material shall also be treated as confidential material for the purposes of 

this Order where the submitter has requested such confidential treatment. 

3. The parties and any third parties~ in complying with informal discovery requests, 

disclosure requirements, or discovery demands in this proceeding may designate any 

responsive document or portion thereof as confidential material, including documents 

obtained by them from third parties pursuant to discovery or as otherwise obtained. 

4. The parties, in conducting discovery from third parties, shall provide to each third 

party a copy ofthis Order so as to inform each such third party ofhis, her, or its rights 

herein. 

5. A designation of confidentiality shall constitute a representation in good faith and after 

. careful determination that the material is not reasonably believed to be already in the 

public domain and that counsel believes the material so designated constitutes 

confidential material as defined in Paragraph 1 ofthis Order. 
6. Material may be designated as confidential by placing on or affixing to the document 

containing such material (in such manner as will not interfere with the legibility thereof), 

or ifan entire folder or box ofdocuments is confidential by placing or affixing to that 

folder or box, the designation "CONFIDENTIAL-FTC Docket No. 9350" or any other 

appropriate notice that identifies this proceeding, together with an indication of the 

portion or portions ofthe document considered to be confidential materiaL Confidential 

information contained in electronic documents may also be designated as confidential by 

placing the designation "CONFIDENTIAL-FTC Docket No. 9350" or any other 

appropriate notice that identifies this proceeding, on the face ofthe CD or DVD or other 

medium on which the document is produced. Masked or otherwise redacted copieS of 

documents may be produced where the portions deleted contain privileged matter, 

provided that the copy produced shall indicate at the appropriate point that portions have 

been deleted and the reasons therefor. 

7. Confidential material shall be disclosed only to: (a) the Administrative Law Judge 

presiding over this proceeding, personnel assisting the Adniinistrative Law Judge, the 

Commission and its employees, and personnel retained by the Commission as experts or 

consultants for this proceeding; (b) judges and other court personnel of any court having 

jurisdiction over any appellate proceedings involving this matter; (c) outside counsel of 

record for any respondent, their associated attorneys and other employees oftheir law 

firm( s), provided they are not employees of a respondent; (d) anyone retained to assist 

outside counsel in the preparation or hearing ofthis proceeding including consultants, 

provided they are not affiliated in any way with a respondent and have signed an 

agreement to abide by the terms ofthe protective order; and (e) any witness or deponent 

who may have authored or received the information in question. 

8. Disclosure of confidential material to any person described in Paragraph 7 of this 

Order shall be only for the purposes ofthe preparation and hearing ofthis proceeding, or 

any appeal therefrom, and for no other purpose whatsoever, provided, however, that the 

Commission may, subject to taking appropriate steps to preserve the confidentiality of 

such material, use or disclose confidential material as provided by its Rules ofPractice; 

sections 6(f) and 21 ofthe Federal Trade Commission Act~ or any other legal obligation 

imposed upon the Commission. 

9. In the event that any confidential material is contained in any pleading, motion, exhibit 

or other paper filed or to be filed with the Secretary ofthe Commission, the Secretary 

shall be so informed by the Party filing such papers, and such papers shall be filed in 

camera. To the extent that such material was originally submitted by a third party. the 

party including the materials in its papers shall immediately notify the submitter ofsuch 

inclusion. Confidential material contained in the papers shall continue to have in camera 

treatment until further order ofthe Administrative Law Judge, provided. however, that 

such papers may be furnished to persons or entities who may receive confidential 

material pursuant to Paragraphs 7 or 8. Upon or after filing any paper containing 

confidential material, the filing party shall file on the public record a duplicate copy of 

the paper that does not reveal confidential material. Further, ifthe protection for any 

such material expires, a party may file on the public record a duplicate copy which also 

contains the formerly protected material. 
10. Ifcounsel plans to introduce into evidence at the hearing any document or transcript 

containing confidential material produced by another party or by a third party, they shall 

provide advance notice to the other party or third party for purposes ofallowing that 

party to seek an order that the document or transcript be granted in camera treatment. If 

that party wishes in camera treatment for the document or transcript, the party shall file 

an appropriate motion with the Administrative Law Judge within 5 days after it receives 

such notice. Except where such an order is granted, all documents and transcripts shall 

be part ofthe public record. Where in camera treatment is granted, a duplicate copy of 

such document or transcript with the confidential material deleted therefrom may be 

placed on the public record. 

11. If any party receives a discovery request in any investigation or in any other 

proceeding or matter that may require the disclosure ofconfidential material submitted by 

another party or third party, the recipient ofthe discovery request shall promptly notify 

the submitter of receipt of such request. Unless a shorter time is mandated by an order of 

a court, such notification shall be in writing and be received by the submitter at least 10 

business days before production, and shall include a copy of this Protective Order and a 

cover letter that will apprise the submitter of its rights hereunder. Nothing herein shall be 

construed as requiring the recipient ofthe discovery request or anyone else covered by 

this Order to challenge or appeal any order requiring production ofconfidential material, 

to subject itselfto any penalties for non~compliance with any such order, or to seek any 

relief from the Administrative Law Judge or the Commission. The recipient shall hot 

oppose the submitter'S efforts to challenge the disclosUre of confidential material. In 

addition, nothing herein shall limit the applicability ofRule 4.11(e) ofthe Commission's 

Rules ofPractice, 16 CFR 4.1 1 (e), to discovery requests in another proceeding that are 

directed to the Commission. 

12. At the time that any consultant or other person retained to assist counsel in the 

preparation ofthis action concludes participation in the action, such person shall return to 

counsel all copies of documents or portions thereof designated confidential that are in the 

possession of such person, together with all notes, memoranda or other papers containing 

confidential information. At the conclusion ofthis proceeding, including the exhaustion 

ofjudicial review, the parties shall return documents obtained in this action to their 

submitters, provided, however, that the Commission's obligation to return documents 

shall be governed by the provisions ofRule 4.12 ofthe Rules of Practice, 16 CFR4.12. 

13. The provisions ofthis Protective Order, insofar as they restrict the communication. 

and use of confidential discovery material, shall, without written permission ofthe . 

submitter or further order ofthe Commission, continue to be binding after the conclusion 

ofthis proceeding.