Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 72 PageID #: 22017
`
`Redacted - Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 2 of 72 PageID #: 22018
`
` 
`
`Dear Judge Goldberg:
`
`Moderna seeks the Court’s assistance in fully resolving the discovery disputes between
`Moderna and Plaintiffs, and Moderna and third party Roivant Sciences Ltd. (“Roivant”), which
`were previously raised at the March 26, 2024 discovery hearing regarding lobbying materials.1 See
`D.I. 223; D.I. 264 (“Mar. 26, 2024 Hr’g Tr.”) at 13:21–16:7 (inviting Moderna to re-raise this issue
`with the Court pending more information from Plaintiffs regarding the existence of lobbying
`materials).
`
`Discovery has confirmed that Plaintiffs and Roivant have engaged in a years-long effort to
`sway the public against Moderna, including by influencing members of Congress. Ex. 1 (GENV-
`00508209; GENV-00508210); Mar. 26, 2024 Hr’g Tr. at 9:10–14; Ex. 2 (Feb. 27 to Apr. 30, 2024
`Email Chain) at 3–4; Ex. 3 (Zorn Rough Dep. Tr.) at 196:17–207:1. Moderna has sought
`production of these “lobbying” communications and associated materials from both Plaintiffs and
`Roivant as they are highly relevant to the hypothetical negotiation analysis associated with
`Plaintiffs’ damages claim. See Ex. 4 (Moderna RFP No. 108 to Plaintiffs) at 4; Ex. 5 (Moderna
`RFP No. 16 to Roivant) at 8. For example, statements made by Plaintiffs or Roivant to members
`of Congress in an effort to tilt licensing positions more favorably towards Plaintiffs are at least
`relevant to Georgia-Pacific Factors 10 (nature and benefits of patented invention) and 11 (extent
`to which accused infringer made use of invention). Georgia–Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.,
`318 F.Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). Such communications are also relevant to the extent
`they undercut Plaintiffs’ unfounded assertions that Moderna improperly influenced the U.S.
`Government regarding the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1498 and the pricing of Moderna’s COVID-
`19 vaccine. Indeed, Plaintiffs and Roivant do not dispute the relevance of lobbying materials. See
`Mar. 26, 2024 Hr’g Tr. at 10:25–11:14. And their shared counsel, Williams & Connolly, conceded
`at the March 26 hearing that “there ha[ve] been general efforts” concerning lobbying, but could
`not confirm at the hearing which entity had retained the lobbyists. Id. at 9:10–14; see also Ex. 6
`(Genevant’s 2023 lobbying expenditures); Ex. 7 (Roivant’s annual lobbying expenditures). This
`resulted in the Court directing the parties at the March 26 hearing to meet and confer on the scope
`and search terms for production of lobbying materials.
`
`Unfortunately, Moderna’s good faith efforts following the March 26 hearing to negotiate a
`resolution have been met by a stone wall, with Plaintiffs and Roivant inappropriately agreeing to
`engage in such discovery only if, in return, Moderna provides expansive discovery far beyond
`lobbying related materials. See generally Ex. 2 (Feb. 27 to Apr. 30, 2024 Email Chain).
`Specifically, in line with the discussion with the Court during the March 26 hearing, on April 2,
`Moderna requested that Plaintiffs and Roivant “perform a targeted collection and production of
`documents and communications with lobbyists and political consultants concerning Moderna,
`Spikevax®, This Action, the U.S. Government’s Statement of Interest (D.I. 49), and/or the C0100
`contract.” Id. at 13. The same day, Plaintiffs requested that Moderna “confirm that Moderna will
`be providing the same discovery that Moderna is requesting from Plaintiffs.” Id. at 11. Moderna
`promptly agreed on April 3 to produce, to the extent they exist, any non-privileged lobbying
`communications and documents concerning “This Action (i.e., Arbutus v. Moderna, No. 22-252
`
`
`1 Roivant owns a majority interest in Plaintiff Genevant and a minority interest in Plaintiff Arbutus.
`D.I. 240 at 1.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 3 of 72 PageID #: 22019
`
`The Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
`June 7, 2024
`Page 2
`
`(D. Del.)),” “Contract No. W911QY20C0100 (‘C0100 Contract’), executed August 2020, between
`Moderna and U.S. Government for the supply of Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine,” “[a]pplication
`of 28 U.S.C. § 1498 to Moderna’s C0100 Contract,” and “[t]he U.S. Government’s February 2023
`Statement of Interest (D.I. 49) filed in This Action concerning Moderna’s C0100 Contract.” Id. at
`10.
`
`The dispute should have ended there. But five days later, Plaintiffs changed their demand
`and argued that Moderna’s production should include swaths of non-lobbying materials, including
`Moderna’s communications with all federal agencies and communications not relevant to this case.
`Ex. 2 (Feb. 27 to Apr. 30, 2024 Email Chain) at 8–9. In doing so, Plaintiffs’ counsel also fabricated
`a new definition for “lobbying,” which is both inconsistent with the discussion at the March 26
`hearing, Mar. 26, 2024 Hr’g Tr. at 6:20–9:2; 9:22–24, and extends far beyond lobbying members
`of Congress with respect to legislation, capturing essentially any communications any employee
`of Moderna has had with any federal agency or government department concerning its COVID-19
`vaccine. Moderna subsequently attempted to navigate Plaintiffs’ efforts to shift and expand the
`scope of “lobbying materials” beyond the limited set of documents discussed at the March 26
`hearing, Mar. 26, 2024 Hr’g Tr. at 10:25–11:14, and even agreed to produce communications
`between Moderna’s Government Affairs Department and the executive branch, Ex. 8 (May 28 to
`June 6, 2024 Email Chain) at 2. But Plaintiffs still found this compromise insufficient and
`demanded that Moderna produce “all documents and communications with the Government
`regarding the U.S. Government’s February 2023 Statement of Interest (D.I. 49) and the
`application/non-application of § 1498, and not assert any privilege including the common interest
`privilege over such documents.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). In effect, Plaintiffs have conditioned
`their production of lobbying materials on Moderna’s agreement to waive privilege over its
`common interest communications with the U.S. Government. Such a condition is inappropriate,
`and in any event, the requested communications are far beyond the scope of “lobbying.”
`
`Moreover, discovery has further confirmed the relevance of Plaintiffs’ lobbying materials.
`Peter Zorn, Genevant’s President and Chief Legal Officer, testified on June 5, 2024 that Genevant
`began engaging lobbyists after filing suit against Moderna and that Genevant’s lobbying efforts
`have related to “the negative implication of the application of Section 1498 to divert responsibility
`for patent infringement to the government”—an issue indisputably relevant to this case. Ex. 3
`(Zorn Rough Dep. Tr.) at 197:8–23.
`
`Given the relevance of the lobbying related materials sought by Moderna and Plaintiffs’
`and Roivant’s ever-expanding and changing scope of materials they maintain Moderna must
`produce, Moderna seeks the Court’s assistance in bringing this dispute to a close. Specifically,
`Moderna moves for an order compelling Plaintiffs and Roivant to produce documents and
`communications with lobbyists and political consultants concerning Moderna, Spikevax®, this
`Action, the U.S. Government’s Statement of Interest (D.I. 49), and/or the C0100 contract. As
`previously agreed, Moderna will reciprocate and produce the same scope of documents and
`communications.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 4 of 72 PageID #: 22020
`
`The Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
`June 7, 2024
`Page 3
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Travis Murray
`
`Travis Murray (#6882)
`
`
`Attachments
`
`cc:
`
`All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF and electronic mail; w/attachments)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 5 of 72 PageID #: 22021
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`Redacted in its Entirety
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 6 of 72 PageID #: 22022
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 6 of 72 PagelD #: 22022
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 7 of 72 PageID #: 22023
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 7 of 72 PagelD #: 22023
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Haunschild, Philip
`
`
`Li, Yan-Xin; Genevant Team; Arbutus MoFo; Nate Hoeschen; Karen Keller; *jshaw@shawkeller.com
`
`#KEModernaSpikevaxService; "Brian Egan"; "tmurray@morrisnichols.com"; "Blumenfeld, Jack"
`RE: Arbutus v. Moderna (22-252) // Lobbying (RFP 108)
`Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:36:17 PM
`
`
`
`This messageis from an EXTERNAL SENDER
`Be cautious,particularly with links and attachments.
`
`Yan-Xin,
`
`What your email hyperbolically characterizes as “relentless one-sided demands” are nothing more
`than our attempts to have Moderna answerthe sameset of basic questions about what it intends to
`produce,in the context of a Court-ordered meet-and-conferdirected to mutuality. Perplexingly,
`your email yet again dodges our questions. We have been ready for quite some time to agree ona
`mutual scope of production for communications concerning lobbying activities, and Moderna’s
`refusal to engage in our meet-and-confer—andthat refusal alone—is the cause of any delay. For
`that reason, any threat to hold open depositions or recall witnessesis baseless.
`
`To the extent Modernais willing to engage in our meet-and-confer process, here—again—is ourlist
`of questions:
`
`1. Please confirm that Modernawill be producing its documents and communications regarding
`Moderna’s lobbying efforts for appropriations for COVID-19 Vaccines or indemnity, and that
`Modernais notlimiting its agreement to just producing documentsspecifically discussing the
`-0100 Contract.
`
`2. Please confirm that Modernawill be producing its communications with the Government
`regarding the application/non-application of § 1498 to the -0017 Contract, and any
`documents and communications concerning the decision not to include FAR Clause 52.227-1
`or 52.227.1 Alt 1 in the -0017 Contract.
`
`3. Please confirm that Modernawill be producing its communications with the Government
`concerningthislitigation, and thefiling of the Statement of Interest [D.I. 49] specifically.
`
`These documentsare indisputably relevant to the application of § 1498 and Plaintiffs’ damages
`contentions, as we have already explained.
`If Moderna’s position is that it has already producedall
`responsive documentsidentified after a reasonable search within categories (1) and (2) above, and
`that it has no communications with the U.S. Government concerning the Statementof Interest [D.I.
`49] that are responsive to (3), then please say so. Otherwise, please answerour questions.
`
`Moderna’s attempt to redefine the scope of the word “lobbying” so as to exclude relevant
`communicationsis improper. Any reciprocal agreement mustresolve the full scope of these
`materials andplainly is consistent with, not “contrary” to, the parties’ discussions with the Court.
`Accordingly, to the extent that Moderna engagedin any executive branch lobbying concerning the
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 8 of 72 PageID #: 22024
`
`issues the parties have identified, those are relevant communications, and Moderna should be
`collecting and producing those as part of a reciprocal scope.  Please confirm that Moderna will be
`doing so. 
` 
`We continue to stand ready to bring this issue to a close when Moderna is willing to do so.
` 
`Thank you,
` 
`Philip N. Haunschild
`Associate | Williams and Connolly LLP
`680 Maine Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20024
`202-434-5979 | phaunschild@wc.com | www.wc.com
` 
`From: Li, Yan-Xin <yanxin.li@kirkland.com> 
`Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 11:37 AM
`To: Haunschild, Philip <phaunschild@wc.com>; Genevant Team <GenevantTeam@wc.com>;
`Arbutus_MoFo <Arbutus_MoFo@mofo.com>; Nate Hoeschen <nhoeschen@shawkeller.com>; Karen
`Keller <kkeller@shawkeller.com>; *jshaw@shawkeller.com <jshaw@shawkeller.com>
`Cc: #KEModernaSpikevaxService <KEModernaSpikevaxService@kirkland.com>; 'Brian Egan'
`<began@morrisnichols.com>; 'tmurray@morrisnichols.com' <tmurray@morrisnichols.com>;
`'Blumenfeld, Jack' <JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com>
`Subject: RE: Arbutus v. Moderna (22-252) // Lobbying (RFP 108)
` 
`Philip:
` 
`Although you reference “the Court’s direction” “regarding mutuality,” Plaintiffs’ relentless and one-sided demands
`of Moderna are anything but mutual. Moderna has not “dodge[d]” Plaintiffs’ questions. We answered them clearly,
`and it is frankly perplexing what you are intending to achieve beyond unnecessary delay by using different words to
`ask a question Moderna already answered multiple times.
` 
`
`On your first point, please refer to our April 15 correspondence where we reiterated what we have agreed
`to search and produce. We did not place “narrow[] limit[s]” on the 4 categories that we identified to you
`over and over again. We decline to engage in further unproductive discourse on this long-standing issue.
`Please produce the lobbying materials that Plaintiffs “stand ready to produce” but for their own hold out.
`And as you further know, Plaintiffs’ responses to Moderna’s Interrogatory No. 17 are plainly deficient.
`Plaintiffs’ delay in producing their lobbying documents and related failure for providing an actual substantive
`response to Interrogatory No. 17, just weeks before close of fact discovery and with depositions already
`commencing, is prejudicial to Moderna.
`Your attempt to expansively redefine lobbying is contrary to what was discussed with the Court during the
`March 26 hearing. Williams & Connolly notably did not offer this definition of “lobbying” during that
`teleconference, and only sought to do so after Moderna agreed it would produce reciprocal lobbying
`communications, to try to extract yet more discovery out of Moderna. Although irrelevant to the current
`discussion on lobbying, as we have said again and again, we have produced responsive communications
`related to negotiations concerning FAR 52-227-1 for the C-0100 and C-0017 contracts.
`As to your second point, which undermines your first, it is unclear how the laundry list of items you identify
`fall within your own quoted definition of 2 U.S.C. § 1602(8). The entire basis for which Plaintiffs keep raising
`this issue appears to be some belief that “there is more” than what Moderna already produced, while failing
`to accept that what you mischaracterize as “a narrow scope” is, in fact, the actual scope of existing, non-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 9 of 72 PageID #: 22025
`
`privileged, and responsive documents that were found and produced after a good faith, reasonable
`investigation under the Federal Rules.
`
` 
`Please confirm by noon ET on Tuesday, April 30, 2024 that Plaintiffs will produce by Friday, May 3, 2024 the
`lobbying materials requested per Moderna’s RFP 108 and as outlined in our April 3 email. Otherwise, Moderna will
`need to seek relief from the Court, and hold deposition(s) open and/or recall Plaintiffs’ witness(es) as a result of
`Plaintiffs’ late productions of lobbying materials. Moderna reserves all rights.
` 
`Best regards,
`Yan-Xin
` 
`Yan-Xin Li
`------------------------------------------------------------
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94104
`T +1 415 439 1618
`------------------------------------------------------------
`yanxin.li@kirkland.com
` 
`From: Haunschild, Philip <phaunschild@wc.com> 
`Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 12:56 PM
`To: Li, Yan-Xin <yanxin.li@kirkland.com>; Genevant Team <GenevantTeam@wc.com>;
`Arbutus_MoFo <Arbutus_MoFo@mofo.com>; Nate Hoeschen <nhoeschen@shawkeller.com>; Karen
`Keller <kkeller@shawkeller.com>; *jshaw@shawkeller.com <jshaw@shawkeller.com>
`Cc: #KEModernaSpikevaxService <KEModernaSpikevaxService@kirkland.com>; 'Brian Egan'
`<began@morrisnichols.com>; 'tmurray@morrisnichols.com' <tmurray@morrisnichols.com>;
`'Blumenfeld, Jack' <JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com>
`Subject: RE: Arbutus v. Moderna (22-252) // Lobbying (RFP 108)
`
`  ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ 
`
`‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
`
` 
`
`Yan-Xin:
` 
`We stand ready to produce the lobbying materials in the categories we have identified to you in our
`discussions if Moderna lives up to it its commitment to the Court—and the Court’s direction to the
`parties—regarding mutuality.  To confirm our understanding in that regard, we have now asked our
`questions four times, and your email below dodges most of them yet again.  To your first two bullet
`points below:
` 
`
`We disagree that Moderna can narrowly limit its “lobbying” to communications with
`Congress. That is contrary to the statutory definition for lobbying.  See e.g., 2 U.S.C. § 1602
`(“The term ‘lobbying contact’ means any oral or written communication (including an
`electronic communication) to a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative
`branch official that is made on behalf of a client with regard to—(i) the formulation,
`modification, or adoption of Federal legislation (including legislative proposals); (ii)the
`formulation, modification, or adoption of a Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any
`other program, policy, or position of the United States Government; (iii) the administration or
`execution of a Federal program or policy (including the negotiation, award, or administration
`of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or license) . . . .”).  If Moderna engaged in any
`executive branch lobbying concerning the issues the parties have identified, those are
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 10 of 72 PageID #: 22026
`
` 
`
`relevant communications, and Moderna should be collecting and producing those as part of a
`reciprocal scope.  Please confirm that Moderna will be doing so.
`
`We do not dispute that Moderna has produced a narrow scope of its communications with
`the Government concerning the negotiation of the -0100 and -0017 Contracts, and we have
`reviewed those documents.  We are raising our questions because, based on our review,
`Moderna has not provided its communications with the Government concerning the
`Statement of Interest, this litigation, or the application of § 1498 to the -0017 Contract.  We
`have simply asked Moderna to confirm that as part of its “targeted collection” it will be
`collecting and producing communications with DOJ, HHS, the Department of Defense, and/or
`other federal agencies, concerning this litigation, the application/non-application of § 1498 to
`the -0017 Contract, and any documents and communications concerning the decision not to
`include FAR Clause 52.227-1 or 52.227.1 Alt 1 in the -0017 Contract, and the filing of the
`Statement of Interest [D.I. 49] specifically.  Please confirm that Moderna will be producing
`these communications, and answer the questions under numbers 2, 3, and 4, in my April 18,
`2024 email below.
`
`Please let us know if we need to seek the Court’s assistance in obtaining answers to these questions.
`
`Thank you,
`
`Phil
` 
`Philip N. Haunschild
`Associate | Williams and Connolly LLP
`680 Maine Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20024
`202-434-5979 | phaunschild@wc.com | www.wc.com
` 
`From: Li, Yan-Xin <yanxin.li@kirkland.com> 
`Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 10:50 AM
`To: Haunschild, Philip <phaunschild@wc.com>; Genevant Team <GenevantTeam@wc.com>;
`Arbutus_MoFo <Arbutus MoFo@mofo.com>; Nate Hoeschen <nhoeschen@shawkeller.com>; Karen
`Keller <kkeller@shawkeller.com>; *jshaw@shawkeller.com <jshaw@shawkeller.com>
`Cc: #KEModernaSpikevaxService <KEModernaSpikevaxService@kirkland.com>; 'Brian Egan'
`<began@morrisnichols.com>; 'tmurray@morrisnichols.com' <tmurray@morrisnichols.com>;
`'Blumenfeld, Jack' <JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com>
`Subject: RE: Arbutus v. Moderna (22-252) // Lobbying (RFP 108)
` 
`Philip:
` 
`The issue is simple: are Plaintiffs providing lobbying discovery or not? Instead of resolving this narrow issue, as
`encouraged by the Court during the March 26 teleconference, Plaintiffs continue to string this dispute along with
`endless questions seeking to relitigate various stale aspects of discovery. Please confirm by 4:00 pm ET today
`whether Plaintiffs are providing the lobbying materials we requested long ago. Otherwise, Moderna will have to
`approach the Court for relief, which is disappointing since the parties largely appear to be in agreement about what
`lobby discovery each side is going to provide.
` 
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 11 of 72 PageID #: 22027
`
`As to your questions and for clarity: 
`·       Yes, we are defining lobbying as communications with lobbyists/members of congress.
`·       Moderna has produced vast communications with the U.S. Government, including on issues you raise
`below (negotiation of the C0100/C017 contract, including clauses at issue such as FAR 52-227). It appears
`Plaintiffs just haven’t bothered to look at Moderna’s production, despite the incredible burden inflicted on
`Moderna in producing it.
`·       Both parties agree that lobbying discovery will not be limited to only those that are pre-complaint.
`
` 
` 
`Yan-Xin Li
`------------------------------------------------------------
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94104
`T +1 415 439 1618
`------------------------------------------------------------
`yanxin.li@kirkland.com
` 
`From: Haunschild, Philip <phaunschild@wc.com> 
`Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 12:31 PM
`To: Li, Yan-Xin <yanxin.li@kirkland.com>; Genevant Team <GenevantTeam@wc.com>;
`Arbutus_MoFo <Arbutus_MoFo@mofo.com>; Nate Hoeschen <nhoeschen@shawkeller.com>; Karen
`Keller <kkeller@shawkeller.com>; *jshaw@shawkeller.com <jshaw@shawkeller.com>
`Cc: #KEModernaSpikevaxService <KEModernaSpikevaxService@kirkland.com>; 'Brian Egan'
`<began@morrisnichols.com>; 'tmurray@morrisnichols.com' <tmurray@morrisnichols.com>;
`'Blumenfeld, Jack' <JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com>
`Subject: RE: Arbutus v. Moderna (22-252) // Lobbying (RFP 108)
` 
`Hi Yan-Xin,
` 
`Moderna has not “clearly stated” the discovery that it is agreeing to provide, and we have provided
`precise and narrow questions to which we would appreciate answers.  We have now asked these
`questions three times.  We cannot agree to a reciprocal scope of discovery when we do not even
`know what Moderna is agreeing to provide.
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`1.  Regarding “federal agencies,” your email ignores our questions.  Is Moderna agreeing to
`produce its communications with federal agencies regarding the topics Moderna has
`identified below?  In other words, if Moderna communicated with any federal agencies
`regarding the topics that we have requested, then they should be produced.  If Moderna is
`narrowly defining its “lobbying communications/documents” to mean its communications
`with lobbyists and/or Congress, then please say so.
`
`2.  To the extent that Moderna is seeking Plaintiffs’ communications with the federal
`government—whether or not couched as lobbying communications—then Plaintiffs are
`similarly seeking confirmation that Moderna will be producing its communications with the
`Government about the same issues.  Please answer our questions.  Regarding your assertion
`that our requests “seek[] privileged information,” we strongly disagree. To the extent that
`Moderna is asserting a common interest privilege over these communications, then Moderna
`must provide them on a privilege log, so that Plaintiffs can challenge this improper assertion
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 12 of 72 PageID #: 22028
`
`of a common interest.  Please confirm whether such communications have occurred, and if
`so, please confirm that Moderna will be searching for and producing them, or providing them
`on a privilege log, as soon as possible to avoid further delay in Plaintiff’s ability to seek relief
`from the Court.
`
`3.  The document we have cited establishes that Moderna has lobbied for appropriations related
`to the COVID-19 Pandemic generally, and legislation affecting the funding and federal
`response more generally.  Moderna’s involvement and attempts to secure additional funding,
`indemnity, or protection are relevant to assessing the parties’ respective positions during the
`Hypothetical Negotiation.  Please answer the question that we have asked: 
`Please confirm that Moderna will be producing its documents and communications
`regarding Moderna’s lobbying efforts for appropriations for COVID-19 Vaccines or
`indemnity, and that Moderna is not limiting its agreement to just producing
`documents specifically discussing the -0100 Contract.
`
`4.  We understand that Moderna may have produced documents concerning the negotiations of
`the -0100 and -0017 Contracts, but we have asked a specific question regarding the
`application of § 1498 to the -0017 Contract, which your email does not answer:
`Please confirm that Moderna will be producing its communications with the
`Government regarding the application/non-application of § 1498 to the -0017
`Contract, and any documents and communications concerning the decision not to
`include FAR Clause 52.227-1 or 52.227.1 Alt 1 in the -0017 Contract. 
`
`5.  Plaintiffs continue to disagree with the relevance of any of Plaintiffs’ lobbying
`communications, but will agree not to limit their production of such communications to those
`prior to the filing of the complaint, on the understanding that Moderna is doing the same.
`
` 
`Finally, your assertions that any delay is Plaintiffs fault, not Moderna’s, is simply incorrect.  You
`assert that we waited “days” to follow up, yet we responded after three business days.  Moderna
`waited more than a week.  Plaintiffs did not let the April 15, 2024 date “come and go”—we
`responded to your email in the early morning on April 8, and Moderna did not respond until late in
`the evening on April 15.  We would like to resolve this issue expeditiously, but Moderna’ refusal to
`provide us with responses to our straightforward questions undermines our ability to do so.  Please
`provide answers to the questions above by April 19.
` 
`Thank you,
` 
`Philip N. Haunschild
`Associate | Williams and Connolly LLP
`680 Maine Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20024
`202-434-5979 | phaunschild@wc.com | www.wc.com
` 
`From: Li, Yan-Xin <yanxin.li@kirkland.com> 
`Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:39 PM
`To: Haunschild, Philip <phaunschild@wc.com>; Genevant Team <GenevantTeam@wc.com>;
`Arbutus_MoFo <Arbutus MoFo@mofo.com>; Nate Hoeschen <nhoeschen@shawkeller.com>; Karen
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 13 of 72 PageID #: 22029
`
`Keller <kkeller@shawkeller.com>; *jshaw@shawkeller.com <jshaw@shawkeller.com>
`Cc: #KEModernaSpikevaxService <KEModernaSpikevaxService@kirkland.com>; 'Brian Egan'
`<began@morrisnichols.com>; 'tmurray@morrisnichols.com' <tmurray@morrisnichols.com>;
`'Blumenfeld, Jack' <JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com>
`Subject: RE: Arbutus v. Moderna (22-252) // Lobbying (RFP 108)
` 
`Hi Philip:
` 
`Your reliance on Plaintiffs’ RFPs 36, 88, and 172 is misplaced, and ignores Moderna’s prior responses and the
`parties’ earlier discussions as to these specific requests, which Plaintiffs refused to reasonably limit to relevant
`issues in this litigation.  See, e.g., Moderna’s 2/2/2023 R&O to Plaintiffs’ 1st Set of RFPs (agreeing to produce non-
`privileged documents responsive to RFP 88); Moderna’s 8/1/2023 Letter (indicating that seeking all correspondence
`with any @gov email account is overbroad for RFP 36); Moderna’s 12/27/2023 Letter (noting Plaintiffs’ tenuous
`explanation of relevance for communications with any U.S. government agency as to RFP 172). 
` 
`Although Moderna has already clearly stated the scope of additional reasonable search it is willing to conduct as to
`lobbying communications/documents, your five bullets yet again attempt to shift and expand Plaintiffs’ endless and
`disproportionate discovery on an issue Moderna originally raised nearly a year ago.  We provide responses below,
`and accordingly understand that Plaintiffs will also be reciprocally searching and producing Plaintiffs’ lobbying
`communications/documents.
` 
`
`1.  It is unclear what “federal agencies” Plaintiffs appear to believe that Moderna is omitting, or what relevance
`a specific federal agency may have over another or over Congress.  Nevertheless, as stated in our April 3
`email below, Moderna agrees to conduct a reasonable search and produce non-privileged lobbying
`communications/documents concerning (i) this Action (i.e., Arbutus v. Moderna, No. 22-252 (D. Del.)); (ii)
`Contract No. W911QY20C0100 (“C0100 Contract”), executed August 2020, between Moderna and U.S.
`Government for the supply of Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine; (iii) Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1498 to
`Moderna’s C0100 Contract; (iv) The U.S. Government’s February 2023 Statement of Interest (D.I. 49) filed in
`This Action concerning Moderna’s C0100 Contract.  Although Plaintiffs’ latest questions go far beyond
`lobbying, Moderna already agreed to extensive discovery regarding its interactions with other agencies such
`as FDA, etc.
`
` 
`2.       Your second bullet seeking “communications with the Department of Justice—HHS and the Department of
`Defense” appears again to go beyond lobbying communications/documents, which is improper and outside of
`the scope of Moderna’s ongoing attempt to come to agreement on lobbying communications/documents,
`which Plaintiffs continue to stymie rather than resolve.  Moreover, Plaintiffs have already received HHS or DoD
`communications via its subpoena to the U.S. government, and Moderna has produced such information
`through search terms and ESI custodians.  Your request for “communications made through Moderna’s
`litigation counsel for this action … to the extent that such communications have transpired” seeks privileged
`information.  That said, if Moderna’s search for lobbying communications/documents on the four enumerated
`categories locates privileged communications, Moderna will log them in a privilege log to the extent required
`by the ESI order. 
`
` 
`3.       It is unclear for what purpose Plaintiffs cite to https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/b24517e2-44c7-4aca-
`b86b-f634b58e26e1/print/ or what Plaintiffs are attempting to encompass by “appropriations for COVID-19
`Vaccines or indemnity.”  As Moderna already reiterated in the first point above, Moderna has already laid out
`the four categories for which it will search and produce non-privileged lobby communications/documents. 
`Plaintiffs have otherwise articulated no basis of relevance or why the categories Moderna clearly laid out do not
`resolve their concerns. 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 364 Filed 06/24/24 Page 14 of 72 PageID #: 22030
`
`4.       This bullet is again asking for information beyond the scope of the parties’ production of lobbying
`communications/documents.  Moderna has already produced relevant and non-privileged documents
`concerning the C-0017 contract after a reasonable search, including through use of search terms across ESI
`custodians, to the extent such information exists. Indeed, Moderna has produced many documents concerning
`the negotiations the C-0100 and C-0017 contracts.
`
` 
`5.       Moderna will not limit search and production of its lobbying communications/documents to only pre-
`Complaint, provided that Plaintiffs agree to do the same.  During the parties’ February 29 meet and confer,
`Plaintiffs stated that Plaintiffs’ 2023 lobbying activities were not relevant because litigation was ongoing.  Based
`on Plaintiffs’ ask now, please confirm that Plaintiffs are not limiting search and production of Plaintiffs’ lobbying
`communications/documents to only prior to the filing of the Complaint.
`
` 
`Any “delay” in this process has been brought on by Plaintiffs, not Moderna, particularly because you waited days to
`follow-up to Moderna’s April 3 email on an issue for which Plaintiffs should have already been investigating. 
` 
`With the above, please provide by Wednesday, April 17 your confirmation that the issue of reciprocal scope as to
`lobby communications/documents is resolved, and propose a date for which the parties can mutually make the
`corresponding productions given that Plaintiffs let the April 15 date come and go. 
` 
`Best regards,
`Yan-Xin
` 
`Yan-X