Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 27777
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 19 PagelD #: 27777
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODSINC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC., and
`GINKGO BIOWORKS,INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 22-311-WCB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`NeeeeSsaSa’
`
`DEFENDANT GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.’S RESPONSIVE LETTER
`TO THE HONORABLE WILLIAM C. BRYSON REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO CONTEST PRIVILEGE CLAIM
`
`ME] 48112055v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 27778
`
`Dear Judge Bryson:
`
`Wewrite on behalf of Ginkgo regarding Impossible’s request to compel production of limited
`material withheld as privileged. For reasons that follow, Impossible’s request should be denied.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`There are effectively two documents at issue: GINKGO0076193-204 (‘
`
`has three limited redactions in a 12-page
`
`document. The
`has one limited redaction in a 49-page document.
`Both documents were clawed back pursuant to the AmendedProtective Order(the “PO,” D-I.
`186) and redacted due to an assertion of the attorney-client privilege. Contrary to Impossible’s
`claim that Ginkgo hasnot provided a privilege log, Ginkgo, consistent with the procedure under
`the PO, providedthe basis ofits privilege claim by email to Impossible. (See D.I. 447, Exs. G
`and H.) Impossible never complained aboutthe privilege basis provided.
`
`The redacted portions of the documents reflect legal advice provided by Ginkgo’s in-house
`intellectual property counsel, Claire Laporte, to Ginkgoscientists relating to intellectual property
`matters. (Declaration of Claire Laporte (“Laporte Decl.”) §§ 1-7.) The redacted portions
`summarize and transmit that legal advice to other Ginkgo employees.
`
`In support of its request to compel production, Impossible relies heavily on the substance of the
`clawed-back material as evidenceforits infringement claims. Its reliance on infringement
`contentions containing the clawed-back material violates the PO; moreover,it is legally
`irrelevant, as there is no basis for piercing the attorney-client privilege. In any event, Ginkgo has
`
`already disclosed the underlying facts, including ‘heiT
`
`Impossible’s motion to compel should be denied.
`
`GINKGO0076193-204. The
`
`THE DOCUMENTSAT ISSUE
`
`Laporte Decl.
`
`§ 4.
`
`GINKGO0111385-433 and GINKGO112161-209. The
`
`PowerPoint presentation
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Redacted Sentences Are Privileged Legal Advice. Forboth sets of redactions, the
`underlying communications were from a lawyer(Claire Laporte) to her client (Ginkgo), by and
`through its employees (Ginkgo’s scientists), to advise them on actions to take in view ofthat
`legal advice. (/d. §§ 1-3.) The communicationsare privileged. See Jn re Spalding Sports
`Worldwide, Inc., 203 F.3d 800, 805 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The privilege ‘exists to protect not only
`the giving of professional advice to those whocanact onit, but also the giving of information to
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 27779
`
`399
`the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice.’”); Jn re Teleglobe Commc’ns
`Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 359 (3d Cir. 2007), as amended (Oct. 12, 2007) (explaining privilege
`requirements and defining “privileged persons”as including “the client, the attorney(s), and any
`of their agents that help facilitate attormey-client communicationsor the legal representation”).
`
`While the contents of the advice—teflected in the redacted text—may have been shared between
`Ginkgo employees other than counsel, that does not changeits privileged nature. As explained
`in Shire Dev., Inc. v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., “a document does not even need to be addressed to
`or from an attorney to be privileged-privileged communications may be shared by non-attommey
`employees ‘in order to relay information requested by attorneys,’ and so that the corporation is
`‘properly informed of legal advice and [may] act appropriately.”” No. 10-581-KAJ, 2012 WL
`5247315, at *3 (D. Del. June 15, 2012). This is hardly surprising; in-house lawyers could not do
`theirjob if they had to communicate advice to every single person within a company, and any
`documentwritten by a non-lawyer about the advice they had received would instantly become
`discoverable. That is contrary to “well settled” law in this district. JVVISTA N. Am. S.a.r.1. v.
`M&G USA Corp., No. 11-1007-SLR-CJB, 2013 WL 12171721, at *9 (D. Del. June 25, 2013)
`(collecting cases, including Shire); see, e.g., Idenix Pharms., Inc. v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 195 F.
`Supp. 3d 639, 646 (D. Del. 2016) (citing Shire and finding privilege redactions proper); Sight
`Scis., Inc. v. Ivantis, Inc., No. 21-1317-GBW-SRF, 2023 WL 7458354, at *2 (D. Del. July 3,
`2023) (denying plaintiff's motion to compel production of clawed back documents that did not
`include an attorney because communicationsreflected “the substance of attorney-client
`communications between employees and/or independentconsultants”). Here, the documents
`relay legal advice so that Ginkgo’s scientists would be “properly informedoflegal
`advice.” Shire, 2012 WL 5247315, at *3; (Laporte Decl. §§ 5, 7). The limited redactions are
`thus privileged.
`
`Ginkgo Redacted Legal Advice, Not “Facts”. Impossible argues that Ginkgo1s redacting
`“underlying facts.” Not so. Ginkgo agreesthat facts are not privileged; the vast majority of the
`content of these documentsare thus not redacted. What Ginkgo redacted are specific portions of
`the documents containing or conveying legal advice that the author had received from counsel,
`which given the subject matter, necessarily include technical information. As the court
`explained in Shire, the presence of “technical information contained in communications with
`counsel” does not negate the privilege. Jd. at *4. “Such ‘mixed’ factual and legal
`communications can be privileged.” Jd. Here, the redacted information is privileged—ttis legal
`
`advicevith:rrr
`
`never provide privileged advice on
`a. In Impossible’s view, a lawyercould
`technical issues because that advice would always turn on underlying facts. That is not the law.
`
`In a misguided attempt to compel production, Impossible wronglyasserts that certain facts are
`not found elsewhere in Ginkgo’s productions otherthan in the redactions. First, there is no
`“substantial need” exception to the attorney-client privilege, unlike for attorney work product.
`See UpjohnCo. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 401 (1981). Second, Impossible’s contentions
`cite to other non-privileged documents containing the samefacts, belying any claim of need.
`See Ex. | at 8 (citing GINKGO0074386-391, at 387).)
`
`
`
`
`on these aanpented facts, it can. In seeking to obtain the privileged information,it is clear that
`
`Impossible also has had
`
`for over
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 27780
`
`whatImpossible really wants is to use the legal advice relayed from Ms. Laporte involving facts
`as substantive evidence. That would upend the attorney-client privilege.
`
`Impossible’s Other Arguments Fail. Impossible claims that Ginkgo’s privilege basis is
`insufficient. But Impossible never previously complained aboutthe sufficiency of Ginkgo’s
`privilege description. (See D.I. 447, Exs. G and H.) Nor did Impossible ask for the name of the
`“in-house counsel” during the meet and confer. Had it asked, Ginkgo would have provided Ms.
`Laporte’s name. Impossible’s position on the meet and confer was simply that the redactions
`were “underlying facts.” In any case, this is now moot: Ms. Laporte provided the legal advice fff
`IN (p01 Decl. 151-3)
`
`Impossible also suggests, without legal support, that Ginkgo mustprove that these documents
`were not disseminated outside the privilege. Again, that would upend the attorney-client
`privilege by requiring proofof a negative. Such a theory would giverise to a privilege challenge
`to every document withheld as privileged. Impossible does not argue the documents were
`disseminated beyondthe privilege, and the evidence showsthat the legal advice was provided
`and used in confidence. The
`is
`
`(Laporte Decl. . See In re Teleglobe Commce’ns, 493 F.3d at 359.
`
`Impossible ImproperlyRelies on the Privileged Material. Impossible improperly relies on the
`substance of the clawed-back documents in its motion. See, e.g., D.I. 447 at 2 (quoting redacted
`information), 3 (contesting privilege based on Impossible’s use of the substantive content). But
`the PO only permits Impossible to retain (1) one copy of the privileged documents “for the
`purposesoffiling a motion to contest the privilege claim”and (2)its “subsequently generated”
`infringement contentions (containing unredacted privileged material) while it contests the
`privilege assertion. (See D.I. 186 §§ 14.2, 14.4-14.5.) It does not permit Impossible to (1) rely
`on those “subsequently generated” contentions or (2) submit those contentions into the record.
`(See id. [§ 14.1, 14.6; see also Ex. 4 (Impossible agreeing to request the clawed-back and
`derivative documents be moved in camera).) Ginkgo respectfully requests that the Court
`disregard Exhibits E and F (infringement contentions incorporating the clawed-back documents)
`and Impossible’s improper arguments based on them. (See D.I. 186 § 14.6; D.I. 447 at 2-3.)
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 27781
`
`Dated: April 11, 2024
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
`Daniel M.Silver (#4758)
`Alexandra M. Joyce (#6423)
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N.KingStreet, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`dsilver@mcecarter.com
`ajoyce@mcecarter.com
`
`Attorneysfor Defendant Ginkgo
`Bioworks, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Daralyn J. Durie
`Adam R.Brausa
`Vera Ranieri
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 MarketStreet
`San Francisco, California 94105-2482
`Telephone: (415) 268-7000
`Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
`DDurie@mofo.com
`ABrausa@mofo.com
`VRanieri@mofo.com
`
`Aaron D. Bray
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
`Telephone: (650) 813-5600
`Facsimile: (650) 494-0792
`ABray@mofo.com
`
`Caleb D. Woods
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2100 L Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Telephone: (202) 887-1500
`Facsimile: (202) 887-0763
`CalebWoods@mofo.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 27782
`
`Exhibit 1 –
`REDACTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 27783
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 27784
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 8 of 19 PagelD #: 27784
`
`From:
`To:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Gartman, Cody A.
`lwestin@wsqr.com;iliston@wsar.com; sgagnon@wsgr.com; jramsey@wsar.com; wdevine@wsar.com;
`thanson@wsqr.com; mreed@wsar.com; im
`ible
`motif.
`r.com; krobinson@wsgr.com;
`dmoore@potteranderson.com; epowell@wsar.com; amoshos@potteranderson.com;
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com; cgarrett@wsar.com
`
`Brausa, Adam R.; Ranieri, Vera; Durie, Daralyn J.; Bray, Aaron D.; ajoyce@mccarter.com; dsilver@mccarter.com;
`stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com; sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com; ryanilandes@quinnemanuel.com;
`gemotif@quinnemanuel.com; joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com; sandrahaberny@quinnemanuel.com;
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com; ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com; Gin!
`mofo-service;
`
`christinapablo@quinnemanuel.com; amiller@mccarter.com; Woods, Caleb D.
`Impossible Foods Inc. v. Motif/Ginkgo (1:22-cv-00311-WCB): Ginkgo"s Core Technical Document Production
`Friday, September 22, 2023 3:48:02 PM
`
`Kiteworks
`
`You received 1 file from cgartman@mofo.com
`via Kiteworks
`
`Access files
`
`Counsel,
`
`Please use the link provided to download Ginkgo's core technical document
`production bearing Bates numbers GINKGOO00001 to GINKGO000482. Please
`
`note that all documents have been designated HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - PATENT
`PROSECUTION.
`
`The password to unzip the production will be sent in a separate email.
`
`Thanks,
`
`Cody
`
`File links expire: Oct 07, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 27785
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 9 of 19 PagelD #: 27785
`
`1 compressedfile
`GINKGO001.zip
`
`If you have never used Kiteworks, or have not accessed within 30 days, youwill
`need to create an accountin order to accessthefiles.
`
`Protected by
`
`Kiteworks ( PCN )
`
`a
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 27786
`
`Exhibit 3 –
`REDACTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 27787
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 27788
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 12 of 19 PagelD #: 27788
`
`Bray, Aaron D.
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Tina,
`
`Bray, Aaron D.
`Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:58 AM
`‘Hanson, Tina’; Shaw, Morgan E.; joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com; sandyshen@quinnemanuel.com;
`sandrahaberny@quinnemanuel.com; qemotif@quinnemanuel.com; Brausa, Adam R.;
`stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com; dsilver@mccarter.com; razmesserian@quinnemanuel.com;
`evanpearson@quinnemanuel.com; patrickschmidt@quinnemanuel.com;
`sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com; Durie, Daralyn J.; trevorquist@quinnemanuel.com;
`geoffkirsner@quinnemanuel.com; derekhuish@quinnemanuel.com; ryanlandes@quinnemanuel.com;
`Ranieri, Vera; ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com; ajoyce@mccarter.com; Woods, Caleb D.; Ginkgo-
`mofo-service; JTigan@morrisnichols.com; abigailclark@quinnemanuel.com
`WSGR- Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506); IPservice@potteranderson.com
`RE: Impossible FoodsInc. v. Motif Foodworks,Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22-311-WCB
`
`Thank youfor confirming that Impossible will request that Exhibits A, B, E, and F be removed from the docket and
`resubmitted for in camera review.
`
`That said, we do not believe Impossible is entitled to in camera review, because we do notbelieve it has made the
`requisite showing. See, e.g., Renfield Corp. v. E. Remy Martin & Co., 98 F.R.D. 442, 445 (D. Del. 1982).
`
`Best regards,
`Aaron
`
`AaronD.Bray (he/him)
`Associate
`abray@mofo.com
`T +1 (650) 813-4036
`M +1 (650) 660-4358
`
`HORRISON
`=OERSTER
`
`From: Hanson,Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 10:19 PM
`To: Bray, Aaron D. <ABray@mofo.com>; Shaw, Morgan E. <mshaw@potteranderson.com>;
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com; sandyshen@quinnemanuel.com; sandrahaberny@quinnemanuel.com;
`qemotif@quinnemanuel.com; Brausa, Adam R. <ABrausa@mofo.com>; stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com;
`dsilver@mccarter.com; razmesserian@quinnemanuel.com; evanpearson@quinnemanuel.com;
`patrickschmidt@quinnemanuel.com; sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com; Durie, Daralyn J. <DDurie@mofo.com>;
`trevorquist@quinnemanuel.com; geoffkirsner@quinnemanuel.com; derekhuish@quinnemanuel.com;
`ryanlandes@quinnemanuel.com;Ranieri, Vera <VRanieri@mofo.com>; ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com;
`ajoyce@mccarter.com; Woods, Caleb D. <CalebWoods@mofo.com>; Ginkgo-mofo-service <Ginkgo-mofo-
`service@mofo.com>; JTigan@morrisnichols.com; abigailclark@quinnemanuel.com
`Cc: WSGR - Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com>; IPservice@potteranderson.com
`Subject: RE: Impossible FoodsInc. v. Motif Foodworks,Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22-311-WCB
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 27789
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
`
`Aaron, 
`
`  
`We do not believe an in camera review of the documents is required pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this 
`litigation. Ginkgo apparently did not either as it did not originally request that Impossible withdraw Exhibits A and B and 
`submit them in camera.  Nevertheless, we are amenable to submitting Exhibits A, B, E, and F in camera and will proceed 
`with withdrawing those from the docket and submitting in camera.   
`
`  
`What is the basis for Ginkgo’s position that even an in camera review of the derivative document would be 
`inappropriate?  
`
`  
`Best, 
`Tina 
`  
`
`  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Tina Hanson (she/her)| Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 
`One Market│Spear Tower│San Francisco, CA│94105‐1126 | direct: 415.947.2048 | thanson@wsgr.com  
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`   
`
`  
`From: Bray, Aaron D. <ABray@mofo.com>  
`Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 10:02 AM 
`To: Hanson, Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>; Shaw, Morgan E. <mshaw@potteranderson.com>; 
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com; sandyshen@quinnemanuel.com; sandrahaberny@quinnemanuel.com; 
`qemotif@quinnemanuel.com; Brausa, Adam R. <ABrausa@mofo.com>; stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com; 
`dsilver@mccarter.com; razmesserian@quinnemanuel.com; evanpearson@quinnemanuel.com; 
`patrickschmidt@quinnemanuel.com; sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com; Durie, Daralyn J. <DDurie@mofo.com>; 
`trevorquist@quinnemanuel.com; geoffkirsner@quinnemanuel.com; derekhuish@quinnemanuel.com; 
`ryanlandes@quinnemanuel.com; Ranieri, Vera <VRanieri@mofo.com>; ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com; 
`ajoyce@mccarter.com; Woods, Caleb D. <CalebWoods@mofo.com>; Ginkgo‐mofo‐service <Ginkgo‐mofo‐
`service@mofo.com>; JTigan@morrisnichols.com; abigailclark@quinnemanuel.com 
`Cc: WSGR ‐ Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com>; IPservice@potteranderson.com 
`Subject: RE: Impossible Foods Inc. v. Motif Foodworks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22‐311‐WCB 
`
`  
`EXT ‐ abray@mofo.com
`
`  
`
`Tina, 
`
`  
`To resolve this issue promptly, we request that Impossible submit a request for the clerk to remove Exhibits A, B, E, and 
`F from the docket and submit them in camera.  That is the appropriate manner to present privileged information to a 
`Court in the context of a privilege dispute.   
`
`  
`To be clear, we dispute that Impossible has met the appropriate standard for in camera review, but we will address that 
`in our forthcoming letter. 
`
`  
`Best, 
`Aaron 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 27790
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 14 of 19 PagelD #: 27790
`
`Aaron D. Bray (he/him)
`Associate
`abray@mofo.com
`T +1 (650) 813-4036
`M +1 (650) 660-4358
`
`HORRISON
`=OERSTER
`
`From: Hanson,Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 8:51 AM
`To: Bray, Aaron D. <ABray@mofo.com>; Shaw, Morgan E. <mshaw@potteranderson.com>;
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com; sandyshen@quinnemanuel.com; sandrahaberny@quinnemanuel.com;
`gemotif@quinnemanuel.com; Brausa, Adam R. <ABrausa@mofo.com>; stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com;
`dsilver@mccarter.com; razmesserian@ quinnemanuel.com; evanpearson@quinnemanuel.com;
`patrickschmidt@quinnemanuel.com; sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com; Durie, Daralyn J. <DDurie@mofo.com>;
`trevorquist@ quinnemanuel.com; geoffkirsner@quinnemanuel.com; derekhuish@quinnemanuel.com;
`ryanlandes@quinnemanuel.com;Ranieri, Vera <VRanieri@mofo.com>; ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com;
`ajoyce@mccarter.com; Woods, Caleb D. <CalebWoods@mofo.com>; Ginkgo-mofo-service <Ginkgo-mofo-
`service@mofo.com>; JTigan@morrisnichols.com; abigailclark@quinnemanuel.com
`Cc: WSGR - Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com>; IPservice@potteranderson.com
`Subject: RE: Impossible FoodsInc. v. Motif Foodworks,Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22-311-WCB
`
`
`
`Aaron,
`
`Impossible was entitled, as you acknowledge,to retain the infringement contentions as a derivative documentwhile the
`privilege claim is challenged. The Protective Order doesnot prohibit the use of these derivative documents(D.I. 161, 4
`14.5) pending the Court order. We dispute your claim that we must withdraw ourletter and any reference to the
`infringement contentions. The only statementin the Protective Orderis that if the Court rejects the challenge,
`Impossible must redact the privileged information from the document.
`
`Theprotective order explicitly allows us to retain one copy of the unredacted documentsfor the purposeoffiling a
`motion to contest the privilege claim and that it may be used to present the information to the Court for a
`determination of the claim of privilege. You agree, as you have not asked Impossible to withdraw Exhibits A and B.
`
`To the extent Ginkgo believes that the derivative documents should not be on the docket, we are amenable to
`submitting them in camera if the Court agrees that is appropriate. To be clear, Impossible does not believethis is
`required by the Protective Order.
`
`Best,
`Tina
`
`WILSON
`SUN IN | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`r
`e Market
`@ 2h y
`
`er | San Francisco, CA| 94105-1126 | direct: 415.947.2048 | thanson@wsgr.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 27791
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 15 of 19 PagelD #: 27791
`
`From: Bray, Aaron D. <ABray@mofo.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 5:40 PM
`To: Shaw, Morgan E. <mshaw@potteranderson.com>; joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com;
`sandyshen@quinnemanuel.com; sandrahaberny@quinnemanuel.com; gemotif@quinnemanuel.com; Brausa, Adam R.
`<ABrausa@mofo.com>; stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com;dsilver@mccarter.com; razmesserian@quinnemanuel.com;
`evanpearson@quinnemanuel.com; patrickschmidt@ quinnemanuel.com; sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com; Durie, Daralyn
`J. <DDurie@mofo.com>; trevorquist@quinnemanuel.com; geoffkirsner@quinnemanuel.com;
`derekhuish@quinnemanuel.com; ryanlandes@quinnemanuel.com;Ranieri, Vera <VRanieri@mofo.com>;
`ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com; ajoyce@mccarter.com; Woods, Caleb D. <CalebWoods@mofo.com>; Ginkgo-mofo-
`service <Ginkgo-mofo-service@mofo.com>; JTigan@morrisnichols.com; abigailclark@quinnemanuel.com
`Cc: WSGR- Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com>; |Pservice@potteranderson.com
`Subject: RE: Impossible Foods Inc. v. Motif Foodworks,Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22-311-WCB
`
`EXT - abray@mofo.com|
`
`Counselfor Impossible,
`
`We arein receipt of yourletter (D.I. 447). As Impossible is aware, under the Amended Protective Order, “the
`inadvertent production or disclosure of any documentor thing” does not operate as a waiver, and Impossible “may
`retain only one (1) copy of the documentorthing at issue only for the purposesoffiling a motion to contest the
`privilege claim.” D.I. 186 9] 14.1-14.2 (emphasis added). While Impossible was not required to destroy the derivative
`documents(e.g., the infringement contentions) while it challenged the privilege claim, see id. | 14.5, it was improperfor
`Impossible to file the derivative documents with the Court or otherwise use them for any purpose.
`
`Werequestthat Impossible immediately contact the Court and withdraw Exhibits E and F, and submit a revised letter
`omitting arguments premised on Exhibits E and F.
`
`Regards,
`Aaron
`
`AaronD. Bray (he/him)
`Associate
`abray@mofo.com
`T +1 (650) 813-4036
`M +1 (650) 660-4358
`
`MORRISON
`=OERSTER
`
`From: Shaw, Morgan E. <mshaw@potteranderson.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 1:59 PM
`To: joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com; sandyshen@quinnemanuel.com; sandrahaberny@quinnemanuel.com;
`gemotif@quinnemanuel.com; Brausa, Adam R. <ABrausa@mofo.com>; stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com;
`dsilver@mccarter.com; razmesserian@quinnemanuel.com; evanpearson@quinnemanuel.com; Bray, Aaron D.
`<ABray@mofo.com>; patrickschmidt@quinnemanuel.com; sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com; Durie, Daralyn J.
`<DDurie@mofo.com>; trevorquist@quinnemanuel.com; geoffkirsner@quinnemanuel.com;
`derekhuish@quinnemanuel.com; ryanlandes@quinnemanuel.com; Ranieri, Vera <VRanieri@mofo.com>;
`ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com; ajoyce@mccarter.com; Woods, Caleb D. <CalebWoods@mofo.com>; Ginkgo-mofo-
`service <Ginkgo-mofo-service@mofo.com>; JTigan@morrisnichols.com; abigailclark@quinnemanuel.com
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 27792
`
`Cc: ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com; IPservice@potteranderson.com 
`Subject: Impossible Foods Inc. v. Motif Foodworks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22‐311‐WCB 
`  
`I'm using Mimecast to share large files with you. Please see the attached instructions. 
`
`External Email  
`
`  
`
`  
`I'm using Mimecast to share large files with you. Please see the attached instructions. 
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE INCLUDED IN THIS EMAIL. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Attached is your courtesy copy of the following document which was filed and served through 
`CM/ECF in the above‐referenced action today. 
`
`  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`1. [DI 447] [SEALED] Letter to The Honorable William C. Bryson from Bindu A. Palapura 
`regarding Motion to Contest Privilege Claim. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A‐D, # (2) 
`Exhibit E‐H)(Palapura, Bindu) 
`
`Thank you, 
`
`Morgan 
`
`  
`
` 
`============================================================================ 
`
`
`This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is
`prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. Learn about
`Morrison & Foerster LLP's Privacy Policy.
`.  
`
` 
` 
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the 
`intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly 
`prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the 
`original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.  
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 27793
`
` 
`============================================================================ 
`
`
`This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is
`prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. Learn about
`Morrison & Foerster LLP's Privacy Policy.
`.  
`
` 
` 
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the 
`intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly 
`prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the 
`original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.  
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 27794
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that true and correct copies of the foregoing
`
`document were caused to be served on April 11, 2024 on the following counsel in the manner
`
`indicated below.
`
`BY EMAIL:
`
`David E. Moore
`Bindu A. Palapura
`Andrew M. Moshos
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`dmooore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`amoshos@potteranderson.com
`
`Matthew R. Reed
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`
`Lorelei P. Westin
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`
`Wendy L. Devine
`Kristina Hanson
`Jessica Ramsey
`Susannah M.L. Gagnon
`Joyce K. Yao
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`ME1 48107032v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 478 Filed 04/18/24 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 27795
`
`Jeremy A. Tigan
`Lucinda C. Cucuzella
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`302-351-9106
`JTigan@morrisnichols.com
`ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com
`
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Ryan Landes
`Sandra L. Haberny
`Sarah Cork
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Flr.
`Loos Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`ryanlandes@quinnemanuel.com
`sandrahaberny@quinnemanuel.com
`sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Stephen Q. Wood
`Derek Huish
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 430
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`(801) 515-7300
`stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com
`derekhuish@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motif Foodworks, Inc.
`
`Dated: April 11, 2024
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
` Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`
`ME1 48107032v.1
`
`