Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 484 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 27981
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.,
`
` C.A. No. 22-311-WCB
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC. and
`GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY LETTER TO THE HONORABLE WILLIAM C. BRYSON FROM DANIEL M.
`SILVER, ESQ. REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONCERNING GINKGO’S
`REQUEST TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE SLACK MESSAGES
`
`ME1 48121479v.1
`
`REDACTED
`PUBLIC VERSION FILED APRIL 19, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 484 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 27982
`
`Dear Judge Bryson:
`
`Rather than refute Ginkgo’s letter, Impossible’s response confirms that Impossible should be
`ordered to search and produce documents from Slack. Ginkgo diligently sought to resolve this
`issue in meet and confer efforts for months. Ginkgo should not be denied relief because
`Impossible did not do basic diligence until it was forced to by a motion. Given the quickly
`approaching close of fact discovery, Impossible’s attempt to avoid discovery through delay should
`be rejected.
`
`Impossible’s response confirms that significant Slack data from relevant custodians and channels
`1 Given this volume of data associated
`exists:
`with directly relevant custodians, it is unlikely that Slack contains no relevant information.
`
`Impossible argues that its non-Slack documents demonstrate Slack’s irrelevance. Far from it.
`Notably absent from Impossible’s discussion are Ex. 6 at IF_0261305, Ex. 7 at IF_0265618, and
`Ex. 10 at IF_0263917, which are substantive and relevant. Impossible discusses Ex. 8, but only to
`point out someone asking a potentially “dumb question.” But the answer could relate to how
`important the Yeast Patents are to Impossible’s business. Also, while some documents may relate
`to the Food Patents case, there is no reason to think similar conversations did not occur relating to
`the Yeast Patents case. Review of the limited documents Ginkgo has available to it show
`substantive Slack conversations occurred, including several relevant to this case.
`
`Impossible’s response also confirms that Slack data is likely not duplicative. Impossible failed to
`submit any declarations from its custodians substantiating its argument, presumably because it
`cannot. One of the custodians,
`
`
`
`
` Impossible also admits that its custodians use Slack
`in various ways, conceding that some of those ways may be substantive and not duplicative. It
`must, given that Ex. 10 shows one of the named inventors using Slack for substantive—not
`“incidental”—purposes. In light of the volume of data, it is virtually certain that at least some of
`Impossible’s custodians use Slack to have relevant, non-duplicative communications.
`
`Impossible argues burden but admits it has the data in hand and does not dispute that reviewing
`Slack data is no more burdensome than reviewing emails. Impossible brought this case in federal
`court and subjected Ginkgo to the costs of litigating. Ginkgo, the defendant, had no choice but to
`comply with discovery at substantial cost. Impossible cannot run from its own discovery
`obligations even if there are costs associated with them. Nor does the fact that Impossible omitted
`Slack from its non-custodial data sources to be searched provide it any cover; if anything, it calls
`into question the sufficiency of Impossible’s initial investigation given how voluminous the data
`is. Relevant Slack communications should be produced.
`
`1 To be clear, this appears to be the volume of data before search terms are applied. Thus, the
`volume of data Impossible would review is likely less, even significantly so.
`
`ME1 48121479v.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 484 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 27983
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
`
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`
`cc: Counsel of Record (via E-Mail)
`
`ME1 48121479v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 484 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 27984
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that true and correct copies of the foregoing
`
`document were caused to be served on April 12, 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 48121063v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 484 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 27985
`
`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 12, 2024
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
` Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`
`ME1 48121063v.1
`
`