Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 485 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 27986
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-311-WCB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))))
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC. and
`GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.’S REPLY LETTER BRIEF TO
`HONORABLE WILLIAM C. BRYSON IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO CONTEST PRIVILEGE CLAIM
`
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew M. Moshos (#6685)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`amoshos@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Wendy L. Devine
`Kristina M. Hanson
`Shannon P. Gillespie McComb
`Jessica Ramsey
`Joyce K. Yao
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: (415) 947-2000
`
`Matthew R. Reed
`Jeffrey Nall
`Quincy Rush
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`
`Lori P. Westin
`Natalie J. Morgan
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 350-2300
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 485 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 27987
`
`
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Sonja R. Gerrard
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Tel: (206) 883-2529
`
`Matthew Macdonald
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI, P.C.
`953 East Third Street, Suite 100
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Tel: (323) 210-2953
`
`Dated: April 12, 2024
`11445383/ 20200.00002
`Public Version Dated: April 19, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 485 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 27988
`
`Dear Judge Bryson:
`For the reasons that follow, Impossible Foods respectfully requests that the Court grant this
`motion to compel production of Ginkgo’s strategic redactions of material evidence.
`
`Ginkgo’s opposition fails to establish that the redactions cover privileged information. Resp. at
`2. The documents themselves are not addressed to a lawyer; the documents do not contain an
`express or implied request for legal advice; Ms. Laporte does not attest that she authored any
`portion of the documents. The sole support that Ginkgo offers is the entirely conclusory
`assertion in Ms. Laporte’s declaration that the redacted portions “reflect” legal advice that she
`provided. (See, e.g., Laporte Decl. ¶ 7.) But the challenged statements are not legal advice; they
`are purely factual recitations
`. Even if
`
` is not privileged, and Ginkgo cites
`no authority that would permit it to privilege wash that fact with a post-hoc reflection of the
`purpose. See Shire Dev. Inc. v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., C.A. No. 10-581-KAJ, 2012 WL
`5247315, at *3 (D. Del. June 15, 2012) (finding privilege “does not protect disclosure of the
`underlying facts by those who communicated with the attorney”).1
`
`The facts at issue cannot be found in other sources. Ginkgo generally characterizes the
`statements redacted from both documents as
` Resp. at 1. But the
`redacted sentences in both documents describe
`
`
` Ginkgo’s cited reference
`
`(GINKGO0074386-391, at 387) does not contain a clean admission that
` Nor do Ginkgo’s other disclosures (such as
`the genetic sequences of the Accused Yeast Strains and biological samples of the yeast strains)
`contain the kind of simple admission that is contained here. Id. (citing GINKGO000463-482). If
`Ginkgo wants to attest to this fact under oath, this privilege dispute would become moot.
`
`
`Ginkgo has not met its burden to show that privilege has not been waived at least for
` documents. See Pettingill v. Caldwell, C.A. No. 05-224,
`2006 WL 2439842, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2006) (to establish attorney-client privilege requires
`that privilege has not been waived). Neither Ginkgo’s response nor the affidavit provide any
`indication of the audience for the
`. Moyer v. Moyer, 602 A.2d 68, 72
`(Del. 1992) (the burden of proving that the privilege applies to a particular communication is on
`the party asserting the privilege). Instead, Ginkgo argues that the presentation was produced
`from its custodians, which, of course, is the source of all collected documents and does not
`establish the scope of disclosure.
`
`Ginkgo’s interpretation of the Protective Order is incorrect. Impossible’s contentions are
`germane to the Court’s determination of privilege. Ginkgo selectively redacted only information
`relied upon by Impossible in the contentions. Impossible is relying on facts, not legal advice,
`and the contentions indicate how the facts are relevant to Impossible’s infringement arguments.
`
`1 Impossible is not challenging statements in the Reports that say (in words or in substance) that
`. Impossible challenges only the privilege redactions
`.
`
`of factual recitations
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 485 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 27989
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Bindu A. Palapura
`
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`
`
`
`BAP/mes/11445383/20200.00002
`
`Enclosures
`cc:
`Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery)
`
`Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`