Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6299
`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 1 of 9 PagelD #: 6299
`
`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 6300
`
`Geoff Kirsner
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Sarah Cork
`Sunday, April 30, 2023 1:11 AM
`Devine, Wendy; Hanson, Tina; QE Motif; Tigan, Jeremy A.
`WSGR - Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506)
`RE: Impossible Foods v Motif FoodWorks, No. 22-311-WCB
`
`Counsel, 
`
` 
`As a preliminary matter, Motif requests to conduct further discovery correspondence via email to clarify
`the exchange of the parties’ points and responses. Relying on multiple letters from different individuals
`obfuscates the parties’ respective positions and resolution thereof. 
`
` 
`The below email responds to Ms. Ward’s letter dated April 24, 2023 (“April 24 Letter”) and identifies
`certain issues concerning Impossible’s responses to Motif’s RFPs. It addresses Ms. Devine’s proposal
`today (Saturday) at the end of the email directly below; additional responses will follow in due course. We
`also note Ms. Devine’s request today for availability to meet and confer on Monday regarding Impossible’s
`nonsensical demand for documents Motif does not have. We will revert as soon as feasible and request
`Impossible do the same. In light of the additional matters posed below, please provide your availability to
`meet and confer Monday and Tuesday. 
`
` 
`Search Term Exchange and Document Production Deadline: 
`
` 
`In the April 24 Letter (at 1), you state that “Impossible will need more time to prepare its list of search
`terms than the current deadline of April 28, 2023. We hope to be able to provide a new proposed deadline
`by the end of this week.” Notably, it is now the end of the week and Impossible has not proposed a new
`deadline.  
`
` 
`Impossible filed this case on March 9, 2022. Now, more than a year later, Impossible claims it cannot
`meet the April 28, 2023 deadline that Impossible proposed on April 12 (see Letter from W. Devine)—
`more than 2 weeks ago—to exchange search terms under the Default Standard. It is unacceptable that
`Impossible is unable to identify search terms for its production almost five months after the December
`1, 2022 Rule 16 conference. Impossible has failed to produce any meaningful, non-public documents more
`than a year into this case and has not offered any explanation why it cannot exchange search terms to
`even begin collection, review and production. As we have stated in recent meet and confers, Impossible’s
`delays and failure to meaningfully engage in the discovery process essentially ensures that neither party
`will be able to meet the Court’s document production deadline for initial productions, much less
`substantially all documents.  
`
` 
`By contrast, Motif has already provided Core Technical Documents on March 3, 2023, which Impossible
`cites in its infringement contentions, and thousands of pages of additional discovery on March
`24. Although not obligated to do so, Motif provided certain NDAs to you on April 21 at your request. And
`as you know, Motif recently subpoenaed Ginkgo Bioworks to obtain certain technical documents that
`Impossible strangely refuses to seek itself—even though Motif has repeatedly told Impossible that Ginkgo
`is the likely custodian. In contrast, to date, Impossible has produced only a set of public patent-related
`documents on January 2, 2023, a single document accompanying its infringement contentions on April 7,
`and three documents accompanying its discovery responses on April 17. Yet, incredibly, you “believe it is
`premature to adjust the July 7, 2023 deadline to produce documents and do not agree to treat it as a
`‘substantial completion’ deadline at this time.” April 24 Letter at 2.  
`  
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 6301
`To be clear, Impossible’s approach to this lawsuit has made it impossible to meet the July 7 deadline for
`document production. You say you “should” be able to provide a date certain to identify search terms this
`coming Tuesday. Motif reserves all rights if Impossible again reneges. We also request that Impossible
`agree to extend the document production date.  
`
` 
`If Impossible refuses to do so, we expect Impossible to be prepared to address this issue at our next meet
`and confer, as Motif will seek relief from the Court.  
`
` 
`Paragraph 3 Disclosures:  
`
` 
`Regarding Ms. Devine’s proposal in the April 29 email below to exchange paragraph 3 disclosures on
`Monday: Impossible is welcome to provide its disclosures on Monday. Motif is willing to revisit a date to
`provide these disclosures when Impossible provides its search terms, as previously stated in my April 27
`email.
`
`Early Discovery Cutoff Date:  
`
` 
`As you note (April 24 Letter at 1), follow-up discovery should be limited per ¶4(e) of the Default Standard
`absent a showing of good cause. Good cause exists in this case at least because Impossible began selling
`products by 2016, which it will likely contend practice the claims of its asserted patents, and therefore are
`relevant to Impossible’s positions concerning, e.g., purported commercial success and nexus thereto, as
`well as other secondary indicia. Such activities may also be relevant to Motif’s invalidity positions
`concerning, e.g., offers for sale. Additionally, Impossible has put directly at issue its prosecution of the
`patents in suit and related patents dating back to the earliest alleged priority dates. That Impossible is
`refusing to produce documents from these time frames is not acceptable. 
`
` 
`We expect Impossible to be prepared to address this issue at our next meet and confer, as Motif will seek
`relief from the Court.  
`
` 
`Post-Complaint Discovery Cutoff: 
`
` 
`Yet again (April 24 Letter at 1-2), Impossible does not identify a single reason for rejecting Motif’s
`reasonable proposal to limit the scope of the post-filing document production. Motif remains available to
`meet and confer on this issue and negotiate appropriate limits on this discovery.  
`
` 
`Use of Search Terms in Document Collection: 
`
` 
`In the April 24 Letter (at 2), in referring to the collection of third-party documents, Impossible asserts
`that it has “concerns” over Motif’s use of search terms and document custodians—a method of obtaining
`discovery that Impossible has agreed that the parties should use in this case. E.g., Devine Letter
`dated April 12, 2023 at 2; Hanson Letter dated April 18, 2023 at 1. These concerns appear to be
`unfounded, as the letter does not identify any basis to believe that Motif will “forego the obligation to
`produce relevant and responsive documents” as you insinuate. Notably, the same could be said for
`Impossible, especially given that it has not produced a single meaningful document in this case. We are
`willing to meet and confer regarding each parties’ search terms after they are exchanged. 
`
` 
`Impossible RFP Nos. 25-34, 37 (Sample Discovery): 
`
` 
`Impossible’s reply in the April 24 Letter does not respond to Motif’s position as stated in Motif’s April 19,
`2023 Letter. Motif did not ask Impossible to explain how the request for samples was relevant. Motif
`asked Impossible to provide authority supporting the need for samples where Impossible already has
`detailed specifications of the accused products and how the request for samples was proportionate as
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 6302
`required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See Cork Letter dated Apr. 19. Motif remains willing to consider
`legitimate justifications.  
`
` 
`Motif RFP Nos. 37, 44 (Analysis/Investigation of Motif and Related Communications with
`Third Parties): 
`
` 
`Motif’s RFP Nos. 37 and 44 are reproduced below. 
`  
`
`All Documents, Communications, and Things Regarding any investigation or analysis of Motif or
`any of the Accused Products and Accused Processes, including without limitation all
`Communications with any person(s) investigating, researching, or collecting information about
`Motif or any of the Accused Products and Accused Processes.  
`
` 
`All Documents, Communications, and Things comprising business plans, commercialization plans,
`progress reports, milestone reports, development plans, marketing plans, SWOT analyses,
`competitive analyses, or other such similar documents concerning Motif, its marketing strategy, its
`products’ success or reputation, marketplace standing, and product sales objectives. 
`
`
` 
`Impossible responds that it “will produce relevant, non-privileged documents proportionate to the needs of
`the case responsive to this request regarding the Accused Products and Accused Processes to the extent
`they exist …” and eliminates Motif entirely. 
`
` 
`This narrowing would be untenable under any circumstances given that Motif is the defendant in this
`case and the requests contemplate the very basis for the allegations Impossible has leveled at Motif in
`this lawsuit. They also cover discovery that may support claims or defenses Motif may make regarding
`damage it has incurred from Impossible. For example, per Motif’s Subpoena to private investigator(s)
`dated April 25, 2023, Motif is deeply concerned that Impossible is attempting to gain information about
`Motif through illicit means. Impossible’s transparent efforts to shield its improper activities against
`Motif cannot be countenanced. Please promptly confirm that you will not limit the scope of these RFPs to
`exclude materials concerning Motif. 
`
` 
`Motif continues to review Impossible’s RFP responses and will identify further deficiencies thereto in due
`course, as, e.g., Impossible has not yet produced any of its internal documents.  
`
` 
`Regards, 
`Sarah
`
`Sarah Cork, Ph.D. | Quinn Emanuel | (d) 213-443-3633
`
`
`From: Devine, Wendy <wdevine@wsgr.com>  
`Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2023 1:56 PM 
`To: Sarah Cork <sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com>; Hanson, Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>; QE Motif 
`<qemotif@quinnemanuel.com>; Tigan, Jeremy A. <JTigan@morrisnichols.com> 
`Cc: WSGR ‐ Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com> 
`Subject: RE: Impossible Foods v Motif FoodWorks, No. 22‐311‐WCB 
` 
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from wdevine@wsgr.com]
`
`
`
`Sarah, 
`  
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 6303
`
`Your recitation of our past discussions on the default standard disclosures  is inaccurate.  As you may recall, Plaintiff 
`included default standard disclosure deadlines in our original scheduling proposal, which Defendant deleted.  Further, 
`our local counsel discussed default disclosures in December (as they would have been due in January per the default 
`deadlines) and agreed that the parties would forego paragraph 3 disclosures.  Defendant’s choice to skip paragraph 3 
`disclosures was consistent with your deleting them from the draft proposed scheduling order and Plaintiff decided that 
`was acceptable. 
`
`  
`Months later, on March 13, you sent an email indicating that Defendant would now like to discuss an exchange of 
`paragraph 3 disclosures (however, you provided no actual proposed exchange dates).  Given the prior discussion 
`between our respective local counsel and Defendant’s deletion of such deadlines from the draft scheduling order, this 
`was odd.  Our local counsel again discussed with your local counsel who explained that while we had a prior agreement, 
`Defendant would now like to revisit.  In the interest of cooperation, on March 16 we asked you to make a proposal so 
`that we could consider it.  You provided that proposal on March 30th and our related negotiations have followed. 
`
`  
`Thus, this conversation is less than a month old.  It is Defendant who has created delay by reversing course months after 
`we negotiated the schedule and the Court resolved disputes and set deadlines. 
`
`  
`Please refrain from future revisions of history as these emails are a waste of the resources of both sides.   
`
`  
`We are diligently working on our search terms and will provide them shortly.  We should be able to provide you with a 
`date certain on Tuesday.  In the meantime, as you seem to agree that there is no reason to delay the remainder of 
`paragraph 3 disclosures, we suggest that the parties exchange those on Monday.  Please confirm. 
`
`  
`Regards, 
`
`  
`Wendy 
`
`  
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Wendy Devine | Partner | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 
`One Market Plaza Spear Tower Suite 3300 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | direct: 415.947.2027 | 
`mobile: 858.527.8101 | wdevine@wsgr.com 
`              
`   
`  
`  
`
`  
`From: Sarah Cork <sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com>  
`Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2023 9:44 AM 
`To: Devine, Wendy <wdevine@wsgr.com>; Hanson, Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>; QE Motif 
`<qemotif@quinnemanuel.com>; Tigan, Jeremy A. <JTigan@morrisnichols.com> 
`Cc: WSGR ‐ Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com> 
`Subject: RE: Impossible Foods v Motif FoodWorks, No. 22‐311‐WCB 
`
`  
`EXT ‐ sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com 
`
`  
`
`Wendy, 
`
` 
`Nowhere did my Apr. 27 email state or otherwise suggest that “Motif believes that that search terms
`must be disclosed simultaneously with identification of non-custodial data sources and the notices
`required by Default Standard paragraph 3c.” The practical reality is, however, that Impossible has failed
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6304
`to engage in good faith in the discovery process, ensuring that the parties will be challenged to collect,
`review and produce even initial productions by the July 7 document production deadline, much less
`complete substantial production. Impossible has not made any meaningful production nor does it seem to
`be attempting to comply even with the first steps of providing search terms sufficiently in advance of this
`deadline.  
`
` 
`ESI review and production cannot happen without the search term exchange, so again, please provide the
`date certain on which Impossible will provide its terms or else let us know when you are available
`Monday to meet and confer.  
`
` 
`Regards,  
`Sarah 
`
` 
`Sarah Cork, Ph.D. | Quinn Emanuel | (d) 213-443-3633 
`
` 
`From: Devine, Wendy <wdevine@wsgr.com>  
`Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 10:04 AM 
`To: Sarah Cork <sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com>; Hanson, Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>; QE Motif 
`<qemotif@quinnemanuel.com>; Tigan, Jeremy A. <JTigan@morrisnichols.com> 
`Cc: WSGR ‐ Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com> 
`Subject: RE: Impossible Foods v Motif FoodWorks, No. 22‐311‐WCB 
`  
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from wdevine@wsgr.com] 
`
`
`
` 
`
`Sarah, 
`
`  
`Please explain why Motif believes that that search terms must be disclosed simultaneously with identification of non‐
`custodial data sources and the notices required by Default Standard paragraph 3c and provide any authority that 
`supports your position. 
`
`  
`Regards, 
`
`  
`Wendy 
`
`  
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Wendy Devine | Partner | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 
`One Market Plaza Spear Tower Suite 3300 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | direct: 415.947.2027 | 
`mobile: 858.527.8101 | wdevine@wsgr.com 
`              
`   
`  
`  
`
`  
`From: Sarah Cork <sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 8:41 PM 
`To: Hanson, Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>; QE Motif <qemotif@quinnemanuel.com>; Tigan, Jeremy A. 
`<JTigan@morrisnichols.com> 
`Cc: WSGR ‐ Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com> 
`Subject: RE: Impossible Foods v Motif FoodWorks, No. 22‐311‐WCB 
`  
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 6305
`
`EXT ‐ sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com 
`
`  
`
`Counsel, 
`
` 
`Given that Impossible has not yet provided its search terms, has reneged on its own April 12 proposal to
`exchange search terms on April 28, and has provided no date certain on which it will actually provide the
`search terms, it will be impractical for the parties to provide Paragraph 3 disclosures on April 28. Motif is
`willing to revisit a date to provide these disclosures when Impossible provides its search terms.  
`
` 
`Motif will respond to Impossible’s positions in Ms. Ward’s April 24 discovery letter in due course. In the
`meantime, please provide a date certain by which Impossible proposes providing its search terms, or
`otherwise let us know a time on Monday when Impossible is available to meet and confer. Motif reserves
`all rights. 
`
` 
`Regards, 
`Sarah 
`
` 
`Sarah Cork, Ph.D. | Quinn Emanuel | (d) 213-443-3633 
`
` 
`From: Hanson, Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>  
`Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 3:45 PM 
`To: Sarah Cork <sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com>; QE Motif <qemotif@quinnemanuel.com>; Tigan, Jeremy A. 
`<JTigan@morrisnichols.com> 
`Cc: WSGR ‐ Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com> 
`Subject: RE: Impossible Foods v Motif FoodWorks, No. 22‐311‐WCB 
`  
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from thanson@wsgr.com] 
`
`
`
` 
`
`Sarah, 
`
`  
`We agree to exchanging the disclosures pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Default Standard on Friday, April 28. 
` 
`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: Sarah Cork <sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com>  
`Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 2:57 PM 
`To: Hanson, Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>; QE Motif <qemotif@quinnemanuel.com>; Tigan, Jeremy A. 
`<JTigan@morrisnichols.com> 
`Cc: WSGR ‐ Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com> 
`Subject: RE: Impossible Foods v Motif FoodWorks, No. 22‐311‐WCB 
`  
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 6306
`
`EXT ‐ sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com 
`
`  
`
`Counsel, 
`
` 
`Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Motif identifies the following ten document custodians: 
`  
`
`Mike Leonard 
`
`John McIntyre 
`Janet Collins 
`
`Dilek Uzunalioglu 
`
`Philippe Prochasson 
`
`Michel (Mike) Saba 
`
`Nilofer Ahmed 
`
`CEO
`(formerly CTO) 
`Former CEO 
`Senior Vice President,
`Regulatory, Government & Industry Affairs 
`Senior Director,
`Food Discovery & Design 
`Vice President,
`Biosciences & Analytics 
`Former Vice President,
`Supply Chain Operations 
`Senior Director,
`Sales, Insights & Marketing 
`Senior Accountant 
`Former Head of Bioprocess 
`Former Director of Business Development 
`
`Brooke Holdgate 
`Michael Tai 
`Julie Post-Smith 
`
`
` 
`As the parties did not previously discuss a date to complete other disclosures under paragraph 3 of the
`Default Standard, we propose providing the remaining disclosures on April 28. Please confirm whether
`this is acceptable.  
`
` 
`Regards, 
`Sarah 
`
` 
`Sarah Cork, Ph.D. | Quinn Emanuel | (d) 213-443-3633 
`
` 
`From: Hanson, Tina <thanson@wsgr.com>  
`Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 2:19 PM 
`To: Sarah Cork <sarahcork@quinnemanuel.com>; QE Motif <qemotif@quinnemanuel.com>; Tigan, Jeremy A. 
`<JTigan@morrisnichols.com> 
`Cc: WSGR ‐ Impossible Foods/Motif (54510.506) <ImpossibleFoods/Motif@wsgr.com> 
`Subject: Impossible Foods v Motif FoodWorks, No. 22‐311‐WCB 
`  
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from thanson@wsgr.com] 
`
`
`
` 
`
`  
`  
`  
`
`Counsel, 
`
`  
`Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, as memorialized in the correspondence, Impossible identifies the following ten 
`custodians: 
`  
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 117-3 Filed 06/22/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 6307
`
`  
`  
`  
`  
`  
`  
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`  
`If Defendant intends to exchange Paragraph 3 disclosures pursuant to the Default Standard for Discovery, Impossible is 
`prepared to do so. 
` 
`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  
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`   
`  
` 
` 
`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.  
` 
` 
`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.  
` 
` 
`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.  
` 
` 
`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.  
`
`8
`
`