Motion for Protective Order in Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc. vs. Thomas Scientific, Llc| Trellis.Law

On October 17, 2022 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc., and Thomas Scientific, Llc, for Business Litigation in the District Court of Suffolk County.

Preview
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Vv. Civil Action No. 2284CV02372-BLS2

THOMAS SCIENTIFIC, LLC,

Defendant.

GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.’S OPPOSITION
TO THOMAS SCIENTIFIC, LLC’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

INTRODUCTION

This action arises because Thomas Scientific sold a large quantity of defective products to

Ginkgo and then refused to refund any of Ginkgo’s money or reach another commercially

reasonable resolution. The action also concerns the unfair and deceptive trade practices Thomas

Scientific deployed when Ginkgo tried to address the quality issues it was experiencing with the

defective products — practices that enhanced Thomas Scientific’s apparent value as its then owner

was shopping the company.

The four deposition topics as to which Thomas Scientific seeks a protective order relate to

Thomas Scientific’s corporate structure and financial condition at the time it was selling defective

filter tips. Thomas Scientific concealed the existence and nature of the defects from Ginkgo even

after its contract manufacturer conducted an internal analysis that confirmed the defects and

pinpointed their causes. Ginkgo seeks testimony relating to Topic Nos. 7-10 to understand the

reasons for Thomas Scientific’s stonewalling and willful and knowing intent. Such information is
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

unquestionably relevant to the subject matter of this action, including Ginkgo’s claim under G.L.

c. 93A, §§2, 11.
Apparently recognizing the potential relevance of the information Ginkgo is seeking,

Thomas Scientific has produced audited financial statements, slide decks, and other financial

documents that relate to disputed Topic Nos. 7-10. In moving for a protective order, Thomas

Scientific is trying to prevent Ginkgo from asking questions about documents that Thomas

Scientific has already produced.

Thomas Scientific asserts that it was “left with no choice” but to bring this motion. (Def.’s

Mem. at 1.) Under the rules, however, Thomas Scientific also had no choice but to submit an

affidavit or other evidence demonstrating the “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

burden or expense” that it would suffer were it to answer questions about the four topics. Mass.

R. Civ. P. 26(c). Thomas Scientific has not even attempted to make the requisite “good cause”

showing to warrant the issuance of a protective order, and its motion should be denied.

BACKGROUND

A The tips Thomas Scientific sold to Ginkgo were marred by manufacturing
defects that Thomas Scientific refused to acknowledge.

Boston-based Ginkgo is the world’s largest horizontal platform for biological engineering.

Ginkgo’s platform enables the design and biosynthesis of products from therapeutics to food

ingredients to chemicals. Ginkgo’s stock is publicly traded, and Ginkgo has customers across all

sectors of the biologics industry, from biopharma giants such as Biogen and Novo Nordisk to

chemical companies such as Sumitomo. Ginkgo’s platform enables the detection of biological

risks such as viral pathogens, and Ginkgo has established a global network of pathogen monitoring,

or bioradar.
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

Thomas Scientific characterizes itself as the “gold standard in scientific and laboratory

products.”! Since December 2021, Thomas Scientific has been owned by Broad Sky Partners,

private equity firm.” Thomas Scientific is a roll-up of at least six previously independent supply

distributors? Its CEO is Stanley Haas.

Ginkgo brought this action after buying several million dollars’ worth of defective filter

tips that Thomas Scientific marketed as being “Hamilton-Compatible” — i.e., compatible with

Hamilton-brand liquid handling robots. Ginkgo purchased the tips from Thomas Scientific in

connection with its research to develop a high-throughput sequencing test to detect SARS CoV-2

—a test that relied on Hamilton robots to handle liquid samples. (/d.) The tips were manufactured

by Thomas Scientific’s supplier, Hangzhou Gene Era Biotech Co. Ltd (“GEB”). (/d. at 49.) After

putting the tips into use in its high-throughput COVID diagnostic workflows, Ginkgo discovered

that the tips didn’t properly fit the Hamilton robots and, in fact, caused the robots to crash. (Compl.

418-9.)

On March 3, 2021, seven of Ginkgo’s Hamilton robots that had been fitted with GEB filter

tips purchased from Thomas Scientific crashed during a test of a high-volume sequencing

workflow. (Compl. 14.) Ginkgo investigated the crashes and discovered that many of the tips

were at least 0.1 millimeter narrower in diameter and approximately one millimeter longer in

length than Hamilton-manufactured tips. (/d. at {16.) As a result of these deviations, the tips that

caused the robots to crash did not mount on the robots properly. (/d. at 415.) The crash so startled

and unnerved the engineers responsible for the robots that they referred to it as the “Cataclysm.”

) https://www.thomassci.com/blog/_/haas-
ceo#:~:text=In%20December%202021%2C%20Thomas%20Scientific,business%20services%20and%20consumer
%20companies.
2 Id.
3 https://www.thomassci.com/blog/_/Day-Associates-Acquisition
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

On March 9, 2021, Ginkgo notified Thomas Scientific of the crash. (/d. at 20.) Thereafter,

Ginkgo audited its inventory of tips and, on June 10, 2021, conferred with representatives of

Thomas Scientific and GEB. (/d. at 22, 28.) During the June 10, 2021 conference, Ginkgo

proposed a detailed quality control plan, which included testing procedures as well as statistical

sampling of the tips in its inventory based on standards endorsed by the American Society for

Quality. (d. at 28.) Ginkgo’s plan included measuring the inner diameter and length of a

sampling of tips. (/d.)

Thomas Scientific and GEB rejected Ginkgo’s proposed quality control plan and took the

position that the tips had to be measured against GEB’s specifications, not against the dimensions

of the Hamilton tips they were intended to replace. (/d. at {29.) On June 24, 2021, Thomas

Scientific represented to Ginkgo that GEB had conducted its own testing on tips from the same

lots as the tips the caused Ginkgo’s robots to crash and determined that the tips were not defective.

(/d.) Thomas Scientific and GEB did not supply these supposed test results to Ginkgo. (/d.)

Thomas Scientific refused to provide Ginkgo a refund for the defective tips or agree to a reasonable

compromise of the matter. (/d. at {28-37.)

Ginkgo has learned in discovery that the problems with the tips were not merely the result

of GEB manufacturing them to erroneous diameter and length specifications. Rather, the defects

in the tips were caused by multiple manufacturing errors and a substandard quality control process

by GEB. Ginkgo was not the only customer to complain about the quality of tips manufactured

by GEB; many others also did. By March 2021, a Thomas Scientific consultant told its
od
management that he was “seeing extreme lot to lot variability on most of the tips now.

* Stanley Haas Dep. Ex. 23 at TSCI 000004484 (attached as Exhibit A to Affidavit of Euripides Dalmanieras
“Dalmanieras Aff.”).
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

In late 2020 and again in February 2021, another Thomas Scientific customer, Invitae

Corp., reported that GEB’s purportedly Hamilton-compatible tips were “dropping” off their

robots.” Thomas Scientific reported the problem to GEB, which conducted a root cause analysis

and issued a report dated April 15, 2021. In this report, which was not disclosed to Ginkgo, GEB

acknowledged, among other things, that the inner diameter of the tip “was too small” and, as a

result, the tip “couldn’t reach to the correct position’ 9.6:

Root al
AWHY, Why the tips abepiee Gan the pipetting head?
Answer: The inner diameter of the larger tip opening was too small, leading to
_ higher fitting/ejection forces. The pipetting hy ead couldnt reach to the correct
position.

2WHY. Why the fitting/ejection force becomes too. large?
Answer: After the moid injection, the shrinking of the large opening of the tips
is too much.

3WHY: Why the shrinking was too much?
Answer: During the mold injection, the mold pressure might be kept too short
and/or mold temperature was kept too high. Multiple reasons.

The too-small diameter was one of the problems that Ginkgo experienced with the tips that

crashed its robots. GEB identified “multiple reasons” why “the shrinking of the large opening of

the tips [was] too much.” GEB asserted that it had taken corrective actions to address these issues.’

GEB also claimed that it had added a new quality control (“QC”) procedure to “monitor the

998
variations of the inner diameters during production.

5 April 21, 2021 email and attachments from Phillip Wikoffof Thomas Scientific, at TSCI 000041106, 000041120
(attached as Exhibit B to Dalmanieras Aff.).
© Id. at TSCI 000041107.
7 Id. at TSCI 000041109.
8 Id. at TSCI 000041118; id. at TSCI 00004113 (“Inner Diameters Quickly Inspected by Simple PIN fitting”).
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

All the tips that Ginkgo purchased from Thomas Scientific were manufactured before GEB

identified the root causes of the defects and allegedly implemented the new QC procedure and

other corrective actions. But at no time did Thomas Scientific acknowledge to Ginkgo that

manufacturing defects were the root cause of the problems with the tips Ginkgo had purchased.

To the contrary, Thomas Scientific concealed that information. On June 10, 2021, following the

conference where Ginkgo presented its quality control plan to Thomas Scientific and GEB,

Thomas Scientific’s Quality Director, Phil Wikoff, sent an email to his colleagues confirming that

the problem with Ginkgo’s inventory of tips was the “too-small orifice,” that none of those tips

were manufactured before GEB instituted the new QC inspection step, and that at least some of

the lots of tips in Ginkgo’s inventory would fail functional testing:?

i can confirm the too-smail orifice that does not seat on the pipetting head is the root cause of the
majority of complaints Thomas has received on the M376 tip.

By way of Invitae’s issues, GEB was informed in March of the M370 fit issues and on 3/15, instituted
additional checks with a tool that must clear the tip opening. | have attached the Inspection SOP for that
step. None of the material in Gingko’s inventory has had this QC inspection step. | have similar
complaints against M371 and M372 but fewer than M370.

When we briefly were shown the tables of lots Gingko had in inventory, | noticed the majority carne
from lots manufactured in Late 2020. I'd like te caution what we already know--some of these lots will
fail their testing and between Thomas and GEB, we should be ready with our plan for handling any
material from lots failed in their functional testing.

Instead of working constructively to resolve the problems Ginkgo was experiencing,

Thomas Scientific withheld material information from Ginkgo, including that: (a) Thomas

Scientific knew about the nature and existence of the defects in the manufacture of Ginkgo’s

inventory of tips, (b) other tips customers had experienced the same problems, and (c) GEB had

instituted a QC procedure to detect defects in future manufactured lots. Rather than being

? Meg Saritoglu Dep. Ex. 19 at TSCI 000013442-13443 (attached as Exhibit C to Dalmanieras Aff.).
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

forthcoming with one of its key customers, Thomas Scientific claimed that the problem was

somehow related to Ginkgo’s specifications, a position that was nonsensical given the “Hamilton-

compatible” marketing under which Thomas Scientific was selling the tips. Even as Thomas

Scientific stonewalled Ginkgo, its internal communications were clear that the tips had failed

because of manufacturing defects.

B While it was selling defective tips in 2021, Thomas Scientific was being
shopped around by its former owner.

Thomas Scientific had a financial motive to stonewall Ginkgo and refuse to refund the

millions of dollars that Ginkgo had paid. In 2020, Thomas Scientific’s then owner, the private

equity firm Carlyle, began shopping the company in a sale process called Project Thunder. Broad

Sky Partners, another private equity firm, purchased the company in December 2021.'° Thus,

Thomas Scientific was in the process of being sold during the time it was concealing the

manufacturing defects and refusing to refund Ginkgo’s money.

Thomas Scientific has produced PowerPoint presentations that were created during Project

Thunder containing slides depicting, among other things, monthly sales, cost of goods sold, gross

” Stanley Haas Dep. 111:8-112:16 (attached as Exhibit D to Dalmanieras Aff.)
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

margins, and EBITDA. Below is an example of such a slide with November 2020 financial data:!!

if
A FC a 1OP.
OF. veres nen a see
Sales 43393 44440 15.098 48,892 493 2386 ATS Koy divers HAS (88 8. Qi 5), Path {2.0}, Briige (1.3), Ohio
(1 2)
COGs 2888 30704 14.599 13,768 268) 13.289 102 8% Hele (0 8, Ginko (8); Semad (9 7), H toed Hospital {0 5}
Bo
Product GM 35,506 13.486 467 4355, 2019 10.877 260% HES 6 Quid af > 55%, rd SHEE brad Swab in OpEx
GM% 35% 32.5% RI 274% 5.2% 68% aoe $5 adja inventory (7). Swab \Jil (43 plus FEMA / Sequota (0.7)

Rebates 407) oH 9} 1B) ih (128) 82) 81% Booking at 9 pace to realize TY view of $1 9M
Freight in 3883 er a5 aor 23 3423 80 7 Freight sales - charters offsetting Mclean at spol rate: volume and timing
% ae 3.0% 5 4.3% 50% 61% 41%
Freight out 0m) 373 a8 (686) aa Better recovery and HHS vontiactual if woouery (St
o4% Oe A5% on 18%
Gross Margin 224 A788 4102 4584 8082" ~ ae
GM% 201%. Bae IK 224% 0.6 21% 5.8% Primarily GU fall through on higher (et height rates
OpEx 3948 $04? 327 3.082, 80) 588 BS ‘S7HOKlft hom FICA comection: $1.53 1 4P swab bootest fo COGS vs 0
% 130% 208% 19.2%2 A 114% AK

Op cerTDA $268 6,008 885 2260 1383 1545.6% Top line itt ari accrebiee GHP
% 19.1% 145% Si 32 46% 135% 5
Other Expenses a ae 2 a on 23 all @ nn(26) ANM Cheett rent, Boll Fees
Bank EBYDA 6,246 87 3 2280 7,409 FAV
EBITDA% So 5% 23% 46% 13 67%

Mr. Haas has testified that these presentations contained data that would show potential

buyers what “we [Thomas Scientific] were expecting from income that would be sales and margin

ol
and EBITDA that would have eventually led to having discussions with interested parties.

These presentations also contained a slide titled “Key Deals Playbooks,” which summarized sales

13
with large customers including Ginkgo. In addition, Thomas Scientific has produced audited

financial statements for certain fiscal years.'*

As part of Project Thunder, Thomas Scientific crafted a “crisp story” around each of its top

customers, including Ginkgo.'* Thomas Scientific deemed these narratives to be “one of the most

1 Stanley Haas Dep. Ex. 17 at TSCI 000022708 (attached as Exhibit E to Dalmanieras Aff.).
Haas Dep. at 111:15-112:3 (attached as Exhibit D to Dalmanieras Aff.).
13 Haas Dep. Ex. 17 at TSCI 000022711 (attached as Exhibit E to Dalmanicras Aff.).
14 Ginkgo will produce a copy of the audited financial statements, which Thomas Scientific has stamped confidential
under the protective order, to the Court upon request.
18 Haas Dep. Ex. 20 (discussing Ginkgo at TSCI 000022953-54) (attached as Exhi F to Dalmanieras Aff.).
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

important walks that the bidders will want to do to truly understand our momentum and nuances

of where demand is com[ing] from today and going forward.”!® Had Thomas Scientific been

truthful with Ginkgo, or adhered to its obligations under Massachusetts law, its story about Ginkgo

would not have been “crisp.” Neither Carlyle nor Thomas Scientific had any incentive to make a

substantial refund that would have dented Thomas Scientific’s EBITDA.

C. The incomplete Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Thomas Scientific.

On January 30, 2024, Ginkgo deposed Mr. Haas in his individual capacity and as Thomas

Scientific’s corporate representative to testify about topics listed in Ginkgo’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice.

Thomas Scientific’s counsel stated on the record that Mr. Haas would not testify about Topics 7-

10 because those topics were “subject to potential forthcoming motion practice[.]”!? Mr. Haas

testified that he spent “[a] few hours” preparing for the deposition “review[ing] certain documents

and [having] discussions with counsel.”!* At the end of the day, Ginkgo suspended Mr. Haas’s

deposition pending resolution of Thomas Scientific’s motion for a protective order.

ARGUMENT

A Thomas Scientific has failed to carry its burden under Rule 26(c).

The motion should be denied because Thomas Scientific has made no showing to satisfy

its burden under Rule 26(c). Ginkgo “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the

claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party[.]”

Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The ‘spirit of [Rule 26(b)(1)] . .. affords broad latitude in the discovery

of relevant information and is not limited to the issues raised in the pleadings or to the merits of

16 Td.
17 Haas Dep. at 10:18-11:4 (attached as Exhibit D to Dalmanieras Aff.).
18 Td. at 11:6-12.
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

the case.” Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Urban Insulation, Inc., No. 1884-cv-01534-BLS1, 2020

Mass. Super. Lexis 136, **4-5 (Sept. 23, 2020) (emphasis supplied) (quoting Alphas Co. Inc. v.

Kilduff, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 104, 116 (2008) in denying motion for protective order to block

deposition).

Thomas Scientific has the burden of showing that a protective order is necessary to protect

it “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Mass. R. Civ. P.

26(c). Thomas Scientific has not submitted any evidence to satisfy that standard. Instead, it makes

conclusory and generic claims of harm overlaid with relevance objections.

These arguments are without merit. “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Lord v. Grove Mfg.

Co., No. 93-176, 1993 Mass. Super. LEXIS 241, at *2-3 (June 29, 1993) (quoting Cipollone v.

Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986)) (internal citations omitted). “Moreover,

the harm must be significant, not a mere trifle.” /d. (citing Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 894 (2d

Cir. 1982)). Mere relevance objections, without more, do not satisfy the “good cause”

requirement. See, e.g., Urrea v. New Neg. Tea & Coffee Co., CA 98-6030, 2000 Mass. Super.

LEXIS 690, at * (Sept. 1, 2000) (“Discovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, nor

to the merits of the case, for discovery itself helps to define and clarify these disputed issues.”)

(citing Cronin v. Strayer, 392 Mass. 525, 534 (1984)). Thomas Scientific has not carried its burden

as to any of the four topics it seeks to strike.

Topic No. 7. Thomas Scientific contends, without basis, that its corporate structure,

including parents, affiliates, and subsidiaries, is “irrelevant confidential corporate information.”

(Def.’s Mem. at 5.) Its position is groundless. See G&F Indus. v. Jeffco, Inc., 04-0581, 2006

Mass. Super. LEXIS 12, at *5 (Jan. 30, 2006) (rejecting confidentiality objection where party from

10
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

whom discovery was requested failed “to offer any underlying facts to support its claim of

confidentiality”). Thomas Scientific discloses on its own website that “in December 2021, Thomas

2219
Scientific was acquired by Broad Sky Partners, a private equity firm and publicizes its

acquisitions.*° Thus, Thomas Scientific has placed into the public record information about one

of its beneficial owners, corporate structure, and potential affiliates.

As the plaintiff in this case, Ginkgo seeks to understand Thomas Scientific’s corporate

structure because such information is likely relevant to understanding what people or entities made

business decisions for Thomas Scientific; and whether Thomas Scientific up-streams or down-

streams its profits to a parent, controlling shareholder, or subsidiary. Such information would be

relevant to Ginkgo’s damages and trial strategies.

If Thomas Scientific had legitimate confidentiality concerns, they would be adequately

addressed by the stipulated protective order entered by the Court, which allows the parties to

designate deposition testimony as confidential and restrict its dissemination. (See Endorsement

on Docket No. 9.) To date, Thomas Scientific has not designated any portion of the transcripts of

the six current and former Thomas Scientific employees that Ginkgo has deposed.

Topic No. 8. This topic seeks testimony about Thomas Scientific’s “annual revenue and

profit margins on GEB Tips in [2019-2023].” Thomas Scientific says that the topic is overbroad

because it seeks testimony for years where Ginkgo did not purchase tips from Thomas Scientific.

(Def.’s Mem. at 6.) But Thomas Scientific objects to Ginkgo eliciting testimony even for the year

in which Ginkgo purchased tips from Thomas Scientific (2020) or for the following year when it

rebuffed Ginkgo’s request for a refund. Thomas Scientific has not articulated a reason why it

19 https:/Avww.thomassci.com/blog/_/haas-
ceo#:~:text=In%20December%202021%2C%20Thomas%20Scientific, business%20services%20and%20consumer
%20companies.
2 https://www.thomassci.com/blog/_/Day-Associates-Acquisition

11
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

objects to providing testimony for those two years, which are of central relevance. Other years are

relevant to provide a basis for comparison and to provide context for the information relating to

the years giving rise to this litigation.

Thomas Scientific has produced Project Thunder presentations and other financial

documents that, on their face, reflect some revenue, EBITDA, and gross margin information for

the tips business and specific tips customers (including Ginkgo).7! This documentary evidence

suggests that Thomas Scientific reaped huge margins (at least 40%) on the sale of defective tips.

Thomas Scientific had an apparent financial motive to conceal its knowledge about the latent

manufacturing defect, and to refuse substantial refunds to its customers, to avoid impairing the

marketability and profitability of its business and reversing revenue and EBITDA that it had

already booked. Ginkgo should be allowed to examine Thomas Scientific about these matters,

which at a minimum are relevant to Ginkgo’s claim under G.L. c. 93A that Thomas Scientific

engaged in willful or knowing unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Facts developed in discovery indicate that Thomas Scientific did not begin marketing GEB

tips until 2020, that its sales of GEB tips tanked during 2021 because of myriad quality issues, and

that its sales in 2022 and 2023 of GEB tips, if any, were negligible. If this information is correct,

then it should not take a major effort to prepare a corporate designee to testify about Topic No. 8.

Topic No. 9. Even though it has produced certain of its audited financial statements,

Thomas Scientific objects to having a witness testify about any of them, asserting in one sentence

that the topic is “completely unrelated to Ginkgo’s claims for damages or potential theories as its

purchases only occurred in late 2020.” (Def.’s Mem. at 7.) This is another example of Thomas

Scientific trying to prevent Ginkgo from asking questions about subjects appearing in documents

21 Haas Dep. Ex. 17 (attached as Exhibit E to Dalmanieras Aff.).

12
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

that Thomas Scientific has produced. As discussed, Thomas Scientific’s financial condition is

highly relevant because it may shed light on the reasons for the company’s unfair and deceptive

trade practices.

Topic No. 10. Thomas Scientific articulates no reason why its designee cannot testify

about how it handled Ginkgo’s claims in its audited financial statements. Contrary to Thomas

Scientific’s assertion (Def.’s Mem. at 7), Topic No. 10 is not duplicative of Topic Nos. 8 or 9

because Topic No. 10 is specific to Ginkgo. It should be easy for Thomas Scientific to present a

witness, such as its CFO or controller, to testify about, for example, how much profit Thomas

Scientific realized on its tips sales to Ginkgo and whether it booked a reserve following Ginkgo’s

demand for a refund, and the amount of any such reserve.

CONCLUSION

Thomas Scientific has failed to carry its burden of showing that any of Topic Nos. 7-10

threaten it with “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. These

topics seek to elicit information that is relevant to the subject matter of the case. The Court should

deny Thomas Scientific’s motion for a protective order in all respects.

Dated: March 1, 2024 GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.

By its attorneys.

ipidé
Etripid Dalmanieras (BBO No. 650985)
Allén / Thigpen (BBO No. 707799)
JasmineN. Brown (BBO No. 710073)
FOLEY HoaG LLP
155 Seaport Blvd., Suite 1600
Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2600
Tel: 617-832-1000

13
Date Filed 3/14/2024 4:10 PM
Superior Court - Suffolk
Docket Number 2284CV02372

Fax: 617-832-7000
edalmani@foleyhoag.com
athigpen@foleyhoag.com
jnbrown@foleyhoag.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Euripides Dalmanieras, certify that on March 1, 2024, a copy of the foregoing document

was served via email on counsel of record for the Defendant Thomas Scientific, LLC:

Allison Huppé (BBO No. 648274)
Gabrielle M. Muniz (BBO No. 709519)
DEMEO LLP
66 Long Wharf
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Tel: (616) 263-2600
ahuppe@demeollp.com
gmuniz@demeollp.com

Frank F. Velocei
Edward J. Scarillo
Meaghan V. Geatens
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
600 Campus Drive
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
Tel: (973) 549-7000
Fax: (973) 360-9831
frank.velocci@faegredrinker.com

Case Info

Judge

Kenneth W. Salinger Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 14, 2024

Case Filing Date

October 17, 2022

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc. vs. Thomas Scientific, Llc

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties