Ripple Firmly Denies SEC’s Objections against its Latest Discovery Motion as it Stresses upon “Fair Notice” Motion

Ripple denies SEC objections on the defendant’s latest discovery motion, as the firm files counter motion to the agency’s opposition.

Ripple Thrashes SEC’s Arguments against its Recent Discovery Motion

As per a tweet by former Fed prosecutor and a member of Ripple legal team James K. Filan Ripple has written a letter to magistrate judge Sara Netburn. In the letter Ripple has denied most of SEC’s objections concerning the defendant’s discovery motion, which sought to reveal Ripple’s internal crypto policy for its employees.

Letter rejected SEC’ objection on the motion that Ripple’s discovery motion is an intrusion into SEC employees’ privacy, by stating that the demand is misunderstood as the Ripple wants documents showing agency’s employees’ crypto holding in an aggregated and anonymous form. Moreover the scope and the period of the information is also limited.

Further defendants also repudiate SEC’s argument that the information sought by Ripple is irrelevant.

Ripple also cited an SEC attorney’s oral statement during the meet-and-confer, that the SEC imposed restriction on its employees for trading XRP during June 2019, as the defendant raises a critical question in this regard, whether the trade of XRP was allowed before June 2019 or not? Remember investigation against Ripple was finally approved in June 2019.

Ripple’s argument supports its “fair notice” motion which states that SEC did not provide any clarity over sale or purchase of XRP to any of the relevant parties, before the lawsuit was eventually filed in Dec 2020.

Ripple Requests to Seal exhibits and transcript excerpts

In the motion Ripple further requests court:

to Seal certain exhibits and transcript excerpts filed by the parties in connection with the SEC’s Motion to Compel Production of Video and Audio recordings of Ripple staff meetings.

As Ripple stated in the motion, in addition to other reasonings, the concerned exhibits and transcript excerpts are not relevant to the SEC latest motion and are also “not judicial documents and are not entitled to a presumption of public access.”

Source link

Leave a Reply