Ripple and Attorney John Deaton Respond to the SEC’s Recent Motion 

The blockchain company is requesting that the court denies the SEC’s request to redact the entirety of its objection letter. 

Ripple has filed a response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion to seal its objection to attorney John Deaton amici’s brief.

According to a motion filed by Ripple and Individual Defendants, Chris Larsen and Brad Garlinghouse, the trio has objected to the SEC’s request to seal its opposition to the amici request to represent 67,300 XRP holders in Mr. Patrick Doody’s expert testimony challenge.

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP The Ripple Defendants have filed their Response to the SEC’s Motion to Seal its Opposition to the amici request to participate in Daubert hearing. The SEC’s Motion to Seal, the amici response and the Ripple Defendants’ response are below. pic.twitter.com/ItOqK3F8Xg

— James K. Filan ????101k+ (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) June 9, 2022

Recall that, on June 7, 2022, the SEC pleaded with the court to seal its opposition to the amici brief due to safety concerns for Mr. Doody.

“Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission respectfully requests that the court order the sealing of the SEC’s letter in opposition to the motion by six XRP investors to file a brief regarding the opinion of one of the SEC’s experts [Doody],” the SEC said in its motion.

Ripple Disagrees With the SEC

However, the move did not go down well with Ripple and Individual Defendants, who have called on the SEC to redact portions of its opposition that may jeopardize the safety of Mr. Doody.

Out of the five reasons the SEC cited, four of these concerns do not reflect such concern, Ripple argued.

While Ripple noted that it is concerned about Mr. Doody’s, it demanded that the SEC should make public the four reasons that do not in any way risk the safety of the agency’s expert.

“The rest of the [SEC’s objection to amici request to participate in the upcoming expert challenge] should be publicly filed,” Ripple argued.

The blockchain company noted that the SEC’s sealing request should be narrowed down as it appears to be manifestly overboard.

Ripple and Individual went further to highlight sections that do not contain any confidential information that should be publicly filed by the SEC in line with the presumption of public access to court records.

Furthermore, the blockchain company and its execs noted:

“Defendants do not oppose redactions that are narrowly tailored to serve the safety interests the SEC has identified. But the proposal to redact the entirety of its filings is overboard. The court should deny the SEC’s motion and order the agency to propose appropriately tailored redactions.”

Attorney Deaton’s Response to the SEC

In the same vein, attorney Deaton also responded to the SEC’s opposition to the amici brief, in a bid to correct one of the agency’s interpretations, which noted that the Court’s rules “do not allow reply briefs in connection with pre-motion letters.”

Attorney Deaton objected to the SEC’s interpretation, saying its motion was properly labeled and filed as a motion letter, thus implying that it deserves to be responded to.