Ripple V.SEC: Ripple Responds to SEC’s Quest to Keep Its Objection to Amici’s Request Confidential

The blockchain company wants its response to be filed publicly.  

Ripple has filed under seal its response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s opposition to amici’s participation in the upcoming Daubert expert challenge.

While the content of Ripple’s response is not yet known since it was filed under seal as required, the blockchain company has urged the court to file its reply to the SEC’s opposition to amici’s participation in the upcoming expert challenge in the public docket.

“Defendants [Ripple, Chris Larsen, and Brad Garlinghouse] respectfully request that our entire response letter be filed on the public docket (with the exception of a redaction of the expert’s name in Exhibit 1 to Defendants letter),” Ripple noted.

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP The Ripple Defendants have filed, under seal, their Reply to the amici request to participate in the Daubert challenge. The Ripple Defendants have also filed a letter stating that its entire Reply should be public. pic.twitter.com/4HcBbXMA3W

— James K. Filan ????101k+ (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) June 10, 2022

Ripple added that it decided to file its response under seal based on the deference of the court’s forthcoming ruling on the SEC’s unresolved motion to seal its opposition to amici’s participation.

SEC’s Quest to Keep Its Objection Confidential

Recall that the SEC disclosed earlier this week that it had chosen to file under seal its objection to the movants’ motion to represent 67,300 XRP investors in the upcoming expert challenge of Mr. Patrick 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 a recent motion.

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the idea of keeping its objections confidential is due to safety concerns for its expert, Mr. Doody.

Ripple Disagrees With the SEC

In response to the SEC’s request to seal its objection to amici’s participation, Ripple said not every reason cited by the agency is capable of putting Mr. Doody’s safety in jeopardy.

Ripple noted that four of the five reasons the SEC cited do not seem to reflect the agency’s concern for Mr. Doody.

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

Ripple said the SEC should redact a portion of its objections that seem to be its cause for concern, adding that the court should deny the SEC’s move to redact the entire opposition to amici’s participation in the expert challenge.

Following Ripple’s refusal, the court ordered the agency to file a redacted version of the brief and exhibit, which will be submitted by June 14, 2022.

Ripple May File Another Reply

Ripple added that after the SEC submits its redacted response and the court has ruled about the agency’s motion to seal, it may re-file its response publicly if the court permits.

Reacting to the development, attorney James K. Filan, a vocal legal practitioner in the Ripple v. SEC lawsuit, said:

“What this means is that the documents filed by the SEC and by the Ripple Defendants will remain under seal until District Judge Torres decides what should be public and what should remain under seal.”

What this means is that the documents filed by the SEC and by the Ripple Defendants will remain under seal until District Judge Torres decides what should be public and what should remain under seal.

— James K. Filan ????101k+ (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) June 10, 2022