SEC Wants to Seal Information and Reference to Five of Its Experts, Puts Ripple In Difficult Position

The Securities and Exchange Commission is insisting that the names of its experts and reports should be kept away from public view. 

With the parties expected to file their Daubert motions tomorrow, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has requested that the names of its five experts and the content of their reports be excluded from public view. 

The blockchain company made this known in a letter sent to District Judge Analisa Torres, as shared by attorney James K. Filan. 

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP BREAKING: Defendants and SEC in brawl over expert reports. SEC is taking the “extreme position . . . that the names of its experts and any substantive criticism of their reports should be kept from public view.” Expedited briefing requested. pic.twitter.com/mnKlNkGrGB

— James K. Filan ???? 105k (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) July 11, 2022

- Advertisement -

A few weeks ago, the SEC had requested to seal information of one of its experts, on the grounds of harassment and threat to life. 

Despite the fact that the case related to the first expert is still unresolved, the SEC recently informed Ripple that the same request should apply to three of its other experts (Experts 2, 3, and 4). 

According to Ripple, the SEC wants the identifying information and names of the experts to be withheld. The agency also insisted that any mention of the experts’ testimonies should be kept from public view until all issues concerning the first expert are resolved. 

“The SEC maintains that it would be a violation of the protective order for defendants to publicly file on July 12 any reference to experts’ reports or testimony, or name and identity,” Ripple noted. 

Notably, the SEC is not planning to leave any of its experts exposed to public criticism and harassment. 

Despite the fact that the SEC had previously filed Expert 5 report on the public docket, the agency is also insisting that Ripple redact the fifth expert’s name, identifying information, and any mention of his report, from their Daubert motion. 

“The existing factual record in the pending SEC request (as to Expert 1) does not support the extraordinary relief the SEC seeks even as to Expert 1, let alone as to its other experts,” Ripple wrote in its letter to District Judge Torres. 

Ripple Counters SEC’s Reasons

The SEC has previously asserted that the reason behind the move to seal the information of its experts is to protect them from potential harassment and threats. 

However, Ripple believes there is more to the SEC’s effort to seal details of its experts’ testimony. 

Ripple noted that the SEC is only trying to shield the information and opinion of its experts from public scrutiny, an action described by the blockchain company as an infringement of public rights. 

“It is antithetical to the right of the public to have access to substantive materials that will be critical to this court’s upcoming rulings on the parties’ Daubert’s challenge,“ Ripple added. 

Ripple Makes Five Expedited Requests

In a recent letter addressed to Judge Analisa Torres, Ripple said it has filed four out of its five Daubert motions under seal, in compliance with the SEC’s “confidentiality designations.” 

Ripple is requesting an expedited briefing on the extreme position taken recently by the SEC, regarding the information and content of the agency’s experts’ reports. 

The blockchain company requests that the court establish the following expedited schedule to resolve all issues regarding the SEC’s quest to seal the information and reports of five of its experts. 

“July 12: Daubert motions and exhibits (with limited scaling as to Expert 5) are filed under seal. July 18: Parties identify with each other any Daubert material that they contend should be redacted and filed under seal. July 20: Parties confer and meet for proposed redactions. July 22: Parties seeking redactions that have not been agreed to, file motions to seal with the court. July 25: Parties file opposition to redactions that have not been agreed to.”