SEC Opposes 3 Categories of a Third Party’s Requests in Ripple Lawsuit

Ripple v. SEC: Plaintiff Opposes Third Party A’s Request to Make Changes to Parties’ Summary Judgment Filings.

The regulator opposes three categories of the unidentified party’s requests.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has opposed a motion filed by an unidentified company, dubbed Third Party A, to redact portions of the parties’ filings in connection with the summary judgment motion.

- Advertisement -

Former federal prosecutor James K. Filan shared the development yesterday.

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP The SEC has filed an opposition to Third Party A’s Motion to Redact all references to Third Party A as an entity and the proposed redactions by Third Party A (and Ripple) to the names of certain public crypto trading platforms. pic.twitter.com/Ks8M0Z4NRf

— James K. Filan ???? 126k (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) January 18, 2023

The SEC noted that although the identity of Third Party A has been made public in the suit, the company still seeks redactions to 38 of the parties’ summary judgment filings. Out of the 38 summary judgment filings, the SEC said it opposes Third Party A’s proposed redactions to the deposition transcript of its employee.

SEC Opposes Three Categories of Third Party’s Request

While the SEC has no issues with Third Party A’s request to redact the name and identifying information of its employee, the regulator strongly opposes three categories of the proposed redactions.

First, the agency opposes Third Party A’s request to redact all references to the company as an entity. According to the SEC, the identity of Third Party A and the role it played in Defendants’ XRP distribution has already been made public without any form of redaction.

“Neither Defendants nor Third Party A offer any credible argument why Third Party A’s identity should now be sealed after its repeated public disclosure,” it added.

Secondly, the regulator opposes Third Party A and Defendants’ proposed redactions to the names of certain public crypto asset trading platforms. The regulator said redacting the names of the crypto trading platforms would impede the public’s understanding of issues Ripple has made central to the summary judgment motions.

Lastly, the Securities and Exchange Commission opposes the redaction of information in the deposition transcript in connection with the economies of Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) solution and Third Party A’s role in monetizing the XRP holdings of Defendants.

The SEC’s opposition comes less than five months after Third Party A asked the court to grant its motion to make changes to one of the attachments filed by Ripple in its motion for summary judgment.

“We write on behalf of Third Party A to propose a limited number of targeted redactions to the defendant’s memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment,” Third Party A stated in a motion filed in September.