The unnamed employee files a response to Ripple’s opposition.
Investment Banker Declarant has filed a response to Ripple’s opposition to the motion to redact his personal information from the declaration submitted in support of the SEC. The development was shared yesterday on Twitter by prominent Ripple Pro lawyer James K. Filan.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP “Investment Banker Declarant” files a Response to Ripple’s opposition to the motion by “Investment Banker Declarant” to shield from public view his name, position, and employer. pic.twitter.com/DwleVLOHdj
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 126k (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) January 25, 2023
Investment Banker Declarant’s Reply
Investment Banker Declarant said Ripple did not provide any strong argument to overcome its “strong privacy and safety interests” in permitting the narrowly tailored redactions.
It claimed that although Ripple cited “voluntariness” as its lead argument, it still does not offer an objective basis for denying leave to redact. In addition, the Investment Banker noted that since the declarant works in an SEC-regulated entity, it is difficult to decline a request from the SEC.
“Had Investment Banker Declarant declined to provide a statement, the SEC’s alternative was to compel his testimony to authenticate the documents at issue,” an excerpt from the response read.
Aside from Ripple’s “voluntary” argument, Investment Banker said the leading blockchain company did not provide any judicial precedent to render the declarant’s request invalid.
Investment Banker further argues that the court has already recognized that the privacy and safety of third parties are sufficient to warrant the redaction of witnesses’ personal or identifying information.
The response outlined that publicly disseminating the declarant’s personal information could put the witness at risk, especially from those who are following the lawsuit. In addition, it asserted that Ripple’s claim of “voluntariness” would burden future government investigations.
Investigators rely on the cooperation of persons who may wish to remain confidential throughout and after the investigation. However, investment Banker claims that if the court cannot shield the personal information of witnesses from the public, people may not be willing to cooperate with authorities in future cases.
“Here, the burden weighs strongly in favor of granting Investment Banker Declarant’s modest proposed redactions,” the counsel concluded.
Ripple’s Initial Opposition to the Request
The Investment Banker’s response comes a week after Ripple opposed the request submitted by an unnamed employee to conceal his name, position, and employer from the declaration submitted in support of the SEC’s summary judgment motion.
Ripple argued that the declarant had no compelling basis for making such a request, adding that the declaration was voluntarily submitted and not compelled.