Tags in this story
Brad Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, court order, judge order, Ripple, ripple lawsuit, ripple vs sec, SEC, sec discovery, sec harassment, sec Ripple lawsuit, sec v ripple, xrp security
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has asked the judge in the SEC v. Ripple case to prevent Ripple and its executives from accessing various internal records that it claims have nothing to do with determining whether XRP is a security. The SEC said: “The defendant did not actually seek relevant evidence, but tried to harass the SEC, to make the focus of the case stand out from the case, and to put the SEC in a difficult position through document review.”
The SEC wrote to Judge Sarah Netburn on Wednesday to try to prevent Ripple from accessing certain records. This letter was granted to Ripple Labs, its CEO Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Christian Larsen (defendant) to access the SEC’s records regarding XRP, Bitcoin and Ethereum following a court order.
The letter described that the order required the SEC to search for documents related to these three cryptocurrencies in the external e-mails of 19 custodians, but rejected the defendant’s request for certain internal SEC communications unrelated to the case.
The SEC confirmed that it is complying with the court order and “has begun reviewing thousands of external e-mails from identified custodians for production under the order.” The court also required the parties to “convene and agree” whether the SEC should “show the agency’s interpretation or views” on XRP, Bitcoin and Ether to produce certain official documents.
However, the SEC claims:
Through the interview process, it is clear that the defendant is seeking to ignore the limitations of the court order and is stuck in the SEC’s dilemma in the uncertain discovery of disputes and successful document review.
“Meeting and discussing whether certain internal documents reflecting the views of the agency should be reviewed and produced or recorded. The defendant wrote to the SEC with a list of documents that they considered to be’captured’.[d]The committee asserted: “According to order”.
The list includes “the same internal emails that the court ordered the SEC without review and production, involving not only Bitcoin, Ether, or XRP, but also general “cryptocurrency.” The defendant also requested “including not subject to the order or prior discussion by the parties The bound twentieth custodian. “
The SEC stated that this requirement goes beyond the “document expressing the agency’s interpretation or views” envisaged by the court order, adding that the defendants “have shown that they will continue to ignore the court’s rulings and demand more endless, burdensome and Unnecessary discovery.”
The committee also claimed:
The defendant’s method is part of a game technique in the discovery process. The following example shows that the defendant did not actually seek relevant evidence, but tried to harass the SEC, diverting the focus of the case from its case, and putting the SEC in a difficult position. Review with documents.
The SEC explained that the “defendant”’s new requirement for the SEC to search for the personal devices of SEC employees led to a broader attempt to file this case against random and unrelated communications from SEC employees, rather than Ripple’s unregistered XRP products. The committee stated: “There is no reason to believe that SEC employees use personal email accounts or devices to express to the market the agent’s interpretation or views on Bitcoin, Ether or XRP. “
Therefore, the SEC “seeks an order to resolve the outstanding discovery dispute and prohibits the defendant from seeking irrelevant, privileged SEC staff materials that the court has ruled undiscoverable.” Specifically, the regulator tried to prohibit the defendant from “obtaining the court’s prohibition Production of internal SEC personnel internal communications” and prohibit them from “searching SEC personnel’s personal equipment” and “adding custodians”
Do you think the judge will rule in favor of Ripple or the SEC? Let us know in the comments section below.
Picture Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer, nor is it a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or company. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. For the use or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article, or any loss or loss related to it, the company or the author shall not directly or indirectly bear any responsibility.