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 several internal records that it claims have nothing to do with determining whether XRP is a security is. The SEC says that “the defendants are not really looking for relevant evidence, but rather are trying to harass the SEC, divert the case’s attention from its merits, and drown the SEC with document review.”
SEC is trying to limit Ripple’s access to its data
The SEC wrote a letter to Judge Sarah Netburn on Wednesday trying to prevent Ripple from accessing certain data. The letter followed the court order granting Ripple Labs, CEO Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Christian Larsen (defendants) access to the SEC’s records pertaining to XRP, bitcoin and ether.
The injunction requires the SEC to search the external emails of 19 custodians for documents related to the three cryptocurrencies, but denies the defendants’ requests for certain internal SEC communications deemed irrelevant to the case, the report describes. letter.
The SEC confirmed that it is in the process of complying with the injunction and “has begun reviewing tens of thousands of external emails from the identified custodians for production in accordance with the injunction.” The court also demanded that the parties “meet and consult” on whether the SEC should produce certain official documents “expressing the agency’s interpretation or positions” on XRP, bitcoin and ether.
However, the SEC claims:
Through the meet-and-confer process, it has become apparent that defendants are seeking to override the limitations of this court’s order and engulf the SEC in disputes over indeterminate discoveries and, if successful, document review.
“Rather than meeting and discussing whether the SEC should review and produce or log certain internal documents that reflect the views of the agency, the defendants wrote to the SEC with a laundry list of documents they consider ‘ capture[d]”By the order,” the commission claimed.
The list includes “the same internal emails that the court ordered that the SEC should not review and produce – and not just regarding bitcoin, ether or XRP, but regarding ‘cryptocurrency’ in general.” Defendants also called for “the inclusion of a 20th custodian who was not subject to the order or the parties’ previous discussions.”
This request goes beyond the “documents expressing the agency’s interpretation or positions” as provided for in the court order, the SEC claims, adding that the defendants “have demonstrated that they will continue to follow the court’s rulings. ignore it and demand more endless, troublesome and unnecessary discovery. “
The committee also claims:
The defendants’ approach is part of a pattern of gaming skill with regard to discovery, and the following examples show that defendants are not actually seeking relevant evidence, but rather trying to harass the SEC, divert attention of the case from its earnings and the SEC getting bogged down. with document review.
Defendants ‘new request that the SEC search SEC employees’ personal devices fits in with a broader pattern of attempts to make this case over arbitrary and irrelevant communications by SEC personnel in lieu of Ripple’s unregistered XRP offering said the SEC. According to the committee, “There is no basis to believe that SEC employees used personal email accounts or devices to communicate to the market interpretations or opinions of agencies about bitcoin, ether or XRP.”
The SEC, therefore, “is seeking an injunction that resolves pending discovery disputes and prevents suspects from seeking irrelevant, privileged SEC personnel materials that this court has already ruled cannot be discovered.” In particular, the regulator seeks to prohibit defendants from “obtaining internal SEC personnel communications that the court has already banned from production” and to prevent them from “searching SEC personnel’s personal devices” and “adding custodians.”
Do you think the judge will rule in favor of Ripple or the SEC? Let us know in the comments below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or invitation to an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of products, services or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.