XRP Lawsuit: Court granted Ripple’s Motion to Seal in 3-additional documents dispute

The latest update in the XRP lawsuit saw the court grant Ripple’s motion to seal exhibits of Defendants’ October 22, 2021, response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) October 15, 2021 filing regarding the plaintiff’s submission of three additional documents for in camera review.

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP 1/2 Court grants the Ripple Defendants’ Motion to Seal the privilege logs attached to their October 22nd response to the SEC's filing. That filing was the one where the SEC argued it didn’t have to turn over to Ripple the three additional

— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) October 29, 2021

According to Ripple’s seal appeal, the defendants had already conferred with the SEC, and the plaintiff understood that it did not object to filing these materials under seal. Furthermore, the defense noted that both exhibits filed under seal are designated confidential by the SEC itself. However, the plaintiff did not take an absolute stance against and for the redaction or seal of the mentioned documents. Ripple stated that the exhibits are part of “discovery materials filed with the court in connection with discovery-related disputes,”, which were also deemed confidential by the producing party, i.e., the SEC. Henceforth, the defendants argued that they are not judicial documents and are not entitled to a presumption of public access.

“Exhibit A is a privilege log, dated September 2, 2021, and revised on September 15, 2021, submitted in this litigation and designated as Confidential by the SEC. Exhibit B is a document produced in this litigation and designated as Confidential by the SEC pursuant to the Protective Order.”, Ripple wrote. “Exhibits A and B are part of the discovery materials exchanged between the parties through a “compulsory process to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public.”, the defense added.

Ripple’s response in 3-additional documents dispute

Recently, the 3-additional documents dispute gained traction with the SEC’s consistent efforts at seeking a protective order. October 22^nd, Ripple responded to SEC’s letter with the explanation for its privilege assertions along with a redacted version of the 3-additional documents requested by the defendants for in-camera review. However, what shocked the community was Ripple’s request to disclose these documents to the defense. It appeared almost peculiar how the defendants had been fighting for the in-camera review of documents that they had no exposure to themselves.