XRP Lawsuit: Court Grants Two Motions for both parties each. Here’s how it’s a win-win for Ripple?

The latest update in the XRP lawsuit explains the need for the formerly granted extension. Judge Netburn partially granted two motions, one for both parties. First, the Defendants’ Motion to Compel the SEC to produce interrogatories responses, regarding SEC’s Howey Test blanket application theory. Second, the Plaintiff’s Motion seeking a protective order under FRCP 26(c)(1), relieving the plaintiff of any obligation to respond to the 29,947 requests for admission (RFAs). Judge Netburn explains that the discovery sought in both motions overlap in certain respects, and therefore these applications are resolved together.

Court grants majority motions from the Interrogatories Dispute

Judge Netburn specified that the parties’ conflict over the application of Howey and its progeny do not render Ripple’s interrogatory improper and therefore has ordered the SEC to answer Ripple’s interrogatory No.2, identifying the specific terms of the “investment contract” from XRP sales, along with Interrogatories 11, i.e., Ripple’s move to compel the SEC to state whether it contends that “efforts by Ripple were necessary to effect any increase in the price of XRP.”

Followed by Interrogatories 1 & 11, the Court also granted Ripple Interrogatory No. 6, i.e., the defendants move to compel the SEC to state whether it contends that “Bitcoin and/or Ether are securities within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1933 Securities Exchange Act.”. Furthermore, Judge Netburn granted most of the Defendants’ motions to compel answers on other interrogatories, except Defendants’ motion regarding Larsen Interrogatory No. 5 on when XRPL was fully functional. The judge denied it without prejudice for being “too vague”.

SEC “irrelevance” argument discarded, while “burdensome” stance gets protection from Court

In the RFAs dispute, where the SEC sought a protective order, Judge Netburn has ordered the SEC to answer most of the RFAs while granting protection from one. Specifically, the Court has discarded SEC’s “irrelevance” argument in the case. The court Orders the SEC to produce responses for the Fourth Set requests, seeking to authenticate documents for admissibility under Rule 36(a)(1)(B) that regards the use of RFAs to establish the authenticity or genuineness of a document.

Furthermore, Judge Netburn denies SEC’s “irrelevant” contention to the Fourth Set of Requests regarding Defendants’ “fair notice” argument. The judge stated that disputes over interpretations of law are not a proper objection to a request for admission. Additionally, the court suggested the responding party either admit or deny the statement presented. The court orders the SEC to make a “reasonable inquiry” to secure such information “as are readily obtainable”, further denying the motion for a protective order to the Fourth Set of requests.

However, the court granted a protective order to the SEC for the Sixth Set of Requests regarding the disputed issue of whether Defendants’ sales of XRP constitute “investment contracts” under Howey, where the Defendants required the SEC to consider over 1,500 contracts and answer 13 preliminary questions. The Judge writes “it is hard to view this stunt as anything more than Theatre” to Defendants’ extensive 28,849 RFAs and granting protection to the plaintiff on burden grounds.