The latest development in the XRP lawsuit saw Ripple file a reply to SEC’s opposition regarding the defendant’s Motion to Compel interrogatory responses to identify SEC’s Howey Test application theory. Ripple argues that the SEC opposition constitutes evasive responses and refusal to comply with basic obligations imposed on all parties under Rule 33.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Ripple and Chris Larsen file their reply to the SEC's response to Ripple's and Larsen's Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses regarding the application of the Howey Test to sales of XRP over the last 8 years. 7 pages in 2 tweets. pic.twitter.com/P4mZqLwWTo
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) September 15, 2021
Ripple highlighted that contention interrogatories are “designed to assist parties in narrowing and clarifying the disputed issues’ in advance of summary judgment practice or trial.” Furthermore, the defense claimed that the interrogatories put forward by them will prove that mentioned issues do not hold a genuine dispute as objected by the SEC.
Ripple argues SEC answers are non-responsive
The SEC content its non-responsive replies by mentioning the Court’s Phillies decision that points out a party “need not catalog every fact or piece of evidence” in support of a stated contention. However, the defense argues against SEC’s use of Phillie’s verdict, asserting that the plaintiff’s responses were not discredited for not being precise.
In fact, the defendants argued that the SEC answers are inadequate because they entirely fail to provide substantive responses to the questions Defendants asked. Furthermore, these non-responsive answers are regarded as inconsistent with Rule 33’s purpose of narrowing issues for summary judgment and trial.
“The SEC must, like any ordinary litigant, respond to the interrogatories that the Defendants served… Rule 33 requires the SEC to provide complete responses to the interrogatories, specific as possible and non-evasive…even when (and precisely because) those responses reveal fatal weaknesses in its case.”, stated Ripple.
Ripple highlights SEC’s denial of identifying contractual language
Ripple’s Interrogatory No. 2 requests the SEC to identify specific terms and provisions of the investment and commercial contracts that the SEC claims Ripple used to make illegal sales of XRP. Ripple asserts that the interrogatory is only based on contractual language and only seeks specific terminology that the SEC will anyway use in the filing. However, the defendants reinstate that the plaintiff has refused to provide even such basic information.
Furthermore, the SEC denied responding to any of Ripple’s interrogatories because “under Howey’s progeny, the contours of the investment contract may come not just from the ‘contracts’ but also from statements made in commerce and the very nature of character of the instruments.”, according to the plaintiff.