After SEC’s consecutively hard-hitting moves, Ripple is finally back in the playfield with substantial arguments. The latest XRP lawsuit update saw Ripple file a response to SEC’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel the production of internal and inter-agency documents in the deliberative process privilege (DPP) dispute.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Ripple files response to the SEC’s Opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel the production of internal and inter-agency documents. Read footnote 2 and the accompanying text.https://t.co/TaAGzzJFbW
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) August 23, 2021
SEC’s re-litigation efforts in DPP dispute
Ripple argued that the SEC is going in circles, in its efforts at re-litigating the irrelevance of documents that are already marked relevant by the court. The defendants highlighted that the commission has already been compelled by the court several times to produce given data. However, SEC’s constant attempts to argue that DPP has blanket application, but has a reliable process, only raises more suspicions.
“What the SEC does not (because it cannot) defend is its across-the-board assertion of the DPP. Instead, the SEC asks the Court to trust it, order production of nothing, and look at nothing, notwithstanding the SEC’s admission–buried in a footnote–that it improperly designated forty documents as protected by the DPP when that privilege does not apply.”, Ripple states in the response letter.
SEC uncertainty of securities status in DPP dispute
Ripple supported its “fair notice” argument by asserting that the SEC’s internal documents prove the commission’s knowledge of market uncertainty of the status of securities. Furthermore, SEC itself was unclear on the framework and application of U.S. securities legal structure.
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, stressed individual defendants, Garlinghouse and Larsen’s personal knowledge of internal discussions of XRP’s status. But, to prove the defendants’ “reckless” unregistered securities sales, the commission must admit that SEC’s uncertainty of securities law and market status was obvious.
“The point is not that the Individual Defendants relied on the SEC’s internal deliberations. It is that the SEC’s consideration of the status of digital assets under the federal securities laws–and its own uncertainty on that topic and recognition of confusion in the market–speaks to whether the regulatory status of XRP or other digital assets could have been “obvious” to anyone, Back then and even today.”, Ripple counsel adds.