XRP Lawsuit: SEC deems Ripple arguments as “hollow” in Slack data dispute

The SEC is ceaselessly firing at Ripple after its long-held silence in the XRP Lawsuit. The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed an additional reply in support of its motion to compel Defendant Ripple Labs, Inc. for the discovery of relevant Slack messages to or from 22 Ripple key employees.

The SEC argued that Ripple’s stance against the discovery of Slack data is invalid to the case instead of the lawsuit’s value as high-stake litigation. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants themselves agree that Slack communications are more “spontaneous”, and less “formal,” as compared to emails provided as evidence. However, the defendants deny producing the requested data due to time and money constraints.

“Ripple’s arguments might make sense in the context of a routine contract dispute, the types of cases Ripple cites in its Opposition. But these arguments should ring hollow in this case, “an incredibly high-stakes, high-value litigation.” D.E. 283-15 at 52. Indeed, “requiring review and production of Slack messages…is generally comparable to requiring search and production of emails.”…The Court should grant the SEC’s Motion.”, SEC writes to Judge Netburn.

Ripple removed nearly 50% of employees deposed by SEC in Slack data dispute

The SEC mentioned that Ripple does not dispute that it had formerly agreed to search all Slack messages for the 33 employees. Furthermore, the commission revealed that Ripple itself selected 31 out of the 33 that could’ve been deposed by the SEC. However, after reporting the data collection error on July 30, Ripple recommended searching Slack messages for only 9 of these 33 employees. The SEC argued that Ripple’s recommendation was backed by its aim to “focus on more significant custodians with high Slack usage.”. Yet, Ripple’s proposal excluded nearly Half of the employees that the SEC deposed or could have deposed.

SEC files opposition to Ripple’s Motion to seal

The SEC has also filed an opposition to Ripple’s Motion to seal exhibits. It has asserted that the defendant’s Motion to Seal fails to meet the criteria set forth by the Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The criteria require sealing of “judicial documents” to be “narrowly tailored”. However, Ripple is demanding a “blanket seal” from public presumption, regardless of the high level of public interest in the case.