XRP Lawsuit: Ripple responds to SEC’s Opposition against Motion to Compel pre-clearance XRP trading data

XRP Lawsuit: Ripple responds to SEC’s Opposition against Motion to Compel pre-clearance XRP trading data

The latest update in the XRP lawsuit saw the defendants file a response, furthering their motion to compel discovery of pre-clearance XRP trading data of SEC employees. Ripple has filed an objection against SEC’s claims regarding the privacy act, the burden of production, and the irrelevance of data in the defendant’s letter motion to compel discovery.

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Ripple files reply in further support of its Motion to Compel the SEC to produce documents showing whether SEC employees were permitted to trade XRP and other digital assets. pic.twitter.com/qR5TEZSMK7— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) September 7, 2021

Ripple objects to SEC’s Privacy Act claim

The plaintiff claimed that the pre-clearance XRP trading data contains confidential financial details collected by the SEC’s Office of Ethics Counsel. The SEC asserted that mentioned information is acquired to ensure the employees’ compliance with the commission’s ethical norms and has nothing to do with determining if the transactions are obeying SEC’s securities laws.

However, Ripple has argued against SEC’s Privacy Act claims, stating that the defense only seeks aggregate and entirely anonymized data of a narrow scope and of a limited timeframe. Ripple ascertains in its response that their motion to compel discovery possesses “no Privacy Act obstacle to the Court ordering production of this information.”

Ripple argues against SEC’s objection of irrelevance

Ripple has also argued against SEC’s “low bar of relevance” stance. The defendant highlights SEC’s former claims that any statements other than the commission’s public “external statements” shall be marked as irrelevant, have already been “considered and rejected by the Court on multiple occasions.”

The SEC asserted that preclearance is an absolute decision by the SEC’s Office of Ethics Counsel and holds no relevance to the lawsuit. Meanwhile, Ripple emphasizes SEC’s role in advising the Ethics Counsel’s process of deciding whether to prohibit employee trades in securities and digital assets.

“Under the “low bar for relevance” established by Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and already recognized by this Court as having been met in connection with the SEC’s trading policies, Defendants are entitled to this information in discovery.”

Ripple discredits SEC’s burden of production claims

Ripple has clarified that the information requested by the defense is not burdensome in any form. Ripple states that the mentioned records for XRP “span only a little more than a year”. Furthermore, Ripple claims that in a former meeting, the SEC counsel had orally indicated that SEC employees were prohibited from trading XRP only post-March 9, 2019. This oral representation in turn proves that SEC already had the knowledge and researched on the issue, which further undermines its burden objection.