Recent developments in the ongoing XRP lawsuit prompted the SEC to file another response to their letter request, which convincingly uncovered audiovisual recordings of Ripple’s internal meetings.
In its response, the SEC indicated that since the plaintiff’s motion has been ruled insignificant, the committee will not participate and will not thereafter correct the various inaccuracies in Ripple’s objections.
SEC Rejects Ripple’s Position on Document Definition
Still, since filing in January 2021, the SEC has rejected any of the reasons given in Ripple’s objection letter instead of seeking a “record”. The US Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that “audio recording” was included in the definition of “document” in Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ripple challenged the SEC’s vague definition of “document” in its letter of objection, and the plaintiff accused the defendant of failing to discover the data through meetings and negotiations. Ripple once pointed out that the SEC’s definition of the document was “too broad”, which resulted in the discovery process being “arduous and disproportionate.”
The SEC has made it clear that it stands ready to meet with the defendant and discuss the scope and parameters of Ripple’s search for other relevant records. In addition, the plaintiff also stated that if she does not find a solution to the persistent problem with the defendant, she can again seek the help of the court.
One of the questions read: “The parties’ ongoing dispute as to whether Ripple should search the recordings for those in which the same employees whose emails Ripple agreed to search for responsive documents are the relevant speakers.”
SEC Denies Ripple’s Application for Sealing
The US Securities and Exchange Commission also denied Ripple’s motion to seal the defendant’s internal records. However, the application was “provisionally” approved by the court.
The SEC argued that the sealed documents are related to legal proceedings and cannot be refuted on the pretext of publicly disclosed commercial or private interests. In addition to the appeals court’s refusal to stamp Ripple’s internal audio and video recordings, the plaintiff also objected to the stamping of the editorial portion of the reference statement and related exhibits on Ripple’s motion.
