Ripple-SEC update: Both parties file opposition to the other’s motions

Ripple and SEC both filed new motions in the court. Image from freepik
Ripple and SEC both filed new motions in the court. Image from freepik

Key Takeaways:

  • SEC filed its opposition to Brad Garlinghouse’s motion to compel turnover of notes.
  • Ripple filed its opposition against the SEC’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
  • Chris Larsen’s attorney Justin D. Ward has requested to withdraw from the case.

NEW DELHI ( — In a new update in the ongoing legal battle between Ripple and the Securities and Exchange Commission, both parties have filed separate motions against each other.

Additionally, Chris Larsen’s attorney Justin D. Ward filed a motion to withdraw from the case, citing he no longer works for the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, representing Ripple and other defendants.

SEC Files Opposition To Ripple’s Motion To Compel

Ripple’s CEO Brad Garlinghouse had requested for Estabrook notes earlier this month. The ‘Estabrook notes‘ refer to notes taken by attorney Matthew Estabrook during a 2018 meeting between ex-SEC Commissioner Elad Roisman and Brad Garlinghouse.

Ripple’s defense had argued that notes taken by SEC staff in meeting during meeting third parties are not subject to DPP. On Feb 24, the SEC filed an opposition to oppose Ripple’s motion to compel the turnover of the notes.

Related: SEC requests permission to file sur-sur-reply to Ripple fair notice defense.

The plaintiff submitted the notes to Judge Sarah Netburn for in-camera review. However, the market regulator opposed the sharing of documents with the defendants, arguing “the Notes are no different from SEC notes this Court has already held are protected by the DPP.”

Furthermore, the SEC argues the notes reflected matters that Mr. Estabrook “believed were important and could relate to future SEC decisions.”

As such, the market watchdog stated the notes should remain protected by DPP. The SEC also cited the example of a previous meeting that the court had considered priviledged, arguing the Estabrook meeting met the same criteria.

Additionally, the SEC also highlighted that piercing the SEC’s privilege is unnecessary, especially as the Ripple CEO was himself present at the meeting.

Ripple Opposes SEC’s Motion For Partial Reconsideration

On Feb 26, Ripple filed an opposition to the SEC’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Clarification of Judge Netburn’s DPP Ruling. The fintech firm stated the SEC’s motion is “an inappropriate attempt at a do-over simply because it is unhappy with the Court’s order on its prior briefing.”

Moreover, the defendants argued that the court should deny the motion on account of the SEC failing to present any new laws or facts.

Also Read: Judge Netburn to take the biggest decision in the Ripple vs. SEC case. 

Ripple’s lawyers pointed out that the court accepts SEC’s new stand, it would mean former Director Hinman lied under oath. In detail, the SEC changed its stance to say the 2008 speech by then Director William Hinman was not his own, but that of the division.

Earlier, the SEC had said Hinman’s opinions regarding cryptos were his own. Moreover, Ripple argued that SEC’s shifting positions should motivate the court to deny the motion. The defendants also argued that communications regarding Hinman’s speech are not part of SEC’s policymaking process.

Ripple, Ripple-SEC update: Both parties file opposition to the other’s motions

Subscribe Today
for our Weekly Newsletter

Free Weekly Crypto News without the spam.

Related Articles

Our Partners