Judge Presiding Over Ripple-SEC Case Has Denied Motion Filed By US SEC

The Judge presiding over the Ripple-SEC lawsuit, Judge Analisa Torres has recently issued an order pertaining to the motions filed by both sides.

The Judge has ordered that the documents that came from the expert challenges in regard to the lawsuit must be sealed. The expert challenges are commonly referred to as the Daubert motions.

Sealing Requests for Ripple and SEC

It was back in August when the Daubert motions were filed by both sides. Both sides had requested for the documents to be sealed but they were not all the documents.

Instead, there were certain documents that both sides had specified to be sealed by the judge.

The Securities and Exchange Commission had requested that it wants the names and identities of the expert witnesses who had testified throughout the hearings.

From Ripple’s end, they had requested to seal documentation related to the third parties’ privacy interests that were legitimate. It also requested to seal certain documents that were released to their business information.

Other Parties also Filed Daubert Motions

Several entities that were connected with the case had also filed Daubert motions to have sensitive information to be sealed.

MoneyGram was among the companies who filed the Daubert motions from their end to protect certain portions of the information belonging to their business or customers.

With the latest issued order, it is a strong indication that the judge is now thinking about resolving the case. The final word will be out from the judge deciding the fate of the entire case.

For Ripple and the non-parties, the judge announced that the motion was fully accepted. This meant that the judge issued orders to fully comply with their Daubert motion and seal the information they had highlighted.

On the other hand, the judge went on to issue an order to partially seal the information that was requested by the US SEC. The judge did not fully comply with the US SEC’s motion and granted half of it.

What was requested in the SEC’s motion?

In the motion, the SEC had requested that several aspects of information need to be redacted.

The details they highlighted were the publications, employment history, contact information, and names of the experts.

In addition to the above, the SEC also requested that the consulting experts who helped them in the process of report drafting should have their information redacted.

Statement by the Judgement

While accepting half the motion submitted by the SEC, the judge provided her argument on the matter.

She stated that she does think that if the information of the experts at the SEC is made public, there would be some kind of backlash for the experts.

She talked about the possibility of the experts facing a threatening fear from the locals and the crypto community.

However, she did mention that the names of the firms must be disclosed. These are the firms that provided all the information from their end for the case.

Their names have to be made public for public records so people know what kind of role they played in the case.

As per her, sharing the names of the assisting firms would not cause any issues at all for such firms. The judge has partially sided with the motion filed by the US SEC and will not accept the full request.

XRP Investors are Anxious

With the judge issuing the latest order, the excitement has started to rise among the XRP investors. They are eager for a positive report to come out that would help boost XRP’s trading price in the market.

The crypto community is hoping that the judge may announce the resolution in favor of Ripple. If Ripple wins the case against the US SEC, it will be a huge victory for XRP.

It will be after a wait of 2 years that the lawsuit factor will be lifted from the XRP brand.

All trademarks, logos, and images displayed on this site belong to their respective owners and have been utilized under the Fair Use Act. The materials on this site should not be interpreted as financial advice. When we incorporate content from other sites, we ensure each author receives proper attribution by providing a link to the original content. This site might maintain financial affiliations with a selection of the brands and firms mentioned herein. As a result, we may receive compensation if our readers opt to click on these links within our content and subsequently register for the products or services on offer. However, we neither represent nor endorse these services, brands, or companies. Therefore, any disputes that may arise with the mentioned brands or companies need to be directly addressed with the respective parties involved. We urge our readers to exercise their own judgement when clicking on links within our content and ultimately signing up for any products or services. The responsibility lies solely with them. Please read our full disclaimer and terms of use policy here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *