- Ripple defendants and SEC seems to be in a brawl over the reports by experts.
- SEC is asking to keep the names of experts and reports from the public.
- Ripple defendants request an expedited briefing.
The SEC requested that its response to an amici motion regarding the Daubert challenge be sealed. Ripple defendants responded to the appeal. The Ripple team argued before Judge Torres of the Southern District Court of New York that the evidence did not back up the SEC’s assertions.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP BREAKING: Defendants and SEC in brawl over expert reports. SEC is taking the “extreme position . . . that the names of its experts and any substantive criticism of their reports should be kept from public view.” Expedited briefing requested. pic.twitter.com/mnKlNkGrGB— James K. Filan 105k (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) July 11, 2022
The SEC notified that the sealing should be stretched to three more experts after asking to have information regarding Expert 1 sealed.
The commission not only requests that their names and related information not be made public but also that any motion on the content of their findings be kept secret. This is the situation up until the first expert’s motion is settled.
The purpose of a Daubert motion, according to Ripple, is to call into question the validity of an expert report. Due to the SEC’s request, the complete motion for the four experts must be filed and maintained under secrecy.
The SEC’s actions were condemned by Ripple as being against the public’s right to access relevant documents. The commission must now defend why the records should be sealed, according to the court’s decision.
The court ordered the SEC to present its case for sealing by June 14 with no further hindrance. The Ripple team said:
“The SEC’s attempt to shield the identities and opinions of its experts from any public scrutiny is both unprecedented and unsupported by any evidence of need. It is antithetical to the right of the public to have access to substantive materials that will be critical to this Court’s upcoming rulings on the parties’ Daubert motions.”