The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) continues to slug it out with Ripple in the more than two years old case. In its latest filing, the regulator has opposed Ripple’s motion to seal several categories of documents filed in connection with cross-motions for Summary Judgment.
The SEC states in the Jan. 9 partial opposition that many documents Ripple proposes to redact from public scrutiny are too essential. The documents will play a key role in summary judgment and hence cannot “overcome the presumption of public access,” the SEC noted.
The SEC highlights five categories of documents out of the 11 Ripple proposed to redact as having this importance. The first category is Ripple’s proposal to redact documents related to its financial information.
The securities watchdog explains that it is opposed to Ripple sealing the entirety of its financial records. The SEC notes that financial records from 2013 to 2020 are at the heart of the case and therefore require public disclosure. The SEC adds that these records will also not harm Ripple’s market competitiveness.
The SEC’s arguments follow a similar path in making a case for unsealing the other four categories of Ripple documents. These include Ripple’s contract terms, the identity of third parties, compensation information, and individual defendants’ personal and financial information.
Ripple also opposes the SEC’s motion to seal certain documents
On the same day, Ripple also filed its opposition to the SEC’s motion to seal certain documents connected to cross-motions for summary judgment. The fintech giant points out that the Court recognizes that the presumption of public access to judicial documents is currently at its strongest.
Hence, it urges the court to deny the SEC’s motion to seal emails related to Bill Hinman’s speech. This is because the SEC uses parts of the document in its arguments for summary judgment. The document is of high public interest in the case, Ripple also notes.
The defendants further requested that the court reject the SEC’s request to seal their experts’ names and identifying information. Ripple argued that the SEC has failed to differentiate between the circumstances of each expert. Similarly, three of the experts are already publicly known through their disclosure.
“Whether or not the Court ultimately determines those documents are relevant is beside the point; they are part of the summary judgment record and there is no compelling basis to keep them sealed. The SEC’s motion should be denied,” the filing said.