As the XRP community awaits the top ruling on the Hinman’s 2018 documents, Ripple, the US-based cross-border payments firm, has recorded another big win as Judge Analisa Torres denies the SEC’s motion to seal its objection to Amici participation.
This comes in less than 12 hours after Ripple objected to the SEC’s move to seal its objection to Amici’s participation in the upcoming expert challenge.
The new development was shared on Twitter a couple of hours ago by James K. Filan, a defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor. According to the report, the court also orders the SEC to file a letter explaining its proposed redactions and specifying which exhibits it seeks to seal by the 14th of June 2022.
James K. Filan tweeted, “The Court denies SEC’s Motion to Seal and Orders it to file by June 14th a redacted version of the brief and exhibits, under seal, redacting information “only to the extent necessary to safeguard information sought to be filed under seal.
“The Court also Orders that by June 14, 2022, the SEC shall file a letter explaining its proposed redactions and specifying which exhibits it seeks to seal. Essentially the Court agreed with Ripple and said that the SEC was trying to seal more than necessary.”
The Court also Orders that by June 14, 2022, the SEC shall file a letter explaining its proposed redactions and specifying which exhibits it seeks to seal. Essentially the Court agreed with Ripple and said that the SEC was trying to seal more than necessary.
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪101k+ (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) June 9, 2022
It can be recalled that the SEC had cited safety as the reason for moving to seal its opposition to amici’s request to participate in the expert challenge of Mr. Patrick Doody. However, Ripple and its co-defenders swiftly objected to the reasons cited by the SEC.
Ripple and its co-defenders expect the regulatory agency to publicly file those portions that don’t contain confidential information, which could challenge Mr. Doody’s safety.
“Defendants do not oppose narrowly tailored redactions to serve the safety interests the SEC has identified. But the proposal to redact the entirety of its filings is overboard. The court should deny the SEC’s motion and order the agency to propose appropriately tailored redactions.”