Latest news about Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies. Your daily crypto news habit.
The ongoing XRP lawsuitâs latest update saw the plaintiff file an opposition to the defendantâs Motion to Compel interrogatory responses to identify SECâs Howey Test application theory. The theory determined how the Howey test applies to all of the Defendantsâ virtual transactions in XRP over the last 8 years.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP The SEC has filed its Opposition to the Motion to Compel it to answer interrogatories identifying its theory of how the Howey Test applies to virtually all of Defendantsâ transactions in XRP over the last 8 years.https://t.co/c758L9MoCJ
â James K. Filan (@FilanLaw) September 8, 2021
SEC objects defendantâs delayed responses
SECâs opposition letter to the court asserts that the Defendantsâ responses were delayed, regarding the plaintiffâs Interrogatoriesâ answers. The SEC claims that Ripple intentionally halted its reply, until the end of fact discovery timeframe, i.e., more than seven weeks after receiving the SECâs first interrogatory responses. As the fact discovery deadline approached, Ripple informed the SEC that they considered the plaintiffâs responses âdeficientâ.
Furthermore, the SEC highlighted that they had met and conferred with Ripple regarding the five of the responses at issue. At the conference, SEC requested the Defendants to identify specific information that they need from the plaintiff. However, according to the SEC, the Defendants refused and went ahead with filing a Motion to Compel, less than three hours before fact discovery closed.
âAt 11:48 p.m. on the same night, minutes before fact discovery closed, Defendants also served the SEC with more than twenty-Eight thousand (28,000) new Rule 36 requests for admission.â, SEC stated in the letter.
SEC asserts Rippleâs responses were evasive
The SEC argues that its responses to interrogatories were substantive in addition to its objections. The plaintiff further claims that Rippleâs history with interrogatory responses has been a projection of its accusation on the SEC.
The plaintiff highlighted that for some SEC interrogatories, Ripple had merely referred the SEC to its own document requests (as opposed to identifying documents that answered the interrogatory). Additionally, for other SEC interrogatories, the plaintiff noted that Ripple failed to provide any substantive response whatsoever.
SEC backed its argument with Defendantâs former use of the Phillies decision
The SEC has also objected to Rippleâs consistent use of the Courtâs Phillies decision to the SEC, as grounds for limiting its obligation to respond to the SECâs interrogatories.
In Phillies, the Court stated, âcourts generally resist efforts to use contention interrogatories as a vehicle to obtain every fact and piece of evidence a party may wish to offer concerning a given issue at trialâ
Furthermore, the SEC has supported its arguments using the same decision. The plaintiff cites the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Courtâs recent guidance that a party âneed not catalog every fact or piece of evidence so long as it identifies representative samples and providesâŠmeaningful disclosure.â
The post XRP Lawsuit: SEC files Opposition to Letter Motion Compelling interrogatory responses appeared first on Coingape.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Bitcoin Insider. Every investment and trading move involves risk - this is especially true for cryptocurrencies given their volatility. We strongly advise our readers to conduct their own research when making a decision.