Ripple Labs Challenges SEC’s Post-Compliant Discovery Requests for XRP Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ripple Labs are engaged in a court war. In the most recent development, Ripple has vehemently objected to the SEC’s requests for post-compliant discovery about XRP. The cryptocurrency company contended that the requests made by the SEC are “untimely” and unsupported by evidence.

In addition to audited financial statements for 2022 and 2023, post-complaint contracts pertaining to XRP sales, and information on “XRP institutional sales proceeds” following the complaint filing, the SEC had requested further information from Ripple. In response to the SEC’s demands, Ripple’s legal counsel sent a letter to Judge Sarah Netburn stating that they disagreed.

Untimely and Unjustified Requests

The legal team for Ripple outlined two main arguments against the SEC’s requests. First of all, they declared the requests to be “untimely,” pointing out that the SEC had plenty of chances during fact-finding to request the documents but chose not to. Second, Ripple claimed that the SEC had not provided sufficient justification for each request, claiming that the information requested had no bearing on the court’s decision about appropriate remedies.

The SEC’s pursuit of a summary judgment has alarmed Ripple, who described it as a short cut on claims pertaining to investment contracts. The crypto company issued a warning, stating that this strategy avoids important fact-finding, increases the possibility of a second discovery period, and places additional costs on the court and the parties. Furthermore, Ripple made the point that the SEC has already used up all of the interrogatories that are permitted in this matter, thus their interrogatory request is unnecessary.

In particular, Ripple disputed the SEC’s requests’ applicability in light of Ripple’s financial situation. The legal representative stated that Ripple is not claiming incapacity to pay and would not argue for a decrease in penalties based on its current financial situation, arguing that Ripple’s current financial standing is not relevant to establishing fines.

The letter also made reference to a previous decision made by Judge Analisa Torres, who determined that some XRP sales did not qualify as investment contracts. In light of the conclusion of fact discovery, Ripple emphasized that the SEC’s discovery demands are unnecessary and onerous, and they need to be turned down.