The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) case against Ripple Labs is not the only legal action the company is currently facing.
The lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit between Zakinov vs Ripple Labs filed a proposal about 2 weeks ago, demanding that all documents be published since January 2015, when Ripple contacted the SEC. The plaintiffs (three cases Zakinov, Oconer and Greenwald combined) wanted XRP to be classified as collateral and loss. Zakinov’s request included documents in the form of emails, text messages, other instant messages, as well as all communications from past settlements. We reported this in the past few weeks.
As a current development, a document published on CourtListener reveals that Ripple is against this move and the publication of other documents for 5 reasons. As the legal representative of Ripple Labs claims, in the past two months, plaintiffs have carried out “substantial document productions” that the SEC has received equally during the multi-year investigation:
“Most of the productions consist of documents that the Defendants previously provided to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (” SEC “) in response to voluntary requests by SEC Staff during a multi-year investigation, addressing the same question at its core.”
Also, Ripple’s legal representative will certainly be relevant to the SEC’s case, noting that the SEC staff “requested multiple categories of documents and asked numerous questions about Ripple’s business.” In response, Ripple submitted more than 40 productions of “tens of thousands of documents and hundreds of thousands of pages.” All these documents were presented to the plaintiffs in the Zakinov case:
“Defendants largely completed the production of SEC investigation materials to Plaintiff on December 16, 2020. […] Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff made a mandatory request, forwarding to the Court a series of requests that must be rejected immediately. ”
Moreover, Ripple Labs’ lawyer states that defendants should not be compelled to produce all emails between their external consultants and SEC staff because the request is “excessively large, burdensome, and out of proportion to the needs of the case.” Ripple argues, among other reasons, that the plaintiff’s request to rectify the preliminary and so far unsuccessful settlement talks with the SEC requires further scrutiny. Ultimately, according to Ripple, “The Claimant’s request that Defendants now remove unprivileged redaction from documents has no basis.”