Ripple is looking for evidence that the SEC has contributed to XRP confusion in the market.
In a letter to Court Judge Sarah Netburn, Ripple’s lawyers wrote that the Bitcoin and Ethereum-related documents were indeed relevant to the case, contradicting the Securities Commission’s argument and US Exchange (SEC).
During its investigation, Ripple generated 303,000 pages of documents and is currently reviewing another 75,000 pages of documents as requested by the SEC.
However, the SEC only agreed to provide 153 documents at Ripple’s request: “The burden of complying with defendant’s requests is hardly unusual for an important issue in this meaningful case, especially when compared with Discovery requests (under the law of common jurisdictions, is a pre-adjudication proceeding in a lawsuit that each party, through civil proceeding law, may have) obtained evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogations, requests to produce documents, and requests for admission and deposit) made by the SEC “.
Ripple says documents related to the “fair notice” safeguards
The SEC has argued that Bitcoin and Ethereum documents are unrelated to the litigation process, pointing to court rulings in past high-profile cases such as Telegram and Kik.
However, Ripple insists that the judge cannot simply accept the SEC’s “say so”, and they are looking for evidence that the SEC has contributed to widespread confusion in the market regarding XRP:
“Instead, Ripple seeks documents that reflect, directly or using internal communications as a proxy, how XRP is viewed in the marketplace. The SEC cannot deny that they are the focal point for regulatory regulatory requirements as to whether XRP is a security. ”
Ripple’s lawyers claimed that the alleged SEC was unable to reach consensus on XRP’s alleged securities status by October 2020, just two months before filing the lawsuit, when they told an Retail investors XRP that has yet to decide:
“Accordingly, if its internal documents reveal (as they inevitably will) that the SEC itself cannot reach a consensus on when cryptocurrency is a security and when not, it’s difficult. can assert that market participants know what the law requires ”.
In the previous legal letter, the SEC stated that it had no obligation to warn market participants of XRP’s regulatory status during a non-public investigation.