The regulator opposes three categories of the unidentified party’s requests.
The motion to redact specific portions of the parties’ filings in connection with the summary judgment motion was filed by an anonymous company known as Third Party A. However, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has objected to this motion.
James K. Filan, a former federal prosecutor, disclosed the development yesterday.
Although Third Party A’s identity has been made public in the lawsuit, the SEC observed that the company still requests redactions to 38 of the parties’ summary judgment filings. The SEC declared its opposition to Third Party A’s proposed redactions to the deposition transcript of its employee in the 38 summary judgment filings.
The SEC OpposesThree Requests From Third Parties
The SEC supports Third Party A’s request to omit the employee’s name and other identifying information, but it vehemently opposes three proposed redactions.
Firstly, the agency rejects Third Party A’s request to delete all references to the company as an entity. The SEC claims that Third Party A’s identity and part in the distribution of Defendants’ XRP have already been made public without any redaction.
“Neither Defendants nor Third Party A offer any credible argument why Third Party A’s identity should now be sealed after its repeated public disclosure,” it added.
Secondly, the regulator opposes the redactions to the names of some public crypto asset trading platforms that Third Party A and the defendants propose. The regulator claimed that excluding the names of the cryptocurrency exchanges would make it harder for the general public to comprehend the difficulties Ripple has made the focus of the motions for summary judgment.
Last but not least, the Securities and Exchange Commission opposes the redaction of data from the deposition transcript related to the economics of Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) solution and Third Party A’s involvement in monetizing the XRP holdings of Defendants.
The SEC filed its opposition to Third Party A’s petition asking the court to accept revisions to one of Ripple’s attachments in its motion for summary judgment less than five months after Third Party A submitted its petition.
“We write on behalf of Third Party A to propose a limited number of targeted redactions to the defendant’s memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment,” Third Party A stated in a motion filed in September.