In response to Ripple’s request to have certain sections of the parties’ files pertaining to the motion for summary judgment sealed, the Securities and Exchange Commission has submitted its answer in partial objection.
It is important to note that the Defendants want more than 900 documents from 11 categories of records completely sealed or redacted. In their opinion, the records Ripple and its executives want to seal or redact are required to protect sensitive information related to their private and corporate affairs and that of third parties.
SEC Reacts to Defendants’ Requests
The SEC observed in a letter dated January 9, 2023, that the proposed redactions are too broad to overcome the assumption that the public has access to the information under the summary judgment stage. Sections A through K of the Defendants’ motion represent the redactions that Ripple is requesting.
The material in six of these categories—C, D, G, H, J, and K—will be sealed and redacted at Ripple’s request, the SEC declared, and it does not object to this. However, it is opposed to some of the material in the categories A, B, E, F, and I being sealed.
The SEC claims it does not generally oppose Ripple’s request to redact the financial statement. However, the agency strongly disagrees with the Defendants’ too-liberal approach to redacting financial information. It assumes that the request calls for all facts and figures that might be considered financial to be redacted.
“[…] because this information goes to the heart of the summary judgment motions, and because Defendants have not made a specific showing of competitive or other harm from disclosure of this information, Defendants’ overly broad sealing requests should be denied,” the SEC stated.
The SEC pointed out that Ripple had yet to demonstrate how publishing financial accounts from earlier than five years ago would hurt their current operations.
XRP Contract Terms to Be Further Sealed by SEC
It’s noteworthy that the SEC does not entirely concur with Ripple’s desire to completely seal contract terms about the company’s XRP sales, which have been called into question. While the SEC does not object to the redaction of names of Ripple’s counterparties and specific contractual terms like discounts and commission rates, the agency thinks the Defendants don’t have to request further sealing of the contract terms at the summary judgment stage.