- The SEC seeks to file one big reply, 90 pages, in addition to its motion to exclude the expert witnesses of Ripple Labs.
- Earlier, SEC gained permission to file a 120-page omnibus motion to limit the expert testimony of ten experts retained by Ripple Labs.
- The Defendants did not object to the SEC’s request but demanded an 11-page reply brief.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States has filed a request to file one big reply, up to 90 pages in length, in addition to its motion to exclude the expert witnesses of Ripple Labs.
In a tweet, defense lawyer James K. Filan shared the one-page SEC request to Judge Analisa Torres that “respectfully seeks to file one omnibus reply in further support of its Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendants’ Expert Witnesses.”
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP The SEC has filed a request to file one omnibus (big) reply, up to 90 pages in length, in further support of its Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendants’ Expert Witnesses. pic.twitter.com/BBFa6mITSM
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 110k (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) August 24, 2022
In July 2022, District Judge Torres granted the SEC’s motion for permission to file a 120-page omnibus motion to exclude or limit the expert testimony of ten experts retained by Ripple Labs, individual defendants Christian A. Larsen and Bradley Garlinghouse.
The similarities between these two motions caused the crypto Twitter community to raise eyebrows. An XRP Youtuber, MoonLambo, confessed his confusion, asking the defense lawyer Filan, “Didn’t the SEC already propose this at the beginning of July? What’s the difference between that SEC request and the new one today?”
Filan clarified that
One is the original request to file an omnibus motion to exclude, and this one is a motion to file an omnibus reply to the original motion. It just lets them keep the reply in one document instead of a bunch of smaller ones.
Noteworthy is that the Defendants, Ripple Labs, and co, did not object to the SEC’s request but demanded an 11-page reply brief in further support of the motion to exclude the commission’s five experts. The regulatory body also acceded this demand.
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
