Ripple Counters SEC’s Opposition Brief With New Filing, What Does It Say?

Ripple

has
filed
a
new
court
document
supporting
its
motion
to
strike
new
evidence
in
its


long-running
legal
battle

against
the


Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
(SEC).
The
crypto
firm
filed
the
initial
motion
on
April
22,
seeking
to
strike
Andrea
Fox,
an
accountant
at
the
Commission,
as
one
of
the
claimant’s
witnesses. 

Ripple
Makes
A
Case
For
Its
Latest
Request

In
the


letter

addressed
to


Judge
Sarah
Netburn,
Ripple
argued
that
the
SEC
has
failed
to
show
that
Andrea
Fox’s
declaration
is
“summary
evidence
rather
than


expert
testimony

or
that
it
was
under
the
court’s
scheduling
order.”
In
line
with
this,
they
requested
that
her
testimony
be
struck
out. 

Ripple
initially
raised
this
motion
in


opposition

to
the
SEC’s
motion
for
remedies
and
entry
of
final
judgment.
They
argued
that
the
SEC
erred
in
relying
on
Fox’s
testimony,
as
she
was
never
disclosed
as
a
fact
or
expert
witness
and
was
not
deposed
during
the
initial
discovery
or
supplemental


remedies
discovery.

In
reply
to
Ripple’s
initial
motion,
the
SEC


tried

to
paint
Fox
as
a
summary
witness
rather
than
an
expert
witness,
which
Ripple
had
classified
her
testimony
as.
The
Commission
argued
that
“Ripple
incorrectly
claims
this
declaration
constitutes
expert
testimony.”
It
further
stated
that
this
wasn’t
the
case,
claiming
that
Fox’s
declaration
was
a
“standard
summary
evidence
permissible”
under
the
law. 

This
was
what
made
Ripple
pivot
in
its
latest
court
filing.
It
argued
that
even
if
Fox
was
a
summary
witness
(and
not
an
expert
witness,
as
believed),
the


SEC
hasn’t
done
enough

to
prove
this.
The
crypto
firm
noted
that
the
Commission
has
also
failed
to
explain
why
Fox’s
declaration
highlighted
her
qualification
as
an
accountant
if
they
weren’t
trying
to
paint
her
as
an
expert
witness. 

Usually,
a
witness’s
qualification
would
only
matter
if
the
witness
in
question
was
meant
to
give
expert
testimony.
As
such,
although
the
SEC
argues
that
Fox
isn’t,
everything
points
to
her
being
an
expert
rather
than
a
summary
witness. 

Another
Argument
On
Why
Fox
Is
An
Expert
Witness

In
its
reply,
the
SEC
claimed
that
Fox
was
a
summary
witness
because
her
declaration
only
applied
“basic
arithmetic
to
Ripple’s
financial
records.”
However,
Ripple


refuted
this
argument,
noting
that
Fox’s
actions
suggested
she
was
acting
as
an
expert
witness.
They
stated
how
the
accountant
used
her


specialized
knowledge

to
analyze
not
only
Ripple’s
records
but
also
third-party
evidence
and
expert
reports. 

She
then
used
her
analysis
to
draw
inferences
and
conclusions
about
the
documents
she
reviewed.
Ripple
also
claimed
that
she
calculated
the
disgorgement,
prejudgement
interest,
and
discount
amounts
based
on
her
analysis.
Basically,
the
crypto
firm
was
hinting
at
the
fact
that
the
SEC
stipulated
its


proposed
fine
of
almost
$2
billion

based
on
Fox’s
judgment.

Ripple

also
alluded
to
how
the
SEC
had
cited
one
of
Fox’s
inferences
in
its
remedies
memorandum.
According
to
the


crypto
firm,
“a
layperson
could
not
“infer”
what
entries
“appear
to”
mean
by
doing
basic
math.”

XRP price recovers | Source: XRPUSDT on Tradingview.com

Featured
image
from
The
Coin
Republic,
chart
from
Tradingview.com