XRP Lawsuit: Ripple asserts, SEC “boil-the-ocean” demand is flatly incompatible with Federal Rules

The latest development in the XRP lawsuit saw Ripple file an opposition to the SEC’s Letter Motion Compelling discovery of recordings of defendants’ internal meetings, where Garlinghouse, Larsen & other key employees spoke on topics relevant to disputes in the lawsuit. Ripple has argued that the SEC’s boil-the-ocean demand is flatly incompatible with the Federal Rules. Furthermore, the defense claimed that the plaintiff’s request is disproportionate, given the massive amount of material already produced in discovery.

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Ripple files its opposition to the SEC’s Motion to Compel Ripple to search and produce recordings of Ripple meetings where Garlinghouse, Larsen & other key employees spoke on topics relevant to disputes in lawsuit.https://t.co/jktIei0wRm

— James K. Filan ???? (@FilanLaw) October 8, 2021

“The SEC’s demand that Ripple review every single recording in the BlueJeans and Zoom databases for responsiveness and privilege is plainly disproportionate under Rule 26(b)(1), and collapses the distinction between a “search” for responsive content and a wholesale review of every recording.”

Ripple salvages SEC’s lousy “burdensome” argument

Ripple argued that the burden of the SEC’s latest discovery demand supersedes any potential benefits. The SEC’s discovery request is on a par with compelling Ripple to review over 4,000 recordings in the BlueJeans and Zoom databases, amounting to thousands of hours spent reviewing the data. The defendants have used the plaintiff’s “burdensome” argument against them, claiming that the courts have denied motions to compel, seeking review of far fewer recordings. Furthermore, Ripple asserts that considering the sheer volume, the recordings are “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.”

Ripple marks SEC claims as “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative”

The defendants have also asserted that the SEC’s repetitive claim of marking any unproduced data as direct evidence on “whether Ripple’s offers and sales of XRP are investment contracts and therefore securities under Howey” is downright speculative and holds no factual support. Additionally, Ripple argues that even if hypothetically, any unproduced recordings pertain to that issue, the SEC’s request remains “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative” of prior discovery concerning that topic.

Ripple states Rule 26

The defendants supported their argument using Rule 26. Ripple stated that they already undertook a comprehensive search for potentially responsive recordings along with agreeing to the SEC’s supplemental demands for additional recordings. Therefore, Ripple’s discovery efforts were reasonable and highly effective in identifying potentially relevant recordings, which in turn does not call for more discoveries.

“The SEC’s highly disproportionate demand that Ripple now—more than a month after the expiration of fact discovery—review every single recording ever made over the last eight years should be denied.”