Ripple Labs Inc. has ramped up its court fight with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by submitting a lengthy letter to substantiate its motion initially made on April 22, 2024. This motion seeks to eliminate the expert testimony submitted by the SEC that Ripple considers inappropriate.

The action by Ripple follows the SEC’s opposition letter dated April 29, 2024, in which it defended the admissibility of the testimony challenged.

Expert Testimony or Summary Evidence?

Ripple’s main dispute revolves around the Declaration of Andrea Fox, which it claims to be an expert testimony rather than mere summary evidence as contended by the SEC. Ripple argues that Fox’s declaration applies specialized accounting knowledge to evaluate financial statements and make inferences that surpass basic arithmetic. Ripple asserts that this clearly satisfies the requirements of an expert witness as outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702(a).

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP @Ripple has filed a letter in further support of its April 22, 2024 motion to strike new expert materials, and in reply to the SEC’s April 29, 2024 opposition to that motion to strike. pic.twitter.com/vXW1C22Oso

— James K. Filan (@FilanLaw) May 2, 2024

On the other hand, the SEC contends that Fox was to give a plain summary of the large amount of Ripple’s financial data, which does not require the substantial expertise typical of expert witnesses.

They claim that her analysis was mostly basic calculations designed to make the perception of the data and not to give expert opinions on financial issues.

Timeliness and Disclosure Disputes

Further important concern raised by Ripple is the timeliness of the Fox Declaration. Ripple accuses the SEC of failing to name Fox as an expert witness in the schedules stipulated by the court, which is done to guarantee that both parties have a period to react to evidence given during the court appearance.

Ripple insists that this inattention prevents them from fully conducting a cross-examination and detracting from the fairness of the trial process.

Meanwhile, the SEC opposes this argument by claiming that Fox did not need to be documented as an expert since she was a summary witness whose testimony was based on pre-existing records and simple calculations.

Precedents and Legal Interpretations

The reply brief of Ripple refers to a number of cases where courts have stricken declarations similar to Fox’s as undisclosed expert testimony disguised as fact summary. They contend that prior decisions are in favor of their stance that not properly classifying and disclosing the nature of a witness’ testimony can mislead both the opposing party and the court, thus justifying the exclusion of such testimony.

The SEC contradicts this view of the plaintiffs. It compares this case to other cases where summary witnesses were admitted without the need for a formal expert disclosure. They stress that the procedural environment and the content of the testimony dictate the requirement for these disclosures.

The result of this motion could have serious consequences in the upcoming litigation between Ripple and the SEC. If Ripple manages to get the Fox Declaration from the record, it could potentially limit the SEC’s ability to argue for specific penalties implied by the disputed calculations in Fox’s testimony. On the other hand, a successful declaration would reinforce the SEC’s case by providing a foundation for its claims against Ripple.

Read Also: Dropbox Hit With Massive Data Breach, Here’s What Happened

The post Ripple vs SEC Lawsuit: Ripple Presses Court to Dismiss SEC’s Expert Evidence appeared first on CoinGape.

---

Filed under: News - @ January 1, 1970 12:00 am