Underlining how Ripple has already conceded that “a party has no standing to object a discovery on behalf of an unaffiliated non-party,” the SEC argued that the provisions of the MoUs are not intended to create “legally binding obligations” for entities, nor do they envisage to supersede domestic laws. Reverting back to Ripple’s “incredibly burdensome” argument, the letter further added,
“And, to the extent any foreign entity wishes to object that the Requests seek information that is burdensome or otherwise improper, they may do so under the laws of their own jurisdiction.”
On the back of the defendants accusing the SEC of ‘extra-judicial tactics’ with its MOU requests, the agency has not responded to the same via a strongly worded letter submitted to Judge Sarah Netburn.
In its own submission, Ripple Labs had alleged that the SEC was deviating and seeking information from 30 different individuals and entities, instead of their previously stated 20. The SEC clarified that it is seeking information from 20 parties, nine affiliates, and one entity, thereby bringing the number to 30.
With American regulators being accused of thrusting their personal policy preferences on crypto-entities, the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple Labs has proven to be quite a ride for both parties since it was first filed back in December.
The SEC’s legal Counsel Jorge Tenreiro also asserted that Ripple was time and again informed about the “protected