Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-10832
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc., Judge Torres set deadlines for expert-testimony motions and related sealing requests.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, Ripple Labs Inc., Bradley Garlinghouse, and Christian A. Larsen were required to comply with the filing, sealing, and opposition deadlines.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc., the court reviewed letters the parties submitted about filing and sealing motions to exclude expert testimony.
The court ordered the parties to file those expert-testimony motions under seal by July 12, 2022. It set July 22 for motions asking to keep the filings sealed and July 25 for any oppositions. If no sealing motions were filed by July 22, the court said it would order the expert-testimony motions unsealed.
Judge Analisa Torres also reminded the parties that they had to justify proposed seals and redactions, even when both sides agreed to them. This order addressed filing and public-access procedures, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10832
- Analisa Torres
- July 12, 2022
Background
The court reviewed letters dated July 10 and 11, 2022, filed by the parties in the Securities and Exchange Commission's case against Ripple Labs Inc., Bradley Garlinghouse, and Christian A. Larsen.
Order
The court directed the parties to file their motions to exclude expert testimony under seal by July 12, 2022, as previously ordered.
The parties had until July 22, 2022, to file motions asking the court to keep those expert-testimony motions sealed. The court stated that, if it did not receive sealing motions by that date, it would order the expert-testimony motions unsealed. The court also reminded the parties that they had to sufficiently justify every proposed sealing or redaction, including proposals to which both parties agreed, because an agreement between the parties does not overcome the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.
The parties had until July 25, 2022, to file oppositions to the sealing motions.
Disposition and significance
The court entered these filing and sealing deadlines. The order did not decide the parties' underlying claims or the admissibility of the expert testimony.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.