The Ripple-SEC lawsuit has not made any notable progress of late. The judge has, undoubtedly, ruled on a couple of motions but, most of them have merely granted or rejected the involved parties’ requests. Alongside, there have been several pile-ups as well.
A particular community member highlighted:
SEC, Ripple’s ‘paper-weight’ battle
On Wednesday, the SEC sought permission to file an “omnibus” motion to exclude or limit the testimony of 10 experts who were retained by Ripple Labs and their executives, Garlinghouse, and Larsen.
They’ve requested authorization to write up to 120 pages. Ripple does not object to the same. However, they’ve asked for the same privilege to be provided to them during their opposition filing turn. On its part again, the SEC does not have a problem with the defendants’ counter-request.
Per the SEC, the experts have issued reports and rebuttals regarding numerous subject matters concerning the ongoing case. The same exceeds 500 pages, excluding exhibits. So, to conserve judicial and SEC resources, the plaintiffs have proposed to “combine” and file one long brief that would otherwise be 10 separate motions.
The SEC’s filing justified,
“The proposed 120-page limit is less than the total number of combined pages under the Order’s 15-page limit per expert and is sufficient to adequately inform the Court of the applicable facts and law in support of the SEC’s positions.”
The ‘wet-noodle’ approach: Yay or Nay?
The SEC lawyers have time and again been criticized for their actions. In one of the recent court rulings, listeners opined that the SEC attorney was clueless about what was being argued. In a relatively “embarrassing” way, the SEC defended its stance.
In fact, John Deaton has always brought up red flags and opined that the plaintiff’s lawyers have lacked logical strategy. Per him, their latest request showcases the same “wet noodle approach” where they’re throwing everything against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.