Ripple has filed a new court document supporting its motion to strike new evidence in its long-running legal battle against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The crypto firm filed the initial motion on April 22, seeking to strike Andrea Fox, an accountant at the Commission, as one of the claimant’s witnesses.
Ripple Makes A Case For Its Latest Request
In the letter addressed to Judge Sarah Netburn, Ripple argued that the SEC has failed to show that Andrea Fox’s declaration is “summary evidence rather than expert testimony or that it was under the court’s scheduling order.” In line with this, they requested that her testimony be struck out.
Ripple initially raised this motion in opposition to the SEC’s motion for remedies and entry of final judgment. They argued that the SEC erred in relying on Fox’s testimony, as she was never disclosed as a fact or expert witness and was not deposed during the initial discovery or supplemental remedies discovery.
In reply to Ripple’s initial motion, the SEC tried to paint Fox as a summary witness rather than an expert witness, which Ripple had classified her testimony as. The Commission argued that “Ripple incorrectly claims this declaration constitutes expert testimony.” It further stated that this wasn’t the case, claiming that Fox’s declaration was a “standard summary evidence permissible” under the law.
This was what made Ripple pivot in its latest court filing. It argued that even if Fox was a summary witness (and not an expert witness, as believed), the SEC hasn’t done enough to prove this. The crypto firm noted that the Commission has also failed to explain why Fox’s declaration highlighted her qualification as an accountant if they weren’t trying to paint her as an expert witness.
Usually, a witness’s qualification would only matter if the witness in question was meant to give expert testimony. As such, although the SEC argues that Fox isn’t, everything points to her being an expert rather than a summary witness.
Another Argument On Why Fox Is An Expert Witness
In its reply, the SEC claimed that Fox was a summary witness because her declaration only applied “basic arithmetic to Ripple’s financial records.” However, Ripple refuted this argument, noting that Fox’s actions suggested she was acting as an expert witness. They stated how the accountant used her specialized knowledge to analyze not only Ripple’s records but also third-party evidence and expert reports.
She then used her analysis to draw inferences and conclusions about the documents she reviewed. Ripple also claimed that she calculated the disgorgement, prejudgement interest, and discount amounts based on her analysis. Basically, the crypto firm was hinting at the fact that the SEC stipulated its proposed fine of almost $2 billion based on Fox’s judgment.
Ripple also alluded to how the SEC had cited one of Fox’s inferences in its remedies memorandum. According to the crypto firm, “a layperson could not “infer” what entries “appear to” mean by doing basic math.”