SEC is once again “dilly dallying”

According to new updates shared by James K. Filan in the ongoing Ripple-SEC lawsuit, “The SEC has filed a request to file one omnibus (big) reply, up to 90 pages in length, in further support of its Motion to exclude or limit the testimony of ten experts retained by Ripple defendants.”

Ripple Lawsuit: SEC Continues Its “Dilly Dallying,” This Time on This

In its letter submitted to Judge Analisa Torres, the SEC attorney wrote: “Plaintiff respectfully seeks leave to file one omnibus reply, in further support of its omnibus motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s expert witnesses, that is up to 90 pages. The court previously granted the SEC’s request to file an opening brief in support of its motion of up to 120 pages in length.”

The letter further reads, “Although the order does not expressly specify a page limit for replies, it provides that motions and responses shall be limited to 15 pages.”

It continues, “the SEC’s proposed 90-page limit for an omnibus reply is 60 pages shorter than it otherwise would be at 15 pages per expert, 30 pages shorter than the page limit the court granted for the SEC’s opening omnibus brief, and 26 pages shorter than the defendants omnibus brief in opposition to the motion.”

The SEC also stated that the defendants did not object to its request.

In early July, District Judge Torres granted the SEC’s motion for permission to file a 120-page omnibus (big) motion to exclude or limit the expert testimony of 10 Ripple defendants’ experts.

Shedding light on the two motions filed by the SEC, former federal prosecutor James K. Filan explains: “One is the original request to file an omnibus motion to exclude, and this one is a motion to file an omnibus reply to the original motion.” It lets the parties just file one big document each, covering everything.” Digital asset enthusiast and lawyer on Twitter, “Bill,” believes the SEC’s move to exclude Ripple’s expert testimony was somewhat expected, given the excellent resources at Ripple’s disposal. However, a Twitter user named “AtheistAgnstVio” believes the latest move by the SEC reeks of another delay tactic.

Read more:

Join us on Telegram

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

You might also like