Dr. Metz’s expert report is an analysis that assesses how various statements made by Ripple during the ICO affected the price of XRP. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has submitted a response to Ripple’s motion to strike Dr. Albert Metz’s supplemental expert report in SEC vs Ripple lawsuit. The Commission, however, asked for a two-day delay to file its answer. The SEC stated three primary reasons why the defendant’s request should be dismissed. Ripple plans to respond by March 24th.
The SEC cites three major reasons-
- According to the SEC’s objection, Ripple is attempting to throw out Dr. Metz’s expert advice in this area. Judge Torres should rule on this since the motion violates the protocol.
- According to the Commission, Ripple is attempting to gain an unfair advantage in this dispute. Expert evidence will be crucial to the fact finder.
- According to the SEC, defendants may demonstrate no actual prejudice since the report is not a suitable penalty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 37.
The SEC also stated that in order to determine the motion, the court must take these facts into account.
(1) an explanation for a party’s failure to comply with the disclosure requirement
(2) the significance of the barred witnesses’ evidence
(3) the prejudice suffered by the opposing party as a result of having to prepare for new testimony.
(4) the possibility of a continuation
According to attorney James K. Filan, the SEC’s statement is poorly drafted and incorrectly accuses Ripple of the process.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP The SEC has filed its response to Ripple’s Motion to Strike the Metz Supplemental Expert Report.https://t.co/ugSbih0EId
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) March 18, 2022
Attorney Jeremy Hogan pointed out that the SEC filed a second rebuttal report, despite the court’s permission for only one.
