In class court caseRipple filed a six-page response to the SEC’s claims that the Hinman documents were protected by attorney-client privilege.
As previously reported, the SEC has moved forward to make new assertions of privilege in its ongoing efforts to avoid the publication of emails related to the 2018 Ethereum speech by William Hinman, the former director of the corporate finance division of the SEC.
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪96k+ (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) May 13, 2022
Ripple answer bed:
The Court has repeatedly ordered the SEC to produce documents related to the wording of a speech that the company’s former chief financial officer, William Hinman, gave in his personal capacity in June 2018. First, the SEC has resisted, claiming that the privilege of the deliberative process protected them from production. . The Court rejected this argument. Now the SEC has returned to a theory it hasn’t raised in several briefings: that it’s protected attorney-client communications, because Hinman shared drafts of the speech with others. SEC staff, including certain attorneys, for the primary purpose of seeking legal advice.
For four reasons, Ripple argues that the emails might not be protected by attorney-client privilege, as claimed by the SEC. First, the record demonstrates that Hinman gave his speech in a personal capacity. Second, while Hinman was entitled to receive legal advice in the performance of his SEC duties, Ripple asserts that the substance of his personal remarks fell outside the scope of such solicitor-client privilege, noting that the he former SEC official did not have an attorney-client relationship with SEC attorneys in a personal capacity.
Ripple also argued that the communications did not involve any confidential information about the agency that could be protected by solicitor-client privilege. He further states that the SEC does not have standing to assert attorney-client privilege on behalf of the former SEC official.
The parties ask for an extension regarding the Metz report
In new updates shared by James K. Filan, Ripple and the SEC have filed a joint request for an extension of time regarding attorney fees related to Dr. Albert Metz’s supplemental report.
Earlier in the case, the Court denied defendants Ripple’s (Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen) motion to strike the Metz report while reopening the discovery until May 13 to refile Dr. Metz. The SEC was, however, ordered to pay “reasonable expenses” relating to the filing of the motion and Metz’s re-deposition.