“At the very least, the SEC should heed the admonition of its own Chair that “Firms should not use lengthy privilege reviews to delay responding to routine document requests”.
In an unsurprising move, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a request for an extension of time to file its Objection to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s Ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration of the DPP Ruling.
Not only the plaintiff is looking for an extension, but it is also attempting to bring new privilege assertions to the court in the hopes of seeing the DPP ruling reverted.
The SEC has proven quite extensively that it will not give up on this issue, but now it is up to the court to decide if it will humor the plaintiff’s wishes once again or not.
“Defendants do not consent to this request on the ground that they wish to avoid delay in this Court’s resolution of this issue”, SEC said in the filing.
In fact, Ripple Chief Legal Counsel Stuart Alderoty criticized the SEC’s insistence: “Imagine if in civil enforcement cases we also abided by the “Brady” rule, which in criminal cases, requires prosecutors to share all information in their possession that could help – or even exonerate – the defendants.”
“At the very least, the SEC should heed the admonition of its own Chair that “Firms should not use lengthy privilege reviews to delay responding to routine document requests”, Alderoty added, hinting at hypocrisy.
The plaintiff intends to file a motion renewing its assertion of the attorney-client privilege, as well as seeking leave to redact certain portions of the Speech Documents on deliberative process privilege grounds, by April 29, 2022.
In the name of “judicial efficiency”, the SEC is requesting an extension of time to object to the January and April Orders until 14 days after a ruling on the SEC’s forthcoming application renewing its privilege assertions as to certain internal documents related to a speech given by a former SEC official (the “Speech Documents”).
The SEC added that the defendants are prepared to proceed to summary judgment without a final ruling on the Hinman emails and documents.