Ripple, a leading player in the cryptocurrency industry, is currently engaged in a legal showdown with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The company has recently filed a request to strike new expert materials presented by the SEC and responded to the regulator’s opposition on April 22, 2024. Ripple claims that the SEC should have disclosed the expert witness, Fox, during the discovery phase.

According to veteran defense lawyer James K. Filan, Ripple filed a letter in support of its April 22, 2024, request to strike new expert materials and in response to the SEC’s April 29, 2024, opposition. Ripple argues that Fox is an expert witness due to her accounting skills exceeding simple arithmetic. On the other hand, the SEC asserts that Fox’s function was to summarize financial facts without requiring expertise.

The SEC cites cases such as United States v. Blakstad and SEC v. Treadway to support its claim that Fox, a summary witness, did not provide expert testimony or opinions in the report. The regulator states that the report merely simplified Ripple’s audited financial records for Judge Analisa Torres using basic math.

Ripple contends that the SEC delayed identifying Fox as an expert witness, which impedes accurate cross-examination and trial fairness. The company cites previous cases where judges dismissed identical declarations due to improper disclosure. Ripple argues that misclassifying and disclosing expert testimony misleads the court and opposing parties.

In the past, the SEC has claimed that contextual circumstances allowed summary testimony without expert disclosures. The courts may rule on the motion to strike at any moment. However, the SEC must submit its remedy-related reply brief by May 6, addressing Ripple’s objection to the SEC’s opening brief seeking punitive damages and an injunction.

Ripple’s persistent battle against the SEC has been making headlines since December 2020 when the regulatory body charged Ripple with violating U.S. securities laws by selling its native cryptocurrency, XRP. The case has sparked a broader debate within the cryptocurrency industry, with many questioning the regulatory clarity surrounding digital assets in the United States.

James K. Filan, a seasoned defense lawyer, reported that Ripple filed a letter supporting its April 22, 2024, request to strike new expert materials and responding to the SEC’s April 29, 2024, opposition. Ripple also argued that the SEC should have introduced Fox’s declaration during the discovery phase, as she was an expert witness.

The crux of the issue lies in determining whether Fox, an accounting professional, qualifies as an expert witness or a summary witness. The SEC claims that Fox’s role was to simplify financial facts without requiring expertise. However, Ripple argues that her accounting skills surpass basic arithmetic, classifying her as an expert witness.

The SEC maintains that Fox’s function was to summarize Ripple’s audited financial records using simple math. The regulatory body cites cases such as United States v. Blakstad and SEC v. Treadway to support its stance, stating that Fox did not provide expert testimony or opinions in the report. The SEC argues that her report merely simplified Ripple’s financial records for Judge Analisa Torres.

Additionally, the court will decide on whether to prohibit Ripple from selling XRP to institutional investors. This ruling could impact Ripple’s expansion in the United States.

The outcome of this case could significantly influence other similar cases. If Ripple successfully strikes Fox’s declaration, it may limit the SEC’s ability to argue for specific pen