Documents that Ripple has asked the court to keep sealed and why.

Ceresney argues that “they include Ripple’s classified, private business records,” and that “the expectation of public access to papers filed exclusively in conjunction with discovery disputes is limited.”” The counsel added,

“All four documents were designated as Confidential by Ripple under the terms of the Protective Order passed by Judge Torres. Making these documents public at this preliminary stage would allow the SEC to unilaterally undo the protections offered by the protective order.”

Ceresney has said that the documents in question are not judicial documents under statute, and even even though they were, “any weight given to the assumption of access would be minimal.”

The letter further commented on the essence of the exhibits in question. An internal correspondence between Ripple staff reviewing financial details with a private foundation, a memorandum expanding on Ripple’s corporate plan, and email messages between Ripple and an early-stage investor are among the exhibits.

Ripple Labs’ counsel ended the letter by arguing that the enforcement body could not be granted exclusive authority to make Ripple’s proprietary records public, including documents representing corporate strategies, funding efforts, legal guidance, and product creation, simply by adding them to a court filing.

It is worth recalling, though, that Ceresney has already asked for permission to propose redactions to the records if the court decides that they should be made public.

Ripple Labs’ counsel ended the letter by arguing that the enforcement body could not be granted exclusive authority to make Ripple’s proprietary records public, including documents representing corporate strategies, funding efforts, legal guidance, and product creation, simply by adding them to a court filing.

It is worth recalling, though, that Ceresney has already asked for permission to propose redactions to the records if the court decides that they should be made public.

“…. simply invoking comparisons to Bitcoin and Ether (or labeling a digital asset a currency) is not a cognizable defense. Discovery pertaining to Bitcoin and Ether can therefore have no bearing on the issues in this case.”

The same will be the subject of discussion during a telephonic conference scheduled for 6 April.