The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is asking a New York court to extend its deadline for releasing emails and internal documents related to Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP by two months.
In a statement to the court on Friday, the SEC stated, “Making meticulous, good-faith assessments of applicable privileges, as is required in these circumstances, is a sensitive, time-consuming endeavor.”
Since December, the SEC has claimed that Ripple, a payments business, has raised approximately $1.3 billion in unregistered securities sales of its native currency, XRP. Ripple refutes the claims.
Ripple asked Judge Sarah Netburn on March 15 to urge the SEC to hand over its crypto conversations. Ripple’s lawyers believe the SEC is biased against cryptocurrency, and that proof of prejudice could help Ripple win the case.
Judge Netburn granted Ripple’s demands “in substantial part” on April 6, but denied its request for access to the SEC’s staff correspondence about XRP’s legal status.
Ripple petitioned the court on June 4 to order the SEC to establish a June 18 deadline. The SEC answered in its June 11 filing that sifting through all of the data takes time. The deadline of June 18 was dubbed “one-sided” by the agency.
The SEC has already collected 25,000 emails and is still evaluating “tens of thousands” of internal papers, according to the agency. However, it stated that it needs to consult with previous employees in order to make sense of some of the old materials.
The information must be provided by June 18 to Ripple’s lawyers. The SEC was accused of purposely delaying document production “as a rationale for prolonging the [discovery] schedule,” according to the complaint.
In a March 15 petition to US District Court Judge Sarah Netburn, Ripple’s attorneys stated, “For over a decade, the SEC has watched as XRP evolved and expanded, all the while offering no official guidance that its sales may be illegal.”
“However, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that sales of two identical digital assets—bitcoin and ether—were not securities offerings.” The SEC, on the other hand, has never revealed its underlying thinking. We’ll find out soon enough.