XRP Lawsuit: Garlinghouse Wins Powerful Testimony From 2018 Meeting About XRP• April 22, 2022 6:41 pm • Comments
After all the good news that happened for Ripple in the lawsuit last week, Ripple appears to have scored another win that will help solidify its winning position.
The win that Ripple has scored is the fact that Brad Garlinghouse now has the ability to give a testimony about what happened during the meeting with Elad Roisman who was a former SEC Commissioner that was critical of the SEC’s policy on digital assets.
Garlinghouse’s testimony would be uncontroverted which means that it would be considered evidence that must be believed by the court unless there is any evidence that proves the contrary.
Essentially, whatever Garlinghouse says during this testimony will be regarded as the truth no questions asked.
The only way that the SEC could object to the testimony would be to produce the Estabrook notes which they are not willing to as many are speculating that the notes may potentially contain information that damages the SEC’s position.
— DJ Peter Vas (@PeterVas6) April 20, 2022
Commenting on the court’s ruling, attorney Hogan explained that since Garlinghouse was on the call, he can testify about what was said – uncontroverted.
“The idea of “uncontroverted” evidence is very very powerful in the law. It’s evidence that MUST be believed by the Court.
So unless the SEC comes up with evidence to the contrary, whatever Garlinghouse says about that conversation IS what took place. No questions asked.”
In addition to the denying the Estabrook notes and allowing the SEC’s Metz report, the court also granted the SEC’s motion for extension of time to file its objection to the DPP ruling.
The Objection is due 14 days after Magistrate Judge Netburn rules on the SEC’s new privilege assertions.
To give some background history on the Estabrook notes, Ripple had previously filed a motion to have the SEC produce the notes.
However, the court had denied that motion because the notes were considered to be protected by privilege as they would reveal the SEC’s thought process during the meeting.
Yet, the fact that the Estabrook notes are not able to be produced does not help the SEC much because they also would not be able to deny what happened during the meeting.
As a result, this was what led to Garlinghouse being the one to be able to give the testimony.
If anyone who was also in that meeting claims that Garlinghouse is speaking lies, Ripple gets to impeach them with the notes which means that they lose the ability to be protected by privilege.
Not surprised on this ruling. With Garlinghouse being present in the meeting if the notes reviewed by the Judge showed any personal thought process of Estabrook and not just documenting exactly what was said in the meeting it was going to be protected. https://t.co/xNLlmq6G0o
— Jim Hyatt (@TwinPop14) April 19, 2022
“Let’s step back from the motion and think like a trial lawyer. At trial, Garlinghouse testifies about the meeting with Roisman. There’s absolutely no indication that Roisman or Eastbrook are disputing what was said (otherwise the SEC would gladly produce the notes).
“If Roisman or Eastbrook go turncoat, they could testify that Garlinghouse lied about his testimony… and what happens then? That’s right, Ripple gets to impeach the heck out of them with the EASTBROOK NOTES, which lose DPP privilege the moment they talk about the meeting.”
“Which means that the SEC has no evidence at all about the meeting but can only argue that Garlinghouse’s testimony is “self serving” and… all testimony is self serving. That’s very x2 weak sauce. By which I mean to say, whatever the Judge rules, the SEC is already dead [in the water]”.
To conclude, the SEC is now caught up in a difficult spot where it is forced to choose between giving Garlinghouse the ability to give a powerful testimony or exposing the Estabrook notes.
maybe they are just trying to throw the SEC a bone. Anyway brad gets to tell them in person his views on the Estabrook notes SEC ripple, no need to release them, shes already seen them. Metz report can be quashed easily 20% is lower than 40%. Judges seem to want to get clarity
— www.sun-dara.co.uk ☀ (@sundaracouk1) April 21, 2022
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.