Mithat Can Kartlaşmış 
Ripple Labs’ attorneys have argued that the SEC’s request to review additional financial documents is invalid. They also argued that the deadline has passed and that the material is not relevant to the upcoming trial in April.
You might like: SEC Regulator Faces Off with Binance
In a lawsuit filed on January 19, Ripple’s legal team alleged that the SEC had changed its stance on collecting additional information during the discovery phase, which requires each party to share relevant documents with the other as part of the legal process.
On January 11, the SEC requested that Ripple prepare audited financial statements for the fiscal years 2022 and 2023 and disclose all contracts related to the sale of XRP. After the initial request, it was said that information should be provided to outside organizations and additional details should be provided about corporate sales revenue generated from XRP.
Ripple made an explanation
However, the deadline for requesting material during the “fact-finding” phase expired in August 2021. Ripple argued that the SEC had “ample opportunity” to request the material it deemed necessary.
The statement also said, “In fact, the parties had already sued over whether post-complaint discovery was appropriate, and during that discovery dispute, the SEC never argued that post-complaint discovery was relevant to remedies; instead, it took the position that post-complaint behavior was entirely appropriate. It has nothing to do with the case.”
In the meantime, Ripple’s legal team emphasized that the court should not be swayed by the U.S. regulator’s portrayal of the blockchain payments technology company.
“The court should not step into the slippery slope that the SEC has opened,” the attorneys said.
The attorneys also argued that the SEC had used up all of its interrogatories, which is a list of written questions that the SEC can submit to Ripple for answers before the trial.
The filing states, “And finally, as to the SEC’s interrogatories specifically, the SEC has used up all of its interrogatories in the case and cannot unilaterally give itself more.”