Breaking: Judge Torres Denies the SEC’s Motion to Seal the Hinman Documents-Is This the Final Nail on the Coffin?

In a recent and interesting update, Judge Torres denied the SEC’s request to seal certain portions of Hinman’s documents. The defendants, the SEC in this case, have requested the court seal Hinman’s documents, which has been partially denied but also accepted some of the other requests regarding the sales of XRP on several other platforms. 

With the new findings in the case, many speculations about ‘behind the curtains’ activities have emerged. Moreover, the role of SEC chairman, Gary Gensler also raises questions as to whether he is trying to cover up former Chairman Jay Clayton and his activities. 

The SEC has requested to redact three categories of information, namely, the names and other identifying information of the SEC’s experts & XRP investor declarants. Secondly, personal and financial information, and lastly internal SEC documents reflecting debate and deliberation by SEC officials. 

Therefore, the recent order mainly contained the three following observations

• Although the Summary Judgement may be granted public access, narrowly tailored redactions are also necessary. Previously, one of the SEC’s expert witnesses was subjected to serious threats and harassment after his name was publically disclosed. Therefore, the SEC’s request to seal the names and information revealing the identity has been accepted by the court.

• Secondly, the SEC’s request to not disclose personal and financial information publicly has also been upheld by the court, referring to it as having minimum relevance to the court proceedings.

• Thirdly, the SEC has requested to seal completely Hinman’s speech documents as it argued that it may influence the ruling on a motion. The court disagrees and rejects the plea saying that,

“ Likewise, the court rejects the SEC’s argument that the court should seal the Hinman Speech Documents because the SEC may in the future (on appeal or in other litigation) argue that the documents are privileged, now withstanding the Court’s holding that the documents are privileges,”