MoneyGram Requests Limited Redactions to Ripple and SEC Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony

– Advertisement –

MoneyGram wants to seal a few lines from a deposition transcript of one of its officers in the upcoming Ripple vs. SEC Daubert motion. 

Popular payments giant MoneyGram has filed a motion seeking to seal certain portions of the filings made by Ripple and the SEC in connection with the parties’ motion to exclude expert testimony. 

MoneyGram’s Request

According to MoneyGram, the proposed limited redactions are essential to protect the company’s “highly confidential business information.” 

MoneyGram noted that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to a few lines from a deposition transcript involving one of its officers. 

The excerpts contain non-public information related to MoneyGram’s sensitive financial information as well as business strategies. 

“Indeed, public disclosure of this information would be highly detrimental because it would reveal to the public and MoneyGram’s competitors detailed information about MoneyGram’s internal and confidential business operations and strategic matters,” the financial payment giant noted in the motion. 

Notably, MoneyGram has sent a sealed copy of the relevant excerpts from the transcript, highlighting the proposed redactions. MoneyGram noted that the proposed redactions were sent alongside a copy of its motion letter. 

Interestingly, Ripple and the Securities and Exchange Commission do not oppose MoneGram’s request. 

It is noteworthy that the development was shared by attorney James K. Filan, a former federal prosecutor who has consistently shared updates about the Ripple lawsuit

Unidentified Third Party Makes Similar Request

In a similar development, an unidentified party referred to as Third Party A, has also filed a motion seeking to seal certain portions of the defendant’s Daubert motion filed on July 12, 2022. 

Per the motion filed by the unidentified party, the sealing requests are narrowly tailored to protect the party’s confidential business information. 

The party also noted that the sealing requests would protect Third Party A’s legitimate privacy interests of all current and former employees and representatives. 

“While Third Party A is not seeking to remain completely anonymous at all, Third Party A’s identity should be redacted in instances where the identity of other similarly-situated third parties are being redacted in the same or adjacent paragraphs,” an excerpt from the unidentified party’s letter reads. 

The party noted that it would be unfair to expose its identity when the identities of other third parties are redacted. 

– Advertisement –