Jump to content
brjXRP17

Ripple Labs v. R3 (update w/ court documents)

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, brjXRP17 said:

10.) Lastly, both parties are going back and forth on what terms to search, limiting the scope of the discovery. This is common. So, for example, let's say R3 and Ripple Labs both agree to include the search term "XRP." During the discovery process, Ripple and R3 would then search through the other party's texts, emails, voicemails, correspondences, etc., of the custodians or people specifically listed or agreed upon AND within the specified timeframe, looking for the term "XRP." Thus, if Brad is a listed custodian for Ripple Labs, any email during the timeframe where the word "XRP" was used would come up in the search for R3. Hopefully that makes sense. Anyways, they are fighting on what terms to search and how "wide" the scope should be here. 

interesting, but also a bit concerning from my POV -- do you know what legal mechanisms are in place to prevent sensitive elements from getting into the hands of the other and giving over competitive advantage? or simply leaking out into the public domain crucial strategy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zerpdigger said:

interesting, but also a bit concerning from my POV -- do you know what legal mechanisms are in place to prevent sensitive elements from getting into the hands of the other and giving over competitive advantage? or simply leaking out into the public domain crucial strategy?

Don't know.... Seems like it's more R3 being afraid to uncover the wraps from their business "strategy"?
Lots of "R3 refuses...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pucksterpete said:

FUK R3, its over for R3

That is not how litigation works: lawyers excel in picturing the other party as unreasonable and will do anything in their power to strenghten the position of their client and to weaken the one of the opposite party. R3 probably withheld does documents to not give Ripple any unexpected ammo: it's more of a strategy thing during proceedings

Curious where this will go. Good post @brjXRP17.

Edited by Parabellum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
24 minutes ago, pucksterpete said:

FUK R3 anyway   :)

Yeh! Or Yeah! I'm feeling mature today. Eff you see Kay to em. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zerpdigger said:

interesting, but also a bit concerning from my POV -- do you know what legal mechanisms are in place to prevent sensitive elements from getting into the hands of the other and giving over competitive advantage? or simply leaking out into the public domain crucial strategy?

I believe you can protect proprietary information one way or the other (redaction, sealing).  What is proprietary includes business plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brjXRP17 said:

Hey guys, 

Quick update on the Ripple Labs, Inc. v. R3 court case in New York. Remember, this legal dispute is in two jurisdictions - California and New York. The Delaware case was dismissed. The California case is on appeal and will pick back up in July 2018. This post only pertains to the case in New York (Case No. 655781/2017).

No, the case between Ripple Labs and R3 is not over, contrary to previous reports, news articles and previously posted FUD on this website. 

1.) Discovery has commenced. This is the next step in preparing a case for trial. 
2.) Ripple's legal team wrote a letter to the judge overseeing this case yesterday (4/3/2018) and asked Justice Bransten to direct R3 to a.) produce documents from a wider timeframe, b.) to fully respond to reasonable discovery requests, c.) to include key custodians in document searches and d.) to apply search terms to ensure production of relevant documents. 
3.) "R3 initiated this lawsuit and yet is now taking inordinate steps to avoid its discovery obligations."  

4.) According the Ripple's legal team, R3 refuses to produce documents predating January 1, 2016 or post-dating June 13, 2017. Their argument is such documents are not relevant. 
5.) According to Ripple's legal team, R3 refuses to produce the operating agreements of R3 and Distributed Ledger Group, LLC.  
6.) According to Ripple's legal team, R3 is refusing to including in the document search and collection efforts four (4) highly relevant custodians (people). 
7.) The four (4) custodians or R3 people: Charley Cooper, Adam Furgal, Mike Hearn and Richard Brown. 

8.) Project Romeo was a code name used by the parties to refer to the development of a formal R3/Ripple long-term commercial partnership. Thus, Ripple's legal team has added that term to the list of terms to search in the emails, texts, correspondences, etc.   
9.) In one of the court documents below, you will see the proposed list of people from R3 who will be ordered to turn over texts, emails, voicemails, etc., and will probably be deposed at some point by both sides and their legal team. Check out that document. 

10.) Lastly, both parties are going back and forth on what terms to search, limiting the scope of the discovery. This is common. So, for example, let's say R3 and Ripple Labs both agree to include the search term "XRP." During the discovery process, Ripple and R3 would then search through the other party's texts, emails, voicemails, correspondences, etc., of the custodians or people specifically listed or agreed upon AND within the specified timeframe, looking for the term "XRP." Thus, if Brad is a listed custodian for Ripple Labs, any email during the timeframe where the word "XRP" was used would come up in the search for R3. Hopefully that makes sense. Anyways, they are fighting on what terms to search and how "wide" the scope should be here. 

Still digging through these documents. I will post some more information, if needed. Later tonight, I'm going to do some more digging into Distributed Ledger Group, LLC. Never heard of this LLC before. 

Later. 

@Snoopy @Pablo @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @xrpisking @FinancialAnybody 

letter_Page_1.jpg

letter_Page_2.jpg

letter_Page_3.jpg

3_Page_4.jpg

3_Page_5.jpg

3_Page_6.jpg

good effort in summarizing this so nicely that everyone can understand..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, according to Ripple's legal team, R3 is refusing to produce the operating agreements of R3 HoldCo LLC and Distributed Ledger Group, LLC.

Now, as promised, after looking into the Distributed Ledger Group, LLC, the entity is filed in Delaware (and is still active). 

However, in October 2017, David Rutter of R3 signed a certification of cancellation for Distributed Ledger Group, LLC in California, meaning R3 "wound up" or closed down the entity, for Distributed Ledger Group, LLC no longer plans on operating or doing business in California.

Interesting development. 

Business Entities Filing Document.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @brjXRP17 for this excellent service. You go above and beyond with the summaries and we are all indebted to you.

Interesting developments indeed. Discovery is an extremely time consuming and disruptive exercise for those involved (all of whom are senior execs at R3). If they thought they had done the job the first time, they might be in for a rude shock if the court orders further documents and data to be supplied. It's a complete PITA.

Also, Ripple's legal team has smartly presented R3's response to this (reasonably benign) task as evidence supporting Ripple's broader claims of fraud and misrepresentation. Nicely done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...