Ripple Case Advances in California: Judge Issues Key Orders in XRP Lawsuit

• Judge Hamilton’s rulings mostly favor the plaintiffs, strengthening their position in the Ripple XRP litigation.
• Ripple’s objections to expert testimonies on XRP dependence were denied, as experts’ analyses are set for jury review.
• State-level XRP classification remains complex, with experts debating its security status in state and federal cases.

In the current legal battle under the California lawsuit against Ripple Labs, U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton has recently made some orders regarding important motions. This XRP-related case concerns securities law violations, emphasizing their possible impact on the distribution of the XRP token and the market.

Key rulings largely favored the plaintiffs, allowing their expert testimonies to proceed. Consequently, these rulings establish a pivotal basis as the lawsuit advances toward a pretrial conference scheduled for December 19, with jury selection set for January 21, 2025.

Plaintiffs’ Experts Cleared to Testify

Hamilton’s rulings address motions under the Daubert rule, a standard used to assess the admissibility of expert witness testimonies. The court denied Ripple’s motion to exclude Jeremy Clark’s testimony, an expert on digital currencies.

Ripple argued that Clark lacked specific knowledge about XRP; however, the court disagreed, finding his insights on XRP Ledger’s structure and Ripple’s role in its distribution valuable for jury review. Ripple’s bid to exclude economist Saifedean Ammous’ testimony was also rejected, reinforcing the plaintiff’s evidence framework.

Exclusions of Ripple and Plaintiffs’ Experts

In contrast, the court ruled in favor of certain exclusions proposed by each side. Ripple successfully argued against the inclusion of plaintiff expert Joel Seligman’s testimony, which examined Ripple’s market activities concerning XRP pricing. This exclusion narrows the scope of expert inputs considered by the jury.

The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Ripple’s expert, Alan Schwartz, whose analysis attempted to minimize Ripple’s influence over XRP. With these rulings, Judge Hamilton has delineated the testimony scope for both parties, setting clear limits for trial evidence.

While this case unfolds in California under state laws, the Ripple case against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) operates on a federal level, creating separate implications. Legal analyst Fred Rispoli notes that XRP’s classification varies between cases, with Ripple’s California case concerning state laws, while the SEC case relies on federal securities law.

Earlier in the SEC case, a federal judge determined that Ripple’s direct XRP sales to institutional buyers violated federal securities law. However, retail sales on secondary markets were not classified as securities. Consequently, this duality highlights the legal complexity surrounding XRP’s status at state and federal levels.

Upcoming Settlement Talks and Trial Preparation

Hamilton’s rulings provide essential guidance for both parties to have scheduled settlement talks. These discussions may open a pathway toward resolution before the pretrial conference in December. The court’s rulings on expert testimonies play a crucial role, as conflicting expert opinions from economists such as Ammous and Ferrell on XRP’s market dynamics and Ripple’s influence will be assessed during the trial.

Accordingly, these recent decisions shape the path forward as the case heads to court, where the plaintiffs’ claims of securities violations against Ripple will be further scrutinized.