Order

Request

<p>Yesterday, the crypto firm Binance and the SEC jointly requested a protective order from the court, which was outright rejected by the judge. Here are the reasons given by Judge Amy Berman Jackson in her decision on the case.</p>
<h2 id="h-rejection-of-binance-and-sec-request-to-avoid-sealed-filings">Rejection of Binance and SEC Request to Avoid Sealed Filings</h2>
<p>New developments have arisen around the legal confrontation between the crypto firm Binance and the SEC. Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected <a href="https://www.cointribune.com/en/binance-vs-the-sec-tense-developments-in-the-battle/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">the joint request for a protective order</a> filed yesterday. This decision has significant implications, shining a light on the current legal complexities prevalent in the regulatory environment involving the cryptocurrency sector.</p>
<div class="my-4">
 <div class="ads " data-page-type="" data-location="1">
 </div>
</div>
<p>The protective order requested by Binance and the SEC aimed to limit the disclosure of sensitive information, including potentially non-public data. However, <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/judge-denies-binance-and-sec-request-for-protective-order-to-avoid-filings-under-seal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Judge Jackson’s recent decision</a> aligns with the court’s commitment to avoid under-seal procedures.</p>
<p>This is in accordance with local civil rule 5.1(h), which stipulates that any confidential information intended to be sealed must be accompanied by a motion requesting permission to file under seal.</p>
<p>In other words, the party must provide a justification to the court explaining why the confidentiality of this information is necessary. It is then up to the court to decide whether or not to authorize the sealing of these documents.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-embed aligncenter is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter">
 <div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
  <div class="entry-content-asset">
   <div class="social-embed-container">
    <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
     <p lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/pBYlgGorn3" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">https://t.co/pBYlgGorn3</a></p>— JChilds520.ETH | <img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/72x72/1f48e.png" alt="💎" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;">HIT NETWORK <img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/72x72/1f48e.png" alt="💎" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;"> (@JChilds520) <a href="https://twitter.com/JChilds520/status/1724771908091064825?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">November 15, 2023</a>
    </blockquote>
    <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
   </div>
  </div>
 </div>
 <figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><em>The court rejects the request of Binance and the SEC to keep information sealed</em>
 </figcaption>
</figure>
<h2 id="h-a-rejection-with-significant-consequences">A Rejection with Significant Consequences</h2>
<p>It should be noted that the rejection of the protective order leads to several significant consequences that need to be highlighted. The first concerns the limited public access to sensitive information sought by the request.</p>
<p>By refusing this request, the court maintains an increased level of public access and oversight. Secondly, this rejection forces Binance and the SEC to reassess their strategy concerning the handling of complex and confidential information.</p>
<p>Thirdly, it is important to note that although a protective order is common in litigation, its rejection upholds a heightened level of transparency in the legal process. This could potentially influence the public’s and investors’ perceptions regarding the ongoing litigation.</p>
<p>In addition, the refusal of the protective order does not eliminate the possibility for Binance and <a href="https://www.cointribune.com/crypto-2024-la-sec-promet-une-surveillance-accrue-pour-ce-secteur-a-risque/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)</a> to reinitiate the process. The judge has stated she is willing to consider approving a revised protective order, provided that it meets the required legal standards.</p>

Binance vs. SEC: Court Rejects Joint request for a Protective Order

Table of Contents

Cointribune EN

Other articles published on Nov 16, 2023

Bitcoin Exchange Binance Added 2 New Altcoin Trading Pairs to Margin Transactions!

Three Altcoins Experienced Significant Gains, Worth Following

Dogecoin Price Skyrockets Eyeing $0.1 As Physical DOGE Heads To The Moon

Three arrested in $10M bank fraud, crypto laundering scheme

Binance Japan Set to Dominate Crypto Listings with 13 New Tokens

SEC Seeks Summary Judgment Against Terraform Labs and Do Kwon

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!