Amid the ongoing case between the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Coinbase, the court has sent out an important schedule. The US federal court has addressed both parties and have laid a timeline for the legal proceedings.
On Sunday, Paul Grewal, Coinbase chief legal officer (CLO), took to Twitter to share the proceedings in the ongoing case. Notably, Grewal has been using his social media accounts as a primary mode of communication to target the exchange as well as keep the public informed as far as possible as well as a tactic to keep its image safe. In his tweet, he commended the court for its “prompt attention” to the matter.
Sources reveal that the recent documents disclose a systematic and well planned system for the upcoming legal arguments in the case. Both ‘Coinbase,’ the defendants, and the SEC, the plaintiff, submitted a joint proposal to the court outlining a series of deadlines, primarily for Coinbase’s anticipated motion for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12c.
Recently, Katherine Failla, the presiding judge on the case, responded, stating that the application was “granted in part.” The image below is the court’s schedule for both sides to adhere in the ongoing legal proceedings.
Keeping up with the plan, the next action in line is from Coinbase which is due to motion and opening brief by August 4th. Following this, amicus briefs supporting exchange’s motion are to be submitted within a week, and the amicus briefs supporting the SEC’s opposition due a week after the SEC’s opposition brief.
After the briefs, Coinbase’s reply brief is due 21 days after that. However, a consensus has not been reached on the SEC’s opposition brief deadline.
Reportedly, Coinbase has suggested a deadline of 30 days after their initial motion and opening brief, while the SEC has proposed a 60-day timeframe. At this point, Judge Failla has set a date for the SEC’s opposition brief on October 3, 2023, aligning with the regulator’s preference. The joint letter stated:
The parties have not been able to reach an agreement with respect to the deadline for the SEC’s opposition brief.
According to Grewal, the SEC has also indicated that it will not file a motion to strike any of Coinbase’s affirmative defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Additionally, the court order has also outlined specific page limits for the various submissions to not unnecessarily extend the proccess.
Reportedly, the limits are – 30 pages for Coinbase’s opening brief and the SEC’s opposition brief, 15 pages for Coinbase’s reply brief, and 20 pages each for any amicus briefs. In its order, the court explicitly stated that it is standard for the court to pause the discovery process while waiting for a decision on a motion that could completely resolve or dispose of the case.
To this, the court declined to approve the case management plan submitted by the parties at this time. In a subsequent tweet, Grewal, dug into the significance of the legal timeline according to U.S. Code, stating:
Although 28 USC 1292(b) is silent, 10 days always made sense to me as the right deadline to seek DCT certification of an order for interlocutory appeal. After all, that’s the deadline to petition the appellate court. 10 court days from Judge Torres’ ruling is tomorrow.
Ever since the SEC filed the lawsuit on June 6th, the case has been full of statements and comments from both the sides. Coinbase sent its opening statement in which it rejected the base of allegations it build its case on. It also claimed that “the SEC has chosen” to pursue enforcement actions.
In its response, the SEC said it would oppose any motion for judgement Coinbase would file and asked the court to reject Coinbase’s arguments that the suit violated the major questions doctrine and other concerns. It also alleged that Coinbase intentionally violated laws.
Then, in the pre-motion hearing, the SEC argued that just because it approves an S-1 filing from a company, does not mean the firm is not operating, or will not operate in “violation of the law.” To this, the presiding judge raised speculations over SEC’s statements and admitted that she was all confused due to the lack of clarity.