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

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.

Rejection of Binance and SEC Request to Avoid Sealed Filings

New developments have arisen around the legal confrontation between the crypto firm Binance and the SEC. Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected the joint request for a protective order filed yesterday. This decision has significant implications, shining a light on the current legal complexities prevalent in the regulatory environment involving the cryptocurrency sector.

The protective order requested by Binance and the SEC aimed to limit the disclosure of sensitive information, including potentially non-public data. However, Judge Jackson’s recent decision aligns with the court’s commitment to avoid under-seal procedures.

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.

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.

https://t.co/pBYlgGorn3

— JChilds520.ETH | 💎HIT NETWORK💎 (@JChilds520) November 15, 2023

A Rejection with Significant Consequences

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.

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.

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.

In addition, the refusal of the protective order does not eliminate the possibility for Binance and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 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.