-
A
research
firm
Coinbase
hired
intends
to
ask
a
judge
for
a
quick
call
on
whether
it
should
get
key
SEC
documents
that
might
reveal
how
the
agency
came
to
view
crypto
tokens
as
securities. -
The
federal
court
could
decide
whether
the
company
(and
the
public)
get
to
see
what
the
SEC
officials
said
in
private
discussions
as
they
tried
to
figure
out
whether
digital
assets
like
ETH
should
be
counted
as
securities.
An
intermediary
for
the
biggest
U.S.
crypto
exchange,
Coinbase
Inc.
(COIN),
is
cranking
up
its
legal
fight
over
the
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission’s
unwillingness
to
produce
documents
revealing
the
regulator’s
internal
thinking
on
whether
to
pursue
Ethereum’s
ether
(ETH)
and
other
tokens
as
illegal
securities.
Coinbase
hired
History
Associates
Inc.
to
pursue
SEC
communications
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
–
a
process
that
initially
concluded
with
the
agency
denying
the
request
by
citing
that
the
documents
were
connected
to
an
ongoing
investigation.
Coinbase’s
hired
gun
eventually
sued
over
the
denial,
and
History
Associates
is
preparing
to
ask
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia
to
force
the
hand
of
the
agency,
which
has
since
suggested
the
reason
for
its
initial
denial
may
no
longer
be
valid.
“Lacking
reasonable
alternatives,
History
Associates
intends
to
move
for
partial
summary
judgment
on
the
SEC-generated
documents,”
the
company
said
in
a
notice
filed
on
Monday
with
the
court,
detailing
that
plan
to
ask
for
a
court
ruling.
A
spokesperson
for
the
SEC
told
CoinDesk
the
agency
declines
to
comment
“beyond
our
public
filings.”
“Over
a
year
ago
we
made
FOIA
requests
aimed
at
files
on
ETH
2.0
and
other
mysteries,”
Coinbase
Chief
Legal
Officer
Paul
Grewal
said
in
a
posting
on
X,
arguing
that
the
internal
agency
communications
“belong
to
all
of
us,”
not
the
SEC.
“We
then
sued
to
end
their
stall,
only
to
get
an
entirely
new
set
of
excuses.”
Coinbase
has
been
conducting
a
multi-front
legal
fight
with
the
SEC,
including
battling
over
an
SEC
enforcement
action
that
accused
the
company
of
running
an
illegal
securities
business,
a
petition
by
the
company
to
force
the
agency
to
make
crypto-specific
regulations
and
this
conflict
over
whether
insider
messages
on
the
SEC’s
crypto
thinking
should
be
subject
to
public
review.
These
disputes
could
–
in
the
absence
of
swift
congressional
action
–
eventually
form
some
legal
foundation
for
how
the
digital
assets
industry
may
proceed
in
the
U.S.