Welcome to Satoshi Itches Wednesday, November 20 2019 @ 03:25 PM UTC

#137 Order Memorializing Rulings

  • Contributed by:
  • Views: 190

Craig Wright was deposed on April 4th 2019. It looks like he refused to answer various questions for various reasons, so the lawyers got on the phone with the judge to see how to proceed. So this docket entry is a summary of what was discussed on that phone call, and what the result was.

You can find the order here. It's not very long, so here's the meat of it:

  1. The request to compel Dr. Wright to disclose the amount of bitcoin he mined during 2009 and 2010 is denied without prejudice. The Court will revisit this issue after the parties brief whether production of a list of Dr. Wright’s bitcoin ownership would be unduly burdensome.
  2. Dr. Wright was directed to answer the question of whether he had told Dave Kleiman how much bitcoin Dr. Wright mined in 2009 and 2010.
  3. Dr. Wright declined to answer questions about his ex-wife based upon an alleged limitation arising from litigation in Australia. The Court deferred ruling on this issue to allow the parties to brief whether Australian law or any other principle of international law precludes this Court from compelling Dr. Wright to provide this testimony.
  4. Dr. Wright declined to answer questions about his current wife, citing the marital testimonial and marital communications privileges. The Court deferred ruling on this issue to allow the parties to brief the privilege issues.
  5. Dr. Wright declined to answer certain questions based on alleged national security concerns. The Court deferred ruling on this issue to allow the parties to brief the issue, including providing evidence that the United States Government joins in the national security objection.

The last item is the most fascinating. If the US Government does join in the national security objection, then that opens up a whole new aspect to this case and Bitcoin in general. If the USG does not join in the objection, then it would appear that Craig is stalling or trying to mislead the court, and it will be interesting how the judge responds to that.