Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AARON GREENSPAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01153-RCL
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED AND/OR
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 15(d), and Local Civil Rules 7(i)
and 7(m), Plaintiff Aaron Greenspan respectfully requests leave of Court to file the attached
proposed amended and/or supplemental complaint, based in large part on events subsequent to
the filing of the operative First Amended Complaint in this case. Specifically, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) notoriously slow, incompetent, deceitful,
inefficient, and intransigent Office of FOIA Services has continued to fail to act on numerous
FOIA requests submitted by Plaintiff of significant public interest. Moreover, the SEC has
willfully and negligently prohibited Plaintiff from taking meaningful part in its whistleblower
program because the SEC program discriminates against whistleblowers with voluminous
internal corporate documents to provide to the Commission; and because Plaintiff chose not to
employ counsel, or counsel that previously worked for the Commission, a de facto unwritten
requirement for participation. Plaintiff proposes amending the operative complaint with 1)
additional SEC FOIA claims; and 2) a claim regarding the SEC’s civil rights violations Page 2 pertaining to its whistleblower program. A proposed Second Amended Complaint is attached.
As that document clearly explains, Defendant SEC has continuously “moved the goalpoasts” in
order to evade its statutory requirements under the FOIA statute.
ARGUMENT
I.
Plaintiff Should Be Permitted To Amend and/or Supplement His Complaint
A.
Plaintiff Meets Applicable Standards for Filing an Amended Complaint
“Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’;
this mandate is to be heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, there is no
reason not to permit amendment. Plaintiff brings this motion in a timely manner, in the midst of
waiting on the SEC to produce FOIA records requested years ago. The “new” FOIA requests at
issue have not previously been litigated, and amendment would not be futile, unnecessary, or
prejudicial. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 996) (quoting Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. at 182 (1962)).
There is one prior amended complaint on file in this action. This motion for leave is not
the result of Plaintiff’s delay or error.
B.
Plaintiff Meets Applicable Standards for Filing a Supplemental Complaint
Supplemental complaints are useful in circumstances such as these when unexpected
events take place after the date of an original pleading or prior amended pleading. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(d). “[T]he appropriate bases for supplemental pleadings are new facts bearing on the
relationship between the parties, rather than merely changes in the law governing those facts.”
U.S. v. Hicks, 283 F. 3d 380, 386-387 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Since the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff
has been forced to endure continuous absurd delays from the SEC Office of FOIA Services with
no reasons given. This alone justifies amendment or supplementation. Page 3 A litany of cases advocates for the liberal approval of motions to supplement pleadings.
Leave to supplement “should be freely given unless there is a good reason, such as futility, to the
contrary.” Willoughby v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 100 F.3d 999, 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1996). See
also Hall v. Central Intelligence Agency, 437 F.3d 94, 101 (D.C. Cir. 2006), quoting 6A
CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
§ 1504, at 186-87 (2d ed.
).
Plaintiff conferred with opposing counsel regarding this motion, and opposing counsel
stated, “Defendant will oppose any additional amendment of your Complaint” without
elaborating, providing no substantive legal basis for opposition.
C.
Amendment and/or Supplementation Would Not Slow Processing or Delay
This Litigation
Amending the complaint would not slow document processing or delay this litigation. As
matters presently stand, Defendant SEC is dragging its feet on numerous FOIA requests and
refuses to correct flaws in its whistleblower program. It is certain that amendment would
promote judicial expediency, as Plaintiff intends to file yet another separate lawsuit if
amendment is not permitted here, needlessly necessitating additional time and expense.
“[A]mendment of the complaint will in fact obviate delay.... This would be more efficient than
requiring all parties to start from the beginning with a new lawsuit ...” Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Evans, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20122, at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2004). The
amended complaint adds no new defendants.
II.
Conclusion
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to amend and/or supplement the
complaint in this action in order to facilitate an expedient resolution of this matter and to Page 4 encourage Defendant SEC to cease and desist their pattern and practice of ignoring its
obligations under the FOIA statute and correct serious issues with its whistleblower program.
Dated: June 10, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
Aaron Greenspan Carolina Street
San Francisco, CA 94107-3337
Phone: +1 415 670 9350
Fax: +1 415 373 3959
E-Mail: aaron.greenspan@plainsite.org
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:22-cv-01153-RCL Document 31 Filed 06/10/24 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AARON GREENSPAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01153-RCL
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED AND/OR
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 15(d), and Local Civil Rules 7(i)
and 7(m), Plaintiff Aaron Greenspan respectfully requests leave of Court to file the attached
proposed amended and/or supplemental complaint, based in large part on events subsequent to
the filing of the operative First Amended Complaint in this case. Specifically, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) notoriously slow, incompetent, deceitful,
inefficient, and intransigent Office of FOIA Services has continued to fail to act on numerous
FOIA requests submitted by Plaintiff of significant public interest. Moreover, the SEC has
willfully and negligently prohibited Plaintiff from taking meaningful part in its whistleblower
program because the SEC program discriminates against whistleblowers with voluminous
internal corporate documents to provide to the Commission; and because Plaintiff chose not to
employ counsel, or counsel that previously worked for the Commission, a de facto unwritten
requirement for participation. Plaintiff proposes amending the operative complaint with 1)
additional SEC FOIA claims; and 2) a claim regarding the SEC’s civil rights violations
1
PDF Page 3
Case 1:22-cv-01153-RCL Document 31 Filed 06/10/24 Page 2 of 4
pertaining to its whistleblower program. A proposed Second Amended Complaint is attached.
As that document clearly explains, Defendant SEC has continuously “moved the goalpoasts” in
order to evade its statutory requirements under the FOIA statute.
ARGUMENT
I.
Plaintiff Should Be Permitted To Amend and/or Supplement His Complaint
A.
Plaintiff Meets Applicable Standards for Filing an Amended Complaint
“Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’;
this mandate is to be heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, there is no
reason not to permit amendment. Plaintiff brings this motion in a timely manner, in the midst of
waiting on the SEC to produce FOIA records requested years ago. The “new” FOIA requests at
issue have not previously been litigated, and amendment would not be futile, unnecessary, or
prejudicial. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 996) (quoting Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. at 182 (1962)).
There is one prior amended complaint on file in this action. This motion for leave is not
the result of Plaintiff’s delay or error.
B.
Plaintiff Meets Applicable Standards for Filing a Supplemental Complaint
Supplemental complaints are useful in circumstances such as these when unexpected
events take place after the date of an original pleading or prior amended pleading. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(d). “[T]he appropriate bases for supplemental pleadings are new facts bearing on the
relationship between the parties, rather than merely changes in the law governing those facts.”
U.S. v. Hicks, 283 F. 3d 380, 386-387 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Since the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff
has been forced to endure continuous absurd delays from the SEC Office of FOIA Services with
no reasons given. This alone justifies amendment or supplementation.
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:22-cv-01153-RCL Document 31 Filed 06/10/24 Page 3 of 4
A litany of cases advocates for the liberal approval of motions to supplement pleadings.
Leave to supplement “should be freely given unless there is a good reason, such as futility, to the
contrary.” Willoughby v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 100 F.3d 999, 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1996). See
also Hall v. Central Intelligence Agency, 437 F.3d 94, 101 (D.C. Cir. 2006), quoting 6A
CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
§ 1504, at 186-87 (2d ed.
1990).
Plaintiff conferred with opposing counsel regarding this motion, and opposing counsel
stated, “Defendant will oppose any additional amendment of your Complaint” without
elaborating, providing no substantive legal basis for opposition.
C.
Amendment and/or Supplementation Would Not Slow Processing or Delay
This Litigation
Amending the complaint would not slow document processing or delay this litigation. As
matters presently stand, Defendant SEC is dragging its feet on numerous FOIA requests and
refuses to correct flaws in its whistleblower program. It is certain that amendment would
promote judicial expediency, as Plaintiff intends to file yet another separate lawsuit if
amendment is not permitted here, needlessly necessitating additional time and expense.
“[A]mendment of the complaint will in fact obviate delay.... This would be more efficient than
requiring all parties to start from the beginning with a new lawsuit ...” Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Evans, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20122, at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2004). The
amended complaint adds no new defendants.
II.
Conclusion
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to amend and/or supplement the
complaint in this action in order to facilitate an expedient resolution of this matter and to
3
PDF Page 5
Case 1:22-cv-01153-RCL Document 31 Filed 06/10/24 Page 4 of 4
encourage Defendant SEC to cease and desist their pattern and practice of ignoring its
obligations under the FOIA statute and correct serious issues with its whistleblower program.
Dated: June 10, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
Aaron Greenspan
956 Carolina Street
San Francisco, CA 94107-3337
Phone: +1 415 670 9350
Fax: +1 415 373 3959
E-Mail: aaron.greenspan@plainsite.org
4
Back to 
