Court Opinion

ID: 9906865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 16:00:56.939648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:35.181310
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-1072                                                September Term, 2023
                                                                           SEC-Rel34-96381
                                                      Filed On: December 5, 2023
Manoranjan Rao,

              Petitioner

       v.

Securities and Exchange Commission and
Vanessa Ann Countryman, Secretary,

              Respondents

                 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE
                    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

            BEFORE:         Millett, Pillard, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

                                     JUDGMENT

      This petition for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) was considered on the briefs and appendix filed by the parties. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

       ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied. Petitioner
has not shown that the SEC’s November 28, 2022 order denying his whistleblower
award application was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(f); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The declarations
submitted by agency attorney Michael Franck explain that the whistleblower information
submitted by petitioner did not in any way assist or contribute to the covered action.
Petitioner has provided no persuasive reason to question these assertions. See Doe v.
SEC, 846 F. App’x 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2021). In addition, petitioner has not provided a valid
basis for this court to require the SEC to produce a “voice file” of a telephonic
conversation that petitioner contends took place between him and an SEC employee in
2016. While petitioner alleges that the conversation was recorded, he provides no
basis for the court to conclude that he was entitled to such a recording under 17 C.F.R.
§ 240.21F-12, or that such a recording was part of the record before the SEC when it
denied his whistleblower award application. See Env’t Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657
F.2d 275, 284 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“It is well settled that judicial review of agency action is
normally confined to the full administrative record before the agency at the time the
decision was made.”). Nor has petitioner made the “strong showing of bad faith or
improper behavior” that is necessary to justify extra-record discovery. Dep’t of
Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2573-74 (2019) (quotation marks omitted).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-1072                                                September Term, 2023

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                          Page 2