With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". opposition employed facts claimed unavailable when filing the SAC. Although they had three prior opportunities to produce this information, and although they claimed the facts were previously unavailable and that others might become known, Plaintiffs did not explain why they were unable to obtain the information before filing the SAC. In other words, they never explained this to the district court as a basis for being allowed leave to file a fourth complaint. In short, Plaintiffs never provided the requisite specificity for leave to file a fourth complaint. Goldstein, 340 F.3d at 254-55. Moreover, none of the “previously unavailable” facts improperly included in the opposition sufficiently pleaded scienter. There was no abuse of discretion. See ABC Arbitrage, 291 F.3d at 362 (<HOLDING>). III. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment

A: holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds
B: holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion
C: holding no abuse of discretion to deny  a third chance to offer more details
D: holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds
C.