Opinion ID: 683512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The SEC's cross-appeal.

Text: 28 The SEC contends on its cross-appeal that the district court abused its discretion in not bifurcating the issues and allowing the SEC to demonstrate, in the event fees or expenses were found otherwise awardable, that the SEC's position in the litigation was substantially justified. In response to Kaufman's initial petition for fees and expenses, the SEC argued that because of his pro se status, Kaufman was entitled to nothing. The Commission also noted that: However, should the Court disagree that Kaufman's petition is barred, the Commission reserves the opportunity to address the substantial justification issue. 29 The SEC argues on appeal that [i]n reserving the right to brief the issue of substantial justification, the Commission employed a procedure analogous to bifurcation of issues at trial under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This claim is wholly without merit. No rule of civil procedure affords a litigant the option unilaterally to inform a district court that certain issues will be briefed and decided in a subsequent round. The SEC could have requested permission of the district court to reserve the issue of substantial justification to a subsequent round; 6 it did not do so. Furthermore, the SEC neither moved for reconsideration on this issue after Judge Sprizzo awarded Kaufman $17,600, nor even mentioned its claim of substantial justification in responding to Kaufman's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his application for fees. There is no basis for its contention on appeal that the district court abused its discretion. 7 We therefore affirm. 8