Further proceedings procedures

Under 2204.405(a), a judge may order additional written submissions, hold oral argument, allow discovery, or hold an evidentiary hearing when those steps are necessary for a full and fair decision on the application.

• These proceedings are typically used to resolve issues such as the applicant's eligibility or the substantiation of fees and expenses.
• The judge should conduct any additional proceedings as promptly as possible so they do not delay the fee decision.

Under 2204.405(a), either the applicant or the Secretary may request further proceedings, and the judge may also order them on the judge's own initiative.

• Requests can come from either party to the EAJA application or be initiated by the presiding judge if needed for a fair decision.

Under 2204.405(a), a judge may not hold discovery or an evidentiary hearing on whether the agency's position was substantially justified; that question must be decided on the administrative record from the adversary adjudication.

• Further proceedings may address other issues (for example, eligibility or fee substantiation), but not the substantial-justification determination.

Under 2204.405(a), the determination of whether the Secretary's position was substantially justified must be based on the administrative record made in the adversary adjudication for which fees are sought.

• This means the judge looks at the full record from the underlying case rather than new evidence developed in EAJA-specific proceedings.

Under 2204.405(b), a request for further proceedings must specifically identify the information sought or the disputed issues and explain why the additional proceedings are necessary to resolve those issues.

• A good request names the documents or testimony needed, the exact issues in dispute (for example, the number of hours claimed), and the reasons those matters cannot be resolved from the current record.

Under 2204.405(b), if a request does not specifically identify the information sought or explain why further proceedings are necessary, the judge may deny the request.

• Vague or blanket requests are insufficient; the rule requires specificity about what is needed and why.

Under 2204.405(a), a judge may allow discovery to resolve issues such as the substantiation of fees and expenses, so discovery can be used to prove the amount claimed.

• Discovery is limited to matters other than the Secretary's substantial-justification defense and should be conducted promptly to avoid delaying the fee decision.

Under 2204.405(a), a judge may hold an evidentiary hearing to decide issues such as the applicant's eligibility for EAJA fees when such a hearing is necessary for a full and fair decision.

• Such hearings are limited to eligibility and fee-substantiation issues and must be scheduled promptly.

Under 2204.405(a), a judge may order the filing of additional written submissions if they are necessary for a full and fair decision on the application.

• These submissions can clarify factual or legal points related to eligibility or the requested fees and must be handled without undue delay.

Under 2204.405(a), any additional submissions, hearings, or discovery must be conducted "as promptly as possible" so they do not delay a decision on the application for fees.

• The rule balances the need for fact-finding with the goal of a timely fee decision.

Under 2204.405(b), a party should explain why additional proceedings are necessary by describing what factual or legal gaps exist in the current record and how the requested submissions, discovery, or hearing will resolve those gaps.

• Useful explanations point to specific disputed facts (for example, hours worked or rates charged) and state why documentary evidence or witness testimony is needed.

Under 2204.405(a), either party may request oral argument and the judge may grant it if it is necessary for a full and fair decision.

• Oral argument is one tool the judge may use, along with written submissions and discovery, to resolve non-substantial-justification issues.

Under 2204.405(a), challenges to whether the agency's position was substantially justified must be decided on the administrative record from the adversary adjudication, not through new discovery or an evidentiary hearing in the EAJA proceeding.

• Parties should rely on the existing record from the underlying case when arguing substantial justification.

Under 2204, and specifically 2204.405, the rules in 2204.405 govern further proceedings in applications under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in proceedings before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

• The provision is part of Subpart D, which sets procedures for considering EAJA applications in that forum.