“procedural ruling[s] that cannot serve as the basis for a determination that [the plaintiff] prevailed.” See OCAW, 288 F.3d at 458. Accordingly, the plaintiff “did not obtain relief on the merits because it sought documents, not merely a search therefore.” Plaintiffs argument that the Court’s orders were the functional equivalent of those in Edmonds, because they resulted in the FBI producing hundreds of pages of documents, amounts to a pre-Buckhannon catalyst theory that “a plaintiff is a ‘prevailing party’ if he achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant’s conduct.” However, the District of Columbia Circuit explicitly rejected this reasoning in OCAW, 288 F.3d at 457; see also Campaign v. FDA 448 F.Supp.2d 146, 150 (D.D.C.2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, while Plaintiff obtained some of the
holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release holding that the fdas voluntary release of documents that may have been caused by the courts order to submit a revised vaughn index cannot constitute court ordered relief holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc  3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction holding that the cia complied with the requirements of eo 12958 where a declaration regarding a foia request stated that the declarant had rereviewed each of the documents described in the cias vaughn index during the current litigation process and determined that the relevant documents each contain information  warranting their continued classification despite their age holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release