certain records to a requesting plaintiff. 511 F.3d at 197. Reaffirming our holding in Davy, we explained that in the earlier case, “[e]ven though the parties arrived at a mutually acceptable agreement, ... the order memorializing the agreement created the necessary judicial imprimatur for plaintiffs to be a prevailing party.” Id. Because the agency in CRT “released the disputed documents only after the order was issued, and it released the documents pursuant to that order,” we concluded that “our decision in Davy controlled].” Id. Accordingly, we held, in language hardly difficult to decipher, that “[o]nce an order has been adopted by the court, requiring the agency to release documents, the legal relationship between the parties changes.” Id.; see also Edmonds, 417 F.3d at 1323 (<HOLDING>). Judicial Watch argues that “this case is
holding that a defendant is the prevailing party within the meaning of statutory provisions awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party even when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action holding that the agency did not have an obligation to search for and produce the documents the plaintiff claimed entitlement to because the plaintiffs foia request gave no indication that she sought those particular documents holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea holding that an order requiring the fbi to turn over all nonexempt documents by a date certain along with an order requiring expedited processing of the plaintiffs request rendered the plaintiff a prevailing party eligible for attorneys fees under foia