that the FBI voluntarily released 128 pages, and a series of court orders that were the “functional equivalent” of the orders in Ed-monds required it to release an additional 379 pages of materials. Pi’s Reply at 3. The Defendant counters that Plaintiffs suit did not result in the release of any records by the agency other than those released through the normal processing of a FOIA request, and that Plaintiffs reliance upon Edmonds is misguided. Def's Opp’n at 6-7. 1. The Court Orders Did Not Amount To Judicial Relief On The Merits In order to determine whether a court order can be considered “judicial relief on the merits,” the court will evaluate whether the plaintiff obtained a court order directing the precise relief he sought. See Davy v. CIA, 456 F.3d 162, 165 (D.C.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). In Edmonds, the plaintiff sued the FBI and
holding that a defendants strategic stipulation to certain facts of the crime was not the functional equivalent of a guilty plea where the defendants stipulation did not establish guilt holding that exhaustion is required even where the relief sought is not available in the administrative process holding that exhaustion was not required under a federal education statute where the gravamen of the complaint was not that the plaintiff had been denied the type of education the statute guarantees and hence the relief sought was not available through the statutory appeals process holding that the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that he has standing for each type of relief sought holding that the court provided the plaintiff with the precise relief he sought making records promptly available when it memorialized a stipulation that required the cia to release information on certain dates