unilateral change in the agency's position that entitle the us to that made mr paulson eligible to fiji's but this court shouldn't even get to that nd prong because that only comes into play when there is no judicial order here under the prong mr paulson is a prevent substantially prevailed because he obtained relief through judicial order these fits squarely within the present both of the northern district of california in sierra club versus e and the d c circuit president that the northern district followed the key areas the district court made in this case are that it read a catalyst or causation requirement into the judicial order pro and then found that the ordered issued required production by a certain did not change the legal relationship between the parties the district court held without any supporting authority that its order requiring production by a date certain did not change the legal relationship between the parties because the government did not change its position due to the existence of the lawsuit and here the errors that we ate we can identify st the court erred because there is no causation requirement under the judicial order prong no case cited by the district court or by the parties in this court has has as a court applied causation to the judicial order pro the judicial because the judicial order problem does not require a change in the government's position that only applies to the nd prong however the court applied that also to the st prong that's the nd error and rd the court erred when it failed to find the binding authority of the northern district of california in sierra club versus the e p a where there the court held there was a change in the relationship between the parties when the pla obtained in a forcible order that mr paulson had here finally the court also erred when it sated that the outcome would be different if the government had opposed the order again that is completely unsupported by any authority and it goes against the president we have from the d c circuit and district courts that make clear that whether the government agrees with the order is in material and i just want to underline for the court that at the time of the district court's order there was a published northern district decision the sierra club versus the e p a that held in order such as the one here does change the legal relationship between the parties and the sierra club followed the d circuit which expressly ruled on three occasions that in order like the one here issued by a district court changes the legal relationship of the parties because the order is in forcible and because it requires the government to produce nonexempt response of records by a date certain here the government proposed a time table to review and produce records the court adopted that time table in a minute order when the court issued that order the legal relationship between the parties changed because mr paulson had obtained it in forcible order and the government was required to comply with it by producing the nonexempt response of documents and then the government did produce those documents four hundred and twelve pages of never before seen pfizer court materials on july th two thousand and eighteen the date in the court's order within this circuit it is an open question as to whether obtaining some relief through an order such as a scheduling order a minute order or an order adopted pursuant to a stipulation that requires production of nonexempt response and documents by a date certain changes make that holding i want to also just point out that the the three cases between the district court and cited by the government here that support their position the most are in opposite well but it is if the issue in a minute or two was just a scheduling deadline and the government proposed that deadline the reality is that they were going to produce the documents quite apart from the deadline being on the judicial or wrong is precisely because d the court issued that order your right your honor that if the court had not issued the order and had voluntarily loz those documents we would be under the voluntary or ation all of those cases involve either as proposed order that the government agreed to or it involved the court in citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington adopting the government's judicial imprint for whereas when when the documents are released voluntarily prior to an order that there is no judicial premature and that's why some courts are then gone on to engage in the causation exactly correct your honor and that's exactly what the d c circuit and the d c reports of how that's exactly what the northern district of california how the e p a that is a bright line because panel and for mr paulson and she says there is no majority opinion in the th circuit by judge blocks leading opinion where he found the causation requirement should be applied to the  prong and we have agree with judge when you look at the when you look at the st amendment coalition order judge murder she goes ahead and produces a whole other standard so we have three competing standards under that problem so the judge heard he had joined the section two hundred dollars blocks opinion which is the part that imposes the causation requirement is that not a majority judge did state that she joined the portion to the st amendment coalition but we also have judge berzon saying explicitly that there is no majority on that point and so it's a strange situation to say the least where we have judges disagree being in an opinion as to whether there is a majority or not as to the application of a standard if this panel finds that there is no majority opinion adopting a causation requiremen prong and decides that that mr paulson does not fit under the st program fits under the nd prong we still believe that he has demonstrated eligibility for fees and if there are no further questions at this causation standard the judge baugh articulated in section two ended up supporting the judgment that she openly joined so to what extent is that analysis i to have two votes that support the judge that is true your honor that alternately did find eligibility on a difference rationale i think we have to look both to the fact that she joined part two of the lead opinion and that starting her analysis is a further development of the purpose of the catalyst test so the particular circumstances of that case as she found so it is a further application of the purposes of the catalyst even if on those particular facts which no one is arguing we fall into here it is there is a limited circumstance in which you may still be able to demonstrate eligibility for  no positive effect is at the district found a distinguishing feature of all of that line of cases none of them involve finding by the district court that there was no cause to the fact no causal link between the litigation whichever prong you're you're proceeding under it well where do you find that where do you find that a lot well so it in the st amendment coalition lead opinion itself the requirement of a causal link as the court noted in footnote fourteen of that decision that flows from congress has continued years become a standard of plain reading which requires some causal link between the plaintiff's action and results that's claimed to you substantially prevailed in obtaining relief through whatever whatever action may be when under a particular facts in this case where you have in the middle of litigation and independents you classification which you will review and produce any response documents in that situation you can say that you have obtained relief through either the voluntary change or are an order that memorializes the government's new position and the claims of noted in his management statement receiving the entry of the scheduling order she took the position that it was unclear whether the defendants would release any documents as a result of the schedule so there  did provide a potentially another enforcement mechanism but it did not alter the legal relationship where the government proposed to schedule propose the review and processing not exam documents and in produce the documents on the july th date whatever had happened mr paulson the litigation so it is as a general matter none of the cases on which the plane of life involved this particular finding that the means here when there is an order that could be imported by well this is the unusual situation where we do have a do you classification determination that changes the status of documents that no one is arguing were not properly with tells at the outset of this litigation this is the sort of example all that st many coalition posited that you have that independent declassification determination goes to the sort of traditional factors where it's looked to in just running whether there has been substantial positive backed shown by the point of which which has not been shown in this case  again the natural all reading of that is that it requires some sort of causal link between the litigation and the ultimate release of documents so it you know every other word that looked at this is had no trouble determining what is also reflected in legislative history that the purpose was just placed by can and in the boycott contacts in particular and should restore your honor here's several quick points that i want to make one no court other than the lower court here has applied the causation requirement to the st from the judicial order prong nd this court need not reach the issue as to whether causation applies to the nd problem because we have a judicial order the nd prong voluntary you get a lot of change your position does not apply rd you can and did not litigant in eligible for fees and you can eliminated that congress brought that back but what this court held in lock and what other courts have found is that the amendment did not affect the st prong the st product today exists as it did preview can and it's very clear judge wardlaw hit it right right on when you went and asked if the court order was in forcible could we hold the government in contempt and the answer that is yes and has made a point that they the order here did not specify documents that or any documents in particular but if you look at the orders in the other cases whether it's the northern district sierra club case or the cases out of the d c circuit they follow the same pattern because they're all the government's language proposed to the court and that is produce review and produce nonexempt responsive documents by a date certain there is a formula that's been adopted in the p by the government in prior cases and the courts have found that that creates an forcible order that changes the legal relationship between the parties i just want to bring up a couple points one right money am i going to ask you about the  nd prong which has a requirement that the complainant claim not that it can't be it says the complainant claim is not insubstantial at one point in the litigation is the standard reality evaluated that my understanding of that is that there are both procedural rights and substantive rights of the foil a procedural right would be the processing documents a substantive right is when documents are released if if a foil litigants receives some some response of documents their claim is not insubstantial but out of their position is that on the day you file this action you don't have any basis for getting anybody because it was the you know the call maher was going to hold their everything was going to be classified or they were not going to respond you were going to get nothing and it  few points your honor one that factors into the entitlement analysis as britain and the other courts of analyze whether a plaintiff is entitle to fees which is not before this court only eligibility is so  analysis so so no it doesn't factor into into this towards analysis until we get to that point but i was a point out that the statute talks about an insubstantial claim only as to the  prong that does not apply to the st pro the exact document that was later released here we were not seeking the nunez or the shift memos we were seeking the documents that reflected the surveillance which was eventually disclosed in the four hundred and twelve dollars pages of pfizer materials that we received those fison materials are significantly different than the shift in the newness memos because they go through the really rich detail factual basis for the pfizer applications which is absent from the ship in news memos and i also want to just point out that the western district of pennsylvania decision that was relied on by the court is also an app is it because in that quote in that case the foil litigant also had claims under the administrative procedures  and she obtained records under the a p a the court had already dismissed her foyer claims her substantive for rights and said that all she had was a procedural right to the processing and review of records the reason the court did that is because the documents she saw were not held by a government agency they were held by an independent research organization that receive federal funding and i see that my time is up i just urge the court to to