With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. FDA is instructive. In Campaign, when the FDA produced an inadequate Vaughn index, this court ordered that the FDA submit a revised Vaughn index for review. Campaign, 448 F.Supp.2d at 147. The Court’s 2002 order was a procedural, rather than substantive, order because it required the defendant to revise the Vaughn index, and did not require the defendant to produce documents. As a result, the 2002 order did not “change the legal relationship between the parties.” See Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 605, 121 S.Ct. 1835. Similarly, when Plaintiff in this action filed a report indicating that Defendant had not provided a file, the Court ordered Defendant to file a report regarding its efforts to locate it prior to deciding the then-pending summary judgment motion. See OCAW, 288 F.3d at 458-59 (<HOLDING>). Further, after Defendant submitted its

A: holding that an order requiring the agency to search the records did not constitute courtordered change in the relationship of the parties
B: holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor
C: holding that an order by the trial court remanding the cause to the agency to impose a sanction other than the one imposed by the agency was not a final and appealable order because it did not terminate the litigation between the parties on the merits
D: holding that statute making child welfare agency records confidential but disclosable pursuant to a court order did not create an absolute privilege for such records
A.