> It seems logical, right? If a customer has the cycles to file for a TRO, they should have the time to spare talking to the company they are filing a TRO again

> It seems logical, right? If a customer has the cycles to file for a TRO, they should have the time to spare talking to the company they are filing a TRO against. Explain a clear reasons to a mediator why the TRO is needed, and why they can't get it done in time. Assuming that the customer can explain all of that in clear terms, it would then be obvious for DigiCert to acknowledge that level of criticality and "exceptional need", and offer their customer an emergency, temporary exemption. Have you read the court filings? Alegeus did indeed have this discussion, explaining that they have a detailed manual process for dozens of distinct websites, and could not complete it within the notice period even though they began working on it immediately. They escalated it all the way up to the DigiCert CEO, and filed for a TRO only after DigiCert told them - exactly as the Bugzilla discussion participants wanted - that no exemption would be offered. That's the key point they seem to be missing: taking a hard line on the revocation timeline does not deter legal action but generates more of it.