4 ms·

I'm not sure they did, the order has this statement (emphasis mine); 8. Microsoft’s request for this emergency ex parte relief is not the result of any lack of

I'm not sure they did, the order has this statement (emphasis mine); 8. Microsoft’s request for this emergency ex parte relief is not the result of any lack of diligence on Microsoft’s part, but instead based upon the nature of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. Therefore, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-5, good cause and the interest of justice require that this Order be Granted without prior notice to Defendants, and accordingly, Microsoft is relieved of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of Microsoft’s motion. I should note my laymans reading is that Microsoft proved exigent circumstances that negated the need for prior notice.

legutierr 12y ago
Here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 (1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. So, if all of this is considered a "temporary restraining order", then it must be based on these rules, which also seem to provide certain protections to the affected party, including requiring the plaintiff to put up security to reimburse the affected party for any damages they may suffer as a result of the order. I hope that a lawyer can chime in here and give a decent opinion as to whether this is kosher, and also to answer whether it seems correct to effectively transfer control over property such as domain names through this mechanism.
- dlgeek 12y ago
  Later in the order they required Microsoft to post a $200,000 bond. Not sure if that actually covers the potential damages.

legutierr 12y ago

Here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 (1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. So, if all of this is considered a "temporary restraining order", then it must be based on these rules, which also seem to provide certain protections to the affected party, including requiring the plaintiff to put up security to reimburse the affected party for any damages they may suffer as a result of the order. I hope that a lawyer can chime in here and give a decent opinion as to whether this is kosher, and also to answer whether it seems correct to effectively transfer control over property such as domain names through this mechanism.

dlgeek 12y ago
Later in the order they required Microsoft to post a $200,000 bond. Not sure if that actually covers the potential damages.