I am still looking through these files, but everything that I have read points to insufficient, or zero notice having been given to the defendants prior to this

I am still looking through these files, but everything that I have read points to insufficient, or zero notice having been given to the defendants prior to this order. For instance, the complaint itself... http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Revised_Final%20No-IP%20Complaint.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Revised_Final%20No-IP%20... ...is dated June 19, 2014. And from the order itself... http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order%20-%20flattened.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order... ...we see the following instruction: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) that the Defendants shall appear before this Court on July 10, 2014, at 3:00 p.m., in LV Courtroom 7D to show cause, if there is any, why this Court should not enter a Preliminary Injunction, pending final ruling on the Complaint against the Defendants, enjoining them from the conduct temporarily restrained by the preceding provisions of this Order." Of course, July 1 is tomorrow. In this document, Microsoft seems to be requesting that all of this stuff be sealed until it is ready to disclose the existence of the lawsuit to the defendant, presumably after it has completed its seizure the domains: http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Final%20Motion%20to%20Seal.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Final%20Motion%20to%20Se... The facts of this seem pretty clear from your link. What I am wondering is if there is any precedence for this, and if this is really considered due process?