Sony Wins TRO - is it "Temporary"?

Posted Feb 5, 2011 0:36 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
In reply to: Sony Wins TRO, Impoundment (Groklaw) by clugstj
Parent article: Sony Wins TRO, Impoundment (Groklaw)

How can it be a "Temporary" Restraining Order if no date for the hearing was set? Apparently logic and law don't intersect in this case

I presume you're referring to the fact that the order expires when a hearing on making the order more permanent takes place, but a specific date for that hearing hasn't been set.

It seems logical to me. It's temporary because it's only going to be in effect for a few days. It hadn't been decided at the moment it was issued just how many days that would be but that will be decided soon. The order specifies the date of the hearing as whatever date the parties agree on. Nobody expects the order to go on forever. That's what temporary means.

If for any reason the date doesn't get set in a reasonable amount of time, I would think a judge would rule the order expired anyway. In many jurisdictions, 90 days is the maximum a TRO can live.