I think that&#x27;s a misunderstanding on the part of the author.<p>The judge&#x27;s initial order was issued <i>ex parte</i> -- meaning the judge issued it to the justice department without Apple lawyers being present to argue against the order. Instead, as it was issued ex parte, the judge invited Apple lawyers to respond to the order after the fact by offering reasons it was an undue burden.<p>Essentially, Apple wasn&#x27;t there to agree or disagree to it. The Judge encouraged Apple to object to it in recognition of the fact she was issuing it ex parte, not to nudge them out of inaction.