Not sure how wrong it is. In some circumstances it is expected by convention for one side or the other in a dispute to file a proposed motion or order wording. The judge then takes the proposed motion or order wording into account when issuing the actual order. If one side or the other has done its writing job correctly, the draft order just asks for what the legal argument justifies in the writ or motion. Judges often (usually?) do not write such orders, one party or the other does. If they don’t then the judge can simply let the issue slide by (in effect) doing nothing— not issuing the order. IANAL but this is my distant recollection from when I did some in pro per work on a case I filed once. Yeah, it was wierd and took some getting used to until I realized that the real meat was elsewhere and the actual order was in effect partly just the legal equivalent of crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s.
No doubt just about any lawyer could easily confirm or deny this. Right now, however, it seems to me that not many lawyers are paying much attention to this thread, so unless a lawyer pipes up relatively quickly, folks might want to keep that in mind, that this particular thread might be somewhat untethered from a legal perspective.
Ideally, though, it would be nice to have a lawyer or three out there who could keep us all corralled (so to speak).
Apple knew NOTHING about the FBI going to Magistrate Judge Pym seeking a Court Order for what they were already doing, cooperating with the FBI and DOJ.
From Footnote #22 of Apple's Motion to Vacate:
The government obtained the Order without notice to Apple and without allowing Apple an opportunity to be heard. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (recognizing that one of the "'fundamental requisite[s] of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard'") (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914)). But this was not a case where the government needed to proceed in secret to safeguard its investigation; indeed, Apple understands that the government alerted reporters before filing its ex parte application, and then, immediately after it was signed and confirmed to be on the docket, distributed the application and Order to the public at about the same time it notified Apple. Moreover, this is the only case in counsel's memory in which an FBI Director has blogged in real-time about pending litigation, suggesting that the government does not believe the data on the phone will yield critical evidence about other suspects.