6. Is the court likely to grant the defendant's motion to dissolve the TRO?

C is correct. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 65(b), a TRO expires after 14 days. An extension of the TRO before the hearing is dependent on a showing of good cause. Here, the plaintiff should have known the witness had a vacation planned, so there was no surprise in the witness's unavailability. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot show good cause for extending the TRO.

A is incorrect. FRCP 65(b)(2) provides that a TRO can be extended before its initial 14-day period expires. The court can, however, extend only for good cause or if the adverse party consents. There is no right to, or presumption of, an automatic extension. Here, the defendant objected, and the plaintiff has not offered any explanation as to why it did not discover until just before the preliminary injunction hearing that its principal witness would be on vacation.

B is incorrect. The posting of the bond has no bearing on whether to extend the TRO. The bond is required under FRCP 65(c) to provide security for any costs or losses the defendant may sustain if it is later determined that the defendant was wrongfully restrained. The bond is separate from the standard for obtaining, extending, or dissolving a TRO. Additionally, the critical nature of the principal witness's testimony, standing alone, does not establish the good cause needed for an extension of the TRO under FRCP 65(b)(2). The plaintiff has the burden to explain why there was such late notice of the witness's vacation plans and how the plaintiff has tried otherwise to work within the original timeline. Those explanations must be weighed against the prejudice to the defendant.

D is incorrect. FRCP 65(b)(2) provides that the TRO extension is to be for «a like period,» which would be 14 days. Because the requested hearing date would be only one week after the grant of the extension, the TRO would still be in effect if the court decided to grant the extension.