The TRO reads to me along the lines that the customer wants protections from increased charges and fees (anything above normal rates) while they are able to move their equipment away from the co-located facilities. They do not wish to incur expenses from NAC for access to the facilities. I see nothing that would prevent NAC from charging their regular fees and expenses as long as the customer is using the IP space. I do see NAC as being restrained from re-assigning the IP space to another customer prior to the hearing on the merits of the case, and before the customer has had the opportunity to orderly move their equipment to new facilities.
TROs usually have a short and finite life, lasting only until a hearing on the merits. If NAC is pursuing increased expenses, fees and other charges (above their contract rates) then perhaps the customer has a case. If that is not the case, then perhaps the court is slightly out of line. The old legal trick of moving a case from Federal Court to a state court, is a common legal tactic where friendly judges and judge shopping can take place ( Think the SCO action against IBM over the Unix/Linux debacle) It also appears there is much more to the story, from both sides, and picking one catch-all paragraph from the TRO does not really tell the story, but tends to spread FUD. Not an attorney........................
