IANAL or a procedural expert, and more importantly I have not read all the filings so far, but my understanding is that the tension between steps B and C goes like this:
B) ISP files suit, argues 'this ain't constitutional, we shouldn't have to comply.' DoJ disagrees.
C) FBI counter-files, asserting that even if ISP prevails in step B), it should comply in the meantime rather than temporize pending the outcome. I can understand why they would, since they may in good faith consider time to be of the essence in obtaining the information they seek - which is part of their job, after all.
I'm not that troubled by D, insofar as undercover operations realistically require a degree of secrecy. What was troubling about the NSL regime was that it asserted this secrecy by default; I expect that in the future the government will still get NSLs but will first go through something like the FISA court and essentially ask a court for a gag order, presenting evidence under seal. This is IMHO how it ought to have been from the start.
B) ISP files suit, argues 'this ain't constitutional, we shouldn't have to comply.' DoJ disagrees.
C) FBI counter-files, asserting that even if ISP prevails in step B), it should comply in the meantime rather than temporize pending the outcome. I can understand why they would, since they may in good faith consider time to be of the essence in obtaining the information they seek - which is part of their job, after all.
I'm not that troubled by D, insofar as undercover operations realistically require a degree of secrecy. What was troubling about the NSL regime was that it asserted this secrecy by default; I expect that in the future the government will still get NSLs but will first go through something like the FISA court and essentially ask a court for a gag order, presenting evidence under seal. This is IMHO how it ought to have been from the start.