This is the text from a letter from Google to the judge yesterday:

First, with respect to Thursday’s hearing, in light of Defendants’ failure to oppose Google’s motion, Google intends to rely on the declarations of Shane Huntley and Elizabeth Bisbee, which fully support the proposed Preliminary Injunction. Should the Court prefer to receive live testimony from one or both of Google’s declarants, Google respectfully requests that they be permitted to appear virtually, as each would be required to travel from out of state (from the West Coast, in Mr. Huntley’s case) to appear in person. Second, as anticipated, following the disruption efforts pursuant to the TRO, Defendants have attempted to reconstitute the botnet by using the Bitcoin blockchain to direct the infected devices to new command-and-control (“C2”) servers and migrated the storefronts used in service of the Enterprise to new name servers. See ECF 5 (Compl.) ¶¶ 47-50, 54-65. Google’s disruption efforts already have identified several new C2 servers, and Google is working with the relevant web-hosting providers to disable them. Case 1:21-cv-10260-DLC Document 14 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 2 December 14, 2021 Page 2 While the TRO provides that Google may move to modify the Order in the event it identifies new domains, see ECF 8 (TRO) at 11 16, Defendants are generating new domains nearly every day in an effort to evade the TRO. Rather than submit repeated requests to the Court to add new domains and IP addresses as they are identified, Google respectfully requests broader injunctive language to cover, for example, any C2 servers identified in blockchain transactions initiated by Defendants and/or the Enterprise, any domains used to host storefronts used in connection with Defendants’ criminal schemes, and any domains identified by Google as hardcoded in the malware or otherwise used to distribute the malware. A proposed Preliminary Injunction Order is attached at Exhibit 1. Finally, the TRO provides that “Google shall post bond in the amount of $75,000 to be paid into the Court registry.” ECF 8 (TRO) at 16. The Clerk has requested that Google instead submit the required bond to the Clerk and seek a modified order directing the Clerk to accept the bond. Accordingly, to accommodate the Clerk’s request, Google respectfully requests that the Court so-order that Google’s submission of the $75,000 to the Clerk satisfies the TRO’s bond requirement. Google’s Proposed Order at Exhibit 1 incorporates this modification.