I think that's a misunderstanding on the part of the author.
The judge's initial order was issued ex parte -- meaning the judge issued it to the justice department without Apple lawyers being present to argue against the order. Instead, as it was issued ex parte, the judge invited Apple lawyers to respond to the order after the fact by offering reasons it was an undue burden.
Essentially, Apple wasn't there to agree or disagree to it. The Judge encouraged Apple to object to it in recognition of the fact she was issuing it ex parte, not to nudge them out of inaction.
Precisely, and it's worth mentioning that ex parte filings are where a lot of dubious things happen, as that format by definition doesn't really have a traditional adversarial format. Civil forfeiture is the other big example.
The judge's initial order was issued ex parte -- meaning the judge issued it to the justice department without Apple lawyers being present to argue against the order. Instead, as it was issued ex parte, the judge invited Apple lawyers to respond to the order after the fact by offering reasons it was an undue burden.
Essentially, Apple wasn't there to agree or disagree to it. The Judge encouraged Apple to object to it in recognition of the fact she was issuing it ex parte, not to nudge them out of inaction.