Opinion ID: 699542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Providing All the Relief Sought

Text: 33 A heightened standard has also been applied where an injunction--whether or not mandatory--will provide the movant with substantially all the relief that is sought. Abdul Wali, 754 F.2d at 1026. See 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 2948, at 445-47 (1973); see also Abdul Wali, 754 F.2d at 1025-26. However, the terms all the relief to which the movant would be entitled or all the relief sought have also been the source of confusion because, read literally, they appear to describe any injunction where the final relief for the plaintiff would simply be a continuation of the preliminary relief. See, e.g., Johnson v. Kay, 860 F.2d 529, 540-41 (2d Cir.1988). However, [t]his application of the rule seems hard to justify ... [because] the fact that the plaintiff would get no additional relief if he prevailed at the trial on the merits should not deprive him of his remedy. Developments in the Law--Injunctions, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1058 (1965). 34 If the use of a heightened standard is to be justified, the term all the relief to which a plaintiff may be entitled must be supplemented by a further requirement that the effect of the order, once complied with, cannot be undone. A heightened standard can thus be justified when the issuance of an injunction will render a trial on the merits largely or partly meaningless, either because of temporal concerns, say, a case involving the live televising of an event scheduled for the day on which preliminary relief is granted, or because of the nature of the subject of the litigation, say, a case involving the disclosure of confidential information. The bottom line is that, if a preliminary injunction will make it difficult or impossible to render a meaningful remedy to a defendant who prevails on the merits at trial, then the plaintiff should have to meet the higher standard of substantial, or clear showing of, likelihood of success to obtain preliminary relief. Otherwise, there is no reason to impose a higher standard. See Abdul Wali, 754 F.2d at 1026 (delivery of a prison report to prisoners that would be immediately read would moot a trial on the merits).