Here's what I mean: On September 1, the record label plaintiffs, having won a jury verdict in their copyright suit, moved for entry of judgment pursuant to FRCP 58(d). The labels requested a monetary judgment in the amount of $675,000, the amount awarded by the Boston jury, and an injunction against further infringement by Tenenbaum.
Today, Tenenbaum counsel Charles Nesson filed a motion seeking an extension of time to oppose what he termed "Plaintiffs' motion for injunction," citing work on a separate brief and a trip to Europe. But instead of the normal practice of asking for, say, an extra two weeks, Nesson "request[ed] an extension of time in which to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for injunction until ten days after the entry of judgment." (my emphasis). This makes no sense. Plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment (including the injunction). Nesson is now saying he'd like to file his opposition to the motion 10 days after Judge Gertner does what the plaintiffs have asked her to do. To which I can only say: Huh?
Defendant's Motion for Extension of time re Entry of Judgment
UPDATE: Judge Gertner did Nesson and Tenenbaum a favor, construing the motion for extension in a way such that it actually makes sense (rather than as it was actually written). She gave him until Oct. 5 to file his opposition:
Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered granting  Motion for Extension of Time to 10 days after judgment to Respond to Plaintiffs' request for injunction by Joel Tenenbaum. "The Court construes counsel's motion as a motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment -- a judgment that will include any injunction that the Court decides to issue. The Court orders the defendant to file his objection to plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment by October 5, 2009." (Gaudet, Jennifer)