proof of likelihood of success from substantial probability to probable cause but adds the usual requirement of ex parte restraining orders that the applicant show that notice itself will prejudice the applicant. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 65(b) (application must state “the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required.”); see, e.g., In re Vuitton, 606 F.2d 1, 4 (2d Cir.1979) (an ex parte restraining order may be appropriate where proceeding without notice is “the sole method of preserving a state of affairs in which the court can provide effective final relief’ such that “giving the defendant notice of the application for an injunction could result in an inability to provide any relief at all”); Adobe Sys., Inc. v. South Sun Prods., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 636, 641 (S.D.Cal.1999) (<HOLDING>). The limited burden upon the owner imposed by
recognizing that a stay contained in anex parte order did not serve to suspend the effectiveness of the restraining notice otherwise any judgment debtor could obtain such an order without notice to the court that a restraining notice had been served or to the judgment creditor and recover his property theretofore properly made the subject of the restraining notice holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order holding that a plaintiff seeking an ex parte restraining order must present specific facts showing that the defendant it seeks to enjoin will likely conceal destroy or alter evidence if it receives notice of the action holding that plaintiff must present such evidence holding that the burden of showing that a harm will result from disclosure is on the party that seeks nondisclosure rather than on the party that seeks access