By Eric Goldman

As I’m sure you know, I am not a fan of the recent Ninth Circuit hairball opinion in the case. In discussions since the opinion was issued, most of my lawyers I’ve spoken with have no idea what the opinion means or how it impacts 47 USC 230 jurisprudence.

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit issued the following:

6/15/07 Filed order ( Alex KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge): Within 21 days, plaintiffs shall file a response to the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. See 9th Cir. R. 40-1. [04-56916, 04-57173] (ru) [04-56916 04-57173]

I’m not an expert in such matters, but my understanding is that’s request to clean up the hairball opinion has survived a first cut.’s motion for rehearing/en banc hearing.