I read the complaint. Here is my first-take analysis.

First, temporary restraining orders (TRO) are usually easy to get at the outset based solely on the complaint and its unchallenged assertions of fact. After that, the defendants can request a show cause hearing alleging that the TRO was unneccessary/improper which requires the plaintiffs to explain why the restraining order should NOT be removed.

It won't surprise me if a judge grants the TRO to stop the audit soon and then, upon a motion by defendants, orders a quick hearing for plaintiffs to show cause.

There are very obvious defenses to the TRO and the complaint. First, plaintiffs have no standing. They are a political party claiming the other side MIGHT use politics rather than truth to do something nefarious (they don't say what, though) with voters' confidential information (addresses, signatures).

One of the plaintiffs is a member of the Board of Supervisors and an Elector. In the prayer for relief, the plaintiffs don't allege a single remedy that applies to his status as a plaintiff. So his standing should be challenged.

Second, the complaint seeks two things, a TRO and a declaration by the court that the audit is unlawful. Challenges to the Senate's ability to conduct the audit have already been made and refused. The audit is lawful. The Complaint is mostly about alleging that the Senate cannot delegate to a third party when confidential information is involved. This is preposterous. Every congressional body does this every day. They regularly engage phone companies, internet service providers, photocopying, printing, consultants, lobbyists, advisors, and on and on, who touch confidential information. A Senate has the full authority to delegate and manage that delegation without a court's supervision or approval. AND THIS AUDIT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AND WITHHELD ALREADY.

So, the complaint whittles down to a set of gripes over who the Senate chose to do the audit, which is not within any court's authority to second-guess.

This filing was really about getting ahead of the bad results of the audit for the DNC. They are showing their intention to demean the results as politically skewed rather than accurate. And finally, they are hoping to be able extend the start date, even for a few days, in order to find a way to probe the system, perhaps gain some leverage on the outcome, and hope to water down the ultimate results.

It is overall a clear act of desperation.

https://www.scribd.com/document/504253081/2021-04-22-Adp-v-Fann-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgment-00545433xc217c