Last I heard, Apple was petitioning to the Court of Appeals for a writ blocking the order. If the trial court hasn't already stayed its order pending the outcome of the writ petition, then the Court of Appeals certainly would have.
One thing I noticed in the 20 years I worked for a trial court: The thicker the petition for a writ, the quicker it will be denied. Apparently, Apple's petition is huge, and so it's deader than a duck in your supermarket's freezer.
A bullet is deadlier than a marshmallow.
I could be off base here. I'm used to state court, not federal court, and I haven't been following this dispute closely.
Oh wait, wait, wait! I'll bet there is no trial court order yet.
The most recent law I know of allowed a party's attorney to issue a subpoena, requiring a third-party to respond to discovery requests. Failure to do so, can result in the trial court holding the 3rd party in contempt.
It that 3d-party objects, they file a motion to quash the subpoena with the trial court. I'll bet this motion to quash is the "reply" everyone is talking about.
I need to shut up. There's some procedure in federal court going on here that I am unfamiliar with.
Discovery requests served upon corporate entities are addressed to "The Person Most Knowledgeable." Some human being has to sign the discovery responses "under penalty of perjury." My best guess is that any court order would be directed at both the corporation and the individual. If there is non-compliance, the corporation can be fined; and worst-case-scenario, the individual could be found in contempt and jailed until there is compliance.
