I can't fathom that these orders weren't coordinated by the two chambers. Which makes it especially interesting to contrast the two (only slightly) different approaches. (To take a relatively trivial point, for example, the first order uses the petitioner's name without comment, while the second order drops a footnote to say that ordinarily names are confidential but that the opinion discloses it only because the petitioner consented.)
Plus, another signature. This time from Chief Judge Kozinski.