The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a friend of the court brief in both cases, supporting the defendants, but only in the case of John Doe did they succeed.
It seems incongruous, but it is not. In the case of John Doe, the court said:
“We find no support in the record for the conclusion that the Government, at the time it sought to compel production, knew to any degree of particularity what, if anything, was hidden behind the encrypted wall. The Fifth Amendment protects Doe’s refusal to decrypt and produce the contents of the media devices because the act of decryption and production would be testimonial, and because the Government cannot show that the ‘foregone conclusion’ doctrine applies.”
The "foregone conclusion" doctrine applies if the authorities know that a defendant has a potentially incriminating piece of evidence, but will not produce it.
However, in the case of Fricosu, the authorities had a recording of her speaking to her co-defendant in which she mentions an incriminating file on her laptop. That evidence can be used to force Fricosu to turn over the password.
U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn has ordered Fricosu to decrypt the laptop by month’s end.