Not that I agree with the ruling.
This judge's ruling is akin to allowing the bank to force the Postal Service to remove that person's PO Box account and burn all the mail inside of it in an attempt to destroy the confidential information. This is wrong on so many levels it's not funny.
1) The bank has no confirmation that the confidential information has has not been already removed from the PO Box.
2) The bank is destroying all of that person's other mail and preventing future mail from reaching that person in an attempt to correct their mistake (which is only related to a single piece of mail).
If the judge wanted to allow them access to the PO Box to remove the mail, then so be it. The current ruling makes no sense. As alex_c said, someone making important decisions about a matter (technology or otherwise) CANNOT use ignorance as an excuse. Some person that's never used a computer can be as technologically ignorant as they like, but someone that holds a position of responsibility is a different issue.
It's an absolutely terrible decision, but I think (hope?) it will be more akin to them changing the lock on your PO Box and not allowing you to access its contents until the situation is cleared up. Clearly not an acceptable decision, but it's better than permanently losing everything and can be appealed by the account's holder.
Plus, if the deactivation was a destruction of the person's data, that would put the bank at huge liability I would have to think. People have important emails and I don't think any jury would side with the bank. Imagine presenting that case to a jury. "The bank screwed up and to cover their ass, they destroyed all my email - all my personal and professional communications; important documents. . ."
It's funny then that Google -- with their free service -- has shown more compassion for this user's privacy rights than a paid service would have. (Note that I realize this 'compassion' is out of need to protect a brand, yadda yadda yadda)
And in any case, since Google has no 'contractual obligations' to its email users, do you think that it would be right and proper for the judge to order Google to shut down all free gmail addresses in the hopes that it would prevent problems for this bank? Afterall, it's a free service right? All of those users are idiots, right?
We took the document to the bank of course, they promised to "fix" her address, entirely unconcerned at the fact that they had just mailed out random personal information to a different customer. We're no longer with that bank.
To non-geeks loosing an email account isn't as big of a deal, so it's easy to see why a judge would not realize the significance.
That said it is obvious that no one wants their email account to be terminated, especially not those who use it for business, and if the court has that power to simply deactivate someone's account then something is very wrong with our judicial system.