A federal judge has extended the temporary order that paused the Paramount–Warner Bros. merger, keeping the deal from closing for at least two more weeks and setting a near-term schedule for competing injunction requests.
Court schedule and restraining order
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on Thursday extended a previously issued 14-day restraining order for an additional 14 days, meaning the deal cannot close before Aug. 18. The judge had first issued the 14-day pause on Monday while the court considers motions over whether to block the merger on a longer-term basis.
Martinez-Olguin is scheduled to hear a request for a preliminary injunction on Aug. 3 that, if granted, would block the $111 billion deal indefinitely. Paramount has asked for additional time to make its case against that injunction.
Legal challenges against the merger
A coalition of 12 state attorneys general alleges the merger would violate the Clayton Act by reducing competition in basic cable and theatrical distribution markets. Separately, the Writers Guild of America has filed its own challenge, arguing the combination would suppress writers’ pay and lead to a homogenization of content.
Dispute over evidentiary hearing
Paramount is pressing for a three-day evidentiary hearing in late August so it can cross-examine the states’ witnesses, and has offered to extend the restraining order to accommodate that hearing.
The states have urged the judge to rule on the injunction without a multi-day hearing. Last week, the states’ attorney James Weingarten argued that Paramount was effectively seeking to short-circuit the trial process by holding an evidentiary hearing without giving the states adequate time to prepare.
Judge urges agreement, aligns WGA schedule
In her Thursday scheduling order, Martinez-Olguin encouraged the parties to see if they could reach an agreement. She also ruled that the Writers Guild of America’s injunction motion will be resolved on the same schedule as the states’ motion.
As of now, the WGA motion is set to be heard on Aug. 3 alongside the states’ request for a preliminary injunction.
