The State of California v. Paramount Skydance Corporation

Jul 23, 2026

4:26-cv-07116

ORDER RE SCHEDULING AND EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

ORDER RE SCHEDULING

The Court issues this Order in this pair of related antitrust cases to facilitate meet and confer efforts by the parties and to resolve some of the pending administrative motions. On July 20, 2026, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO“) enjoining the anticipated merger between Defendants Paramount Skydance Corporation (“Paramount“) and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (“Warner Bros.“). See State of California et al. v. Paramount Skydance Corporation et al., Case No. 26-cv-07116-AMO (the “States’ Case“), Dkt. No. 141. The TRO is set to expire on August 3, 2026. Id.

Before the Court are several administrative motions related to the briefing, hearing and resolution of the respective motions for preliminary injunction in each case. Plaintiffs in Guild of America, West, Inc., et al., v. Paramount Skydance Corporation et al., Case No. 26-cv-07212-AMO (the “Writers’ Guilds’ Case“), filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants’ anticipated merger. See id., Dkt. No. 58. The Writers’ Guilds submitted an administrative motion to shorten time to align the briefing and hearing of their motion for preliminary injunction with the schedule set in the TRO in the States’ Case. See id., Dkt. No. 60. Defendants oppose the Writers’ Guilds’ administrative motion based in part on Defendants’ request to hold a multi-day evidentiary hearing on the motions for preliminary injunction in the latter weeks of August. Id., Dkt. No. 61. Defendants’ request on this front matches the request they submitted via administrative motion in the States’ Case. See States’ Case, Dkt. No. 161. Defendants additionally filed a motion to shorten time on their administrative motion to require a faster response from the Plaintiff States. Id., Dkt. No. 162. The Plaintiff States already filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to shorten time. Id., Dkt. No. 163.

The Court believes the best course forward is for it to hear the two motions for preliminary injunction on the same schedule and thus GRANTS the Writers’ Guilds’ administrative motion to shorten time. Defendants’ opposition brief to the Writers’ Guilds’ motion for preliminary injunction is due by July 27, 2026; Writers’ Guilds’ reply is due by July 30, 2026; parties’ joint proposed omnibus sealing motion is due by July 31, 2026; and hearing on Writers’ Guilds’ preliminary injunction motion is set for 3:00 p.m. on Monday, August 3, 2026, in Oakland.

The Court, despite Defendants’ stated willingness to stave off the merger for several weeks, is unwilling to test the boundaries of its authority by extending the TRO‘s effect beyond the 28 days permitted by Rule 65. However, if the parties can reach agreement and stipulate to maintain the TRO, the Defendant companies held apart, they may agree to an extended briefing and hearing schedule. To that end, the Court ORDERS lead trial counsel for the State Plaintiffs, the Writers’ Guilds, and the Defendants to meet and confer in an effort to reach consensus on the path forward in resolving the two motions for preliminary injunction. The parties have two options for the joint submission to follow their meet and confer. By noon on Friday, July 24, 2026, they shall file either (1) a stipulation regarding the schedule for briefing and hearing the motions, or (2) a joint report regarding the outcome of their meet and confer efforts. If the parties do not reach agreement regarding the briefing and hearing schedule, State Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ administrative motion requesting an evidentiary hearing, States’ Case, Dkt. No. 161, will be due Monday, July 27, 2026. The Court DENIES Defendants’ administrative motion to shorten time for a response to Defendants’ administrative motion for an evidentiary hearing. Id., Dkt. No. 162.

Finally, the Court finds good cause to extend the TRO on multiple grounds, including the need to resolve two preliminary injunction motions, the parties’ disputes regarding the schedule and the proposed format of the preliminary injunction hearing, and Defendants’ stated willingness to abide by the terms of the TRO for some weeks into the future. See Dkt. No. 161. Therefore, the Court EXTENDS the duration of the TRO by an additional 14 days, through August 17, 2026. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2026

ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN

United States District Judge