By Brian Stelter, CNN
(CNN) — Lawyers for the 12-state coalition trying to block the Paramount–Warner Bros. Discovery deal will be in court on Friday arguing that a temporary restraining order (TRO) is necessary to stop the companies from completing the merger.
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín will also hear Paramount’s arguments against the TRO. As CNN reported earlier this week, the companies expect the judge to issue a TRO, effectively pausing the merger for a couple of weeks while the legal process plays out.
Ahead of Friday’s 1 p.m. ET hearing, I spoke with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the coalition of Democratic attorneys general against Paramount. Bonta also said he is “hopeful” a TRO will be granted on Friday, “but it could take a few more days too.”
It was clear that Bonta wanted to address the widespread talk about CNN, the ticking fee, and the notion of Paramount moving out of California. He said some of his opponents are “trying to take things out of context and create confusion.”
But “our complaint couldn’t be clearer,” he said. Here are lightly edited excerpts from the conversation:
Are there any negotiations taking place with Paramount about a possible settlement?
“There are no negotiations. We are suing. We are in litigation. We have sued and sought a TRO and a preliminary injunction seeking to block the merger. That’s it. That’s full stop. That’s where we’re at.
“Of course, if Paramount–Warner Bros. want to come forward in good faith and sincerely want to make a settlement offer, we’ll always consider a settlement offer. And it would have to include structural remedies. We’re not interested in behavioral remedies — empty promises, self-serving promises, promises that are unenforceable, that won’t be kept, that history shows won’t be kept. So we’ll consider what they propose, but they haven’t proposed anything.”
You said structural remedies, plural. Is there a significance to that?
“Yeah, I don’t see how one single structural remedy [would be sufficient], unless that structural remedy is the two companies don’t merge, which is what we’re seeking.”
In the news media, there’s been speculation about one specific structural remedy: A spin-off of CNN. If Paramount came to you and offered only to divest CNN, would that be sufficient? Would that end the lawsuit?
“Absolutely, 1,000%, no. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow. Hell no.”
Why not?
“It’s not adequate to address the concerns we set forth in our complaint.
“Brendan Carr wants to talk about it, news outlets want to talk about it, and there are some attempts to try to suggest that the source is from me or from someone close to me, but I’ve never said that. I’ve never thought that. I will never think that or say that.
“I’ll say what is actually true: A divestiture of CNN, a spinoff of CNN, a structural remedy that just applies to CNN will never, ever, ever, ever, ever resolve this case. It is not what we’re looking for. It’s not what we’re interested in. It doesn’t address our concerns.
“If they want to come forward with some sort of structural remedy package that includes CNN being rolled off, we’ll consider that. But that’s not what we’re looking for. It’s not what we’re interested in. It’s not what we’re focused on. We’re focused on what the complaint says we’re focused on — the wide-release theatrical film market, the blockbuster theatrical release market, the cable channel market.
“But it’s part of this Paramount PR campaign that’s in overdrive. I think they’re trying to play to the court of public opinion.