A California federal judge presiding over Democratic states' challenge to a U.S. Justice Department settlement greenlighting Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.'s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks Inc. ruled Tuesday that for now HPE doesn't need to reveal who's bidding for divested assets, and he refused to delay key deadlines despite ex-DOJ officials fighting subpoenas.

U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts ruled from the bench during a nearly hourlong virtual hearing on the latest discovery disputes in antitrust litigation that the DOJ brought in January 2025 and that a dozen states have since waded into.

During the hearing, Judge Pitts heard arguments on two discovery disputes and ultimately mostly ruled against the states, but with some caveats.

Judge Pitts overruled the states' objections to HPE redacting the names of the parties who are bidding for assets up for divestiture, but he said his ruling was without prejudice, so that the states could seek specific information about particular parties if they can show there is a "presumptively proportional" need for the additional information.

The second discovery dispute was over the states' request to push back court deadlines to allow them more time to seek subpoenas of former DOJ officials who are fighting depositions in their local courts.

Judge Pitts refused to push back nearly all current deadlines, keeping in place the scheduled March 23 hearing on the DOJ's motion for entry of final judgment. However, the judge noted that he may hold the hearing with the understanding that some discovery is ongoing and he may issue an interim ruling until the discovery is completed.

Judge Pitts said if the states identify particular items of discovery that they believe are crucial to his ruling but that haven't been produced, "You can identify those for me, explain why you think that no ruling should be issued until that discovery has been provided."

The DOJ initially sued to block HPE's acquisition of Juniper, claiming that the deal would eliminate head-to-head competition between HPE's Aruba and Juniper's Mist networks, leaving HPE and Cisco Systems with a 70% share of the U.S. market for commercial or enterprise-grade wireless local area networks.

However, in June, shortly before trial, federal enforcers cut a deal with HPE and Juniper. Weeks later, allegations surfaced that lobbyists had convinced senior DOJ officials to push the deal through over the objections of the Antitrust Division's front office, in a tussle that purportedly resulted in the ouster of two of the division's top deputies.

The DOJ has maintained that those were for insubordination, but in November Judge Pitts allowed a group of states to intervene to challenge the DOJ's settlement. The states allege that the settlement doesn't fix the problems the federal government previously identified with the merger.

Last month, Judge Pitts refused to block further integration between HPE and Juniper as the states pursue their legal challenge. In recent weeks, the parties informed the judge that they have been an impasse on numerous discovery disputes between the states and HPE, and the states and the DOJ.

Judge Pitts' rulings on discovery issues have been a mixed bag.

Earlier this month he told the DOJ that its argument that discussions of alternative remedies are shielded from discovery "doesn't make sense," and he allowed the states to take discovery on the issue. He also denied the government's bid to quash the states' request for external communications and interrogatory responses regarding the DOJ and HPE's attempts to settle the lawsuit.

The judge has also blocked some of the states' discovery demands over privilege and burden concerns, including the states' request for HPE's communications with third-party legal advisers — Michael Davis of MRD Law, Arthur Schwartz of Axiom Advisors and William Levi of Sidley Austin LLP — as well as certain internal documents about the settlement and the DOJ's decision to accept the proposed final judgment. However, the judge allowed the states to renew their discovery requests in the future.

In recent days, the parties informed the judge that they were at an impasse over the states' demand to see the identities of the companies vying for a business unit HPE has agreed to sell.

During the hearing Tuesday, Julie Elmer of Freshfields US LLP argued on behalf of HPE that the dispute "really comes down to proportionality," and the states' demands for the identities of the bidders is not proportional to the needs of the proceeding.

She also noted that this is a unique situation where the bidding process for the company's domestic and license assets is still alive, and the disclosure may cause those third-party bidders to change or withdraw their bids, or deter others from bidding.

"That chilling effect is really at the heart of our concern here," she said.

Arthur Biller of the Colorado attorney general's office argued on behalf of the states that the company's concerns of chilling seem "completely speculative." But as a compromise he suggested that HPE could provide the documents on the bids while redacting the names of the bidders.

After reviewing those documents, Biller said, if the states believe there is a reason to need to see the identity of certain bidders, they could come back to the court. Biller also noted that the states may renew some other discovery demands that the judge previously rejected without prejudice.

The judge agreed to Biller's suggestion and overruled the states' objections to the redactions for now, while allowing them to renew their requests in the future.

As for the scheduling dispute, Biller argued that it's taking the states longer than they anticipated to take depositions because some key witnesses have fought their subpoenas in their local courts, including Florida, where the states don't currently have counsel. As a result, Biller said the states likely will face weeks of delay in deposing those witnesses if the local courts uphold their subpoenas.

But HPE's counsel, Samuel G. Liversidge of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, argued that any delay could threaten the viability of the deal and the future of the business.

"There is a cloud of uncertainty here that we very much want to lift," Liversidge said. "I think it's easy for them to say 'I don't see prejudice.'"

At the end of the hearing, Judge Pitts pushed back some briefing deadlines, but he declined to delay the March 23 hearing with the caveat that he may not rule until discovery is complete.

The states were represented at the hearing by Arthur Biller of the Colorado Office of the Attorney General.

The federal government was represented at the hearing by Henry C. Su, Jeremy M. Goldstein and Michael G. Lepage of the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. was represented during the hearing by Samuel G. Liversidge, Eric David Vandevelde and Daniel Nowicki of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Julie Elmer of Freshfields US LLP.

The case is U.S. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al., case number 5:25-cv-00951, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.