Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ACQUISITIONS & MERGERS NEWS—N.D. Cal.: Government shutdown causes stay in Hewlett Packard/Juniper merger case, except for intervention motion, (Oct 22, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

Hewlett Packard argued it should not have to respond to inchoate motions aimed at stopping the merger and starting a Tunney Act investigation unless and until the court grants intervention.

The federal district court in San Jose, California granted a partial stay of the Justice Department’s previously settled action against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HPE) and Juniper Networks, Inc. (Juniper). Months after the court approved settlement on June 30, twelve states and the District of Columbia moved to intervene and have since filed other motions attempting to tee-up a Tunney Act investigation of the merger. HPE is now vigorously objecting to those motions or intended motions on the basis that (1) the states knew about settlement and should have raised objections earlier; (2) the states do not have standing to file any additional motions unless and until the court grants their motion to intervene; and, in any event, (3) the merger closed (U.S. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., No. 5:25-cv-00951-PCP (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2025)).

Background. On June 27, 2025, attorneys for the Justice Department, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HPE), and Juniper Networks, Inc. (Juniper) filed a joint stipulation with the district court proposing settlement of the government complaint that originally sought to block the HPE’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper. According to the complaint, the acquisition would have resulted in Cisco Systems, Inc. and HPE controlling over 70 percent of the U.S. market for enterprise-grade wireless local area network (WLAN) solutions. Although the Justice Department ultimately approved the acquisition, that came with stringent divestiture requirements as to HPE’s Instant On business, and licensing of Juniper’s AI Ops for Mist source code via auction.

On June 30, the court approved the parties’ stipulation and allowed the merger to close, integrating HPE and Juniper while preserving the assets subject to divestiture.

Shutdown motion. On October 1, 2025, Justice Department moved to stay the matter due to the federal government budgeting impasse and attendant shutdown now in its fourth week. The Justice Department attorneys represented they had the defendants’ consent to stay. They also cited how 31 U.S.C. § 3142 prohibited them from working even on a voluntary basis.

States appear. On October 14, Attorneys General for the States of Colorado, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia (the states) filed a motion to intervene. The states argued they were entitled to permissive intervention as sovereigns with claims sharing common questions of law or fact with the Justice Department action.

The states essentially argued the settlement demanded a thorough investigation and evidentiary hearing under the Tunney Act. The states expressed a belief that Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater fired Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford and Deputy Assistant Attorney General William Rinner due to their opposition to the settlement. In the states’ expressed view, Alford comments and public reporting suggested “improper influence on high-level DOJ officials.” The states also attacked the structural remedies as facially inadequate. The states contended the remedies did not address the harms alleged in the complaint and government pretrial brief.

Stay granted. In an October 15 entry on the case docket the court granted in part the parties’ joint stipulation request for a stay, except as to the states’ motion to intervene. The court specified the stay would continue until Justice Department attorneys can resume their civil litigation functions or by further order of the court. The court said it would hear the states’ intervention motion on November 18 after briefing on the existing schedule. Contemporaneously, the states contacted the parties and requested a phone conference on October 16 or 17, but the court granted the partial stay before the states received a response from the parties.

More state motions. By October 17, the states had variously filed or were advocating for a total of three more motions in addition to their October 14 intervention motion. First, they moved to lift the court’s stay order (lift-stay motion). Second, they moved to shorten the time to hear the lift-stay motion so it could be heard on the same day as their intervention motion. According to the states, the Justice Department neither opposed nor consented to the motion to shorten time, but HPE and Juniper opposed and did not consent to the filing of that motion.

Third, and most importantly, the states referred to a to-be-filed motion for a “hold separate” injunction to stop the integration of HPE and Juniper. As for the forthcoming “hold separate” motion, the states explained they want to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s determination of whether the proposed settlement is in the public interest under the Tunney Act.

HPE opposition. On October 21, HPE filed its opposition to the states’ motion to shorten time. HPE noted the court has not granted the non-party states’ intervention motion. Consequently, in HPE’s view, the states had “no standing to do anything” other than move to intervene. HPE strongly objected it should not be forced to respond to the states’ motions, or at any rate, their intended motions to lift the stay and ultimately move for injunctive relief. HPE argued the states do not yet have the power to file any such motions. Moreover, HPE noted the court might not even grant the states’ intervention motion.

HPE continued that there was no exigency because the states waited for months after disclosure of the settlement and the merger closed. HPE argued the states knew about any grounds for objection, but they did nothing. For those reasons, HPE said the court should deny the motion to shorten time, and strike or hold in abeyance the lift-stay motion, until the court has ruled on the motion to intervene. HPE cited that intervention is a prerequisite for standing to challenge a district court’s approval of a consent decree under the Tunney Act. However, even without the stay, HPE emphasized that the merger already closed.

The Case is No. 5:25-cv-00951-PCP.

Judge: Pitts, P.

Attorneys: Aaron M. Sheanin, U.S. Department of Justice, for the U.S. Eric J. Mahr (Freshfields US LLP) for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.

Companies: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.; Juniper Networks, Inc.

News: AcquisitionsMergers Antitrust AntitrustDivisionNews CaliforniaNews