Democratic attorneys general challenging the controversial Justice Department settlement permitting Hewlett Packard Enterprise's $14 billion purchase of Juniper Networks have urged a California federal judge to let them see who's bidding for assets up for divestiture, arguing the would-be buyers are an integral part of the agreement's viability.

In their part of a joint filing with HPE, the attorneys general on Wednesday argued, "HPE has no grounds to withhold the identities" of the companies vying for an HPE business unit the company has agreed to sell and a key Juniper source code it agreed to license, to resolve U.S. Department of Justice concerns the merger threatened competition for enterprise-grade wireless local area networking.

In defending the deal, which a fired division senior official complained was borne by improper lobbying influence, the Democratic enforcers noted HPE specifically cited the number of interested bidders as evidence the assets will help buyers provide a meaningful competitive counterweight to the merged firm.

"HPE cannot tout the purported interest it has received and then shield the identities of those involved. The identity of the potentially interested parties cannot be separated from the viability and potential effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the proposed remedies in the settlement," the attorneys general said.

"HPE and the United States assert that the divested and licensed assets can be used to restore competition in the relevant market — that claim depends at least in part on who may get those assets to evaluate how the assets might be used. Indeed, courts routinely scrutinize proposed buyers when evaluating whether a divestiture would restore the competition lost from a merger," they continued.

Under the normally mundane Tunney Act process, federal courts are supposed to review government merger clearance settlements to ensure they are in the public interest.

Here, the deal resolved the DOJ's merger challenge by requiring HPE to sell off the Juniper source code and Instant On, a Wi-Fi network business geared toward small firms. But the Democratic attorneys general have waded in to argue the settlement was the result of improper lobbying.

While U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts allowed the state enforcers to step in, he has yet to say whether he'll let a March 23 hearing on the DOJ's motion for final judgment approving the consent decree be expanded into an evidentiary hearing to allow the states to probe the settlement.

Both HPE and the DOJ said approval is warranted, and no such hearing is needed.

The DOJ and HPE had already argued the states should get no discovery into the process. Judge Pitts, however, has forced them to produce at least some information, including on how the parties discussed alternative remedies, although he has rejected other requests from the intervening enforcers.

The current dispute centers on the states' bid for the names of the bidders as well as communications showing "potential interest and inquiries" from would-be bidders.

"The United States and HPE recognized the importance of the identity of any divestiture buyer or licensee because the settlement gives the United States the right to reject a proposed buyer or licensee," the Democratic enforcers said. They also argued any concerns about confidentiality and revealing the names of the bidders can be addressed by labeling the material as highly confidential.

HPE countered in its own part of the filing Wednesday that it should be enough to give the enforcers "anonymized descriptions of the bidders and redacted substantive communications with the bidders, along with the redacted compliance affidavits."

It also called for providing unredacted materials provided only for Judge Pitts' eyes, "since it is the court's (not the states') public interest determination to make."

HPE argued allowing the states to contact bidders and serve discovery on them, as the enforcers reserved the right to do, "would disrupt the ongoing negotiations and potentially impair the very remedies agreed to," potentially by scaring off buyers.

"The fact that all current bidders and most potential bidders have signed non-disclosure agreements ... with HPE that protect even the existence of the negotiations reflects the sensitivity and confidential nature of the information the states seek," HPE said. "Compelling the discovery of the identities and other details regarding the auction participants while the process is still ongoing risks derailing progress made to date on the auction process, including active negotiations with current interested parties."

HPE also argued that safeguards for business strategy should apply to the bidder information until the buyer has been selected. And it argued the states already have "more than sufficient information" to weigh in.

"The states will soon depose HPE, several of HPE's lawyers and advisors, and former DOJ officials. The states have not shown that they need details about a bidding process that has not concluded to participate in the Tunney Act proceeding," HPE said. "Descriptions of the bidders, in addition to the substance of HPE's communications with them, should be sufficient for the states to participate in this proceeding. The bidders' actual identities hardly move the needle compared to risks of compromising the bidding process."

The attorneys general seeking the buyers' information are from: California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.

Representatives for HPE and the Colorado Attorney General's office, which has taken a leading role for the state enforcers, declined to comment Thursday.

The states are represented by their respective attorneys general.

The government is represented 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. is represented by Justina Sessions, Julie S. Elmer, Eric Mahr and Jennifer Mellott of Freshfields LLP, and Samuel G. Liversidge, Eric D. Vandevelde, Daniel Nowicki, Stephen Weissman, Michael J. Perry and Kristen C. Limarzi of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Juniper is represented by Steven C. Sunshine, Tara L. Reinhart, Jack P. DiCanio and Michael C. Minahan of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom 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.