There will be harsh job losses and severe economic pain if Paramount carries out its threat to leave California over the antitrust action a coalition of blue state Attorneys General are pursuing to stop David Ellison‘s $111 billion merger with Warner Bros Discovery, an internal L.A. County report estimates. Simultaniously, as Paramount brass are scheduled to sit down for court-ordered settlement talks with a the AGs next month, a filing late Friday made clear, Ellison’s crew thinks their debt heavy acquisition of WBD shouldn’t even be up for discussion, antitrust or otherwise.

“At a minimum, relocating Paramount’s headquarters and other operations out f California would result in losses of 2,750 and 5,550 job-years in California across all industries and losses of between $1.01 billion and $2.03 billion in economic output between October 1, 2026, and September 30, 2031,” L.A. County’s Economic Development Corporation says in a leaked September 10 document.

With constant leaks out of the Melrose lot that Ellison is contemplating a move to the redder horizons of Tennessee, Georgia or Texas if the AGs don’t holster their legal pistols and start negotiating by October 1, this weeks EDC document offers zero anesthesia “Once Paramount completed the entire relocation of its headquarters and other operations out of California, the state would experience the permanent loss of approximately 28,990 to 57,980 full-time jobs statewide across all industries, and losses of between $10.6 billion and $21.2 billion annually in economic output.”

In even more terse tone that a previous duo of LA. County missive, the latest four-page report adds: “Note that since this employment would be lost to California permanently, these figures are more appropriately expressed as full-time jobs instead of job-years.” Then there is the real estate and ancillary blast radius of Para and WBD leaving town. A shuttering of soundstages, closing of vendors and more that would result in “permanently” decimating the physical and economic foundations built up over 100 years of Hollywood.

Even more bleak when one considers the EDC’s own math figure on the upside of one big ParaBros.

“Paramount’s post-merger production commitment of 30 features a year for three years would generate a total of between 1,020 and 2,760 job-years in California across all industries and between $377.7 million and $1.01 billion in economic output between October 1, 2026, and September 30, 2031,” the finding (first reported by Politico) asserts with a spotlight on Ellison’s biggest big screen promise.

At the same time, in the mix of the AGs long anticipated July 13 filed antitrust action, Paramount’s September 11 filed Defendants’ Answer to Complaint and Defenses basically insists California AG Rob Bonta, NY AG Letitia James and pals just get outta ParaBros’ corporate way and stick to their side of the street. Slicing the AGs as being out of their jurisdiction, the presumption pitched here is the antitrust suit “amounts to a series of attempted shortcuts and assumptions that collapse under scrutiny.”

Supercharging the usual litany of agreements and disagreements that characterize such perfunctory responses, Oracle scion Ellison’s lawyers use the filing to pre-argue (bordering on pre-relitigating) their POV on ParaBros ahead of the March 2, 2027 trial and a boatload of bond hearings, ticking fee kick off and a possible SCOTUS intervention. “Paramount’s proposed merger with Warner Bros. (the ‘Merger’) will enhance competition, not diminish it,” they state in the 25-page document.

In language we’ve all heard over and over since the AGs took to the legal barricades, Para’s Beth Wilkenson-led legal Seal Team continue: “The Merger will benefit movie theaters by bringing more films to the big screen. It will benefit cable companies by providing more high-quality content on TV in the face of declining cable subscriptions. It will benefit content creators by increasing investment in, and production of, films and TV shows. And for all these reasons, it will also benefit consumers, not only with more high-quality content in theaters and on cable, but also with a better combined streaming offering to create real competition against dominant tech giants like Netflix, Disney, and Amazon.”

That sounds a lot like Paramount’s declaration of July 13 that the AGs big move “distorts settled antitrust law and is based on a misrepresentation of competition in the entertainment industry today,” doesn’t it?

There’s that, and then there’s the real blade being unsheathed in the September 11 filing: “Plaintiffs’ entire theory of leverage falls apart—models that ignore the real world have no basis in a court of law.”  A sentiment stuck in further with: “Day by day, the weak case against this Merger gets even weaker.” 

Bonta’s usually media quick and to the point office was silent when Deadline reached out for a response to Paramount’s official response. As for that L.A. County report …no one was saying nuthin.

Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.

Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, and don't get your facts wrong.

Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );