Well, BDP, I think that it is an argument [the emotional hullabaloo], but I don't think it's a great one.

In our present case, we already have a temporary injunction in place. The case I cited to was about a temporary injunction. I'm not sure what the standards for issuing such a thing under Seattle law would be, but generally speaking, a temporary injunction is issued in a case to preserve the status quo until the merits can truly be decided. What needs to be shown is that if the defendant is allowed to do the thing he wants to do, the plaintiff (or other party) will suffer irreparable harm. Sometimes, there's a requirement that there's a likelihood that the plaintiff will win on the merits, but I don't know if that's the case here.

Just keep in mind that the two matters are extremely different as the Sonics litigation is far past the point of a temporary injunction -- in fact, in the interest of expediency, it the PBC just let Seattle have a pass on that issue so that they could go to trial.

The standard at trial is nowhere near the same. This is just an example of the sort of argument Seattle is going to employ to show why the equitable remedy is necessary.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!