`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TESO LT, UAB, METACLUSTER LT,
`UAB, OXYSALES, UAB,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG
`
`
`
`
`§§§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendants Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT,
`
`UAB’s (collectively, “Oxylabs”) Motion to Stay Case Pending Mediation (the “Motion”). (Dkt.
`
`No. 534). Oxylabs seeks an order staying the above-captioned case pending the upcoming
`
`mediation between the parties, which is scheduled for January 6, 2022. (Dkt. No. 534 at 1).
`
`Oxylabs contends that a stay will allow the parties to focus on issues related to the mediation. (Id.
`
`at 2). Oxylabs also asserts that a short stay will save resources by obviating the need for post-trial
`
`briefing if the mediation is successful. (Id.). Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd. (“Bright Data”) opposes the
`
`Motion and argues that the mediation will benefit from further briefing, that a stay would not
`
`preserve the Court’s resources, that a stay would prejudice Bright Data, and that Oxylabs has
`
`already received an extension of the briefing schedule. (Dkt. No. 537).
`
`
`
`After reviewing the record, the Court finds that a brief stay is appropriate. First, the Court
`
`agrees with Oxylabs that a brief stay will allow the parties to focus their attention on engaging in
`
`a productive mediation. Further, the Court notes that a successful outcome of the mediation may
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2003
`1 of 2
`
`
`
`obviate someorall of the post-trial briefing. Thus, the Court and the parties would save resources
`
`by proceeding post-mediation with only the issues that remain pending,if any.
`
`Additionally, the Court finds that Bright Data would not be prejudiced by a short stay of
`
`this case pending mediation. The Court notes that mediation is only three weeks away, and finding
`
`any purported prejudice requires the Court to speculate that the parties’ efforts at mediation will
`
`be unsuccessful. To address Bright Data’s concerns, however, the Court ORDERS thatthe parties
`
`file a Jot Status Report within three (3) days of the mediation informing the Court of the results
`
`oftheir efforts and specifying what outstandingissues, if any, remain.
`
`Having considered the Motion, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that it
`
`should be and hereby is GRANTED.All deadlines in the above-captioned matter are STAYED
`
`pendingthe parties’ upcoming mediation and until a subsequent Order issues from this Court. See
`
`In re Ramu, 903 F.2d 312, 318 (Sth Cir.1990) (“The stay of a pending matter is ordinarily within
`
`the trial court’s wide discretion to control the course oflitigation.”); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`
`299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936) (noting that a court has “inherent” power
`
`to stay proceedings).
`
`So ORDEREDand SIGNEDthis 15th day of December, 2021.
`
`
`
`RODNEY GILSYTRAP
`
`UNITED STATES
`
`DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2003
`2 of 2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
