`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd.’s (“Bright Data”) Motion to Lift the Stay
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TESO LT, UAB, METACLUSTER LT,
`UAB, OXYSALES, UAB,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Order (Dkt. 543) (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 576). In the Motion, Bright Data requests that the Court
`
`lift the stay of all deadlines which was entered pending the parties’ January 6, 2022 mediation.
`
`(See Dkt. No. 543). Bright Data notes that the January 6, 2022 mediation was unsuccessful and
`
`seeks to proceed with briefing related to post-verdict motions. (Dkt. No. 576 at 1–2).
`
`Defendants Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (collectively,
`
`“Oxylabs”) oppose the Motion and argue that developments following the January 6, 2022
`
`mediation counsel against lifting the stay at this time. Specifically, Oxylabs notes that the Court
`
`partially lifted the stay as to Bright Data’s Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
`
`Against Infringement (the “Motion for Injunctive Relief”) on January 7, 2022, held a hearing on
`
`the same on February 4, 2022, and issued its order denying the Motion for Injunctive Relief on
`
`February 10, 2022. (See Dkt. Nos. 579, 567, 574, 575). Oxylabs argues that the Court should “send
`
`the parties to mediate again before Judge Folsom in view of this development.” (Dkt. No. 579).
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2007
`1 of 2
`
`
`
`In light of its February 10, 2022 ruling on Bright Data’s Motion for Injunctive Relief in
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00395, the Court is of the opinion that the parties might benefit from further
`
`efforts to resolve their disputes via mediation. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS theparties to
`
`mediate in this case promptly and at a mutually agreeable date, but no later than forty-five (45)
`
`days from the date of this Order. The mediation shall be conducted by the Hon. David Folsom,
`
`6002-B Summerfield Drive, Texarkana, Texas 75503, dfolsom@jw.com. To ensure that mediation
`
`is as productive as possible, the Court hereby ORDERS that each party shall personally attend
`
`such mediation with lead counsel, local counsel, and a representative who has full and unilateral
`
`authority to act on and compromiseonall pending disputes. No party or representative shall leave
`
`the mediation session, once it begins, without the approval of the mediator. The district’s
`
`applicable local rules regarding ADR/mediation shall otherwise govern and apply in all respects.
`
`In light of the above, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is DENIED
`
`WITHOUT PREJUDICE.Further, the parties ace ORDEREDto file a joint notice within seven
`
`(7) days of their mediation informing the Court of the results of such mediation and (if mediation
`
`was not completely successful) advising the Court of any remaining outstanding disputes and
`
`proposing a suggested joint schedule for briefing.
`
`So ORDEREDand SIGNEDthis 16th day of March, 2022.
`
` RODNEY GIL
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2007
`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
