`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§§§§
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TESO LT, UAB, METACLUSTER LT,
`UAB, OXYSALES, UAB,
`
`Defendants.
`
`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.
`Code200's Exhibit 1026
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 543 Filed 12/15/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 27147
`
`obviate some or all 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 that the parties
`
`file a Joint Status Report within three (3) days of the mediation informing the Court of the results
`
`of their efforts and specifying what outstanding issues, 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
`
`pending the parties’ upcoming mediation and until a subsequent Order issues from this Court. See
`
`In re Ramu, 903 F.2d 312, 318 (5th Cir.1990) (“The stay of a pending matter is ordinarily within
`
`the trial court’s wide discretion to control the course of litigation.”); 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).
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of December, 2021.
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1026
`Page 2 of 2
`
`