MALLET AND COMPANY INC. v. LACAYO et al

Filing 136

ORDER. Defendants' Motion (Doc. 121 ) for a stay is DENIED. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 1/6/21. (dcd)

Case 2:19-cv-01409-CB Document 136 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MALLET AND COMPANY INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADA LACAYO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 19-1409
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
For the reasons well-stated in Plaintiff’s Opposition (Doc. 134), Defendants’ Motion
(Doc. 121) to stay the Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 119) will be denied.1
In particular, and for the reasons articulated in detail in the Court’s Findings and
Conclusions (Doc. 109, hereinafter “Fs & Cs”), the undersigned is not persuaded that Defendants
have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on appeal. As should be evident from the Fs &
Cs, the Court does not view the evidence here as presenting a close case. The obviousness of
Defendants’ improper acquisition and use of Plaintiff’s confidential and/or trade-secreted
information could not be much clearer; and this warrants a grant of injunctive relief under at least
some, if not all, of Plaintiff’s alternative legal theories.
The Court also agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants have not carried their burden under
the second prong, regarding irreparable injury. “Any claim of harm . . . may be discounted by

The party requesting a stay bears the burdens, and the determinative factors are: (1) whether
the applicant has made a strong showing it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the
movant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether a stay will substantially injure the
other interested parties; and (4) the public interest. U.S. v. Brace, 2020 WL 4581183, *2
(W.D. Pa. July 31, 2020) (citation to quoted, binding authority omitted).
1

Case 2:19-cv-01409-CB Document 136 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2

the fact that [Defendants] brought that injury upon [themselves].” I.B.T., Local Union No. 211
v. PG Pub. Co., Inc., 2019 WL 9101872, *6 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2019) (quoting and applying
Novartis v. Johnson & Johnson, 290 F.3d 578, 596 (3d Cir. 2002) within the context of a request
for stay). For the reasons articulated in the Fs & Cs, that is what happened here. And, although
the consequences of the Preliminary Injunction Order are not insubstantial, the Court cannot
agree with Defendants that their claims of irreparable injury warrant a stay under prevailing legal
standards.
Defendants having failed under the first two prongs, the Court need not address the
remaining ones. Brace, 2020 WL 4581183 at *2. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 121)
for a stay is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 6, 2021

s/Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

2