ORDER (Docket No. 27)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 27. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 28, 29. The Court finds the matter properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay is hereby GRANTED.

The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending." Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a "preliminary peek" at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and finds it sufficiently meritorious to warrant a stay. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013); see also Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 1600768, *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2015) (addressing stays during the pendency of a motion challenging personal jurisdiction).

Having reviewed these standards and the briefing on the motion to dismiss, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. In the event that the motion to dismiss is not granted in its entirety, the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.