ORDER

THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Related Case Order and Track Two Notice (doc. 16). Plaintiff opposes the motion (Id., at 4).

Defendant argues that the mandatory case management conference should be postponed until the Court rules on its motion to dismiss since that decision may render the conference moot (Id., ¶¶ 10-11). As authority for its position, Defendant cites O.N. Equity Sales Co. v. Merkel, No. 2:07-cv-531-FtM-29DNF, 2008 WL 380573, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2008), but the case, which concerns the allowance of discovery while a motion to compel arbitration is pending, is not applicable to this situation.

On occasion, parties seek a stay of discovery until the court decides a motion to dismiss. In those situations, "[w]hile it is not necessary for the Court to, in effect, decide the motion to dismiss to determine whether the motion to stay discovery should be granted, it is necessary for the Court to "take a preliminary peek" at the merits of the motion to dismiss to see if it appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive." Feldman v. Flood, Case No. 97-51-Civ-J-10C, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652-53 (M.D.Fla. 1997).

After reviewing Defendant's motion the Court finds that regardless of its merit, it is not truly case dispositive. The motion may be denied, Plaintiff may be given leave to amend, or the case may be transferred to another district. Under any of these scenarios, the parties must perform the same work.

Defendant's second argument is that the case management conference should be postponed because it "seeks to protect and preserve the matters set forth in its Motion to Dismiss." (Id., ¶ 13). The Court can only guess at what this is supposed to mean. Regardless, the argument is not persuasive.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.