ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY

BETH BLOOM, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants' Motion For Stay of Initial Disclosure and Related Discovery Obligations, ECF No. [28] (the "Motion to Stay"). In the Motion to Stay, Defendants request that the Court enter an Order staying discovery pending resolution of their Verified Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration. See ECF No. [9] ("Motion to Compel"). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to Stay is granted.

Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants arising from Plaintiff's purchase of a membership in Jetsmarter, a company that provides air transportation as an alternative to commercial carriers or private jet ownership. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts numerous claims, including breach of contract. In the Motion to Compel, Defendant claims that under Plaintiff's membership agreement, this case must be submitted to arbitration. See ECF No. [9]. In addition, this case is similar to another case pending before the Court, Laine v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 18-cv-62969, in which the Court already granted a request to stay the parties' initial pretrial and discovery obligations until after disposition of a similar motion to compel arbitration.

Given the pendency of the Motion to Compel, Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery and all discovery-related obligations within the Court's Scheduling Order, ECF No. [24], until such time as the Court has entered a ruling on the Motion to Compel. See ECF No. [28]. Plaintiff opposes a stay.

Under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the law of this Circuit, the Court "has broad discretion to stay discovery pending decision on a dispositive motion," which includes Defendants' Motion to Compel. See Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985); Foster v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd., No. 01-01290-CIV-KING, 2002 WL 34576251, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2002), aff'd sub nom. Foster v. Sun Int'l, 54 F. App'x 691 (11th Cir. 2002)). In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court must "balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery." Berry v. Canady, No. 2:09-CV-765-FTM-29, 2011 WL 806230, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2011). Under the particular circumstances present here, and the stay previously granted in Laine, the Court determines that a stay is warranted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED.