ORDER (Docket No. 19)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay discovery, filed on October 6, 2015. Docket No. 19. To date, no response has been filed in opposition. See Docket. For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion. Docket No. 19.

The deadline for responding to the motion has now passed. See Local Rule 7-2(b) (providing 14-day response deadline). No response has been filed opposing Defendants' motion to stay. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court may grant the motion as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d).

Further, the Court has reviewed the motion itself in addition to the underlying motion to dismiss, and finds good cause for granting a stay of discovery. Docket Nos. 10, 11, 14, 19. In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court considers the goals of Rule 1 to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive" determination of all cases. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011).1 Generally, requests to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the 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 is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).2 However, where a motion to dismiss presents a "critical preliminary question[,]" courts are more inclined to stay discovery. Kabo Tool Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53570, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2013) (quoting AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146270, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012)).

With that distinction in mind, the Court has taken a "preliminary peek" at the pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's complaint asserts a FTCA3 claim against the VA4, arguing that it provided Plaintiff with negligent medical care. Docket No. 11 at 2-3. Defendants' motion to dismiss counters that Plaintiff's complaint is void ab initio because it is a medical malpractice claim unaccompanied by a supporting expert affidavit. Docket No. 19 at 3.

In Nevada, claims alleging medical malpractice must be filed with a supporting medical expert affidavit. See Poppe v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128395 *8-9 (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2015) ("Pursuant to NRS 41A.071, a complaint filed without a supporting medical expert affidavit is void ab initio and must be dismissed"); Swails v. United States, 406 Fed. Appx. 124, 125-26 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff's complaint lacks a supporting medical expert affidavit. See Docket No. 1. Plaintiff addresses this omission by contending that the VA is not a medical care provider within NRS 41A.017, and, therefore, Nevada law does not require a medical expert affidavit. Docket No. 11 at 4.

The Court finds that this issue presents a critical preliminary question akin to the jurisdictional dispute in Kabo Tool Co. Considering the three Kor Media factors, the Court concludes that objectives of Rule 1 would be best served by a stay of discovery pending the outcome of Defendants' motion to dismiss. See Poppe v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109586 (D. Nev. Aug. 18. 2015) (granting stay of discovery pending motion to dismiss FTCA claim against the VA). In the event resolution of the above motion to dismiss does not result in the disposition of this case, the parties shall file a joint discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving that motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.