[PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY

CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Peter Slack ("Plaintiff") and Defendant United Airlines, Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through their respective attorneys hereby stipulate to and request that the Court grant a stay in discovery pending a decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9] and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [ECF No. 14] or up to and including Tuesday, March 19, 2019, whichever is earlier.

The parties request a temporary stay in discovery to avoid unnecessarily incurring the significant costs and fees associated with any duplicative and/or over-expansive discovery that may result if discovery is to continue at this point prior to clarification on the pleadings. Specifically, the parties require a ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9] and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [ECF No. 14] to know what claims may exist at this stage of the litigation and in order to evaluate what additional discovery, of any, is necessary. For example, the parties cannot meaningfully depose any witnesses without knowing what claims are and/or are not a part of this lawsuit.

In assessing a request to stay discovery, the Court decides whether it is necessary to speed the parties along in discovery or whether it is more appropriate to delay discovery and spare the parties the associated expense. Tradebay, LLC, v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). To make this assessment, the court takes a "preliminary peek" at the merits of the purportedly dispositive motion, though, importantly, this "preliminary peek" does not prejudge the outcome of the motion, it merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted. Id. The merits of the pending motion will ultimately be determined by the district judge, who may have a different view than the magistrate judge. Id.

Defendant's Motion is of the type warranting a stay in discovery. Because Defendant contends that Plaintiff's claims are deficient as plead under Iqbal and Twombly and Defendant has moved to dismiss the entire case which would be case dispositive, if granted. Further, Plaintiff has not been apprised of which factual allegations Defendant intends to admit, and which Defendant intends to deny. Nor has Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses Defendant intends to assert. Plaintiff believes this would severely limit his opportunity to conduct full discovery while the motion is pending.

Plaintiff disputes the legal arguments made in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, however, the parties agree that the motion is of the type warranting a stay of discovery and that discovery is not necessary while the Court resolves the legal issues raised by the motion. Moreover, the parties attended an unsuccessful Early Neutral Evaluation on September 11, 2018. However, since that time, the parties have expressed a mutual desire to continue settlement discussions. A temporary stay of discovery would allow the parties to avoid unnecessary costs and fees while they explore settlement.

The requested stay is only to extend to discovery and remaining case deadlines and not to any briefing currently on file with the Court, including, but not limited to, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9] and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [ECF No. 14]. The parties maintain their arguments with respect to all such motions. Accordingly, the parties request that discovery be stayed pending a decision on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9] and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [ECF No. 14] or up to and including Tuesday, March 19, 2019, whichever is earlier.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.