ORDER

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is the parties' Stipulation for a Limited Stay of Discovery Pending Order on Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Relief. Docket No. 18. The parties seek to stay all discovery in this matter pending a decision on Defendants George Thomas' and Lora Wright's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Relief, filed February 24, 2014. Docket No. 6.

The pendency of a dispositive motion alone, however, does not in itself stay discovery deadlines. See, e.g., Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500 (D. Nev. 2013) ("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, 600 (D. Nev. 2011) (same). "It is well-established that a party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be stayed." Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601. "A showing that discovery may involve some inconvenience and expense does not establish good cause for issuance of a stay." Id. Conclusory statements regarding the benefit of a stay are plainly insufficient. Id. at 601-02. In order to meet this requirement, the movant must, as a threshold matter, establish that the "pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought." Id.

In their Stipulation, the parties fail to make the required showing for the Court to grant a stay of discovery. If the parties wish to delay or extend deadlines, they must seek a stay of discovery or deadline extension from the Court. Accordingly, the parties' Stipulation to stay all discovery in this matter is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.