ORDER

DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.

Now pending before the Court is the Agreed Motion to Stay Discovery filed by Defendant, Professional Transportation, Inc., on May 27, 2015 (Doc. 38). The Motion is GRANTED.

The parties argue that, in light of the pending motions to dismiss, a stay of discovery would be a cost effective measure for both parties. This Court enjoys broad discretion in directing the course of discovery. See FED.R.CIV.P. 26; James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775, 784 (7th Cir. 2013). Generally, the filing of a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery. See SK Hand Tool Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 852 F.2d 936, 945 (7th Cir. 1988); Daniel J. Hartwig Associates, Inc. v. Kanner, 913 F.2d 1213, 1223 (7th Cir. 1990). Discovery can be stayed, however, if certain threshold or jurisdictional issues could be efficiently resolved prior to expensive discovery. See Todd by Todd v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 942 F.2d 1173, 1178 (7th Cir. 1991) ("Limiting discovery to a threshold issue is proper in a case that may be resolved upon summary judgment"); Landstrom v. Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Services, 892 F.2d 670, 674 (7th Cir 1990) (approving a stay in discovery pending a ruling on qualified immunity).

In this matter, a stay of discovery will be cost effective. However, the parties are informed that, after a ruling on the motion to dismiss, discovery in this matter may be expedited in order to conform to the December 7, 2015 trial date. The parties shall file a motion to amend the schedule in this matter, after conferring, within seven (7) days of the District Court's ruling, if necessary. Discovery in this matter is accordingly STAYED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.