ORDER

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (#9)

CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.

On September 16, 2015, Defendant JP Morgan Chase moved for a discovery stay pending a decision on its Motion to Dismiss (#5). Plaintiff Daniel Hagos has not opposed the Motion to Dismiss or the Motion to Stay Discovery. This constitutes consent to the granting of the Motion to Stay. See LR 7-2(d) ("The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.").

The court also grants the Motion to Stay on its merits. Discovery may be stayed pending a decision on dispositive motion if, after taking a "preliminary peek" at the pending dispositive motion, court is "convinced" that the dispositive motion will be granted. TradeBay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). JP Morgan Chase contends, inter alia, that Hagos' action is barred by a one-year statute of limitations. This is an appropriate basis for a discovery stay. See id.

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant JP Morgan Chase's Motion to Stay (#9) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that discovery is STAYED for four months or until the District Judge adjudicates Defendant JP Morgan Chase's Motion to Dismiss, whichever occurs first.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event Defendant JP Morgan Chase's Motion to Dismiss is denied, the parties MUST file a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within 20 days of the denial of the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.