ORDER

(Docket No. 67)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend various deadlines. Docket No. 67. The stipulation is not signed by counsel for Third Party Defendant Archer Western Contractors, apparently because it has a pending motion to dismiss. See id. at 2. The mere pendency of a dispositive motion is not grounds to refuse to engage in discovery. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) ("The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stay sof discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending" (quoting Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011)). Because the stipulation is not filed on behalf of all parties, it is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

The Court further ORDERS counsel for all parties (including Archer Western Contractors) to meet and confer no later than March 21, 2016 regarding an appropriate schedule for this case to move forward. No later than March 25, 2016, the parties shall file a joint proposed schedule with the Court. To the extent Archer Western Contractors believes a stay of its discovery obligations is appropriate because its motion to dismiss remains pending, then it must file a separate motion to stay addressing the appropriate standard for such a request. See, e.g., Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 581. The filing of a motion to stay discovery does not obviate Archer Western Contractors' obligation to also participate in the filing of the joint proposed schedule discussed above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.