ORDER

(Docket No. 20)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 20; see also Docket No. 15 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 21, 22. The Court finds the motions properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED.

The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a "preliminary peek" at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The Court finds that each of these requirements has been met here and, therefore, that discovery should be stayed pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss.1

Plaintiff argues that a stay of discovery could prejudice potential opt-in plaintiffs in light of statute of limitations issues that may arise, and that the Court should therefore toll the statute of limitations in the event a stay is entered. Docket No. 21 at 11-12. Defendants counter that nothing has prevented Plaintiff from filing a motion for conditional certification, and that any delay in doing so is of Plaintiff's own making. Docket No. 22 at 7-8. Based on the briefing before the Court, Defendants have the better argument. "[A] motion for conditional certification usually comes before much, if any, discovery." Longnecker v. Am. Exp. Co., 2014 WL 4071662, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 18, 2014) (quoting Prentice v. Fund for Public Interest Research, Inc., 2007 WL 2729187, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007)). Indeed, "[t]he Court may grant conditional certification prior to the start of discovery." Ingersoll v. Royal & Sunalliance USA, 2006 WL 859265, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2006) (citing Reed v. Mobile County Sch. Sys., 246 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1230 (S.D. Ala. 2003)). As Defendants note, Docket No. 22, Plaintiff has not argued that discovery is required to file a motion for conditional certification in this case.2 This order stays discovery and is not a stay of all proceedings. Nothing herein prevents Plaintiff from filing a motion for conditional certification. As such, the Court does not find equitable tolling to be appropriate.

For the reasons outlined above, Defendants' motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. Discovery shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss. To the extent the motion to dismiss is not granted in full, the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days of the order resolving the motion. The Court declines to toll the statute of limitations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.