ORDER

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Until After a Decision is Rendered (ECF No. 24) and Plaintiff's Notice of Non-Opposition thereto (ECF No. 26). Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF NO. 25).

Defendants' contend that a stay of discovery in this matter is appropriate because their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is based on subject matter jurisdiction, which is case dispositive and can be decided without additional discovery. ECF No. 24 at 3. Plaintiffs agree that a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case. ECF No. 26 at 2.

A motion to stay discovery, while far from automatic, is appropriate when there is no need for further exploration of facts, and issues before the Court in a motion are questions of law the outcome of which are potentially dispositive. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011). A "preliminary peek" at Defendants' Motion to Dismiss shows that it is potentially dispositive of this dispute. Id. at 603. All other factors also support to stay to which the parties agree. ECF Nos. 24 and 26.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Until After a Decision is Rendered (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25) is DENIED, without prejudice, as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants do not prevail in full on their Motion to Dismiss, the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within 15 calendar days of the Court's order on the Motion to Dismiss.