1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4! Jian Hu, Case No. 2:25-cv-00320-MMD-NJK 5 Plaintiff(s), Order 6] v. [Docket Nos. 97, 101, 109, 112] Aria Resort & Casino LLC, et al., 8 Defendant(s). 9 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 10] their motion to dismiss. Docket No. 109; see also Docket No. 108 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff 11] filed a response. Docket No. 125; see also Docket No. 123.! Defendants filed a reply. Docket 12] No. 127. Having considered the governing standards, Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 13] F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013), the Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted.’ 14 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 109. 15} If resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in termination of this case, the parties must 16] file a joint proposed discovery schedule within 14 days of the issuance of the order resolving the 17] motion to dismiss. In light of the ruling above, the Court also DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s various 18] discovery-related motions. See Docket Nos. 97, 101, 112. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: December 23, 2025 21 A b\SN EE. Nancy J. Ko 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 ' The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). 25 ? Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 26] the assigned district judge will decide the underlying motion and may have a different view of the merits. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2011). The undersigned’s 27| “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion to dismiss is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See

The undersigned carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying 28] motion and related briefing, but will not provide discussion of the merits herein.