MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff Alan Amron (“Plaintiff”) is the claimed inventor of the Post-it® Note. He commenced this action on November 20, 2023 against Defendants 3M Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company (“3M”) and Arthur Fry (collectively “Defendants”) alleging: (i) breach of contract, (ii) fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment, and (iii) defamation, all arising from Plaintiff’s claim to have invented 3M’s Post-it® Note. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of its anticipated motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 20), which is opposed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 21.) For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion to stay (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. BACKGROUND In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts while Defendants have continuously marketed and “expressly represented to consumers” that they invented the Post-it® Note in 1974, it was actually Plaintiff who first invented “such sticky notes[,]” specifically — a “ repositionable[,] reusable memo sticky note[] paper combination product” in 1973. (Id. at 13-14.) Plaintiff claims he disclosed his “Press-on memo sticky notes invention” to Defendants’ marketing department in 1974. (Id. at 26.) This is the third action Plaintiff has commenced against 3M claiming to have invented the Post-it® Note. (ECF No. 17 at 1.) The first was filed in this Court in 1997, asserting various claims against 3M based on his alleged creation of a sticky note called the “Press-On Memo” (the “1997 Suit”). (ECF No. 1 at 22.) In the 1997 Suit, Plaintiff alleged Defendants “infring[ed] upon his trade secret rights” in relation to his “Presson memo sticky notes invention[,]” after Defendants introduced a product in 1977 that “ relabeled” Plaintiff’s “original intended use” of the “Post-it sticky note.” (Id. at 22-24.) The 1997 Suit was subsequently resolved via a January 1998 Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), whereby Plaintiff released all claims against 3M and its employees, arising out of the subject matter of the 1997 Suit. (ECF No. 1 at 29.) Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit alleging the same claims in the Southern District of Florida in 2016, and the Court granted 3M’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice because they were precluded by the release in the Settlement Agreement and barred by the doctrine of res judicata (the “2016 Suit”). Id. at 31; Amron v. 3m Minnesota Mining & Manufactering Company et al, S.D. Fla. Case No. 9:16-cv-80125, ECF No. 79 at 2, 5-10. In the instant action, Plaintiff claims Defendants breached a provision of the Settlement Agreement that allegedly required Defendants to allow Plaintiff or a company “to produce Plaintiff’s Press-on memo sticky notes for him[,]” by threatening to sue plaintiff when he previously attempted to license or sell his invention. (Id. at
