Obviously, nobody but the judge knows what she’s actually thinking.

However, my naive guess is that she’d authorize a lot of discovery if the arguments for fraud were already convincing to her. At the opposite extreme, some very limited discovery might make sense even if she thought the argument was likely bogus, just to deal with this argument now rather than on appeal.

I wouldn’t read a lot into this decision, but I also don’t think it sounds like a amazing win either.