ORDER

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Pending now before the Court is Defendants' Renewed Motion for Scheduling Conference, for Protective Order, and to Quash. ECF No 23. Plaintiffs have responded. ECF No. 27. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred these Motions to this Court. After considering this Motion and arguments of counsel, the Court finds as follow:

I. Background:

This case is a wrongful death lawsuit as a result of a collision which occurred on August 2, 2018. On November 13, 2019 Plaintiff provided written notice of their intent to take a deposition of SmartDrive pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). ECF No. 23-1. This deposition is scheduled for December 19, 2019.

On December 16, 2019, Defendants filed their Renewed Motion for Scheduling Conference, for Protective Order, and to Quash as to the noticed deposition of SmartDrive. ECF No. 23. With this Motion, Defendants seek to schedule a scheduling conference to address the scope and timing of discovery. In addition, Defendants move for a Protective Order as to the Notice of Deposition and to quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum for the upcoming deposition.

II. Discussion:

The Court does not find Defendants arguments in resisting this discovery persuasive. Generally, parties may discover relevant, non-privileged information that is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Further, the third-party deponent, SmartDrive, does not oppose this deposition being taken.

III. Conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, Defendants' Renewed Motion for Scheduling Conference, for Protective Order, and to Quash is DENIED.