MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge.

On December 29, 2014, the Court consolidated the above-named cases for purposes of discovery management and pretrial motions. On March 9, 2016, the Court conducted a status conference with the parties in these cases. The parties agreed after consultation that while there are similar legal issues in each case, consolidation of the two cases is no longer necessary.

The decision whether to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.1 In exercising this discretion, the Court will consider both judicial economy and fairness to the parties.2 Here, the separate Defendants are competitors, and thus, each objects to consolidation for discovery purposes. Furthermore, the Defendants are now on separate briefing schedules, so consolidation does not meaningfully improve judicial economy with regards to pretrial motions as originally intended. Lastly, the parties agree that there are factual distinctions regarding the marketing methods employed by each Defendant.

In the interest of fairness to the parties, and given that each case does not turn on a common question of fact, the Court finds that consolidation is no longer warranted. The cases shall be deconsolidated and handled separately from this point forward.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-named cases are hereby DECONSOLIDATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.