ORDER

MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the motions of three Defendants — the Miami County, Ohio Board of County Commissioners; Miami County Sheriff Charles Cox; and Lisa Hagen — who jointly seek an Order requiring Plaintiff to provide a quarterly accounting of her attorney's fees through the resolution of this litigation. This matter, having been fully briefed, see docs. 27 (motion by the Miami County Defendants), 31 (joinder by Defendant Hagen), 33 (Plaintiff's opposition memorandum), 34 (Miami County Defendants' reply memorandum), is ripe for ruling.

Defendants acknowledge that, because this action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they face the prospect being required to pay Plaintiff's attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See doc. 27 at PageID 173-74. Defendants claim that "the cost of this litigation is a significant factor in settlement if one is to be achieved" and, as such, "[Plaintiff] revealing [her] attorney's fees for the first time at...a late point in the litigation may very well stand as a barrier to settlement." Id. at PageID 174. Consequently, in an effort to avoid a situation where settlement is cost-prohibitive, Defendants request that Plaintiff's counsel be ordered to "send[] a one-line email to opposing counsel [once] every three months with hours and rate." Id. at PageID 174-75.

In support of their motion, Defendants submitted, as exhibits, a number of Preliminary Pretrial Orders — recently issued by five different Article III and Magistrate Judges in this District — which require such a disclosure by plaintiffs whose prayers for relief include attorney's fees under § 1988. See doc. 27 at PageID 176-93, doc. 34 at PageID 227-34.

Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motions, arguing, inter alia, that: (1) "motions for attorney fee awards and its supporting materials are to be provided as part of a post-trial motion"; (2) "providing information on [her] accumulating attorney['s] fees several times a year would be unduly burdensome"; and (3) the information Defendants are seeking is protected by the work product doctrine. Doc. 33 at PageID 214-22.

The Court has fully considered Plaintiff's arguments, but finds them to be unfounded, and erroneously based upon a misunderstanding of the scope of Defendants' request. Defendants are seeking a one-line email, to be sent four times a year by Plaintiff's counsel, stating how many hours have been worked through the date of the email, as well as the hourly rate claimed for those hours worked. See doc. 27. Defendants are not seeking the type of detailed information necessary to support a post-trial fee petition. See id.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(vi), the Court is permitted to "include other appropriate matters" — such as this — in its Preliminary Pretrial Order. Accord Peabody v. Perry Twp., Oh., No. 2:10-cv-1078, at doc. 16 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2011) (Abel, M.J.); Abernathy v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-131, at doc. 8 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 6, 2010) (King, M.J.).

Therefore, and in light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.