MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

C. CLIFFORD SHIRLEY, Jr. Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02. The parties appeared before the undersigned through counsel on July 22, 2014, for a discovery status conference and to address the Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Depositions [Doc. 74].

At that time, the Court heard lengthy oral arguments from the parties, and for the reasons more fully stated on the record, the Court will QUASH the pending Notices of Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). The Court finds that the "rolling schedule" proposed by Mr. Moncier, whereby numerous persons are required to appear on a single day and each is required to sit through the deposition of other persons before their own examination, is not appropriate in this case, especially where many of the persons proposed for such depositions are key witnesses, whose depositions are likely to take hours to complete. Moreover, the schedule proposed is so compacted that it would impose an undue burden on counsel.

The Court announced this ruling at the hearing. Thereafter, the Court asked each party to state the persons it sought to depose and the order in which it proposed for those depositions should be taken. In addition, the Court conferred with each of the attorneys in the case to confirm that they were available on the dates to be selected for depositions. After conferring with counsel, the Court announced a revised deposition schedule pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(C). Consistent with the ruling announced at the hearing, it is ORDERED:

The Court took its time to schedule these depositions with counsel because the parties' attorneys appear to be wholly incapable of doing so on their own. It is the Court's expectation that counsel for the parties will work together to resolve any conflicts that may arise with reference to these depositions without the necessity of the Court's intervention. However, the Court's role in scheduling these depositions should not be interpreted as a waiver of any privilege or other objection to examination by a party or deponent, nor should it be interpreted as a ruling by the Court on such issues. With regard to the pending Motion to Quash Subpoena (for the Deposition of Katherine Young) [Doc. 87], the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send notice setting the motion for hearing at 9:30 a.m. on August 12, 2014.3

Further, as the Court announced at the hearing, these depositions are being taken for purposes of this case. To the extent any dispute arises regarding the scope of the examination, such disputes will be evaluated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and with reference to the pleadings in the instant case. The depositions noticed or subpoenaed by the Plaintiffs will take place at the office of Plaintiffs' counsel. The depositions noticed or subpoenaed by the Defendants will take place at the office of Defendants' counsel. To the extent a discovery dispute arises, the Court will deny, without hearing or full briefing, any, motion that does not contain a certification of conferral consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 at the time of filing. Additionally, the parties' elections to take these depositions less than 180 days after the filing of this lawsuit is an election they make at their own peril. As the Court explained at the hearing, the parties will not be heard to complain later that the depositions were taken too early to fully develop testimony. No supplemental depositions will be permitted absent a specific showing of extraordinary good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.