ORDER

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Pending now before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. ECF No. 20. Defendants have responded. ECF No. 22. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred this Motion to this Court.

In reviewing the pleadings on this Motion, its appears that following the filing of this Motion to Compel, Defendants supplemented their discovery answers. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine which discovery responses are at controversy with this Motion. Therefore, prior to any decision or possible hearing in this matter, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss the supplemented discovery responses and determine what discovery responses are still at issue.

Furthermore, the parties are reminded that as of December 2015, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The phrase "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," often invoked by parties seeking expansive discovery, was "deleted" from Rule 26 because "[t]he phrase has been used by some, incorrectly, to define the scope of discovery." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee Note to 2015 Amendments.

Following the parties conference, this Court should be notified of the discovery matters still in dispute. Notice can be emailed to my law clerk, Mike Jones, at Mike_Jones@arwd.uscourts.gov.