ORDER

ROBERT F. ROSSITER, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Coventry Health Care of Nebraska, Inc.'s ("Coventry") Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and to Present Live Testimony (Filing No. 66) in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 21). Coventry also seeks leave to file a Reply Brief in support of its motion for an evidentiary hearing (Filing No. 72). In response to Coventry's request for oral argument in support of its preliminary-injunction motion, the Court scheduled argument for August 11, 2016. In its present motion, Coventry seeks an order directing that the August 11, 2016, hearing will be an evidentiary hearing on the merits and requests leave to present live testimony from Jonathan Copley, Coventry's Chief Executive Officer, at the hearing. See NECivR 7.1(d), (e). Coventry avers, live "[t]estimony from Mr. Copley is necessary due to the nature of the factual dispute raised by Defendants' and Intervenors' Oppositions to [Coventry's] Motion for Preliminary Injunction and to clarify outstanding factual issues that are essential to" resolve that motion. Coventry also seeks leave to file a reply brief in support of its motion for an evidentiary hearing (Filing No. 72).

The Defendants and Intervenors oppose Coventry's motions, arguing an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary because (1) "Mr. Copley has already submitted a 42 paragraph declaration in support of" Coventry's motion and (2) Coventry submitted a reply brief to address factual or legal issues raised in the Defendants' and Intervenors' opposition briefs and did not attach another declaration from Mr. Copley. The Defendants and Intervenors also emphasize that "[g]ranting only one party leave to present live evidence at the hearing would be indisputably prejudicial." The Defendants and Intervenors alternatively request that if the Court grants Coventry's motion for live testimony, the Court grant them leave to depose Mr. Copley before the hearing.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, the Court concludes an evidentiary hearing and live testimony from Mr. Copley are unwarranted at this time. The Court does not ordinarily grant evidentiary hearings on motions, see NECivR 7.1(d), and sees no compelling reason to do so here. The Court is also concerned granting the requested relief would unduly delay resolution of the request for preliminary injunctive relief. As such, Coventry's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and to Present Live Testimony (Filing No. 66) and Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief (Filing No. 72) are DENIED.