MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge.

On September 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a letter motion seeking a discovery conference or a protective order barring Defendants from taking the depositions of various individual members of the Plaintiff non-governmental organizations ("NGOs"). (Docket No. 324 ("Pls.' Letter")). Defendants responded by letter dated September 19, 2018, arguing that the depositions are appropriate to test Plaintiffs' claims of standing. (Docket No. 339 ("Defs.' Letter")).1 Upon review of the parties' letters, the Court concludes that a conference is not necessary. Instead, Plaintiffs' request for a protective order is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendants' argument that depositions of the NGOs' members are necessary to evaluate their standing is somewhat dubious in light of Carey v. Klutznik, 637 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1980). In that case, which is binding on this Court, the Second Circuit held that "citizens who challenge a census undercount" can establish standing merely by showing "that improper enumeration will result in loss of funds to their city." Id. at 838. Nevertheless, mindful that the law governing standing has arguably developed since Carey and that Plaintiffs proffer multiple theories of standing (see Pls.' Letter 2), the Court is not prepared at this stage to rule out the possibility that the NGOs' members' abilities to prove more — in particular, that they actually use services that would be adversely affected by a census undercount (see Defs.' Letter 2-3) — will prove to be critical. Additionally, given the importance and urgency of this litigation, there is a strong interest in ensuring that an adequate record is made in the first instance for both sides to make whatever arguments they want to make. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Defendants should be allowed to proceed with the depositions at issue.

That said, the Court concludes that the depositions and Defendants' use of the depositions should be limited in several respects. First, the depositions shall be limited in scope to where the individual members live and whether they use any services that could be adversely affected by a census undercount.2 Any questions beyond those topics are irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Second, in light of that limited scope, each deposition is limited to no more than one hour in length. See, e.g., Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC, No. 06-CV-5936, 2008 WL 1752254, at (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2008) ("A district court has broad discretion to set the length of depositions appropriate to the circumstances of the case."). Third, counsel shall confer in an effort to schedule the depositions so as to minimize the burdens on the witnesses. And finally, Defendants shall refer to the witnesses only by their initials in public filings to minimize any burden on them. (See Defs.' Letter 3).

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 324.

SO ORDERED.