MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SARA LIOI, District Judge.

Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion to disqualify the law firm of Joseph W. Diemert, Jr. & Associates Co., LPA ["Diemert Firm"]1 (Doc. No. 116 ["Motion"]),2 the Macedonia defendants' memorandum in opposition (Doc. No. 157 ["Opp'n"]), and plaintiffs' reply (Doc. No. 159 ["Reply"]). To the extent set forth herein, the motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The original complaint of plaintiffs Farnhurst, LLC and Frank Pla, filed on March 27, 2013 (Doc. No. 1), named several defendants, including the City of Macedonia, its Mayor, Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Planning Commission, and two members of the Planning Commission (collectively, "the Macedonia defendants").3 Attorneys Charles Curley and Dana Rose (both of the law firm Weston Hurd) entered their appearances for the Macedonia defendants by filing a motion for extension of time on their behalf. (See Doc. No. 10.) On April 26, 2013, Attorneys Joseph Diemert and Thomas Hanculak (both of the Diemert Firm) made their appearances as additional counsel for the Macedonia defendants, and on June 20, 2013, Attorney Mark Guidetti (also of the Diemert Firm) did the same. (See Doc. Nos. 114 and 22.) Only Attorneys Curley and Guidetti attended the Case Management Conference on behalf of the Macedonia defendants. (See Minutes of Proceedings, 6/24/13.)

In late August and early September 2013, the Macedonia defendants and the PEHA defendants separately moved to disqualify plaintiffs' attorney, Jorge Pla, due to his ownership interest in Farnhurst, LLC. (See Doc. Nos. 27 and 29.) On October 28, 2013, the Court referred these motions, along with the PEHA defendants' motion to stay and for protective order (Doc. No. 28), to a magistrate judge for resolution (see Doc. No. 38); on November 12, 2013, the Court made an additional referral to the same magistrate judge to conduct a mediation (see Doc. No. 44). The mediation conducted by the magistrate judge on December 13, 2013 was unsuccessful. (See Minutes of Proceedings, 12/13/13.) Again, only Attorneys Curley and Guidetti participated on behalf of the Macedonia defendants.

Shortly after the failed mediation, on December 19, 2013, while the motions to disqualify Attorney Pla remained pending, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add defendants Joseph W. Diemert (Macedonia Law Director) and Thomas M. Hanculak (Macedonia Assistant Law Director), both identified as employees of Macedonia. (See Doc. No. 57.) Both had already entered their appearances as counsel for the Macedonia defendants.

On January 21, 2014, the parties entered into an agreed order pursuant to which defendants withdrew their motions to disqualify Attorney Pla in return for his attestation that he will not provide testimony in any fashion in connection with the prosecution of plaintiffs' claims. (See Doc. Nos. 64 and 65.)5 On January 22, 2014, the Court issued a third referral, authorizing the magistrate judge to conduct general pretrial supervision. (See Doc. No. 66.).

Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend was granted on March 19, 2014, and the first amended complaint was filed five days later. (Doc. No. 73.)6 On April 16, 2014, the Macedonia defendants (now including Diemert and Hanculak) filed their answer to the amended complaint, over the signatures of Attorneys Curley, Rose, Diemert, Hanculak, and Guidetti. (Doc. No. 77.) On April 18, 2014, Attorney Daniel Powell (of the Diemert Firm) made his appearance as additional counsel for only Diemert and Hanculak. (See Doc. No. 78.) It appears from the docket that neither Diemert nor Hanculak have taken active roles in representing the Macedonia Defendants.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Parties' Positions

Plaintiffs assert that the Diemert Firm, including attorneys Joseph W. Diemert, Jr., Thomas H. Hanculak, Daniel A. Powell and Mark V. Guidetti, should be disqualified from representation of the Macedonia defendants, defendant Diemert, and defendant Hanculak due to conflicts of interest extending to the entire firm.7 (Motion at 1961.) Plaintiffs argue that Diemert and Hanculak, named as defendants, are likely to be called as witnesses and, therefore, are disqualified, under Ohio Prof. Cond. Rule 3.7(a), from representing the Macedonia defendants. Because Diemert and Hanculak, as testifying lawyers must be disqualified, plaintiffs point to Rule 3.7, Comment 7, as authority for their argument that the entire Diemert Firm must be disqualified due to imputation of conflicts of interest.8 Although not clear, because of the volume of extraneous matter contained in the motion, it appears that plaintiffs may also be arguing that, due to (1) Diemert's previous representation of defendant Migliorini (and their purported friendship), and (2) his financial stake in the outcome of this case (because he is paid to work for Macedonia), his ethical duties relating to these issues must be imputed to all the lawyers in his firm. (See id. at 1968, 1971, 1973.)

The Macedonia defendants oppose plaintiffs' motion9 arguing that there is no evidence of any ongoing conflict of interest on the part of Diemert and that, at the very least, a ruling on disqualification should be deferred until after yet-to-be-filed dispositive motions have been resolved. Further, although conceding the applicability of Rule 3.7(a), they argue that it does not prohibit Diemert and/or his firm from serving as counsel for the other Macedonia defendants.10 Finally, they ask that the Court "impose the sanctions contemplated by [its] Order of September 2, 2015." (Opp'n at 2381.)11

B. Analysis

Although a district court has broad discretion in ruling on motions to disqualify counsel, that discretion is not unfettered. Cliffs Sales Co. v. American S.S. Co., No. 1:07-CV-485, 2007 WL 2907323, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2007) (citing cases). "Confronted with such a motion, courts must be sensitive to the competing public interests of requiring professional conduct by an attorney and of permitting a party to retain the counsel of his choice." Hamrick v. Union Twp., Ohio, 81 F.Supp.2d 876, 878 (S.D. Ohio 2000) (citation omitted). "Motions for attorney disqualification should be viewed with extreme caution for they can be misused as techniques of harassment." Id. (citing Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co., 689 F.2d 715, 722 (7th Cir. 1982)). "[D]isqualification of counsel in an action which has been pending for some time is but one of several alternatives and is a drastic measure which courts will not impose unless absolutely necessary." Gould, Inc. v. Mitsui Min. & Smelting Co., 738 F.Supp. 1121, 1124-25 (N.D. Ohio 1990) (citing cases).

Under Rule 3.7 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct:12

future." (Order, Doc. No. 147 at 2265-66.) Although the Court's admonition applies just as firmly today as on September 2, 2015, the instant motion does not constitute a "future" filing covered by the Order.

Plaintiffs raise several arguments in support of their motion, but the Court finds dispositive the fact that Diemert and Hanculak are named defendants in this lawsuit and will likely be called as witnesses on matters that are "[]contested" and have nothing to do with "the nature and value of [their] legal services[.]" For this reason, they should not represent any other defendant in the case. Because they have, to date, performed no active role in the representation of the Macedonia defendants, that role having been borne by Attorneys Curley and Guidetti, their "disqualification . . . would [not] work substantial hardship" on the Macedonia defendants. Therefore, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion to the extent it seeks to disqualify Diemert and Hanculak from representing the Macedonia defendants.

But plaintiffs seek disqualification of the entire Diemert Firm, which includes Attorney Guidetti, who has been active in representing the Macedonia defendants, and Attorney Powell, who also represents Diemert and Hanculak individually. Plaintiffs' argument in this regard is not particularly clear. They seem to be arguing that no one in Diemert's firm can escape a particular "conflict" that they have identified (see n. 9), and, therefore, everyone is disqualified. But, as already explained, the "conflict" identified by plaintiffs (i.e., some sort of disagreement between attorney and clients regarding the appropriateness of the clients' previous actions) is legally non-existent and is not what the rules of professional conduct are addressing. This argument for disqualification is rejected.13

That said, under the circumstances of this case, it is entirely possible that the personal interests of Diemert and/or Hanculak, in their own roles as defendants, will be adverse to those of the Macedonia defendants as the case proceeds. Although neither Guidetti nor Powell, as members of the Diemert Firm, is precluded from representing Diemert and/or Hanculak, the Court concludes that neither attorney can also represent any of the other Macedonia defendants. Given that the Macedonia defendants have able counsel in Attorney Curley, who has served as their lead counsel to date, as well as in Attorney Rose (a member of Curley's firm), disqualification of all the attorneys in the Diemert Firm will not create a substantial hardship for the Macedonia defendants.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, plaintiffs' motion to disqualify (Doc. No. 116) is granted. Neither Defendant Diemert nor Defendant Hanculak may serve as counsel for any other party in this lawsuit. Further, the Diemert Firm is also disqualified from representing any party but Diemert and/or Hanculak.

IT IS SO ORDERED.