ORDER

NORAH MCCANN KING, Magistrate Judge.

The Court conferred, by telephone, with counsel on February 8, 2012 regarding plaintiff's recent notices of depositions.

This case was removed to this Court on March 18, 2011. Following the April 27, 2011 Rule 16 conference, and acceding to the parties' request for a longer pretrial schedule than the Court would normally permit, the Court required, inter alia, that all non-expert discovery be completed no later than February 13, 2012. Preliminary Pretrial Order, Doc. No. 20. The Court also expressly warned the parties that there would be no extensions of the dates established in that order. Id., p. 2. Shortly before the close of business on February 2, 2012, plaintiff unilaterally noticed the depositions of sixteen individuals to be completed by the February 13, 2012 non-expert discovery completion date. Defendants objected to the burdensome nature of plaintiff's notices but, by the time of the conference with the Court, the parties had agreed to plaintiff's depositions of three (3) individuals on February 13, 2012. Remaining in dispute are plaintiff's requested depositions of Gale Hoover and defendant Paul Lay. Plaintiff asks that, if these individuals cannot reasonably be deposed by the non-expert discovery completion date, she be permitted to depose them at some later date.

The timing of plaintiff's notices of sixteen depositions, i.e., little more than one week prior to the close of non-expert discovery, was simply unreasonable. Other depositions had already been scheduled for that period of time, defense counsel's calendars were already committed and at least some of the proposed deponents were unavailable for even consultation as to their availability.1 The Court will therefore not require that the depositions of Gale Hoover and Paul Lay be completed within the existing non-expert discovery completion date.

Plaintiff asks, in the alternative, that she be permitted to depose these individuals at some point after the non-expert discovery completion date. Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a pretrial] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." A major factor in determining whether a requested extension is warranted is "whether the moving party was diligent in pursuing discovery." Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F.3d 472, 478 (6th Cir. 2010). The Court has heard nothing that justifies plaintiff's last-minute request for depositions, considering that she has had almost ten (10) months to conduct this discovery. Because plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for an extension of the non-expert discovery completion date, the Court declines to extend that date for the purpose of conducting the depositions of Gale Hoover and Paul Lay.