ORDER

KAREN L. LITKOVITZ, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court following an informal discovery conference held on July 10, 2014. At issue is whether plaintiffs are entitled to take the deposition of Monty Moran, the Co-CEO of defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill (Chipotle).

Plaintiffs are female former employees of Chipotle who allege, inter alia, that Chipotle unlawfully discriminated against them on the basis oftheir gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Doc. 1). Through the course of discovery, it has been established that plaintiffs were terminated from employment due, in part, to their failure as Chipotle store managers to create a "Restaurateur culture." The parties agree that the designation of "Restaurateur" restaurant signifies that a particular Chipotle restaurant is considered "elite." The failure of a General Manager to achieve "Restaurateur" designation for his or her restaurant may lead to termination of employment with Chipotle.

Mr. Moran, as Co-CEO of Chipotle, is the ultimate decision-maker responsible for determining which Chipotle restaurants receive the "Restaurateur" designation. Plaintiffs seek to depose Mr. Moran because, as the ultimate decision-maker regarding the "Restaurateur" status, he is the person most knowledgeable as to the specific criteria a restaurant must possess in order to achieve this status. Plaintiffs contend that this testimony is relevant to their claim in light of defendant's representation that their terminations were partially due to their failure to create a "Restaurateur culture" in their respective Chipotle restaurants. Plaintiffs claim the proposed testimony is not duplicative of prior or anticipated testimony because only Mr. Moran can testify about the specific criteria he employs as the final decision-maker to determine whether a particular restaurant is deserving of "Restaurateur" status. Plaintiffs further contend they are entitled to depose Mr. Moran because he made critical comments in emails regarding audits of some of the plaintiffs' prior restaurants shortly before those plaintiffs were terminated.

Chipotle argues that Mr. Moran's testimony is not relevant because he was not involved in the ultimate decisions to terminate any of the plaintiffs. Chipotle explains that Mr. Moran only considers whether to designate a specific restaurant as a "Restaurateur" restaurant after it has been vetted by lower-ranked Chipotle executives and, here, none of the plaintiffs' restaurants were submitted to Mr. Moran for "Restaurateur" review. Chipotle therefore asserts that Mr. Moran has no knowledge of plaintiffs' performance issues, he was not involved in the decisions to terminate plaintiffs, and his testimony is not relevant to the instant discrimination claims. Chipotle further argues that Mr. Moran's testimony would be cumulative as the managerial and executive employees who were personally involved in the decision to terminate plaintiffs have already been depose or will be shortly.

As stated during the conference, the undersigned finds that Mr. Moran's testimony is relevant to plaintiffs' claims and, consequently, plaintiffs are entitled to depose him. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (parties are entitled to discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense). Though the ultimate decisions to terminate the plaintiffs may have been made by other Chipotle executives and employees, the decisions were likely informed by the "Restaurateur culture" and status designation — a designation that is ultimately bestowed by Mr. Moran as the ultimate decision-maker. Further, the parties do not dispute that Mr. Moran visited the Chipotle restaurant managed by plaintiff Ochoa in 2007 or 2008; plaintiff Ochoa's restaurant did not receive "Restaurateur" designation at that time and plaintiffs are entitled to discover the criteria Mr. Moran uses to make these determinations. Further, the fact that Mr. Moran was copied on and made comments in emails regarding the audits of some of the plaintiffs' restaurants shortly before they were terminated is relevant as it relates to the "Restaurateur culture" and plaintiffs' terminations. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to depose Mr. Moran.

This matter is set for a status conference on July 16, 2014 at 12:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.