ORDER

KAREN L. LITKOVITZ, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before Court on plaintiff's request to take the deposition of Doug Lang, the President of Meyer Tool, Inc., and defendant Meyer Tool's request to limit the scope of Mr. Lang's deposition. The Court previously ordered plaintiff to state her basis for wanting to depose Mr. Lang, including why she believes his testimony is relevant the claims in this case. (Doc. 57). The Court also ordered defendant to respond to plaintiff's submission by December 18, 2019.1 (Doc. 57).

The scope of discovery extends to nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, regardless of whether the information sought is admissible, that is "proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, claims of gender and disability discrimination, gender pay discrimination, and violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and finds that the testimony of Mr. Lang is relevant to plaintiff's claims. Previous deposition testimony in this matter indicates that Mr. Lang was the final decision-maker on plaintiff's termination. He was required to approve or disapprove the action recommended by plaintiff's supervisor, and plaintiff may inquire as to Mr. Lang's reasons for approving the termination. In addition, there is testimony that Mr. Lang was responsible for approving Meyer Tool's Performance and Training Policy in place at the time plaintiff was terminated from her employment with Meyer Tool and for approving any proposed pay raises of Meyer Tool employees. Plaintiff has identified several areas in which Mr. Lang may have direct knowledge concerning the claims in this lawsuit, and there is no intimation that plaintiff's request for Mr. Lang's testimony is for an improper purpose or harassment. In addition, it does not appear that the deposition of Mr. Lang would impose an undue burden on defendant. Plaintiff has shown that Mr. Lang's testimony is relevant to the claims in this case, and the discovery sought by plaintiff appears to be proportional to the needs of the case. The Court declines to set limits on the scope of Mr. Lang's deposition given plaintiff's showing of relevancy to the gender and disability harassment claims pled in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT H

Tab 1

Tab 2

Tab 3

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C