ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

On February 9, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel defendant to provide responses to plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents and to produce for deposition defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable. ECF No. 26. Plaintiffs noticed their motion for hearing on March 2, 2016. Id.

The assigned district judge previously issued a Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Order, which provides that all discovery shall be completed by March 4, 2016. ECF No. 15 at 3. The order further provides that "`completed' means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed." Id.

Plaintiffs noticed their discovery motion for hearing just two days prior to the close of discovery. Even if the court were to find that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought—an order compelling defendants to produce documents and a witness for deposition—defendant would not have sufficient time to comply with such an order.

Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs' motion to compel is untimely under the court's scheduling order. Further, any request to modify the scheduling order must be presented to the district judge and be supported by a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to compel (ECF No. 26) is denied without prejudice and the March 2, 2016 hearing thereon is vacated.

So Ordered.