ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Presently pending before the court is defendants' motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the time for supplemental/rebuttal designation of expert witnesses, and to compel a mental examination of plaintiff. (ECF No. 41.) For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES the motion without prejudice.

As an initial matter, the motion was filed with insufficient notice. Defendants filed the motion on February 16, 2016, and noticed it for hearing on March 3, 2016.1 Thus, under either Local Rule 251 (generally requiring 21 days' notice for discovery motions) or Local Rule 230 (generally requiring 28 days' notice for other civil motions), the motion was defectively noticed. However, even if defendants had filed the motion with sufficient notice, there are other fundamental problems with the motion.

First, to the extent that defendants seek modification of the scheduling order to extend the time for supplemental/rebuttal designation of expert witnesses, such relief should be sought from the district judge who issued the scheduling order.

Second, to the extent that defendants seek to compel a mental examination, the court notes that the discovery completion deadline of November 30, 2015 has already passed. (See ECF No. 28.) The district judge's scheduling order specifically defines "completed" as meaning 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." (ECF No. 24 at 2.) Therefore, if defendants wish to have a discovery motion heard, they must first obtain modification of the scheduling order to extend the discovery completion deadline from the district judge who issued the scheduling order.

Accordingly, defendants' motion (ECF No. 41) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.