ORDER

DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel [# 18]. Defendants move the Court to compel the deposition of Plaintiff K.M. The Court DENIES the motion [# 18].

I. Analysis

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not specify a specific time limit for the filing of a motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 238 F.R.D. 555, 558 (E.D.N.C. 2006). Absent a specific order from the Court in the scheduling order, a party must generally move to compel a party to comply with a discovery request or to compel a deposition prior to the close of discovery or the motion is untimely. See Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Sonia Invs., 237 F.R.D. 395, 397-98 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (collecting cases); U.S. v. $28,720.00 in United States Currency, No. 1:13cv106, 2014 WL 1570925, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 17, 2014) (Howell, Mag. J.); Wellness Group, LLC v. King Bio, Inc., No. 1:12cv281, 2013 WL 5937722, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2013) (Howell, Mag. J.); Murphy v. Auto Advantage, Inc., 2012 WL 28781, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2012) (Howell, Mag. J.); Rudolph v. Buncombe Cnty Gov't, No. 1:10cv203, 2011 WL 5326187 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2011) (Howell, Mag. J.).

Discovery in this case closed September 1, 2014. As the Pretrial Order warned the parties. "[m]otions to compel must be filed within the discovery period or they may be deemed waived." (Order, Mar. 12, 2014 at p. 6.) Defendants, however, waited until September 19, 2014, several weeks after the close of discovery, to file their Motion to Compel. Because Defendants failed to file their Motion to Compel within the discovery period, the motion is untimely, and the Court DENIES the motion.

II. Conclusion

The Court DENIES the Motion to Compel [# 18].