ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING TO KNOW DATE OF DEPOSITION (ECF No. 49); AND

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 51)

ROBERT N. BLOCK, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding prose and informa pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter, has filed two separate motions regarding discovery. Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion Requesting to Know Date of Deposition (ECF No. 49) and Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 51). Specifically, Plaintiff requests thirty (30) day advance notice of his deposition so that he has time to prepare. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff also requests an extension of the Scheduling Order so that he can file an application to depose Defendant, file interrogatories, file an appeal, and obtain an expert witness. (ECF No. 51.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion Requesting to Know Date of Deposition, and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time.

On February 21, 2018, the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted Defendant's ex parte motion to take the deposition of Plaintiff (ECF No. 43.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1), the deposing party "must give reasonable written notice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). Based on the foregoing, and taking into consideration Plaintiffs request for preparation time, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs motion. The Court ORDERS Defendant to give Plaintiff at least fifteen (15) days' written notice prior to his deposition so that he has time to prepare.

On October 23, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order in this matter following the Case Management Conference. (ECF No. 25.) The Scheduling Order set the deadline to designate experts as February 16, 2018, and the discovery deadline as June 22, 2018. (Id. at 1-2.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks to depose Defendant1 or to serve Defendant with written discovery, he has ample time under the current Scheduling Order. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, discovery "must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (Id. at 2.) Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must respond to interrogatories, for example, within thirty (30) days after being served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Therefore, if Plaintiff serves interrogatories in a timely manner, Defendant will have an opportunity to respond before the discovery deadline.2

Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to obtain an expert witness. (ECF No. 51.) However, the Court does not find good cause to modify the Scheduling Order to give Plaintiff additional time to obtain an expert witness. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ("A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent."). This is a § 1983 prisoner civil rights action, in which Plaintiff claims Defendant deprived him of his First Amendment right to access to court by losing and/or destroying legal papers he needed to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his criminal conviction. (See ECF Nos. 1, 16.) In his motion, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate what type of expert he would need in such a case, must less whether he diligently sought to obtain one at an earlier date. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) ("Rule 16(b)'s `good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.") As such, Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time is DENIED without prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs Motion Requesting to Know Date of Deposition (ECF No. 49), and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 51).

IT IS SO ORDERED.