ORDER

J. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court are three motions filed by plaintiff William Ashley Waldo in this employment discrimination case. First, he asks the Court to allow defendant to depose him only one time. (Doc. 63.) Defendant responds that it only intends to depose him once. (Doc. 65.) Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit a subsequent deposition without leave of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(iii). Consequently, that motion (doc. 63) is DENIED as moot

Next, Waldo asks the Court to help him locate and pay for an expert witness to assist him in his case, if one is needed. (Doc. 64.) The Court must remain neutral, and thus it cannot serve as his advocate or assist him in determining whether an expert witness is necessary. Moreover, while the in forma pauperis statute provides access to the court to an indigent litigant by permitting the waiver of prepayment of fees and costs, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), no provision of that statute would authorize the Court to fund an expert witness. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158-59 (3d Cir. 1993), quoted in Doye v. Colvin, 2009 WL 764980 at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 23, 2009) (unpublished). Accordingly, Waldo's motion for expert witness funding (doc. 64) is DENIED.

Finally, Waldo has filed a motion in limine to prevent defendant from offering any expert witness testimony since he is unable to afford his own expert witness. (Doc. 67.) Waldo may move to exclude an expert's opinion for cause, but the Court is unfamiliar with any authority permitting it to prevent a party from hiring an expert merely on "financial parity" grounds. Consequently, Waldo's motion in limine (doc. 67) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.