ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadline, ECF No. 60, as well as his motion to subpoena any and all police or arrest reports, ECF No. 51. Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion to subpoena the police reports. ECF Nos. 52, 53. The court will address each motion in turn.

This court entered a discovery and scheduling order governing this action on October 28, 2013. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address on the same day. ECF No. 39. A review of this court's docket indicates that plaintiff's service copy of the discovery and scheduling order was not returned to the court. However, plaintiff indicates in his recent filing that he never received a copy of this order because he was in transit to the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. See ECF No. 60 at 1. As a result, plaintiff was not aware of any of the deadlines "or schedules he must follow in order to file motions of any kind." Id. By way of relief, plaintiff requests that the court extend the discovery dates in this case and also provide him a copy of any discovery and scheduling order so that he may meet "all timelines set by the court." Id.

In light of plaintiff's lack of awareness of the discovery schedule, he failed to serve a request for production of documents on defendants for any and all police reports from his arrest prior to the December 16, 2013 cut-off date. See ECF No. 51 (plaintiff's motion to subpoena police reports); ECF No. 38 at 5 (discovery and scheduling order). On January 24, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion requesting "the court to order both West Sacramento and Sacramento City Police Departments to furnish plaintiff with copies of any and all police or arrest reports related to his arrest on January 25, 2011...." ECF No. 51 at 1. Defendants oppose the motion arguing that plaintiff's request is untimely and in violation of the discovery and scheduling order. See ECF Nos. 52, 53. They argue that plaintiff has failed to provide a legal or factual basis for extending the discovery schedule. Id. To the extent that plaintiff provided a factual basis for his request in a subsequent motion, ECF No. 60, the court notes that defendants filed no formal opposition to that motion requesting an extension of the discovery deadlines. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court will grant plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery deadlines in this case based on plaintiff's diligence in keeping this court informed of his changes of address and for good cause shown. ECF Nos. 39, 42.

The court's discovery and scheduling order is hereby modified to reflect the following: (1) all discovery requests pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served up to and including May 9, 2014; (2) the deadline for the parties to conduct discovery, and to bring any necessary motions to compel, is extended up to and including, July 8, 2014; and (3) the dispositive motions deadline is extended up to and including October 6, 2014. Pretrial conference and trial dates will be set, as appropriate, following adjudication of any dispositive motion, or the expiration of time for filing such a motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery dates (ECF No. 60) is granted as indicated herein;

2. Plaintiff's motion to subpoena all police or arrest reports (ECF No. 51) is granted, in part, to the extent that plaintiff may request this information in discovery from defendants, and denied in part, to the extent that plaintiff is seeking a subpoena duces tecum from the court in order to obtain such information.