MEMORANDUM ORDER

CYNTHIA REED EDDY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Take Oral Depositions (ECF No. 85), in which he also requests the Court to appoint counsel to make arrangements for the depositions. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

To the extent that Plaintiff is moving to take the oral depositions of the remaining Defendants, the request is GRANTED and he may do pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, in strict compliance with Rule 30.

To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting that the Court or Defendants arrange for or notice the depositions, the request is DENIED, as arranging the depositions is Plaintiffs Rule 30 responsibility. To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting that Defendant or the Court pay the fees associated with engaging a court reporter or the preparation of deposition transcripts, the request is DENIED.

It is not incumbent upon the Court, or the Defendant, to assume responsibility, logistically or financially, for the depositions Plaintiff wishes to conduct. See, e.g., Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1196 (1994). "There is no provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for the payment by the government of the costs of deposition transcripts, or any other litigation expenses, and no other statute authorizes courts to commit federal monies for payment of the necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent litigant." Ball v. Struthers, Civil No. 1:11-CV-1265, 2011 WL 4891026 at *1 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 13, 2011), cited with approval by Huertas v. Beard, 1:10-CV-10, 2012 WL 1564513 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2012). In light of the expense of oral depositions and logistical difficulties presented to an inmate it is often preferable for inmates to seek discovery through depositions by written questions pursuant to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a copy of which will be mailed to Plaintiff with this Order.

Further, Plaintiffs request for the appointment of counsel for the purpose of arranging depositions, is DENIED, without prejudice to be renewed should this case proceed to trial, for the reasons stated in the Court's Order of February 23, 2015. (ECF No. 10).

AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2016;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion is granted in part and denied in part as explained above.