Opinion
06 Civ. 1268 (GEL) (KNF).
June 27, 2007
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
The plaintiff, acting pro se, was directed by the Court to submit competent evidence, in the form of an affidavit or otherwise, establishing the reasonable expenses she incurred in making a motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, to compel the defendant to comply with discovery obligations, which was granted by the Court. In response to the Court's order, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit through which she seeks to recover $2,000 from the defendant. In the affidavit, the plaintiff attributes some of the expenses she incurred to, "time spent in making the motion." The plaintiff explained that, in arriving at the $2,000 figure, she considered, among other things, the hourly rate an attorney might charge ($300) in a case such as this, as well as the hourly fee range for paralegals ($70-$90). Since the plaintiff is neither an attorney nor a paralegal, she extrapolated and placed a value on the work she performed. According to the plaintiff, the value of her work is 1/3 that of the hourly rate she contends an attorney would command.
For her part, and in opposition to the plaintiff's affidavit, the defendant contends, although a pro se litigant is entitled to the costs incurred in making a motion to compel on which she prevailed, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover what amounts to attorney's fees because one cannot `incur' fees payable to oneself. Moreover, the defendant contends, while the plaintiff referred to certain costs in her submission, such as those associated with printing copies of the motion papers, she failed to indicate what costs she actually incurred for that task.
The defendant is correct when she asserts a pro se litigant does not incur attorney's fees. Moreover, the time a pro se litigant spends making a motion is not included among the reasonable expenses contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. See Walker v. Tri-Tech Planning Consultants, Inc., 149 F.R.D. 22, 23 (E.D.N.Y. 1993). Believing otherwise, erroneously, in her request for reasonable expenses, the plaintiff focused almost entirely on explaining the time she spent preparing the motion.
The plaintiff has requested, among other things, an award from the Court of the costs she incurred for "`filing the motion' at the Pro Se office," printing copies of the motion and traveling to the courthouse. The Court notes that filing a motion with the Clerk of Court is free of charge. The Court notes further that the plaintiff failed to itemize her expenses. Therefore, it is not clear what portion of the $2,000 the plaintiff seeks is associated with any concrete expense. A pro se litigant is not free from the obligation of indicating, with particularity, the costs she incurred in making a motion, thus establishing a basis upon which a court might rely in fashioning an appropriate award for the reasonable expenses the pro se litigant has incurred. In the instant action, as discussed above, the plaintiff has failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court finds that the plaintiff has not established the reasonable expenses she incurred in making the motion to compel. Therefore, no award for those expenses is warranted.
SO ORDERED: