*1 On May 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion”) and supporting declaration. (Docket No. 231.) In the Motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) failed to comply with the Court's Order of January 17, 2014, directing Defendant to produce information sufficient to identify unserved defendants for service of process. (Motion, Hilson Decl. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff's Motion requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1500 “per unserved moving defendant[ ]” on the ground that Defendant's refusal to produce the information as directed by the Court's Order of January 17, 2014, was “without substantial justification.” (Motion at 2.) Plaintiff also seeks to recover reasonable expenses incurred as a result of bringing this Motion. (Motion at 2.)

On August 1, 2014, the Court issued an Order finding that Defendant failed to comply with the Court's directives in the Court's Order of January 17, 2014, in several respects, and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion. (Docket No. 244.) However, the Court's Order of August 1, 2014, withheld ruling on Plaintiff's request for sanctions until after satisfactory compliance with the Court's Order of August 1, 2014.

On August 29, 2014, Defendant filed a Declaration Re Defendant County of Los Angeles' Second Further Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory No. 15 (“Houlé Decl.”). The Houlé Decl. states that Defendant County has produced further identifying information concerning “those individuals listed on the Attachment To Summons of plaintiff's [TAC.]” (Houlé Decl. at 2; see id., Attachment (Second Further Supplemental Response providing further identifying information for “those individual defendants named in plaintiff's [TAC] ... and Attachment To Summons.”).)

On October 3, 2014, the Court issued an order noting that the Court's Order of August 1, 2014, specifically instructed Defendant to produce further identifying information for all unserved defendants, including those identified as Doe defendants in the TAC. (Court's Order of August 1, 2014, at ¶ 1 and n. 3.) Accordingly, the Court directed Defendant to serve Plaintiff with a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 15 as limited by the Court's Order of January 17, 2014, setting forth any further responsive information available concerning this discovery request as directed by the Court's Order of August 1, 2014, which Defendant has not already produced, including further identifying information for Doe defendants listed in the TAC. The Court further instructed Defendant that, if no further responsive information is available, Defendant shall provide a certification, under penalty of perjury, that states that no further responsive information under its custody and/or control is available. The Court ordered Defendant to file with the Court a proof of service of supplemental response in accordance with the Court's Order of October 3, 2014, with the aforementioned certification attached.

On October 17, 2014, Defendant filed a “Third Supplemental Response of Defendant County of Los Angeles to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory No. 15 And Declaration in Support” (“Third Supp. Resp.”), certifying under penalty of perjury that Defendant has produced further identifying information concerning the unserved defendants identified by name or as Doe defendants in the TAC for purposes of service of process, consistent with the Court's Order of October 3, 2014, and that there is “no additional information presently available.”[1] (Docket No. 267.)

*2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), the court must order a party who fails to obey a discovery order to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the other party as a result of this failure to the other party. Sanctions may be avoided if the noncomplying party can show the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1500 per “unserved moving defendant[.]” (Motion at 2.) However, under Rule 37, “reasonable expenses” include only actual costs incurred, and not consequential damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); see also Lee v. Walters, 172 F.R.D. 421, 436 (D. Or. 1997). Moreover, although Plaintiff seeks reasonable expenses incurred as a result of bringing his Motion to Compel Discovery filed on May 30, 2014, (Motion at 2), there is no indication that Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, incurred any expenses for bringing this Motion. See Pickholtz v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc., 284 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Rule 37 does not empower the district court to award attorney fees to a pro se litigant.”); Fosselman v. Gibbs, 2010 WL 1446661, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (actual costs associated with bringing a motion include costs such as photocopying and postage).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion requesting that sanctions be imposed on Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (Docket No. 231) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.