Now before the Court is Knox County Schools' Motion for Attorneys' Fees [Doc. 38]. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. Nevertheless, the Court has considered Defendant's request and finds it not well taken. The Court therefore DENIES the motion [Doc. 38].

The background of this matter is outlined in the Court's Memorandum and Order as follows:

On June 15, 2023, Defendant issued Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff [Doc. 24 p. 2]. After several communications between Defendant's counsel and Plaintiff regarding the date written discovery responses were due, the parties agreed that Plaintiff could deliver his responses by Friday, July 21, 2023 [Id.]. When responses were not received by that date, another exchange of communications took place with Plaintiff asserting that he had mailed the discovery responses, and Defendant's counsel advising that a motion to compel would be filed if the responses were not received by August 4, 2023 [see id. at 3].

On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Request for Counsel [Doc. 30],1 stating that he had “messed up with [his] interrogatories” by not answering interrogatories to which he objected and that “[he did not] want to have this dismissed because [he] didn't do something correctly” [Doc. 30 p. 1].

At the hearing, Plaintiff reiterated that he has been trying to retain counsel and that he did not answer several of the discovery requests because he objected to them on the basis that they requested information that was “too personal.” In response to questioning by the Court, Plaintiff also represented that he had been trying to compile documents responsive to the Requests for Production. After the Court explained the importance of responding fully and appropriately to discovery requests and warning of sanctions in failing to provide discovery, Plaintiff indicated he would need additional time to review his responses and complete compilation of the documents.

Based on the above ruling, Defendant seeks its attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 38]. Defendant argues that it “made multiple good-faith efforts to obtain the missing discovery before filing the motion with the [C]ourt” [Id. at 2]. In addition, Defendant asserts that “Plaintiff has offered no justification for his multiple failures in responding to written discovery” [Id. at 3]. Finally, Defendant argues that there is no evidence of other circumstances making an award of attorney's fees unjust [Id. at 3–4]. Defendant seeks $2,030 in attorney's fees [Id. at 5].

Rule 37(a)(5)(A) states that if a court grants the motion, then it “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party ... to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The Court, however, must not order this payment if: “[(]i) The movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) The opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) Other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii).

*2 While the Court finds that Defendant attempted in good faith to meet with Plaintiff prior to filing its motion, and Plaintiff was not substantially justified in submitting incomplete discovery responses, the Court finds circumstances exist making an award of attorney's fees unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). Here, Plaintiff explained at the hearing that he was trying to retain an attorney, that he had objections to the discovery requests, and that he was trying to compile documents. With respect to Plaintiff's objections, the Court later sustained many of them [See Doc. 41]. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff is pro se and was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. See Moore v. Smith, No. 22-CV-01077-SHM-TMP, 2024 WL 173552, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 16, 2024) (“Courts have declined to award attorney fees and expenses after granting a motion to compel where the non-movant is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.” (collecting cases)). Finally, the Court's Memorandum and Order [Doc. 34] was the first time the undersigned put Plaintiff on notice that the failure to comply with discovery obligations could result in sanctions [See Doc. 34 p. 3].

For the reasons explained above, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion [Doc. 38].

IT IS SO ORDERED.