ORDER

G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

After considering defendant's motion to compel and for discovery sanctions (doc. 36), the Court determined that plaintiff should bear defendant's fees and costs associated with conducting her third and fourth depositions and in preparing its motion to compel.1 (Doc. 46.) It instructed defendant to itemize its reasonable fees and costs and allowed plaintiff to respond. (Id. at 8-9.) Those papers are now before the Court 2

In accordance with the applicable "lodestar" method of fee calculations, which multiplies "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation . . . by a reasonable hourly rate," United States v. Patrol Servs., Inc., 202 F. App'x 357, 359 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)), defendant requests a $7,947 in attorney's fees. (Doe. 50-1 at 6-8 (lead counsel's affidavit laying out all fees and expenses); doe. 50 at 7). It also seeks $1,457.90 to offset the transcription and recording costs incurred in taking plaintiff's third and fourth depositions.3 (Doc. 50-1 at 6-7.) Taken together, defendant seeks $9,409.90 in fees and expenses, but his math is off a little, for the Court can tally only $9,404.90 on its calculator.

Plaintiff does not dispute the hourly rates or costs incurred in the depositions, but she objects to the expenses related to the preparation and filing of defendant's reply brief.4 (Doc. 51 at 2.) She contends that the entire $2227.505 cost of preparing and filing defendant's reply brief should be excluded, since it entailed more work than the initial motion and no justification was offered for such an elevated expense. (Id.) She fails, however, to explain why this apparent overage should result in a total exclusion of fees rather than a downward adjustment. (Id.) Nonetheless, there is some merit to her position. The reply was largely unnecessary, since the matter was not seriously contested. There can be no question that defendant prevailed on the motion to compel and for sanctions, since plaintiff admitted in her anemic four-page response that she failed to reveal discoverable information and update her earlier responses to defendant's discovery requests and that her lapses led to the need for additional depositions. (Doc. 37.) Consequently, the Court stands on firm footing in rejecting defendant's request for attorney's fees arising from the reply. See Swann v. City of Goldsboro, 137 F.R.D. 230, 231-32 (E.D.N.C. 1990) (lowering sanctions award where motion was not seriously contested).

Plaintiff has not contested the remainder of defendant's fees and costs, and the Court, having studied them carefully, accepts them as reasonable. Plaintiff, rather than her attorney, will bear the responsibility for paying defendant's fees and expenses. Hence, she shall pay defendant $7,177.40 within 30 days of the date of this Order. If she fails to do so, that amount will be taxed as an offset to any settlement or verdict plaintiff obtains, in accordance with defendant's wishes. (Doc. 40 at 7 n.4.)

SO ORDERED.