MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER “The great operative principle of Rule 37 is that the loser pays the expenses incurred in making or opposing a motion to compel.”1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Theresa Cidoni’s fee application, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), for costs and fees incurred in securing Defendants Woodhaven Center of Care, Gabriel Platschak, and Melissa Modica’s participation in discovery by, inter alia, motion to compel. (DE 27.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of $11,220 in costs and fees incurred from May 4, 2022, up and to including the filing of this fee application.2 Defendants have not submitted opposition. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. I. FACTUAL AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff commenced this age discrimination action against Defendants on June 29, 2021. (DE 1). Following Defendants’ answer (DE 6), the parties engaged in what can only be described as an arduous discovery process. Plaintiff first raised the issue of Defendants’ failure to adequately respond to discovery requests nearly a year ago, during an April 19, 2022 status conference. (DE 12.) Thereafter, Plaintiff made a series of motions to compel, which were granted and denied in varying degrees. (DE 13; Electronic Order, dated May 31, 2022; DE 14; Electronic Order, dated June 25, 2022.) Further, on several instances through letters and status conferences, Plaintiff raised with the Court Defendants’ alleged dilatory discovery tactics. (See DE 12; DE 15; Electronic Order, dated June 25, 2022; DE 16-18.) Simultaneously, Defendants’ counsel consistently appeared on behalf of Defendants notwithstanding his failure to be admitted in this District. (See DE 10; DE 20, DE 21, DE 23.) Defense counsel’s failure to adhere to proper procedure and orders of this Court necessarily contributed to delays, frustration of the discovery process, and Plaintiff’s exasperation. As relevant here, on July 12, 2022, Plaintiff moved for an order compelling Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Post-EBT demands and the Court’s June 25, 2022 Order instructing Defendants to respond to a certain contested interrogatory (“July Motion to Compel”). (See DE 16; Electronic Order, dated June 25, 2022.) Plaintiff further sought sanctions in the form of costs incurred in bringing the motion, “as well as any future costs for motion practice or discovery related to the failure to abide by the June 25, 2022 Court Order and the continuous and willful failure to provide demanded discovery.” (Id.) On October 5, 2022, this Court granted the July Motion to Compel and held that “Plaintiff is entitled to costs and fees associated with bringing the motion.” (Electronic Order, dated Oct. 5, 2022) (citing Wager v. G4S Secure Integration, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-03547 (MKV) (KNF), 2021 WL 293076, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2021)). Plaintiff was directed to file proof of costs and fees associated with the making of the motion unless the parties were able to reach agreement on the amount. Presumably unable to come to an agreement, on October 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the first motion for sanctions and fee application. (DE 19.) Defendants opposed. (DE 22.) While the fee application was sub judice, a series of status conferences were held and cancelled due to defense counsel’s continued failure to gain admission in this District in violation of the Local Rules and Court orders. (DE 20, DE 21, DE 23.) Accordingly, on November 30, 2022, the Court administratively withdrew Plaintiff’s fee application to allow Plaintiff to make certain modifications and to add to the application costs for counsel’s appearances at the cancelled status conferences. (DE 23.) On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant, and second, fee application. (DE 27.) Defendants did not renew their opposition. II. DISCUSSION A. Scope of Fee Award “A party that fails to cooperate in discovery or comply with court orders is subject to sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Allied 100, LLC v. Chadha, No. 20-CV-03493 (AMD) (PK), 2021 WL 7184241, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2021). Rule 37(a)(5)(C), provides that if a motion to compel is granted, after giving an opportunity to be heard, the court may apportion reasonable expenses for the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(5)(C). “The imposition of sanctions under Rule 37 lies within the broad discretion of the district court.” Perros v. Cnty of Nassau, CV 15-5598 (GRB)(AKT), 2021 WL 4480666, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2021). “Rule 37 is most relevant when a party fails to comply with a court order to produce discovery or fails to produce to an adversary relevant, requested information.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, the Court has already determined in its October 5, 2022 Order, that Plaintiff is entitled to costs and fees associated with bringing the July Motion to Compel. (Electronic Order, dated Oct. 5, 2022.) Plaintiff is further entitled to the costs and fees reasonably incurred in preparing this fee application. See Robbins & Myers, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., No. 01-CV-00201S F, 2010 WL 3992215, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2010) (“A party awarded attorney’s fees is also entitled to compensation ‘for time reasonably spent in preparing and defending’ the fee application”) (quoting Weyant v. Okst, 198 F.3d 311, 316 (2d Cir. 1999)). All that remains for the Court to determine on this branch of Plaintiff’s application is the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees. Plaintiff also seeks to recover the costs associated with counsel’s appearance at the status conferences held on October 11, 2022 (“October 11 Conference”) and November 30, 2022 (“November 30 Conference”) which were unable to proceed due to defense counsel’s failure to be admitted in this District. Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “if a party or its attorney [] fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference…the court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii).” This includes the authority to award costs and fees associated with the sanctioned party’s failure to appear at court-ordered conferences. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2) (“Instead of or in addition to any other sanction, the court must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses — including attorney’s fees — incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule, unless the noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust”); Yannitelli v. Navieras De Puerto Rico, 106 F.R.D. 42, 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (“The Court further finds that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, an award of costs and attorney’s fees is appropriate for [plaintiff's] failure to appear at the April 12 pretrial conference”). Here, defense counsel’s continued appearance without proper admission at the October 11 and November 30 Conferences frustrated the purpose of the conferences and prevented the parties from going forward, similar to a party’s failure to appear. Defendants have not presented a reason as to why noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances which make an award of expenses unjust. Therefore, an award of fees and costs associated with the October 11 and November 30 Conferences is appropriate. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks additional sanctions outside of those previously granted by the Court in connection with the July Motion to Compel (see Electronic Order, dated Oct. 5, 2022) and the status conferences referenced above, such request is denied as it is outside the scope of this Court’s prior orders and Plaintiff has not met the requirements of Rule 35(a)(5)(A). See Wager, 2021 WL 293076 at *3 (“To recover expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the only requirements are that a party has made a motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery and that the motion is granted”) (internal quotations omitted). B. Assessment of Reasonable Costs and Fees Next, the Court looks to see if the amount of costs and fees sought are reasonable. Here, Plaintiff’s counsel Joseph S. Fritzson, the sole partner of the J.S. Fritzson Law Firm, P.C., affirms that his firm incurred a total of $11,220.00 in costs and fees related to the drafting of numerous motions and letters to the Court, including this fee application and his appearance at the October 11 and November 30 Conferences. (DE 27-1 at
