Omilian v. Von Maur, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CATHLEEN OMILIAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
VON MAUR, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________/
Case No. 25-10743
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 13)
Pending before the Court is Defendant Von Maur, Inc.’s, Motion to Compel
Plaintiff’s Deposition (Doc. 13). Defendant moves the Court to order Plaintiff
Cathleen Omilian to appear at a deposition within thirty (30) days. In support of
the motion, Defendant stated that they have noticed Plaintiff’s deposition multiple
times, yet they have been unable to take her deposition. Defendant indicated that
Plaintiff’s deposition had to be postponed twice due to an issue obtaining record
authorizations from Plaintiff so that they could obtain her medical records prior to
the deposition. The third attempt was scheduled for September 9, 2025, but was
cancelled the day before due to Plaintiff stating that she fell ill. The fourth attempt
to take Plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled for October 9, 2025, at the office of
Plaintiff’s counsel, but Plaintiff did not appear and did not respond to her counsel’s
attempts to contact her.
Case 4:25-cv-10743-FKB-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 4

2
On October 30, 2025, the Court held a status conference on this matter
during which counsel for Plaintiff indicated that there was no objection to the
motion and requested another opportunity to assist in scheduling Plaintiff’s
deposition.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the motion, for the reasons as stated, and
for good cause, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s
Deposition (Doc. 13) be and is hereby GRANTED. Within thirty (30) days of the
date of this Order, Plaintiff shall agree to a date and appear for a deposition in this
case.
The Court notes that Defendant incurred expenses because of Plaintiff’s
failure to appear at the two confirmed depositions. Even so, Defendant did not
request reimbursement of fees and expenses at this time, and under the
circumstances discussed during the status conference, the Court declines to award
costs and fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). Plaintiff is warned that should she
continue to ignore Defendant, her counsel, and this Court, costs, fees, and
sanctions may be appropriate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)
provides that a court may impose sanctions upon a party who fails to obey an
Order to provide or permit discovery. Among the possible sanctions a court may
impose are “dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or part[,]” and/or
Case 4:25-cv-10743-FKB-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 4

3
“reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v),
37(b)(2)(C).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are
required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as
error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which
the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to
a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in
effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich.
Local Rule 72.2.
Date: October 30, 2025 	s/Curtis Ivy, Jr.
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System or by First Class
U.S. mail on October 30, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-10743-FKB-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 4

4
s/Sara Krause
Case Manager
(810) 341-7850
Case 4:25-cv-10743-FKB-CI ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 4 of 4