Whitlow v. VMC REO LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NETTIE B. WHITLOW, Case No. 25-11458 Plaintiff, Honorable Shalina D. Kumar Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford v. VMC REO LLC, et al., Defendants.

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR FOR HER DEPOSITION (ECF NO. 19)

Plaintiff Nettie B. Whitlow, proceeding pro se, sues multiple defendants. The Honorable Shalina D. Kumar referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 4.

Defendant VMC REO, LLC (VMC) served Whitlow with a notice of her deposition (ECF No. 19-1) requiring her to appear on June 26, 2025. But VMC says that Whitlow did show for her June 26th deposition, and ignored VMC’s request to contact its counsel to reschedule it, so VMC moves the Court for discovery sanctions or to compel Whitlow’s deposition. ECF No. 19. Whitlow’s response was due on August 18, 2025 (ECF No. 26, PageID.302) but no response was filed.

Generally, parties are expected to engage in cooperative discovery with one another and request court involvement only when a party violates the discovery rules or when the parties have a genuine dispute about what the rules require. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, 26-37. In most cases, when a court grants a motion to compel discovery, the possible sanctions are financial.

Rule 37(a)(5)(A). But a party’s failure to attend her own deposition or respond to discovery requests exposes her to greater sanctions, including the dismissal of the action. Rule 37(d).

In other words, Whitlow’s failure to attend her deposition is a serious violation of the discovery rules. Although Whitlow is acting pro se, she must comply with federal and local rules of procedure. Matthews v. Copeland, 286 F. Supp. 3d 912, 916 (M.D. Tenn. 2017).

The Court thus ORDERS Whitlow to appear for her deposition at VMC’s counsel’s office, within the next 14 days, on a date and time to be noticed by VMC. If Whitlow fails to appear or otherwise violates the discovery rules, her case may be dismissed under Rule 37 or the Court’s inherent authority.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD Dated: August 25, 2025 United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

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 to their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 25, 2025.

s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager