Dibble v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TERRY DIBBLE, 	)
Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
CARISSA LUKING, DR. LYNN PITTMAN,
DR. VIPIN K. SHAH, DR. GARCIA, and
SARA STOVER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 22-cv-1427- RJD
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”),
filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 	Doc. 1. 	He alleges that his Constitutional rights
were violated at Lawrence Correctional Center related to a large and painful lipoma (fatty growth)
on the back of his head. 	Id. 	Defendants Luking, Stover, Pittman, Garcia, and Shah are all
healthcare providers employed by Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. 	This matter comes
before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)
to comply with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) subpoena. 	Doc. 121. 	The IDOC filed
a Response. 	Doc. 125. 	As explained further, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff served a subpoena for deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(b)(6) upon the IDOC on September 5, 2025. 	Doc. 121-1. 	Four months later, counsel for
Plaintiff and counsel for IDOC reached an agreement regarding the deposition topics. 	Doc. 121-
2, p. 8. 	Counsel for all parties agreed that the deposition would occur on February 19, 2026 and
Plaintiff’s counsel prepared an amended subpoena and rider. 	Id., p. 5. 	On February 13, 2026,
Case 3:22-cv-01427-RJD Document 126 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
the IDOC’s counsel cancelled the deposition. 	Id., p. 4. 	On February 27, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel
learned that IDOC had yet to arrange for a designee to testify. 	Doc. 121-4, p. 4. 	Plaintiff’s
counsel filed the instant motion on March 4, 2026. 	Doc. 121. 	The undersigned ordered that any
response by the IDOC must be filed by March 6, 2026 because the subpoena had been served more
than six months ago, yet IDOC had not identified its witness(es). 	Doc. 122. 	In its response,
IDOC informs the Court that it has now identified three designees to cover the requested topics
and the designees are available to testify the week of March 23 rd , 2026. Doc. 125-1, pp. 2-3.
Plaintiff’s Motion asks the Court to compel the IDOC to produce its witness(es) for its
“long delayed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.” 	This request is MOOT, as the IDOC has designated its
witnesses and offered to produce them for deposition within three weeks. 	Plaintiff also asks the
Court to find that the IDOC has “fail[ed] without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena” and issue
a contempt sanction against the IDOC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g).
Approximately six months passed from the date the subpoena was served until the date Plaintiff
filed the Motion to Compel, but the Court is not convinced that the six-month delay was entirely
caused by IDOC. 	Attached to Plaintiff’s motion are 14 pages of emails between counsel; the
earliest one is dated January 15, 2026. 	Doc. 121-2, p. 8. 	No sense of urgency is communicated
in the emails until February 19, 2026. 	Id., p. 2-8. 	On that date, Plaintiff’s counsel mentions
“approaching a hard fact discovery deadline.” 	Id., p. 2. 	The deadline for all discovery is July 6,
2026 (Doc. 120) and the parties are free to set their own internal deadlines (e.g., expert disclosure)
within that time frame. 	If they cannot agree to internal deadlines, they may request the Court’s
assistance. 	Plaintiff’s request for contempt sanctions against the IDOC is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 9, 2026
Case 3:22-cv-01427-RJD Document 126 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
s/ 	Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-01427-RJD Document 126 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>