THYRZA DOWNER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, CAROLYN HOLMES;, et al. vs COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC, et al.

25CV004537: THYRZA DOWNER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST, CAROLYN HOLMES;, et al. vs COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC, et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Cogir Management USA, Inc's., Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One in Department 28

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

25CV004537: THYRZA DOWNER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST, CAROLYN HOLMES;, et al. vs COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC, et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Cogir Management USA, Inc's., Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One in Department 28

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Thyrza Downer (“Decedent”), by and through her successor-in-interest, Carolyn Holmes’ (“Plaintiff”), motion to compel Defendant Cogir Management USA, Inc. dba Cogir of Folsom (“Defendant” or “Cogir of Folsom”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiffs are admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4), which provides, “Unless they are submitted by a self-represented party, electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers not being considered, matters being continued so that papers may be submitted in the proper format, and/or the imposition of sanctions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004537: THYRZA DOWNER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST, CAROLYN HOLMES;, et al. vs COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC, et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Cogir Management USA, Inc's., Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One in Department 28

This is an elder abuse action. Plaintiffs Thyrza Downer (“Decedent”), by and through her successor-in-interest, Carolyn Holmes, Carolyn Holmes, individually, and Terry Parker (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that Decedent was a full-time resident of Cogir of Folsom, an elder care facility owned and/or operated by the several named entities, collectively referred to herein along with Cogir of Folsom as “Defendants.” Plaintiffs further allege that on January 12, 2024, Decedent was assaulted by another resident, identified in the FAC as Doe 1.

Plaintiffs allege that Doe 1 approached a nurse’s station and became combative with staff. Decedent was sitting on her wheelchair. Doe 1 proceeded to grab Decedent’s wheelchair and slam it (with Decedent sitting on it) into a door. Decedent then pushed the wheelchair down a hallway and caused Decedent to fall to the floor, resulting in Decedent fracturing her spine. Decedent died as a result of her injuries on January 16, 2024, and her death was deemed a homicide by the medical examiner. Plaintiffs allege that Doe 1 had a prior history of aggressive behavior at the facility and that Defendants knew of this prior behavior, with staff members having expressed concerns to a managerial employee that Doe 1 was too dangerous for the facility.

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants concealed material facts from Plaintiff in order to maximize profits, and that they failed to ensure that Cogir of Folsom was adequately staffed. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) includes five causes of action: (1) elder neglect/negligence per se; (2) elder abuse (enhanced remedies sought); (3) fraud (constructive); (4) elder financial abuse; and (5) wrongful death.

Plaintiff served the subject discovery on May 6, 2025. Defendant served its responses on July 17, 2025. On July 25, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter contending that certain responses were deficient and that Defendant was obligated to provide a privilege log. Counsel for Defendant sent a responsive letter on August 13, 2025. Plaintiff filed this motion on August 26, 2025.

Plaintiff’s separate statement categorizes the requests at issue as follows: documents related to Decedent (No. 4); documents related to Doe 1 (Nos. 7-10, 12, and 14-17); prior incidents of resident-on-resident abuse (No. 13); Cogir of Folsom’s policies and procedures (No. 18); Cogir of Folsom’s staffing records (No. 20); and licensing communications (Nos. 24-26). All of Defendant’s responses to these requests contain a series of largely similar objections. Other than Defendant’s response to RFPD No. 18, none of the responses contained anything other than objections.

The response to RFPD No. 18 stated, in addition to objections: “Subject to and without waiving the above stated objections, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party produces the table of contents of its Clinical Policy and Procedure Manual. See Bates Nos.: COGIRDOWNER_001599-COGIRDOWNER_001608.” (Newman Decl., Exh. C, pp. 13:27-14:1.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004537: THYRZA DOWNER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST, CAROLYN HOLMES;, et al. vs COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC, et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Cogir Management USA, Inc's., Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One in Department 28

Defendant’s opposition indicates that RFPD Nos. 18, 20, and 25-26 are moot because “Defendant has provided documents responsive to the requests and/or has agreed to provide them.” (Opp. MPA, p. 2:6-9.) This assertion is not supported by a declaration. In reply, Plaintiff confirms that Defendants served responsive documents with respect to RFPD No. 18 but has not yet served responsive documents to RFPD Nos. 20 and 24-26 as promised. (Newman Decl. ISO Reply, ¶ 2.) There is no indication that further responses were served to any of these requests. On January 30, 2026, the parties entered into a stipulated protective order limiting disclosure of certain documents and information to third parties.

A party may move to compel further responses to requests for production of documents on the grounds that a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or that an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).) The moving party must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) Where there is no issue of privilege of attorney work product, good cause may be shown “simply by a factspecific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

A party served with a request for production of documents shall respond with a statement of compliance, a representation of inability to comply, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a).) A statement of compliance must state that the production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.220.) A representation of inability to comply “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand,” and must also specify the reason for the inability to comply. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) If an objection is asserted, the responding party must identify with particularity any document to which an objection is being made and must clearly set forth the extent of and specific ground for the objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b).)

As an initial matter, Defendant’s responses violate the basic requirements delineated in the preceding paragraph. Defendant asserts a series of objections to each request but fails to identify any document being withheld based on the objections. This includes Defendant’s response to RFPD No. 18, even though the response identifies a document that Defendant is going to produce; the response still asserts several objections but does not identify any documents that are not being produced based on the objections. Additionally, the response to RFPD No. 18 does not include a proper statement of compliance, as it does not state that all documents that are in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control and to which no objection is being made will be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004537: THYRZA DOWNER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST, CAROLYN HOLMES;, et al. vs COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC, et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Cogir Management USA, Inc's., Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One in Department 28

produced. This alone warrants further responses.

The Court now turns to the individual requests or categories of requests as grouped in Plaintiff’s separate statement.

Documents Relating to Decedent (RFPD No. 4)

This request seeks all documents reflecting Decedent’s name. While the request is somewhat broad, there is good cause to support the discovery sought, as any document maintained by Defendant that includes Decedent’s name would certainly be relevant and discoverable. Defendant’s response asserted several objections, but Defendant’s separate statement only argues that the request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Thus, the remaining objections are overruled.

To support its burdensome objection, Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020(a), particularly the first sentence of that statute, which states: “The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a).) However, the very next sentence states, “The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person.” (Ibid.)

Defendant has not moved for a protective order. Moreover, although Defendant asserts that the request will require it to search both physical and digital documents, there is no evidence to support this assertion. Thus, the Court is unable to conclude that the burden and expense claimed by Defendant even exists, let alone that it outweighs Plaintiff’s need for the information. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(g).)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RFPD No.

4.

Documents Related to Doe 1 (RFPD Nos. 7-10, 12, and 14-17)

These requests seek Doe 1’s medical records (No. 7); Doe 1’s facility file(s) maintained by Defendant (Nos. 8-9); incident reports related to treatment of Doe 1 (No. 10); emails related to Doe 1’s alleged assault on Decedent (No. 12); emails related to Doe 1’s admission to Cogir Folsom (No. 14); emails related to any other assaults by Doe 1 at Cogir Folsom from two years prior to the incident to the present (No. 15); communications with government licensing agencies regarding Doe 1’s alleged assault on Plaintiff (No. 16); and investigatory documents related to Doe 1’s alleged assault on Plaintiff (No. 17).

Defendant objected to each request based on, among other grounds, relevance, undue burden,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004537: THYRZA DOWNER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST, CAROLYN HOLMES;, et al. vs COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC, et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Cogir Management USA, Inc's., Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One in Department 28

and privacy, both Defendant’s own right to privacy and that of third parties. In its opposition, Defendant contends that Welfare and Institutions Code section 15633 prohibits Defendant from disclosing certain confidential information encompassed within Plaintiff’s requests. Specifically, Defendant contends:

To the extent any responsive documents include SOC 341 mandated reports or reproduce/attach/quote the information contained in such reports, disclosure is barred by Welf. & Inst. Code § 15633. These forms capture highly sensitive resident information, including names, dates of birth, medical and mental-health details, injury descriptions, functional/behavioral information, locations of vulnerable residents, and narrative accounts of alleged abuse.

(Opp. Sep. Stmt., p. 12:15-19.)

Welfare and Institutions Code section 15633(a) provides, in part: “The reports made pursuant to Section 15630, 15630.1, 15630.2, and 15631 shall be confidential and may be disclosed only as provided in subdivision (b).” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15633(a).) Subdivision (b) provides, “Reports of suspected abuse of an elder or dependent adult and information contained in the report may be disclosed only to the following:” (1) persons or agencies to whom disclosure is permitted under section 15633.5; (2) certain persons trained and qualified to serve on multidisciplinary personnel teams; and (3) a trusted contact as specified in section 15630.2(h). (Welf. & Inst.

Code § 15633(b).) Other persons to whom disclosure may be made include law enforcement and government agency investigators investigating suspected elder abuse, federal law enforcement agencies investigating a financial crime committed against the elder, and local code enforcement agencies investigating an unlicensed care facility. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15633.5(a).)

Defendant also relies on the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”), Civil Code section 56 et seq. Civil Code section 56.10(a) states, “A provider of health care shall not disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care without first obtaining an authorization, except as provided in subdivision (b) or (c).” (Civ. Code § 56.10(a).) Subdivision (b)(1)(A) requires a provider of health care to disclose medical information when compelled by a court order. (Civ. Code § 56.10(b)(1)(A).)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s position on this issue. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15633 precludes disclosure of reports of abuse by mandated and nonmandated reporters and the information contained in the reports. Defendant has not established that any of the requested documents constitute such reports. To the extent such documents exist, they must be identified in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004537: THYRZA DOWNER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST, CAROLYN HOLMES;, et al. vs COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC, et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Cogir Management USA, Inc's., Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One in Department 28

the responses. The Court also finds that a privilege log is warranted that adequately describes any documents withheld pursuant to these objections. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that section 15633 prohibits disclosure of other types of reports that happen to include information of alleged abuse. Similarly, the CMIA expressly provides that medical information may be disclosed pursuant to a court order. The Court here finds that Doe 1’s medical records are discoverable, and any privacy concerns can be assuaged by the parties’ stipulated protective order. Additionally, the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint establish Doe 1’s fitness for residency, her mental acuity, and her history of prior assaults relevant.

Defendant also contends that the information sought from the requests “is inherently unreliable, largely irrelevant, and incapable of meaningful de-identification.” (Opp. Sep. Stmt., p. 15:6-7.) The Court rejects these arguments. That the documents may include statements from elderly individuals with cognitive conditions affecting their memory does not make place them outside the scope of discovery. Defendant presents no evidence that de-identification is not possible or feasible.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RFPD Nos. 7-10, 12, and 14-17.

RFPD Nos. 18, 20, and 24-26

Defendant’s opposition states that Defendant has agreed to produce responsive documents to these requests. The Court construes this as a concession that the requests seek discoverable information. Even so, further responses are warranted that must identify any documents being withheld based on privilege or confidentiality and state whether all other documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control are being produced. Any documents withheld shall be included in the privilege log.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RFPD Nos. 18, 20, and 24-26.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED in full.

Defendant shall serve verified further responses, along with a privilege log, by no later than March 2, 2026, or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004537: THYRZA DOWNER, BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST, CAROLYN HOLMES;, et al. vs COGIR MANAGEMENT USA, INC, et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Cogir Management USA, Inc's., Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One in Department 28