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 Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, 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 Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, 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 (“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 Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, 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. Cogir of Folsom 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 Cogir of Folsom was obligated to provide a privilege log. Counsel for Cogir of Folsom sent a responsive letter on August 13, 2025. Plaintiff filed this motion on August 26, 2025.

On January 30, 2026, the parties entered into a stipulated protective order limiting disclosure of certain documents and information to third parties.

“Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(a).) Interrogatories that cannot be answered completely “shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(b).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).)

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 Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 28

The present motion involves a single interrogatory, Special Interrogatory No. 11, which states, “Please state each and every unusual incident/injury report which occurred at the FACILITY from January 12, 2022 through January 12, 2024 involving resident on resident abuse (to include all assaults under PC 240 and batteries under PC 242).” (Newman Decl., Exh. B, p. 3:18-20.) Defendant’s response contained only objections on the basis of relevance, confidentiality (including based on Welfare and Institutions Code section 15633), privacy, attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product. Defendant’s opposition does not address privilege or work product, so the Court deems those objections overruled.

The information requested via Interrogatory No. 11 is clearly relevant to this case. Whether Doe 1 previously assaulted other residents prior to her alleged assault of Decedent, and whether Defendants had knowledge of these assaults, is the core liability issue. Thus, the question is whether the information is protected from disclosure on privacy/confidentiality grounds.

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 is not persuaded that these statutes prohibit Defendant from identifying prior incidents of resident-on-resident assaults in some capacity, such as by date of occurrence, even if the identities of the individuals involved are barred from disclosure. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15633(a) makes the reports themselves confidential. While section 15633(b) states

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 Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 28

reports of suspected abuse “and information contained in the report” may be disclose only to certain persons, the Court does not read this to mean that all factual information related to incidents of abuse is confidential simply because it is in a confidential report.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve a verified further response to Special Interrogatory No. 11 that identifies prior incidents by date by no later than March 2, 2026.

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.)