John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel American Advanced Management Re Request for Production in Department 25

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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.

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel American Advanced Management Re Request for Production in Department 25

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Plaintiffs John L. Dubois through his successor in interest Tami L. Early, and Tami L. Early and Dawn Dubois Patti individually (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to compel Defendant American Advanced Management, Inc. (“AAM”) to comply with the “Court’s Order of September 23, 2025,” is ruled upon as follows.

In this elder abuse action, Plaintiffs request an order compelling AAM “to comply with the Court’s Order of September 23, 2025 by providing complete, good faith responses without objections to Request for Production, Set 1, Numbers 13-18, 20, 21, and 25-28”; and monetary sanctions against AAM. (Ntc. Mot, emphasis in original.)

A trial date is presently set in this matter for March 9, 2026.

On September 23, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel AAM to provide “responses to [Plaintiffs’] requests for production nos. 1-32.” (9/23/25 Order.) In granting the motion, the Court ordered:

No later than October 7, 2025, Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ request for production nos. 1-32. To the extent that the responses served on September 10, 2025, comply with this ruling, they need not be re-served. [¶] To the extent that the responses served on September 10, 2025, comply with this ruling, they need not be re-served. To the extent Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant to produce documents through this same motion, the Court finds that the motion is premature as Defendant has not yet provided a complete statement in its responses that responsive documents exist and will be produced.

(Ibid.) Here, Plaintiffs contend that AAM is in violation of the Court’s Order because, despite AAM’s promise to provide supplemental responses, remedying the perceived deficiencies with AAM’s responses provided on September 10, 2025, AAM failed to provide the supplemental responses as promised. (Dawson Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.) Plaintiffs highlight that AAM’s responses to each of these requests is: “Responding Party is in the process of a diligent search to inquire into the existence of documents responsive to this Request. Responding Party intends to supplement

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel American Advanced Management Re Request for Production in Department 25

this response if responsive documents become available.” (See Sept. Stmt.) In this regard, Plaintiffs argue that AAM’s responses are not Code-compliant. AAM opposes the motion, but rather than address Plaintiffs’ arguments, AAM contends that, as of November 2025, it has now provided the sought supplemental responses, and thus, Plaintiffs’ motion is moot.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, requires a party’s response to requests for production of documents be one the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.

Every Court has the power to “compel obedience to its judgments, order, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128(a)(4).) Moreover, if a party fails to obey an order compelling further discovery response, the court is empowered to make such orders as are just, including the imposition of sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(i).)

It is clear that AAM has failed to provide Code compliant responses to the subject discovery at the time the motion was made. Based on the record before it, and considering AAM’s failure to substantively oppose this motion, the Court determines that AAM has failed to comply with the Court’s September 23, 2025, Order and the motion to compel compliance is GRANTED. AAM shall comply with the Court’s September 23, 2025, Order, in full, on or before February 4, 2026. For the same reasons set forth in its 9/23/25 Order, the Court finds that the motion to compel production of documents is premature, as Defendant has not yet provided a complete statement in its responses (at issue in this motion) that responsive documents exist and will be produced.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against AAM is GRANTED in the amount of $1,560 for failure to comply with the Court’s prior order. This amount represents 2 hours of attorney time at the requested rate of $750 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee. Sanctions to be paid no later than February 27, 2026, and, if not paid by that date, Plaintiffs may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332501-CU-PO-GDS: John L. Dubois through his Successor in Interest Tami L. Early vs. Colusa Medical Center, LLC 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel American Advanced Management Re Request for Production in Department 25

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