Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le

34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 05/04/2026 Jury Trial (pretrial conference) in Department 8A

Tentative Ruling

APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Due to the unavailability of the Court the Pretrial Conference will be held on May 4, 2026 at 11:00 a.m.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff filed twenty-one (21) Motions In Limine, including motions that are “deemed filed, served and granted” pursuant to Local Rule 2.96. (Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Nos. 1, 2, and 3). Local Rule 2.96, which was adopted in 2013, states:

2.96 General Motions. The following motions shall be deemed filed, served and granted unless good cause is otherwise shown by counsel’s declaration and request for hearing: (1) motions to exclude all non-party witnesses until called to testify; (2) motions to exclude all reference to settlement negotiations, mediation, and materials related thereto that are privileged under the California Evidence Code; (3) motions to exclude all reference to insurance, or the fact that an attorney is employed by, or has been compensated by, an insurance company; (4) motions to exclude all evidence of, or reference to, other claims or actions against any party to the litigation; and, (5) motions to exclude all reference to the financial position or wealth, or lack thereof, of any party to the litigation. (Adopted 1/1/2013)

Plaintiff is admonished to review the Local Rules prior to filing motions in limine in the future.

Disputed Motions:

Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine Nos. 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, and 20. The Court issues the following tentative rulings as to these motions.

6. To Exclude Defendant’s Expert Witnesses from Testifying to Hearsay Contained in Plaintiff’s Medical Records.

Denied. This motion is overbroad. The Court will consider specific objections to

34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 05/04/2026 Jury Trial (pretrial conference) in Department 8A

questions at the time of trial.

7. To Exclude Defendant from Arguing or Eliciting Evidence that Plaintiff Withdrew Any Previously Disclosed Witnesses

Granted. Plaintiff seeks to prevent Defendant from referencing the fact that Plaintiff initially designated her treating doctors as non-retained experts and then withdrew them. The Court is granting the motion as to the designation and de-designation of the experts as it is likely to confuse the jury. (Evid. Code, § 352). However, Defendant may reference the fact that Plaintiff had treating doctors, and those doctors will not or did not testify at trial.

8. To Exclude Defendant from Arguing or Eliciting Evidence That Plaintiff Applied for Disability After She Was Injured but That Her Application Was Denied

Granted. (Evid. Code, § 350, 352). Defendant argues that it should be permitted to introduce the fact that Plaintiff was denied permanent disability benefits as evidence she was capable of working. However, this would require the introduction of evidence of the State’s disability system. Based on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 21— which is uncontested— it appears that Plaintiff did receive disability payments through the California Employment Development Department and the Social Security Administration. This would also have to be explained to the jury. The probative value of this evidence is outweighed by the undue consumption of time and the likelihood of causing confusion.

15. To Exclude Evidence or Argument of Any Cause of Plaintiff’s Infection Other Than a Pedicure

Denied.

16. To Exclude Testimony from Defendant’s Retained Expert Witnesses and to Exclude Argument That Plaintiff Became Infected Through a Cut or Break in a Callus or The Plantar of Her Foot

Denied.

20. To Exclude Defendant’s Retained Expert Witness Jeffrey Christensen, M.D. From Testifying

Denied.

DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 05/04/2026 Jury Trial (pretrial conference) in Department 8A

Disputed Motions:

Defendant filed four (4) Motions in Limine. Plaintiff disputes Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

1. “1. To Exclude Any “Golden Rule” Arguments by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s Counsel, Or Plaintiff’s Witnesses

Denied. The Court will consider specific objections to arguments at the time of trial.

2. “2. To Preclude Expert Opinions of Non-Designated or Non-Retained Expert Witnesses

Denied. The Court will consider specific objections to witnesses and evidence at the time of trial.

3 3. Permitting Signet to Introduce Plaintiff’s Medical Records and Reports into Evidence

Denied. The Court will consider specific medical records and reports and any objections thereto that are offered by Defendant at the time of trial.

The Court orders the parties to appear May 4, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. The parties may appear by Zoom with the links below.

To join by Zoom link – https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16108301121

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 05/04/2026 Jury Trial (pretrial conference) in Department 8A

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.

Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to notice all parties of this order.