Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le

Signet’s counsel emailed Maldonado’s counsel on December 11, 2025, asking to meet

34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 03/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For relief in Department 54

and confer “re several trial-related issues.” (Soriano Decl., Exh. C.) Although the email did not specify the issues, Signet’s counsel declares that they included Signet’s need to depose the Treaters or to seek a stipulation regarding the admissibility of medical records. (Id., ¶ 8.) Signet’s counsel followed up with more specifics, and Maldonado’s counsel refused to stipulate to admissibility. (Id., ¶¶ 9–12.)

Signet served a Notice of Deposition on Maldonado on December 29, 2025 and a Deposition Subpoena on Dr. Sean Betesh on December 31. (Id., ¶¶ 14–15, Exhs. G–I.) The Deposition Subpoena set Dr. Betesh’s deposition for January 31, 2026, and also required Dr. Betesh to produce Maldonado’s medical records. (Id., Exh. G.) Based on Dr. Betesh’s schedule, the deposition date was moved forward to January 22. (Id., ¶¶ 16–17.) When Signet served an amended Notice of Deposition on January 12, Maldonado objected to the deposition on grounds of insufficient notice. (Id., ¶¶ 18, 19, Exhs.

K, J.) Maldonado withdrew the Treaters from her expert witness list on January 19. (Id., ¶ 20, Exh. L.) On January 22, Maldonado’s counsel sent Signet’s counsel an email citing various grounds opposing Dr. Betesh’s deposition. (Id., ¶ 22, Exh. M.) Signet’s counsel cancelled Dr. Betesh’s deposition. (Id., ¶ 23.) Counsel discussed the issues but did not resolve anything other than that Signet could file a single motion related to all of the Treaters. (Id., ¶¶ 24–30).

Trial is set for March 30, 2026.

Signet now moves for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) (“Section 473”)[1] allowing Signet to depose the five Treaters. (Notice of Motion, p. 2:1–2.) Signet argues that either mandatory or discretionary relief is proper under Section 473 because its inability to depose the Treaters is based on a mistake. (Motion of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], pp. 5:18–6:23.) Signet declares that it intended to identify the Treaters on its own expert witness list but inadvertently failed to do so, which was an oversight. (Id., p. 2:10–16; Soriano Decl., ¶ 5.)

Signet argues that if it had listed the Treaters by name, it “would have the absolute right to depose these experts, even if Plaintiff withdrew these witnesses as her experts.” (MPA, p. 5:22–25.) Signet further argues that there is ample time to take the depositions and that granting relief will not prejudice Maldonado when the relevant medical reports have already been widely circulated and used. (Id., pp. 4:24–5:5.) Signet asks the Court for an order allowing it to depose the Treaters. (Notice of Motion, p. 2:5–6.)

Although moving under Section 473, Signet does not ask the Court for an order allowing it to amend its expert witness list.

Maldonado opposes the motion on the basis that Signet did not make a mistake but instead chose a litigation tactic. (Opposition, p. 3:6–4:9.) Maldonado contends that Section 473 does not apply to this situation and that, in any case, the relief sought by Signet would not achieve their goal of taking the Treaters’ depositions. (Id., pp. 4:11–

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 03/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For relief in Department 54

6:4.)

In reply, Signet argues that Section 473 does apply in the context of discovery and that any doubts about application should be resolved in Signet’s favor. (Reply, pp. 5–6.)

Analysis

Section 473, subdivision (a)(1), states in pertinent part:

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; . The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; .

Although “the discovery act is generally viewed as comprehensive and exclusive”, Section 473 can apply to discovery in some instances. (Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1104.) The Zellerino court held for instance that a demand for expertwitness disclosure was a “proceeding” within the meaning of Section 473. (Id., at p. 1106.) The court therefore found the litigant’s early demand for disclosure to be an excusable mistake. (Id. at 1107.)

Zellerino also identified a significant bar to relief under Section 473 in discovery: “Relief under section 473 is unavailable when the discovery act provides analogous, if more limited, relief.” (Zellerino v. Brown, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at 1107.) As examples of “analogous, if more limited, relief,” the court identified former Section 2031, subdivision (k) (today, § 2031.300), allowing a party to avoid penalties for responding late to demands for production of documents and former section 2033, subdivision (k) (today, §§ 2033.280 & 2033.300), allowing a party to avoid penalties for responding late to requests for admissions and to amend or withdraw admissions. (Ibid.)

The key was the use in the discovery statutes of language similar to that used in Section 473: “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Ibid.) This showed an intent for the specific discovery statute to supplant the more general Section 473. (Ibid.)

Signet asserts that it made a mistake when it omitted listing by name the five Treaters on its expert witness list. Signet asks the Court to order the Treaters’ deposition. But Section 473 allows only “amendment to any pleading or proceeding.” (§ 473, subd., (a).) Signet suggests that the Court should look to Section 473, subdivision (c), allowing “other relief as appropriate.” But subdivision (c) begins “[w]henever the court grants relief from a default, default judgment, or dismissal ” (emphasis added.) This language ties back to Section 473, subdivision (b), regarding mandatory and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 03/12/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For relief in Department 54

discretionary relief from judgments and orders, not to subdivision (a) and its relief from mistakes by amendment.

In other words, the relief that Section 473 offers is an amendment of Signet’s expert witness list. But Section 2034.610 et seq. of the civil discovery act explicitly addresses amendments to expert witness lists. One of the findings a court may rely upon to allow amendment is “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (§ 2034.620, subd. (c)(2).) Thus, relief under Section 473 is unavailable to amend an expert witness list. (Zellerino v. Brown, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at 1107.)

Furthermore, even if Signet amended its expert witness list to name the Treaters as experts (or had not omitted naming them as experts in the first instance), this alone would not allow Signet to depose them. “On receipt of an expert witness list from a party, any other party may take the deposition of any person on the list.” (Section 2034.410 [emphasis added].) The statute clearly distinguishes the party who may depose expert witnesses from the party providing the expert witness list.

One way for Signet to ask for the relief it desires would be by motion to reopen discovery. (§ 2024.050.) The Court, in its discretion, could treat Signet’s motion as arising under Section 2024.050. (Civ. Code, § 3528; Hudson v. Super. Ct. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 999, 1011.) The Court declines in this instance. Section 2024.050 gives specific guidance for the Court’s discretion. The parties should have the opportunity to brief the facts and law relevant to the proper code section. In addition, a motion to reopen discovery allows monetary sanctions for unsuccessfully making or opposing such a motion. (§ 2024.050, subd. (c).) The parties should have advance notice of potential consequences.

Disposition

For the reasons stated, Signet’s motion for relief under Section 473, subdivision (a), to allow defendants to take depositions is DENIED. This is without prejudice to Signet making any other appropriate motion for relief.

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.)

[1] All further non-attributed statutory citations are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this