Motion for Omnibus Protective Order
25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 12/09/2025 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff in pro per Ale Yakovlevs (Plaintiff) Motion for Omnibus Protective Order against defendant in pro per Tatiana Novoselova is DROPPED.
Plaintiffs Amended Notice of Motion, filed on November 4, 2025, states, This motion addresses pseudonymity, the sealing of records, electronic service, and protection from harassment and discovery misuse, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128(a), 177, 2017.020, 2025.420, 2023.010-2023.030, and California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551.
By this single motion, Plaintiff seeks the following multiple forms of relief:
(1) that the Court grant him leave to proceed under the pseudonym Doe and to redact all personally identifying information from all past and future filings; (2) an order sealing the records in this case pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550; (3) an order requiring all communications, notices, and service of documents between the parties to be conducted exclusively by electronic means (email), with no requirement for physical service or personal appearance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251; (4) an order prohibiting Defendant and her agents from using the discovery process or any other means to investigate, discover, or utilize Plaintiffs physical location or personal information for any purpose unrelated to the legitimate prosecution or defense of this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420; (5) an order imposing sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010-2023.030 for Defendants willful misuse of the discovery process, including:
- Failure to respond to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admissions; - Failure to comply with a deposition subpoena; and - Using the discovery and service processes to harass and intimidate Plaintiff; and
(6) Alternatively, an order that for purposes of this motion, the factual allegations of the Complaint be deemed established under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 (regarding unanswered Requests for Admission) and section 2023.030(b).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 12/09/2025 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 54
Plaintiff has improperly combined what should be at least five different motions based the relief sought: (1) a motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym; (2) a motion to seal; (3) a protective order; (4) a discovery motion for sanctions; and (5) a motion to deem matters admitted. Plaintiff may not combine such motions pertaining to different types of relief brought pursuant to different grounds within the same document. Each motion requires its own notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and authorities. This procedurally defect requires the omnibus motion be DROPPED.
The Court received and reviewed Plaintiffs Amended Errata Notice re: Amended motion for Omnibus Protective Order (filed November 4, 2025) wherein Plaintiff purports to withdraw his requests for sanctions and request for deemed admissions. Even if these requests are withdrawn, the motion remains procedurally defective.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.
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 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 12/09/2025 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order in Department 54
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 Courts 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.