YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA

Plaintiff moves the Court for the following orders:

1) A $1,000 monetary sanction under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2023.050 for Defendant’s bad faith failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RFPs”);

2) A $1,000 monetary sanction under CCP section 2023.050 for Defendant’s failure to confer in good faith regarding the RFPs;

3) Monetary sanctions for Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, set one (“SIs”);

4) Monetary sanctions for Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, set one (“RFAs”);

5) Issue Sanctions; and

6) Evidentiary Sanctions.

The Court addresses Plaintiff’s requests in turn.

First, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for two $1,000 monetary sanctions under CCP section 2023.050, as the Court previously held that there was no evidence to support that the underlying RFPs were properly served on Defendant. (See Minute Order, May 12, 2026.)[1]

Next, the Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions made in connection with Defendant’s failure to respond to the SIs and RFAs because Plaintiff is self-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 16C

represented and has been granted a fee waiver so Plaintiff has not shown that they incurred any reasonable expenses as a result of Defendant’s failure to respond to the discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a) [“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that the one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process . . . pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Emphasis added.)]; Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v.

Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 790 [“Reasonable expenses may include attorney fees, filing fees, referee fees, and other costs incurred.”].) Plaintiff has not shown that they have incurred any identifiable and allocable cost(s) as a pro se litigant caused by Defendant’s failure to respond to the discovery. (See Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1020 [indicating that “some of the costs that pro se litigants incur, if reasonably identifiable and allocable” may be recoverable as sanctions].)

Finally, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions as the Court generally does not impose non-monetary sanctions unless a party has disobeyed a court order. (Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1, 11; accord Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 618-619 [“Although not expressly required by statute, courts have noted that, absent unusual circumstances, nonmonetary sanctions are warranted only if a party willfully fails to comply with a court order.”].) Here, Defendant has not disobeyed a court order concerning discovery.

“[D]iscovery sanctions are not designed to punish, [therefore,] ‘“sanctions should be tailored to serve [their] remedial purpose, . . . and should be proportionate to the offending party's misconduct.”’ [Citation.]” (Kwan Software Eng'g, Inc. v Hennings (2020) 58 CA5th 57, 74.) Imposing issue or evidence sanctions in this case would be disproportionate to Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied in its entirety.

Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with mail and/or personal notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) calendar days.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] Additionally, the Court notes that under CCP section 2023.050, subdivision (e),

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 16C

self-represented litigants are presumed to act in good faith unless clear and convincing evidence shows the contrary.

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 16C

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.