YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA

On August 26, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant with Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set One) (“SIs”) to her email address. (Pl.’s Sec. Am. Decl. ¶ 29.) Electronic service on an unrepresented party is ineffective absent express consent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).) Express consent to electronic service may be given by either: (1) serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the Court, or (2) manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the Court or the Court’s electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the party’s electronic address with that consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6, subd. (c)(3).) “The act of electronic filing shall not be construed as express consent.” (Ibid.)

“A party . . . may manifest affirmative consent by serving notice of consent to all parties and other persons and either: [¶] (i) Agreeing to the terms of service with an electronic filing service provider, which clearly states that agreement constitutes consent to received electronic service; or [¶] (ii) Filing Consent to Electronic Service and Notice of Electronic Service Address (form EFS-005-CV).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(b)(1)(B).)

Here, there is no evidence that Defendant consented to receiving electronic service in the manner provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.251.

However, on December 23, 2025, Plaintiff used the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office to personally serve Defendant with the SIs. (Pl.’s Sec. Am. Decl. ¶ 43; Proof of Service, Dec. 26, 2025.) No response to the SIs has been provided.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set One) in Department 16C

Plaintiff was personally served with referenced moving papers on March 26, 2026. (Proof of Service, Mar. 26, 2026.) No opposition to the motion has been filed. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on its merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Defendant shall serve verified written responses, without objections, to the SIs no later than June 22, 2026.

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.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set One) in Department 16C

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.

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.