JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al.

21CV004133: JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal MOTION OF SPIEKER SENIOR DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LLC TO SEAL; filed by Continuing Life LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 497879968549 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/10/2026 Patrick McKinney

Defendant Spieker Senior Development Partners LLC’s Motion to Seal exhibits C, D, E, and O to the declaration of Patrick Burns supporting its motion for sanctions is denied.

I.

Background

In June 2026, Spieker Partners moved for sanctions against Plaintiffs Russell Johnson and Harry Wong. (Mot. Sanctions, June 23, 2026.) In support of that motion, Spieker Partners filed and served the declaration of Burns with exhibits C, D, E, and O attached. (See Burns Decl. Supp. Mot. Sanctions, June 23, 2026.) Exhibit C is of Defendant Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC’s First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement. (Burns Decl. Supp. Mot. Seal ¶ 4, Ex. C, June 23, 2026.) Exhibit D is Stoneridge Creek’s Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. D.) Exhibit E is Stoneridge Creek’s Operating Agreement. (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. E.) And exhibit O is the transcript of Warren Edward Spieker, III’s deposition. (Id. ¶ 7, Ex. O.)

Concurrently, Spieker Partners moved to seal these records. (Notice Mot. & Mot. Seal., June 23, 2026.) Spieker Partners argued that these records contained “confidential business information of private entities, including internal governance terms, ownership and membership provisions, management rights and obligations, operational terms, and related testimony.” (Id. 7:9–11.) Spieker Partners argued public disclosure of these records “would risk competitive and business harm, undermine the confidentiality protections provided by the SPO that was entered by the Court, and expose private governance, ownership, and operational information unrelated to the public’s ability to understand the issues presented by [Spieker Partners’] sanctions motion.” (Id. 7:19–22.)

Spieker Partners argued the proposed sealing is narrow because it did not seek to seal the entire declaration of Burns, but only exhibits C, D, E, and O. (Id. 7:23–28.)

The Motion was unopposed. (See Reg. Actions; see also Mot. at Proof Serv. (showing service of Motion on Plaintiffs).)

II. Legal Standard “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. R. Ct. 2.550(c).) Thus, “[t]he court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(a); see also McNair v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 25, 36 (“[T]he mere agreement of the parties alone is insufficient to constitute an overriding interest to justify sealing the documents.”).) A court may seal a record only if “[t]here exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; [¶] [t]he overriding interest supports sealing the record; [¶] [a] 21CV004133: JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal MOTION OF SPIEKER SENIOR DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LLC TO SEAL; filed by Continuing Life LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 497879968549 in Department 18 substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; [¶] [t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and [¶] [n]o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal.

R. Ct. 2.550(d).)

III.

Discussion

The Court finds that an order sealing exhibits C, D, E, and O to the declaration of Burns is not merited. First, the Court is unpersuaded that there is overriding interest that overcomes the public’s right to access the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement, Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement, the Operating Agreement, and Warren Spieker’s deposition testimony. Nothing in these documents suggests that they have “confidential business information.” Spieker Partners did not point to specific portions of these records that supports its claim. (See generally Burns Decl. Supp. Mot. Seal ¶¶ 4–7.)

Rather, these documents appear to be standard governance and operating documents containing boilerplate terms; and the sole basis to seal these records appears to be the parties’ stipulated protective order. (See, e.g. id. ¶ 4 (“Exhibit C] was designated ‘Confidential’ pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order . . . entered in this action on April 2, 2024 and has been treated as confidential in this litigation.”).) Second, assuming Spieker Partners had shown an overriding interest, the Court is unpersuaded that this overriding interest would likely be prejudiced if the documents were not sealed. Spieker Partners did not articulate how public dissemination of these documents would cause it “competitive and business harm.” (See id. ¶ 8 (providing entire foundation for claimed prejudice).)

And third, again assuming Spieker Partners had shown an overriding interest, the Court is unpersuaded that the proposed redaction of the entirety of exhibits C, D, E, and O is narrowly tailored to protect Spieker Partners’ overriding interest and that no less restrictive means exist to protect that overriding interest. Having reviewed the unredacted exhibits, the Court notes that targeted redactions are possible.

IV. Order The Motion is denied.

***

The Motion to Seal NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF SPIEKER SENIOR DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LLC TO SEAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC, Continuing Life LLC,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

21CV004133: JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal MOTION OF SPIEKER SENIOR DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LLC TO SEAL; filed by Continuing Life LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 497879968549 in Department 18 Spieker Senior Development Partners LLC on 06/23/2026 is Denied.

The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.