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.