Linda Johnson, et al. v. Hanford Hotels, Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 08/19/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE 9 25CV480131 Lumenis Be Inc. PETITION TO CONFIRM THE ARBITRATION AWARD v. Iyad Radwan Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 9

LINE 10 26CV485647 Park Capital MOTION: APPLICATION TO EXPEL Management, LLC V. Orchard Yield Funds, Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 10 LLC LINE 11 25CV477676 Linda Johnson, et al. COMPROMISE OF MINOR’S CLAIM & v. SEALING ORDER LINE 12 Hanford Hotels, Inc. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 11-12

9:01 24CV430838 Eli Garten et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY V Line 1 Shaw Industries Group, Inc. et al Defense counsel Bruce E. Zuchowski moves to be Relieved as Counsel for Chris Haltom Floors, Inc. pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 284(2), with his client’s support.

This matter is scheduled for jury trial October 5, 2026. Prior motion to continue trial by other defendants was denied.

Corporate defendants may not appear in propria persona through an officer, director, or shareholder. Failure to timely obtain substitute counsel may result in the striking of its pleadings, entry of default, dismissal of its claims, or such other sanctions as are authorized by law. Motion to withdraw as attorney is DENIED without prejudice, to matter being STAYED pending bankruptcy proceedings as to this defendant, or substitute counsel appearing and indicating readiness to proceed to trial.

Parties on both sides ordered to appear at hearing.

LINE 11-12 Case Name: Linda Johnson et al. vs Hanford Hotels, Inc. et al. Case No.: 25CV477676

Petitioner's Application to Seal Portions of Moving Papers in Support of Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise (Continued from August 5, 2026)

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This wrongful death action arises from the death of Terril Wade Johnson, Sr., who died on May 22, 2025, from severe scalding burns sustained in a hotel shower at the Fairfield by Marriott Inn & Suites San Jose Airport. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on October 15, 2025. The Court granted mandatory trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a) on January 23, 2026, based on the advanced age and serious illness of plaintiff Linda Johnson, the decedent's surviving spouse. The parties reached a global settlement on May 14, 2026.

Petitioner moves pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551, for an order sealing portions of the moving papers filed in support of the petition for approval of minor's compromise. Petitioner seeks to seal information subject to the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement, including the settlement amount, as well as the minor's mental health records.

GOVERNING LAW

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550. The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, (Timothy W. v. Julie W. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 648)

An order sealing the record must specifically state the facts that support the findings and direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or portions thereof, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551.

The public has a First Amendment right of access to civil litigation documents filed in court and used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178); Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007), 149 Cal. App. 4th 588. Under the California Constitution, the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and court records are presumptively open to public scrutiny. Cal Const, Art. I § 3.

A party seeking to seal documents must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them. H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe, (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 879. A reasoned decision about sealing records cannot be made without identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment, the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure, and countervailing considerations.

Individuals have a recognized privacy interest in their medical and mental health records that can constitute an overriding interest under rule 2.550(d). Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 471. The court must balance the privacy interest against the public right of access, mandating sealing only where an overriding privacy interest would be prejudiced, the sealing is narrowly tailored, and no less restrictive means (such as redaction) suffice.

The protection of trade secrets and confidential financial information of third parties may constitute overriding interests supporting sealing. However, a settlement agreement containing a confidentiality clause may not be sealed merely because of the confidentiality provision; an overriding interest and specific showing of serious injury are required. (Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97.)

ANALYSIS

Medical and Mental Health Records (Attachment 8)

The Court finds that Petitioner has established good cause to seal Attachment 8 to the Petition, which contains Terrilynn Johnson's confidential medical and mental health records.

Overriding Interest

Individuals have a recognized privacy interest in their medical and mental health records that constitutes an overriding interest under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d). Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution grounds the right to privacy in confidential medical and mental health affairs. The privacy interest in mental health treatment records is particularly strong given their intimate and sensitive nature.

Here, Attachment 8 contains records and information regarding minor Terrilynn Johnson's private medical and mental health treatment arising from the traumatic death of her grandfather. Terrilynn is a minor, and her mental health treatment addresses the psychological impact of her grandfather's death by scalding. This constitutes an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record.

Substantial Probability of Prejudice

Disclosure of Terrilynn Johnson's mental health records on the public record would embarrass and distress her by exposing intimate details of her mental health history. The Court finds a substantial probability that Terrilynn's privacy interest will be prejudiced if these records are not sealed, particularly given her status as a minor and the sensitive nature of mental health treatment following a family member's traumatic death.

Narrowly Tailored

The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored because it is limited solely to Attachment 8, which contains the medical and mental health records themselves. The Petition itself will remain public, as will the Court's order approving the compromise (subject to redaction of confidential settlement terms, discussed below). The sealing extends only to the specific documents containing the protected health information.

No Less Restrictive Means

The Court finds no less restrictive means exist to protect Terrilynn Johnson's mental health privacy. Redaction would be insufficient because the records are relevant only to the Court's evaluation of the Petition and serve no public function. The records are attached to demonstrate the nature and extent of Terrilynn's injuries and the reasonableness of the proposed allocation; they are not used to adjudicate a disputed claim or establish a legal precedent requiring public scrutiny.

The Court expressly finds that sealing Attachment 8 (Terrilynn Johnson's medical and mental health records) satisfies all requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).

Settlement Amount and Financial Terms

Petitioner seeks to seal the settlement amount and financial terms disclosed in forms MC-350, MC-351, and MC-355 based solely on the confidentiality provisions of the parties' Settlement Agreement. Petitioner expressly disclaims any independent advocacy for sealing this information and takes no position on whether the confidentiality terms satisfy the legal requirements for sealing.

The Court finds that Petitioner has not met the burden of establishing good cause to seal the settlement amount.

Party Stipulation Insufficient

A court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. A settlement agreement containing a confidentiality clause may not be sealed merely because of the confidentiality provision; an overriding interest and specific showing of serious injury are required..

No Specific Showing of Overriding Interest or Prejudice

Petitioner has not identified any overriding interest that would be prejudiced by disclosure of the settlement amount beyond the parties' contractual agreement to keep it confidential. No defendant has filed a declaration or memorandum articulating a specific business interest, competitive harm, or other cognizable injury that would result from public disclosure of the settlement amount.

The Court recognizes that Petitioner filed this motion to comply with contractual obligations and reserved the right to challenge the confidentiality provision. However, the burden of

establishing good cause for sealing rests on the party seeking the sealing order. A reasoned decision about sealing records cannot be made without identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to protection, the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure, and countervailing considerations.

Public Interest in Settlement Amounts

Court records concerning settlements in wrongful death cases arising from injuries at public accommodations implicate a strong public interest. The public has a right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, including judicial proceedings and court-approved settlements. Cal Const, Art. I § 3. The settlement amount in a courtapproved minor's compromise is a material fact relevant to the Court's exercise of its authority to approve or reject the settlement as fair and reasonable.

The burden rests on the party seeking to deny public access to court records to establish compelling reasons why and to what extent the records should be made private. Copley Press v. Superior Court, (1988) 63 Cal. App. 4th 367. Here, no party has carried that burden with respect to the settlement amount.

DISPOSITION

At the August 5, 2026 hearing, the Court continued the matter to permit Defendants an opportunity to make the evidentiary showing required by California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d) with respect to the settlement amount. The Court directed Defendants to file, within seven days, a declaration and memorandum establishing with specificity: (1) the overriding interest that would be prejudiced by disclosure; (2) the substantial probability that the interest would be prejudiced absent sealing; (3) why the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (4) why no less restrictive means exist to achieve the asserted overriding interest.

No Defendant filed the required declaration or memorandum within the time permitted. Petitioner has not otherwise provided a basis for sealing the settlement amount beyond the confidentiality provision contained in the settlement agreement.

The Court therefore finds that there is no evidentiary basis upon which to make the findings required by rule 2.550(d) to support continued sealing of the settlement amount. The existence of a private confidentiality agreement, standing alone, does not establish an overriding interest sufficient to overcome the right of public access to court records.

Accordingly, the request to seal the settlement amount disclosed in forms MC-350, MC-351, and MC-355 is DENIED, and the settlement amount shall be unsealed and made part of the public record.

The Court reaches a different conclusion as to the minor's mental health records. The records contain highly sensitive and private medical information concerning the minor. The Court finds that the minor's privacy interest in maintaining the confidentiality of such information constitutes an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access. There is a substantial probability that the minor's privacy interest would be prejudiced absent sealing. The

requested sealing is narrowly tailored to the confidential mental health records, and no less restrictive means would adequately protect the minor's privacy interest.

Accordingly, the request to seal the minor's mental health records is GRANTED.

Plaintiff/Petitioner to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.