JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al.

21CV004133: JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Motion to Seal Exhibits in Opposition and Reply to Sanctions Motion; filed by Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 626592505285 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Patrick McKinney

Defendant Spieker Senior Development Partners LLC's Motion to Seal is denied without prejudice.

I.

Background

In June 2026, Spieker Partners moved for sanctions against Plaintiffs Russell Johnson and Harry Wong. (Mot. Sanctions, June 23, 2026.) The following month, Plaintiffs opposed the motion (Opp’n to Mot. Sanctions, July 9, 2026) and Spieker Partners filed a reply (Reply Mem. Supp. Mot. Sanctions, July 15, 2026).

Alongside its reply, Spieker Partners moved to seal exhibits 2, 4, 6 through 11, 14, 16 through 19, 21 through 28, and 31 through 44 to the opposing declaration of Jon Eldredge; exhibit S to the supplemental supporting declaration of Patrick Burns; and portions of its reply memorandum. (Notice Mot. & Mot. Seal, July 15, 2026.) The exhibits concerned:

Exhibit No. Title Limited Liability Company Agreement of Spieker Senior Development 2 Partners LLC, dated January 2, 2014 4 Spieker Partners’ undated PowerPoint presentation Portions of deposition transcript of Warren Spieker, dated November 5, 6, S 2025 Portions of deposition transcript of Warren Spieker, dated December 4, 7 2025 Portions of deposition transcript of Warren Spieker, dated December 5, 8 2025 Limited Liability Company Agreement of Continuing Life, LLC, dated 9 April 1, 2013 10 Email from Warren Spieker to his siblings, dated August 24, 2022 11 Undated spreadsheet Portions of the deposition transcript of Warren Spieker, dated November 14 6, 2025 Email from Toby Mellows to Ned Spieker, dated February 3, 2020, which 16 includes an attached PowerPoint presentation 17 CL Advisory Meeting Minutes, dated November 14, 2017 Email from Warren Spieker to others, dated September 6, 2018, with an 18 attached “CL Advisory Meeting Agenda.” 21CV004133: JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Motion to Seal Exhibits in Opposition and Reply to Sanctions Motion; filed by Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 626592505285 in Department 18 19 CL Advisory Meeting Minutes, dated August 23, 2019 21 Email between Toby Mellows and others, dated November 27, 2017.

Draft email between Warren Spieker and Ned Spieker, dated October 12, 22 2023 23 Email between Keelyn McGill and Dennis Yee, dated February 1, 2023 Email between Brandy Olivera and Toby Mellows, dated December 28, 24 2023 25 Email between Warren Spieker and others, dated June 21, 2017 26 Email between Justin Wilson and Warren Spieker, dated August 31, 2018 27 Email between Toby Mellows and others, dated August 13, 2019 28 Email between Tory Bourne and others, dated December 16, 2020 31 Email between Ryan Currie and others, dated December 4, 2019 32 Email between Toby Mellows and others, dated September 4, 2020 33 Email between Ryan Currie and others, dated September 9, 2020 34 Email between Dennis Yee and others, dated October 4, 2021 Email between Troy Bourne and Warren Spieker, dated November 12, 35 2021 36 Email between Ned Spieker and others, dated May 30, 2023 Email between Troy Bourne and Adelaide Hunter, dated November 30, 37 2023 38 Email between Toby Mellows and others, dated January 31, 2018 39 Email between Angelka Tolu and others, dated July 27, 2018 40 Email between Toby Mellows and others, dated August 29, 2018 41 Email between Warren Spieker and Roy Bourne, dated August 15, 2019 42 Email between Darolyn Jorgensen and others, dated July 20, 2022 43 Email between Warren Spieker and others, dated November 1, 2023 44 Email between Ryan Currie and others, dated November 5, 2017

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, private family and family trust information and related testimony.” (Id. 8:3–6.) Spieker Partners argued public disclosure of these records “would risk competitive and business harm, undermine the confidentiality protections provided by the [stipulated protective order] 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. 8:17– 20.)

Spieker Partners argued the proposed sealing is narrow because it did not seek to seal “the entirety of the exhibits and [Spieker Partners’] Reply Brief,” “only the unredacted versions of the Opposition Exhibits and Reply Exhibit S, as well as portions of [Spieker Partners’] reply.” (Id. 8:21–24.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

21CV004133: JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Motion to Seal Exhibits in Opposition and Reply to Sanctions Motion; filed by Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 626592505285 in Department 18

Plaintiffs opposed the Motion. (Opp’n to Mot. Seal, Aug. 19, 2026.) And in reply, Spieker Partners withdrew its request to seal the entirety of exhibits 2, 9, 16, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31 through 33, 35, 43, and 44. (Reply to Opp’n 6:16–19, 9:14–15, Aug. 26, 2026.) Additionally, Spieker Partners agreed to redact pages 97 through 99, 103 through 108, and 112 through 115 of exhibit 14. (Id. 6:19–22.) That left exhibits 6 through 8, 10, 11, 14 (as redacted), 17 through 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 34, 36 through 42, and S at issue. (Id. 7:3–5.)

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] 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 the entirety of exhibits 6 through 8, 10, 11, 14 (as redacted), 17 through 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 34, 36 through 42, and S is not merited. The Court is unpersuaded that the entirety of these exhibits presents an overriding interest that overcomes the public’s right to access the exhibits. Accordingly, the Court is unpersuaded that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exist to protect the information at issue. For instance, it is not apparent to the Court why the entirety of exhibits 6 through 8, 14, and S implicate an overriding interest.

As Spieker Partners’ arguments show only some smaller portion of the exhibits may involve financial information or private estate-planning information. (See Reply 10:26–11:12.) Further, exhibits 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 contain some financial information that may trigger an overriding interest. But Spieker Partners is seeking to seek the entire exhibit rather than redact the specific financial information.

The Court denies the Motion without prejudice to permit Spieker Partners to refile its Motion (if appropriate) and submit more targeted redactions of the specific financial information or other private information that triggers an overriding interest warranting sealing those portions of the records.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

21CV004133: JOHNSON vs STONERIDGE CREEK PLEASANTON CCRC LLC, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Seal Motion to Seal Exhibits in Opposition and Reply to Sanctions Motion; filed by Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC (Defendant) + CRS# 626592505285 in Department 18 IV. Order The Motion is denied without prejudice.

The documents shall remain conditionally under seal until September 30, 2026 to allow Defendants to renew the motion if they choose.

***

The Motion to Seal Motion to Seal Materials Filed in support of Summary Judgment filed by Spieker Senior Development Partners LLC, Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC on 07/15/2026 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.