Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc.

Filing 143

ORDER GRANTING ECF NO. 114 ; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ECF NOS. 115 , 117 . Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on September 25, 2024. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2024)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

INTUIT INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

HRB TAX GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:24-cv-00253-BLF
ORDER GRANTING ECF NO. 114;
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART ECF NOS. 115, 117
[Re: ECF Nos. 114, 115, 117]

12
13
14

Before the Court are two administrative motions filed in connection with Defendants HRB

15

Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC’s (“Block”) Opposition to Plaintiff Intuit Inc.’s (“Intuit”)

16

Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
1. Block’s Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Its Opposition to Intuit’s Motion for

17
18

Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 114.
2. Block’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should

19
20

Be Sealed. ECF Nos. 115, 117.

21

For the reasons described below, the Court rules as follows: the administrative motion at

22

ECF No. 114 is GRANTED, and the administrative motion at ECF Nos. 115 and 117 is

23

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

24
25

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

26

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

27

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

28

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

2

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

3

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

4

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

5

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

6

1092, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

7

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits

8

of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809

9

F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to

10

court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often

11

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotations

12

omitted)). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower

13

“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard requires a

14

“particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is

15

disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir.

16

2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

17

examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

18

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

19

In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local

20

Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a

21

document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that

22

warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive

23

alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5

24

requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.”

25

Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

26

material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

27
28

Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as
confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider
2

1

Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing

2

party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the

3

party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,

4

file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-

5

5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing

6

of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any

7

party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

II.

DISCUSSION
A. ECF No. 114

10

Block filed the Motion to Seal Portions of Its Opposition to Intuit’s Motion for Preliminary

11

Injunction on August 23, 2024. ECF No. 114. Block seeks to seal selected portions of its exhibits

12

submitted in support of its Opposition to Intuit’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Id. at 1.

13

Block writes that the information should be sealed because it “consist[s] of proprietary

14

information which Block keeps confidential and does not publicly disclose” and “contain[s], or

15

refer[s] to, Block’s internal business metrics.” Id. at 2. If the information was publicly disclosed,

16

Block argues that it would permit “competitors [to] use Block’s proprietary and confidential

17

information to inform their own business decisions and marketing strategies to gain an advantage

18

over Block” and would put Block “at a competitive disadvantage in the online tax preparation

19

services marketplace.” Id. Block argues that the portions identified for sealing are narrowly

20

tailored. Id. at 3. Intuit did not oppose Block’s administrative motion.

21

The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the identified documents. “Sources

22

of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy may also give rise to a

23

compelling reason to seal, as may pricing, profit, and customer usage information kept

24

confidential by a company that could be used to the company’s competitive disadvantage.”

25

Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 15-CV-05128, 2017 WL 2951608, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017)

26

(internal alterations and citations omitted); Ehret v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 14-CV-00113, 2015

27

WL 12977024, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) (finding compelling reasons to seal documents

28

containing confidential discussions about “proprietary business strategy, including pricing and
3

1

marketing decisions”); see Johnstech Int’l Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, No. 14-CV-

2

02864, 2016 WL 4091388, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016). The Court also finds that the request is

3

narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

4
5
6

The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
ECF No.

113-17

Exhibit 16 to Baron Entire document Granted, as the document contains
Declaration
sensitive material related to business data
and strategies for its DIY tax products.
See ECF No. 114-1 ¶ 5.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

Ruling

Exhibit 15 to Baron Entire document Granted, as the document contains
Declaration
sensitive material related to internal
communications about marketing,
business data, and strategies regarding
Block’s Tax Pro Review product. See
ECF No. 114-1 ¶ 4.

8

11

Portion(s) to Seal

113-16

7

10

Document

13
14

B. ECF Nos. 115, 117

15

Block initially filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s

16

Material Should Be Sealed as ECF No. 115 on August 23, 2024. ECF No. 115. Shortly

17

thereafter, Block filed a Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Documents, informing the Court that

18

it had “inadvertently omitted certain redactions of material Intuit Inc. claims is confidential” from

19

its Opposition to Intuit’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as well as two exhibits. ECF No. 116

20

at 1. Block explained that it would file corrected versions of the documents as well as “corrected

21

versions of ECF Nos. 115 and 115-2.” Id. Later that day, the Administrative Motion to Consider

22

Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed was refiled as ECF No. 117, attaching the

23

corrected documents.

24

Intuit filed a statement setting forth the portions of Block’s Opposition, the supporting

25

Declaration of Marissa Baron, and the Exhibits attached thereto that it believed should remain

26

under seal. ECF No. 119. Intuit writes that it seeks to maintain sealing of materials that “contain

27

sensitive information related to Intuit’s provision of an expert final review for free to TurboTax

28

Live Assisted customers;” if released, that information would allow Intuit’s competitors to
4

1

“leverage Intuit’s efforts to develop their own training and offer similar expert assistance, directly

2

harming Intuit’s competitive standing.” Id. at 1–2. In addition, Intuit argues that sensitive

3

confidential business data and metrics for which it seeks to maintain sealing “would harm Intuit’s

4

competitive standing if publicly disclosed: It would allow Intuit’s competitors to modify their

5

business strategies based on Intuit’s proprietary data and give competitors insight into metrics and

6

pricing information that influence Intuit’s confidential business strategies.” Id. at 2. Finally,

7

Intuit seeks to maintain sealing of “confidential information about Intuit’s marketing strategies

8

and priorities” because that information, if disclosed, could “enable Intuit’s competitors to gain an

9

unfair competitive advantage.” Id. at 3. Block did not oppose Intuit’s statement.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the portions of the documents for

11

which Intuit seeks to maintain sealing. “Sources of business information that might harm a

12

litigant’s competitive strategy may also give rise to a compelling reason to seal, as may pricing,

13

profit, and customer usage information kept confidential by a company that could be used to the

14

company’s competitive disadvantage.” Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 15-CV-05128, 2017 WL

15

2951608, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017) (internal alterations and citations omitted). Such

16

competitive information can include confidential training materials, marketing information, and

17

business data. See Baack v. Asurion, LLC, No. 220-CV-00336, 2021 WL 3115183, at *1–4 (D.

18

Nev. July 22, 2021); Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082, 2020 WL 6387381, at *2

19

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020); Johnstech Int’l Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, No. 14-CV-

20

02864, 2016 WL 4091388, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016); Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, No. 12-

21

CV-3000, 2014 WL 690410, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) (finding compelling reasons to seal

22

“confidential business material, marketing strategies, [and] product development plans [that] could

23

result in improper use by business competitors seeking to replicate” those strategies). The Court

24

also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

25

The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

26
27
28
5

1
2

ECF No.
117-1

3

Document
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

4
5
6

Portion(s) to Seal

Ruling

Highlighted
portions
at 2:18; 6:14;
7:2; 7:7–8; 7:21–
22; 11:5–6;
11:12; 11:23–24;
12:4; 12:10;
12:28; 13:16;
and 17:23–25.

Denied as to the highlighted portions at
11:3–4, 12:11–12, 12:24–27, and 13:1–
13:3, as Intuit does not seek to maintain
those portions under seal.

Highlighted
portions
at 1:20; 1:23;
1:25; and 2:1–2.

Denied as to the highlighted portions at
ECF No. 113-1 at 1:13–19, 1:21–22,
1:24, 1:26–27 and 2:3–13, as Intuit
does not seek to maintain these
portions under seal.

7
8
9

113-1

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

12

Otherwise granted as to the highlighted
portions indicated in this chart, as
containing sensitive material related to
tax expert training and confidential
business data and metrics regarding
customer satisfaction and product
usage. See ECF No. 119-1 ¶¶ 6–7.

13
14
15
16
17

113-6

18
19

Exhibit 5 to the
Portions
Declaration of Marissa at ¶¶ 5–8.
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

20

Granted as to the portions indicated in
this chart, as containing sensitive and
confidential business data and metrics
regarding customer satisfaction. See
ECF No. 119-1 ¶ 5.
Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

21
22

Otherwise granted, as containing
sensitive material related to tax expert
training and confidential business data
and metrics regarding customer
satisfaction, product usage, and price
testing. See ECF No. 119-1 ¶¶ 5–12.

113-7

In its entirety
Exhibit 6 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Granted, as containing sensitive and
confidential business data
regarding the number of
customers who filed using
TurboTax Live Assisted and fell into
certain sub-categories. See ECF No. 1191 ¶ 6.

113-8

In its entirety
Exhibit 7 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
6

Granted, as containing sensitive tax
expert training materials. See ECF No.
119-1 ¶ 7.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

1
2

113-9

In its entirety
Exhibit 8 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Granted, as containing sensitive tax
expert training materials. See ECF No.
119-1 ¶ 7.

113-10

In its entirety
Exhibit 9 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Denied, as Intuit does not seek to
maintain this document under seal.

113-11

In its entirety
Exhibit 10 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Granted, as containing sensitive
information related to tax expert training.
See ECF No. 119-1 ¶ 8.

113-13

In its entirety
Exhibit 12 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Denied, as Intuit does not seek to
maintain this document under seal.

113-14

Portions at
Exhibit 13 to the
Declaration of Marissa 19:19–20.
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Granted as to the portions indicated in
this chart, as containing sensitive and
confidential business data
regarding the number of
customers who filed using
TurboTax Live Assisted and fell into
certain sub-categories. See ECF No. 1191 ¶ 9.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

23
24
25
26
27

113-15

In its entirety
Exhibit 14 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

28
7

Denied, as Intuit does not seek to
maintain this document under seal.

1

113-23

2
3

Exhibit 22 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

4

Portions
at 150:21–151:4;
151:21–152:25;
153:9–10;
153:13;
153:18; 155:14–
15; 155:17–23;
and 156:2–5.

Granted as to the portions indicated in
this chart, as containing discussions of
sensitive and confidential business
pricing and price testing strategy and
data. See ECF No. 119-1 ¶ 10.

Portions
at 178:20–23;
179:12–15; and
179:22–23.

Granted as to the portions indicated in
this chart, as containing discussions of
sensitive and confidential business
strategy. See ECF No. 119-1 ¶ 10.

5
6

113-24

7
8
9

Exhibit 23 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

113-27

12
13
14

Portion
Exhibit 26 to the
Declaration of Marissa at 296:19–25.
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Granted as to the portion indicated in this
chart, as containing sensitive information
related to tax expert training. See ECF
No. 119-1 ¶ 10.

Portion
Exhibit 27 to the
Declaration of Marissa at 87:2–25.
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Granted as to the portion indicated in this
chart, as containing sensitive documents
related to tax expert training. See ECF
No. 119-1 ¶ 11.

15
16

113-28

17
18

Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

19
20
21

113-29

22
23
24
25
26
117-2
27
28

Exhibit 28 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Portions at
128:4–7; 128:9–
129:10; 129:11–
13; 129:16;
129:18; 129:21–
24; 130:2–3;
130:7; 130:11;
130:24; 131:4;
131:7; and
131:16–132:20.

Exhibit 29 to the
Portion at 26:21–
Declaration of Marissa 27:8.
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
8

Granted as to the portions indicated in
this chart, as containing sensitive
business data and metrics. See ECF No.
119-1 ¶ 11.
Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

Granted as to the portion indicated in this
chart, as containing sensitive marketing
strategy information. See ECF No. 1191 ¶ 12.

Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

1

Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

2
3

117-3

4
5
6

Exhibit 30 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Portions at 36:5–
7; 36:9–13;
36:20–21; 36:23–
25; and 37:2–4.

Exhibit 34 to the
Declaration of Marissa
Baron in Support of
Block’s Opposition to
Intuit’s Preliminary
Injunction Motion

Portions at 41:1–
42:12; 43:4–6;
43:14–19; and
44:5–25.

Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

7
8

113-35

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Granted as to the portions indicated in
this chart, as containing sensitive
marketing strategy information. See
ECF No. 119-1 ¶ 12.

Granted as to the portions indicated in
this chart, as containing sensitive
information regarding tax expert
training. See ECF No. 119-1 ¶ 11.
Otherwise denied, as Intuit does not seek
to maintain the entire document under
seal.

12
13
14

III.

ORDER

15

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1. The motion at ECF No. 114 is GRANTED.

17

2. The motion at ECF Nos. 115, 117 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

18

All denials are WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any refiled administrative motion or declaration

19

SHALL be filed no later than October 10, 2024. The parties SHALL refile public versions of

20

each filing where the redactions and sealing granted by the Court are narrower than what was

21

redacted in the current public versions by October 10, 2024, unless they are filing a renewed

22

sealing motion for any document in that filing.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: September 25, 2024
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
9