Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc.
Filing
144
ORDER GRANTING ECF NO. 123 ; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ECF NO. 124 . 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. 123;
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART ECF NO. 124
[Re: ECF Nos. 123, 124]
12
13
Before the Court are two administrative motions filed in connection with Plaintiff Intuit
14
15
Inc.’s (“Intuit”) Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
1. Intuit’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Its Reply in Support of
16
Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 123.
17
2. Intuit’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should
18
Be Sealed. ECF No. 124.
19
For the reasons described below, the Court rules as follows: the administrative motion at
20
21
ECF No. 123 is GRANTED and the administrative motion at ECF No. 124 is GRANTED IN
22
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
23
24
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
25
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
26
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
27
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
28
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
2
motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
3
of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
4
access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
5
1092, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
6
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits
7
of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809
8
F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to
9
court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often
10
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotations
11
omitted)). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower
12
“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard requires a
13
“particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is
14
disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir.
15
2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific
16
examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966
17
F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
18
In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local
19
Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a
20
document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
21
warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
22
alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5
23
requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.”
24
Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
25
material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
26
Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as
27
confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider
28
Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing
2
1
party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the
2
party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,
3
file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-
4
5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing
5
of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any
6
party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
II.
DISCUSSION
8
A. ECF No. 123
9
Intuit filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Its Reply in Support
10
of Motion for Preliminary Injunction on September 5, 2024, ECF No. 123, seeking to seal portions
11
of its Reply brief and supporting documents, id. at 2. Intuit writes that the materials should be
12
sealed because they contain “sensitive information related to Intuit’s provision of an expert final
13
review for free to TurboTax Live Assisted customers,” id., and “sensitive confidential business
14
data and metrics,” id. at 3. Intuit argues that its competitors could use the information to harm
15
Intuit’s competitive standing, such as by permitting them to develop similar expert assistance
16
services or to “modify their business strategies based on Intuit’s proprietary data.” Id. at 3–4.
17
Finally, Intuit states that it has limited its request for sealing to materials it believes pose a direct
18
threat to Intuit’s competitive standing. Id. at 4. Defendants HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB
19
Digital LLC (collectively, “Block”) did not oppose Intuit’s administrative motion.
20
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the portions of the documents for
21
which Intuit seeks to maintain sealing. “Sources of business information that might harm a
22
litigant’s competitive strategy may also give rise to a compelling reason to seal, as may pricing,
23
profit, and customer usage information kept confidential by a company that could be used to the
24
company’s competitive disadvantage.” Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 15-CV-05128, 2017 WL
25
2951608, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017) (internal alterations and citations omitted). Such
26
competitive information includes confidential training materials, marketing information, and
27
business data. See Baack v. Asurion, LLC, No. 220-CV-00336, 2021 WL 3115183, at *1–4 (D.
28
Nev. July 22, 2021); Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082, 2020 WL 6387381, at *2
3
1
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020); 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).
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
4
5
6
ECF No.
Document
Portion(s) to Seal
122
Intuit’s Reply in
Support of Intuit’s
Motion for
Preliminary
Injunction
Highlighted portions
at 4:8; 4:23–24; 4:27;
6:5; and 6:20–21.
Granted, as containing sensitive
material related to tax expert
training, the tools used to provide
expert final reviews, and
confidential business
data and metrics. See ECF No.
123-1 ¶¶ 5–7.
122-1
Joseph Lillie
Declaration
in Support of
Intuit’s Reply
Highlighted portions
at 4:6–9; 4:19–20; 4:25–26;
5:9–13; 5:16–17; 5:19–20;
and 5:22–23.
Granted, as containing sensitive
tax expert training materials, the
tools used to provide expert final
reviews, confidential business
data and metrics regarding
customer satisfaction with expert
final reviews, and the number of
consumers who completed such
reviews. See ECF No. 123-1
¶ 5.
122-4
Exhibit 60 –
Elizabeth Berger
Deposition
Transcript Excerpts
Highlighted portions
at 160:13–17; 162:2–9;
162:11–20; 162:22;
162:24– 163:7; 163:12;
163:14–17; 163:19–21;
163:23–25;
164:2–5; and 171:25.
Granted, as containing Intuit’s
pricing and test-pricing
practices and strategies. See ECF
No. 123-1 ¶ 6.
122-5
Exhibit 61 – Joseph Highlighted portions
at 43:1–6; 43:14–19;
Lillie Deposition
Transcript Excerpts 44:5–45:16; 46:4–21;
50:9–13; 57:18–58:1;
58:3–5; 58:7–15;
58:20–23; 58:25–59:3;
59:5–8; 59:10–11; 59:13–
60:2; 67:3–13; 67:15–22;
67:24–68:12; 68:23–70:1;
70:3–22; 109:1–2; 109:4–5;
109:7–8; 109:10–11;
110:4–5; 111:2–112:5;
112:7–113:1; 113:17–18;
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ruling
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Granted, as containing sensitive
tax expert training materials, the
tools used to provide expert final
reviews, confidential business data
and metrics regarding customer
satisfaction with expert final
reviews, and data concerning
consumers who completed such
final reviews. See ECF No. 123-1
¶ 7.
129:5; 129:9; 129:11–12;
129:13; 129:16; 129:18;
129:21–22; 129:23–24;
130:2–3; 130:7; 130:11;
130:24; 131:4; 131:7;
131:17; 131:23; 131:25;
135:7–18; and 136:11–25.
1
2
3
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
5
B. ECF No. 124
6
Intuit filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material
7
Should Be Sealed on September 5, 2024. ECF No. 124. Block filed a statement setting forth the
8
portions of Intuit’s Reply and supporting exhibits that it believed should remain under seal. ECF
9
No. 131. Block writes that the information should be sealed because it “contain[s] sensitive
10
business information and other highly confidential material, which, if disclosed, could harm
11
Block’s competitive strategy in the online tax preparation market.” Id. at 4. Block argues that
12
“competitors could use Block’s proprietary and confidential information to inform their own
13
business decisions and marketing strategies to gain an advantage over Block,” and that such
14
competitors could also gain “insights into Block’s internal workings” that might permit them to
15
“undercut Block in an already incredibly competitive market.” Id. at 4–5. Block notes that it is
16
“requesting the most narrowly tailored relief available,” including by declining to seek to maintain
17
under seal some of the materials conditionally filed under seal by Intuit. Id. at 5.
18
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the identified documents. “Sources
19
of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy may also give rise to a
20
compelling reason to seal, as may pricing, profit, and customer usage information kept
21
confidential by a company that could be used to the company’s competitive disadvantage.”
22
Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 15-CV-05128, 2017 WL 2951608, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017)
23
(internal alterations and citations omitted); Ehret v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 14-CV-00113, 2015
24
WL 12977024, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) (finding compelling reasons to seal documents
25
containing confidential discussions about “proprietary business strategy, including pricing and
26
marketing decisions”); see Johnstech Int’l Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, No. 14-CV-
27
02864, 2016 WL 4091388, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016). The Court also finds that the request is
28
narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
5
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
1
2
ECF No.
3
122
4
5
Document
Intuit’s Reply in
Support of Intuit’s
Motion for
Preliminary
Injunction
Portion(s) to Seal
Highlighted Portions at
1:2–3, 3:20–21, 7:22–23,
8:14, 8:22–23, and 9:12–
13.
6
Ruling
Denied as to the highlighted
portions at 1:22, 1:23–24, 1:26,
3:2, 5:5–10, 5:13, 5:14–15,
5:18–19, and 5:27–28, as Block
does not seek to keep those
portions under seal. See
ECF No. 131-1 ¶ 8.
7
Otherwise granted as to the
highlighted portions indicated in
this chart, as containing Block’s
business strategies, marketing
strategies, and pricing
decisions. See ECF No. 131-1
¶ 3.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
122-6
Exhibit 62 – Watts Highlighted portion
at 192:23.
Deposition
Transcript Excerpts
Granted, as containing s
testimony regarding
Block’s business strategy and
decisions and marketing
strategies. See ECF No. 131-1
¶ 4.
122-8
Exhibit 64 –
In its entirety.
Deplante
Deposition
Transcript Excerpts
Denied, as Block does not seek to
maintain this material under seal.
See ECF No. 131-1 ¶ 8.
122-10
Exhibit 66 –
HRB0001528
Granted, as containing sensitive
material related to
Block’s strategies with regard
to the competitive pricing of its
products. See ECF No. 131-1 ¶ 5.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
In its entirety.
21
22
23
24
III.
ORDER
25
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
1. ECF No. 123 is GRANTED.
27
2. ECF No. 124 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
28
All denials are WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any refiled administrative motion or declaration
6
1
SHALL be filed no later than October 10, 2024. The parties SHALL refile public versions of
2
each filing where the redactions and sealing granted by the Court are narrower than what was
3
redacted in the current public versions by October 10, 2024, unless they are filing a renewed
4
sealing motion for any document in that filing.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
10
Dated: September 25, 2024
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?