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