INTUIT INC., Case No. 24-cv-00253-BLF
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING HRB TAX GROUP, INC., et al., IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Defendants. [Re: ECF Nos. 90, 91, 97, 99]
Before the court are four administrative motions filed in connection with the parties’ preliminary injunction motions: 1. Intuit’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Preliminary Injunction Motion and Supporting Documents. ECF No. 90. 2. Intuit’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 91. 3. Block’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 97. 4. Intuit’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Exhibit A Attached to Intuit's Opposition to Motion to Strike. ECF No. 99. For the reasons described below, the Court rules as follows: the administrative motions at ECF Nos. 90, 97, and 99 are GRANTED; the administrative motion at ECF Nos. 91 is GRANTED “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A. ECF No. 90 Intuit filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Preliminary Injunction Motion and Supporting Documents on July 26, 2024. ECF No. 90. Intuit seeks to seal selected portions of its motion and it corresponding exhibits. Id. Intuit writes that the information should be sealed because “[t]he information would also be highly valuable to competitors and would harm Intuit’s competitive standing if publicly disclose: It would allow Intuit’s competitors into metrics that influence Intuit’s confidential business strategies.” Id. at 2–3. Intuit argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. ECF No. 90-1 ¶ 5. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
INTUIT INC., Case No. 24-cv-00253-BLF
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING HRB TAX GROUP, INC., et al., IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Defendants. [Re: ECF Nos. 90, 91, 97, 99]
Before the court are four administrative motions filed in connection with the parties’ preliminary injunction motions: 1. Intuit’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Preliminary Injunction Motion and Supporting Documents. ECF No. 90. 2. Intuit’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 91. 3. Block’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 97. 4. Intuit’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Exhibit A Attached to Intuit's Opposition to Motion to Strike. ECF No. 99. For the reasons described below, the Court rules as follows: the administrative motions at ECF Nos. 90, 97, and 99 are GRANTED; the administrative motion at ECF Nos. 91 is GRANTED “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A. ECF No. 90 Intuit filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Preliminary Injunction Motion and Supporting Documents on July 26, 2024. ECF No. 90. Intuit seeks to seal selected portions of its motion and it corresponding exhibits. Id. Intuit writes that the information should be sealed because “[t]he information would also be highly valuable to competitors and would harm Intuit’s competitive standing if publicly disclose: It would allow Intuit’s competitors into metrics that influence Intuit’s confidential business strategies.” Id. at 2–3. Intuit argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. ECF No. 90-1 ¶ 5. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
ECF or Document Portion(s) to Ruling Exhibit No. Seal ECF No. Intuit Motion for Highlighted Granted, as the highlighted portions 89 Preliminary Injunction portions at contain sensitive material related to tax 10:18-23, expert training and confidential business 15:5-6, and data and metrics regarding customer Exhibit satisfaction. See ECF No. 90-1 ¶¶5, 10. Index. Ex. A Elizabeth Berger Highlighted Granted, as the highlighted portions reveal Declaration in support portions at sensitive tax expert training materials, of Intuit’s Motion for 6:14; 6:21- confidential business data and metrics Preliminary Injunction 22, 7:21-8:1; regarding customer satisfaction with 8:n.1; 8:18- expert final reviews, and the number of 19; 8:20-21; consumers who completed such reviews. 9:1-2. See ECF No. 90-1 ¶¶5-8. Ex. D Bailey Declaration in Highlighted Granted, as the highlighted portions support of Intuit’s portions in ¶¶ contain sensitive tax expert training Motion for Preliminary 9, and 11. materials and tools used by Intuit tax Injunction experts to conduct expert final reviews. See ECF No. 90-1 ¶11. Ex. 12 tNPS Data In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of sensitive and confidential business data and metrics regarding customer satisfaction. See ECF No. 90-1 ¶5. Ex. 13 Conversion Rate Data In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of sensitive and confidential business data and metrics regarding customer conversion rate. See ECF No. 90-1 ¶7. Ex. 21 Number of Customers In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of Data sensitive and confidential business data and metrics regarding the number of customers who filed using TurboTax Live Assisted and fell into certain sub- categories. See ECF No. 90-1 ¶6. Ex. 7 Screenshots of Expert Pages 15, 16, Granted, as the identified pages show the Final Review Upgrade and 20. proprietary and confidential software and to Full Service tools TurboTax experts use. See ECF No. 90-1 ¶9. Ex. 8 Expert Review End-to- In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of End Guide sensitive tax expert training materials. See ECF No. 90-1 ¶8. Ex. 9 When and how should I In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of suggest a customer sensitive tax expert training materials. upgrade to Full Service See ECF No. 90-1 ¶8. from Expert Review? Ex. 15 How does a tax expert In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of help a customer sensitive tax expert training materials. upgrade to Full Service See ECF No. 90-1 ¶8. from Expert Review? Ex. 16 What should I do if a In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of customer wants their sensitive tax expert training materials. taxes prepared or See ECF No. 90-1 ¶8. reviewed? Ex. 17 What’s the difference In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of between an Expert sensitive tax expert training materials. Review and a Full See ECF No. 90-1 ¶8. Service upgrade? Ex. 18 How do I help a In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of TurboTax Live sensitive tax expert training materials. customer schedule a See ECF No. 90-1 ¶8. review? Ex. 19 What service In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of exclusions should a tax sensitive tax expert training materials. expert identify? See ECF No. 90-1 ¶8. Ex. 20 What are common In its entirety Granted, as the document consists of snippets for sensitive tax expert training materials. recommending that a See ECF No. 90-1 ¶8. customer upgrade to Full Service? Ex. 39 Excerpts from Joe Highlighted Granted, as the highlighted portion Lillie Deposition portions on contains sensitive material related to the Transcript Transcript provision of expert final reviews, A. ECF No. 91 Intuit filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed on July 26, 2024. ECF No. 90. Block submitted a declaration seeking to seal selected portions of Intuit’s motion and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 101. Block writes that the information should be sealed because “[t]he documents and information identified above that Block seeks to seal contain sensitive business information and other highly confidential material, which, if disclosed, could harm Block’s competitive strategy in the online tax preparation market.” Id. at 5. Block argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. at 6. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
ECF or Exhibit Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling No. ECF No. 89 Intuit’s Motion Highlighted Denied as to the highlighted portions at for a portions 1:13-14, 8:3-4, 8:12-13, 10:14-17, and Preliminary at 1:13-14; 1:15-16; 12:8 because Block does not seek to Injunction 1:20-21; 2:3-11; keep the information under seal. ECF 4:28-5:5; 5:13-15; No. 101 at 1. 5:25-6:1; 6:15-16; 8:3-4; 8:12-13; Otherwise granted, as the contain or 8:22; 10:14-17; reflect Block’s specific business 11:1-9; 12:6; 12:8; metrics, business strategies and 12:19-21; 14:11-14; decisions, consumer data, and 15: 1-4, and Exhibit marketing strategies and decisions. See Index. Hansen Decl. ¶¶ 3, 15. Ex. 49 (HRB0000919) In its entirety Granted, as it contains Block’s sensitive material related to business strategies and marketing decisions for the 2024 tax season. See Hansen Decl. ¶ 5. Ex. 40 Excerpts of Highlighted portions Denied as to the highlighted portions at Watts at 77:1-23; 110:1- 114:23-25, 119:1-11, 194:1-2, and Deposition 25; 112:1-113:5; 194:4-13 because Block does not seek Transcript 113:7-114:10; to keep the information under seal. 114:23-25; 116:1- ECF No. 101 at 2. 25; 119:1-11; 119:23-121:9; Otherwise granted, as they contain 121:11-121:17; testimony regarding Block’s business 127:1-10; 127:12- strategy and decisions, business data, 127:14; 194:1-2; pricing decisions, and marketing 194:4-13; 194:20- strategies. See Hansen Decl. ¶¶ 4, 15. 23; 195:16-196:20; 196:22-197:7; 197:9
Ex. 50 HRB0001482 In its entirety Granted, as it contains sensitive material related to business data and strategies for Block’s DIY market plan. See Hansen Decl. ¶ 6. Ex. 51 HRB0000802 In its entirety Granted, as it contains sensitive material related to Block’s strategies with regard to the competitive pricing of its products. See Hansen Decl. ¶ 7. Ex. 52 HRB0001217, In its entirety Granted, as it contains sensitive material HRB0001218, related to internal communications HRB0001223 discussing marketing, business data, and strategies regarding Block's Tax Pro Review product. See Hansen Decl. ¶ 8. Ex. 53 HRB0000868 In its entirety Granted, as it contains sensitive material related to Block’s business and marketing strategies for its Tax Pro Review product. See Hansen Decl. ¶ 9. Ex. 54 HRB0002079 In its entirety Granted, as it contains sensitive material related to business data and strategies for its DIY tax products. See Hansen Decl. ¶ 10. Ex. 55 HRB0001266 In its entirety Granted, as it contains sensitive material related to Block’s internal communications discussing marketing, business data, and strategies for its DIY tax products. See Hansen Decl. ¶ 11. Ex. 56 HRB0001913 In its entirety Granted, as it contains sensitive material related to Block’s internal meeting notes pricing, business data, and strategies for Block's products. See Hansen Decl. ¶ 12. Ex. 57 Excerpts of Highlighted portions Denied because Block does not seek to Curtis at 122. keep under seal the highlighted portions Deposition at 122. ECF No. 101 at 3; see Hansen Transcript Decl. ¶ 15. A. ECF No. 97 Block filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed on July 31, 2024. ECF No. 97. Intuit submitted a declaration seeking to seal selected portions of Block’s preliminary injunction motion and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 102. Intuit writes that certain training documents should be sealed because they “detail the way in which Intuit trains TurboTax experts to offer expert assistance to TurboTax customers, including through an expert final review that Intuit offers as a way to differentiate itself from competitors” Id. at 1. Intuit writes that certain business data and metric documents should be sealed because it “is highly confidential, would be highly valuable to competitors, and would harm Intuit’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed: It would allow Intuit’s competitors to modify their business strategies based on Intuit’s proprietary data and give competitors insight into metrics that influence Intuit’s confidential business strategies” Intuit argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. at 2. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below: \\ \\ ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. ECF No. Block’s Motion for Highlighted portions Granted, as the highlighted portions 96 Preliminary Injunction at 2:4-5; 2:15-19; contain sensitive material related to 4:12-14; 4:17-21; tax expert training and confidential 5:1-3; 5:8-11; 5:13- business data and metrics regarding 16; 6:16-17; 6:27- customer satisfaction and product 28; 11:4-17; 13:27- usage. See ECF No. 102-1 ¶¶5 – 9. 14:2; 14:16-18; 14:20; 15:6 96-1 Declaration of Marissa Highlighted portions Granted, as the highlighted portions Baron in Support of at 2:6-9; 2:11; 2:14- contain sensitive material related to Block’s Motion for 15; 2:17-18; 2:20-21 tax expert training and confidential Preliminary Injunction business data and metrics regarding customer satisfaction and product usage. See ECF No. 102-1 ¶¶5 – 9. 96-13 Exhibit 12 to the In its entirety Granted, as the document consists Declaration of Marissa of sensitive and confidential Baron in Support of business data and metrics regarding Block’s Motion for customer satisfaction. See ECF No. Preliminary Injunction 102-1 ¶5. 96-14 Exhibit 13 to the In its entirety Granted, as the document consists Declaration of Marissa of sensitive tax expert training Baron in Support of materials. See ECF No. 102-1 ¶6. Block’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 96-15 Exhibit 14 to the In its entirety Granted, as the document consists Declaration of Marissa of sensitive tax expert training Baron in Support of materials. See ECF No. 102-1 ¶6. Block’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 96-16 Exhibit 15 to the In its entirety Granted, as the document consists Declaration of Marissa of sensitive tax expert training Baron in Support of materials. See ECF No. 102-1 ¶6. Block’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 96-17 Exhibit 16 to the In its entirety Granted, as the document consists Declaration of Marissa of sensitive tax expert training Baron in Support of materials. See ECF No. 102-1 ¶6. Block’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 96-18 Exhibit 17 to the In its entirety Granted, as the document consists Declaration of Marissa of sensitive tax expert guidance and Baron in Support of training materials. See ECF No. Block’s Motion for 102-1 ¶7. Preliminary Injunction 96-32 Exhibit 31 to the Highlighted portion Granted, as the highlight portion Declaration of Marissa at 19:19-20 contains sensitive and confidential Baron in Support of business data and metrics. See ECF Block’s Motion for No. 102-1¶8. Preliminary Injunction 96-41 Exhibit 40 to the Highlighted portions Granted, as the highlighted portion Declaration of Marissa at 39:1-43:19, and contains sensitive material related Baron in Support of 44:5-25 to tax expert training. See ECF No. Block’s Motion for 102-1 ¶9. Preliminary Injunction 96-43 Exhibit 42 to the Highlighted portions Granted, as the highlight portions Declaration of Marissa at 128:4-7; 128:9- discuss sensitive and confidential Baron in Support of 129:25; 130:2-25 business data and metrics. See ECF Block’s Motion for No. 102-1 ¶9. Preliminary Injunction 96-44 Exhibit 43 to the Highlighted portions Granted, as the highlight portions Declaration of Marissa at 130:2-131:10; and discuss sensitive and confidential Baron in Support of 131:16-132:20 business data and metrics. See ECF Block’s Motion for No. 102-1 ¶9. Preliminary Injunction A. ECF No. 99 Intuit filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Exhibit A Attached to Intuit's Opposition to Motion to Strike on August 1, 2024. ECF No. 99. Intuit seeks to seal selected portions Exhibit A of its motion to strike. ECF No. 99. Intuit writes that the information should be sealed because “The information would be highly valuable to competitors and would harm Intuit’s competitive standing if publicly disclose: It would allow Intuit’s competitors to modify their business strategies based on Intuit’s proprietary data and give competitors insight into metrics that influence Intuit’s confidential business strategies.” Id. at 1. Intuit argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. ECF No. 99-1 at ¶ 7. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 1 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 2 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 3 Exhibit No. ECF No. |Exhibit A, Dr. | Highlighted portions at 6:24-7:10; | Granted, as the highlighted 4 98, Ex. A |Ugone’s Expert |22:4-7; 22:10-11; 23:4-6; 23:17-19; | portions contain Report 24:3- 15; 25n.41; 25:9- 13; 26:1-3; | confidential 5 26:8- 20; 27:1-17; 27n.46; 28:1-17; | business data and metrics 6 28n47; 33:23- 34:9; 37:2-17; 38:1; | regarding customer 38:8-10; 38:20; 38:23 — 39:2; satisfaction. See Berger 7 39:12-16; 39n.73; 39n.74 Decl. 93-5. ECE No. Exhibit A, Dr. | Highlighted portions at A-13; A-16; | Granted, as the highlighted 8 98, Ex. A | Ugone’s Expert | Ex. 3, p. 1 portions contain sensitive Report material related to tax 9 expert 10 training. See Berger Decl. 43, 6. 11 12 1. ORDER 13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
v 14 1. ECF No. 90 is GRANTED.
15 2. ECF No. 91 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 16 3. ECF No. 97 is GRANTED.
= 17 4. ECF No. 99 is GRANTED. Z 18 All denials are WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any refiled administrative motion or declaration 19 SHALL be filed no later than September 1, 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 September 1, 2024, unless they are filing a renewed 22 sealing motion for any document in that filing. 23 24 Dated: August 12, 2024
BETH LABSON FREEMAN 26 United States District Judge 27 28