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

Opinion

INTUIT INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00253-BLF

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF THE HRB TAX GROUP, INC., et al., PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING TRANSCRIPTS AND Defendants. ADMITTED EXHIBITS [Re: ECF No. 174]

Before the Court is Block’s Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing Transcripts and Admitted Exhibits. ECF No. 174 (“Mot.”). No response to the administrative motion was filed. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Block’s motion. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 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 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). The Court finds that the “compelling reasons” standard applies because the motion for preliminary injunction is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of this lawsuit. See Newmark Realty Cap., Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., No. 16-CV-01702, 2017 WL 8294174, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017); E. W. Bank v. Shanker, No. 20-CV-07364, 2021 WL 3112452, at *17 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021). Compelling reasons exist to seal the identified segments of the transcripts and exhibits. Block seeks to seal “business information and marketing strategies . . . which Block keeps confidential and does not publicly disclose.” Mot. at 2. This includes “internal business metrics,” discussions about proprietary business strategy decisions, and “business data, pricing decisions, and marketing decisions.” Id. Block argues that it “could be placed at a competitive disadvantage in the online tax preparation services marketplace” if this information was publicly released, and that the “relevant sealing requests are narrowly tailored” such that “there is no less restrictive alternative to redacting the information at issue.” Id. at 2–3. Courts in this Circuit have recognized that the compelling reasons standard is satisfied for such confidential strategic business information. E.g., Ehret v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 14-CV- 00113, 2015 WL 12977024, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) (finding “a good and compelling reason to seal” internal discussions regarding “proprietary business strategy”). It is also well established that there are compelling reasons to seal confidential and competitively sensitive 02864, 2016 WL 4091388, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (granting motion to seal “product- specific customer data that could be used to the company’s competitive disadvantage”); see Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 15-CV-05128, 2017 WL 2951608, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017) (“[S]ources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy may also give rise to a compelling reason to seal, as may pricing, profit, and customer usage information kept confidential by a company that could be used to the company’s competitive disadvantage.” (internal citation omitted)). Finally, the Court finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). The Court’s ruling is summarized below: ECF No. or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. Granted, as containing Block’s Internal Block sensitive material related to Intuit business strategies and marketing Business & In its entirety Ex. 49 decisions for the 2024 tax season. Marketing Deck See ECF No. 174-1 ¶¶ 4, 8. Granted, as containing sensitive Internal Block material related to business data Intuit Ex. 50 Business & In its entirety and strategies for Block’s DIY Marketing Deck market plan. See ECF No. 174-1 ¶¶ 5, 8. Granted, as containing sensitive Internal Block material related to Block’s Intuit Draft In its entirety business and marketing strategies Ex. 53 Advertisement for its Tax Pro Review product. See ECF No. 174-1 ¶¶ 6, 8. Internal Block Document Granted, as containing sensitive Intuit material related to Block’s Including In its entirety Ex. 93 business data and metrics. See Business ECF No. 174-1 ¶¶ 7–8. Metrics Granted, as containing testimony The highlighted regarding Block’s business Transcript of ECF portions at 129:11–130:1; strategy and decisions, business No. 149 Hearing on 130:4–9; 140:19–21; 141:7– data, pricing decisions, and 9/30/2024 12; 141:20–22; 142:7–10. marketing strategies. See ECF No. 174-1 ¶ 3. 1 . Granted, as containing testimony ECF □□□ ror one ene □□□ regarding Block’s business data 2 || | No. 149 6 P □ ye7.q | and metrics. See ECF No. 174-1 9/30/2024 249:10-11; 249:23-250:7. 93 3 . Granted, as containing n 4 testimony regarding Block’s Transcript of The highlighted . □ 5 ECF . . business strategy and decisions, No. 150 Hearing on portions at 32 16; business data, pricing decisions 10/01/2024 325:18-20; 330:22-25. . , 6 and marketing strategies. See ECF No. 174-19 3. 7 9 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Administrative Motion to 10 Seal Portions of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing Transcripts and Admitted Exhibits (ECF No. 11 174) is GRANTED. 12

15 Dated: December 10, 2024 16 nflecan H LABSON FREEMAN 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28