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

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION INTUIT INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00253-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 10 HRB TAX GROUP, INC., et al., [Re: ECF No. 160] 11 Defendants.

13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Intuit Inc.’s (“Intuit”) Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of the Transcripts of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on September 30 and October 1 and Exhibits Introduced at the Hearing. ECF No. 160 (“Mot.”). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Intuit’s motion.

17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “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 21 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.

23 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 27 1092, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

1 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.”

6 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).

8 II. DISCUSSION 9 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).

14 Compelling reasons exist to seal the identified segments of the transcripts and exhibits.

15 Intuit seeks to seal “portions of the preliminary injunction hearing transcripts and exhibits admitted at the hearing that contain sensitive information related to Intuit’s provision of an expert final review” to TurboTax Live Assisted customers. Mot. at 1. The relevant information includes “competitively sensitive” training materials as well as details about the tools that Intuit uses to enable its tax experts to assist consumers. Id. at 1–2. Courts in this Circuit have recognized that the compelling reasons standard is satisfied for such confidential training materials. See Cohan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 213-CV-00975, 2014 WL 12596287, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov.

22 7, 2014); Baack v. Asurion, LLC, No. 220-CV-00336, 2021 WL 3115183, at *4 (D. Nev. July 22, 2021).

24 Additionally, Intuit seeks to seal “sensitive confidential business data and metrics.” Mot.

25 at 2. It is well-established that there are compelling reasons to seal confidential and competitively sensitive business data. See, e.g., Johnstech Int’l Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, No. 14- CV-02864, 2016 WL 4091388, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (granting motion to seal “product- Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082, 2020 WL 6387381, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020).

2 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).

4 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: ECF No. or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling Exhibit No. Intuit Internal 8 Help Article, Granted, as containing sensitive Intuit In its entirety tax expert training “Expert Review 9 Ex. 8 materials. See ECF No. 160-1 End-to-End ¶ 5.

10 Guide” Granted, as containing sensitive 12 Spreadsheet of and confidential business data Intuit TurboTax tNPS In its entirety and metrics. See ECF No. 160-1 13 Ex. 12 Scores from Tax ¶ 6.

Year 2023 Intuit Internal 16 Help Article, Granted, as containing sensitive “What’s the tax expert training 17 Intuit difference In its entirety materials. See ECF No. 160-1 Ex. 17 18 between an Expert ¶ 5.

Review and a Full 19 Service upgrade?”

21 Granted, as revealing Screenshot of Intuit confidential and proprietary tax 22 “Preview My In its entirety Ex. 71 expert tools used by TurboTax 1040” Tool 23 experts. See ECF No. 160-1 ¶ 5.

2 Screenshot of Granted, as revealing Intuit Two-Year confidential and proprietary tax In its entirety Ex. 78 Comparison expert tools used by TurboTax Tool experts. See ECF No. 160-1 ¶ 5.

6 Granted, as containing sensitive Intuit Internal tax expert training Block Guide, “TurboTax In its entirety materials. See ECF No. 160-1 Ex. 18 8 Live – Assisted” ¶ 5.

10 The highlighted portions at 24:8–11; 33:11–14; 37:3–4; 11 39:19–20; 41:14–42:22; 43:8–44:2; 44:10–14; 45:13– 12 46:4; 46:18–47:11; 47:14– Granted, as containing sensitive Transcript of 15; 47:18–48:6; 48:8–10; material related to tax expert ECF No. Hearing on 48:18–49:13; 49:19–50:18; training and tools. See ECF No. 14 9/30/2024 63:11–14; 64:3–4; 64:22–23; 160-1 ¶ 5.

65:3–7; 65:15–66:17; 67:1– 15 68:2; 68:5–19; 68:21–25; 69:3–16; 69:19–70:1; 70:3–9; 70:23–71:10; 96:8–16; and 98:5–7.

The highlighted portions at 18 52:10–11; 52:13; 52:15–16; 52:21; 53:11; 53:13–15; 19 53:18; 53:22–23; 53:25; 54:6–7; 56:19; 56:22; 56:24– 25; 57:5; 57:9; 71:20; 71:25; 21 72:4; 72:21; 72:25; 73:2; 74:15; 74:19; 75:1–2; 75:5; Granted, as containing sensitive 22 Transcript of 75:16; 76:1; 76:10; 76:22; and confidential business data ECF No. Hearing on 76:24; 77:2; 79:16; 79:23; and metrics. See ECF No. 160-1 23 149 9/30/2024 83:2; 83:5; 91:2; 91:5; 95:9; ¶ 6.

95:23–24; 96:20; 96:24–25; 97:1; 129:23; 152:11–15; 25 152:21–23; 162:23; 170:14; 170:18–19; 171:3; 172:10; 26 173:1; 187:13; 187:23; 187:25; 188:6; 188:10; 27 198:12; 198:18; 198:20–23; Granted, as containing sensitive 2 ECF No Transcript of The highlighted portions at material related to tax expert 3 150 . Hearing on 305:24; 306:2—3; 345:18-21;| training and tools. See ECF No. 10/01/2024 and 346:1. 160-14] 5.

The highlighted portions at Granted, as containing sensitive Transcript of and confidential business data 7 ECF No. . 301:25; 302:2; 347:1; .

Hearing on Ak. DA. ‘4g, |and metrics. See ECF No. 160-1 150 347:4—-5; 348:24; 357:23; 8 10/01/2024 358:1; and 37:2-3. 16.

10 || 1m. ORDER 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Administrative Motion to qa 12 Seal Portions of the Transcripts of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on September 30 and 13 October 1 and Exhibits Introduced at the Hearing (ECF No. 160) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 || Dated: November 25, 2024 5 >, 18 Ay Wo BETH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge