Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 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. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Intuit Inc.’s (“Intuit”) Administrative Motion to Seal Portions 14 of the Transcripts of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on September 30 and October 1 and 15 Exhibits Introduced at the Hearing. ECF No. 160 (“Mot.”). For the following reasons, the Court 16 GRANTS Intuit’s motion. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 20 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 22 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 24 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 25 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 26 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 2 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 3 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 4 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 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 7 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 10 preliminary injunction is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of this lawsuit. See 11 Newmark Realty Cap., Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., No. 16-CV-01702, 2017 WL 8294174, at *2 12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017); E. W. Bank v. Shanker, No. 20-CV-07364, 2021 WL 3112452, at *17 13 (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 16 admitted at the hearing that contain sensitive information related to Intuit’s provision of an expert 17 final review” to TurboTax Live Assisted customers. Mot. at 1. The relevant information includes 18 “competitively sensitive” training materials as well as details about the tools that Intuit uses to 19 enable its tax experts to assist consumers. Id. at 1–2. Courts in this Circuit have recognized that 20 the compelling reasons standard is satisfied for such confidential training materials. See Cohan v. 21 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, 23 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 26 sensitive business data. See, e.g., Johnstech Int’l Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, No. 14- 27 CV-02864, 2016 WL 4091388, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (granting motion to seal “product- 1 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 3 sealable material. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 4 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 5 ECF No. or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 6 Exhibit No. 7 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” 11 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 14 15 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?” 20 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. 24 25 26 27 1 2 Screenshot of Granted, as revealing Intuit Two-Year confidential and proprietary tax In its entirety 3 Ex. 78 Comparison expert tools used by TurboTax Tool experts. See ECF No. 160-1 ¶ 5. 4 5 6 Granted, as containing sensitive Intuit Internal tax expert training 7 Block Guide, “TurboTax In its entirety materials. See ECF No. 160-1 Ex. 18 8 Live – Assisted” ¶ 5. 9 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 13 ECF No. Hearing on 48:18–49:13; 49:19–50:18; training and tools. See ECF No. 149 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; 16 70:23–71:10; 96:8–16; and 98:5–7. 17 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– 20 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; 24 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; 1 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. 4 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. 9 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. 16 17 || Dated: November 25, 2024 5 >, 18 Ay Wo BETH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28