Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-00253
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Intuit v. H&R Block, Judge Freeman granted one sealing motion and granted in part and denied in part another over business information.
Intuit, HRB Tax Group, Inc., and HRB Digital LLC were affected because the court decided which portions of their court filings and exhibits could remain sealed.
What happened
In Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc., Intuit asked to seal parts of its reply supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction and related documents. The requests concerned confidential business information, including tax-expert training, pricing, customer information, and business strategies.
The court granted Intuit’s administrative motion at ECF No. 123. It granted in part and denied in part the motion at ECF No. 124, allowing some of Block’s identified information to remain sealed while denying sealing for portions Block did not seek to keep sealed. The parties were ordered to file narrower public versions or renewed sealing motions by October 10, 2024.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on September 25, 2024. The ruling concerned access to court filings and did not decide the underlying preliminary-injunction dispute.
The detailed version
- Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc. · No. 5:24-cv-00253
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 25, 2024
Background
The court considered two administrative motions connected to Intuit’s reply supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction:
1. Intuit’s motion to file portions of its reply and supporting documents under seal, ECF No. 123. 2. Intuit’s motion asking the court to decide whether another party’s material should be sealed, ECF No. 124.
The court explained that judicial records generally are presumed open to the public. Depending on how closely the records relate to the merits of the case, a party seeking to seal them must show either compelling reasons or good cause. The request must also comply with the Northern District of California’s local sealing rule and be narrowly tailored.
ECF No. 123
Intuit sought to seal information about its provision of free expert final reviews to TurboTax Live Assisted customers, confidential business data and metrics, tax-expert training, tools used for expert reviews, customer satisfaction, the number of consumers completing reviews, and pricing and test-pricing practices.
The court found compelling reasons to seal the identified portions because disclosure could harm Intuit’s competitive position. It also found that Intuit’s request was narrowly tailored. HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC, collectively referred to in the opinion as Block, did not oppose this motion.
The court therefore granted ECF No. 123.
ECF No. 124
Block identified portions of Intuit’s reply and supporting exhibits that Block believed should remain sealed. Block cited sensitive business information involving its competitive, business, marketing, and pricing strategies.
The court found compelling reasons to seal the portions that contained Block’s business strategies, marketing strategies, pricing decisions, and related sensitive material. But the court denied sealing for portions that Block did not seek to keep under seal.
For Intuit’s reply, the court therefore granted in part and denied in part ECF No. 124. The court also:
- Granted sealing for the identified portion of Exhibit 62 concerning Block’s business and marketing strategies. - Denied sealing for all of Exhibit 64 because Block did not seek to maintain that material under seal. - Granted sealing for all of Exhibit 66 because it contained sensitive information about Block’s competitive pricing strategies.
Order
The court ordered the parties to refile public versions of filings when the court-approved redactions and sealing were narrower than the redactions in the existing public versions. Those public versions, or renewed sealing motions, were due by October 10, 2024.
The order addressed only the sealing of court materials. It did not resolve the underlying motion for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.