Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-00253
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Intuit v. HRB Tax Group, Judge Freeman granted one sealing motion and granted in part and denied in part another, with denials without prejudice.
Intuit Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., HRB Digital LLC, and the public’s access to the parties’ court filings.
What happened
In Intuit Inc. v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al., the court considered two motions about keeping portions of filings under seal in connection with Intuit’s request for a preliminary injunction. HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC sought to seal parts of their opposition and supporting exhibits.
The court found that confidential business information—including internal communications, business data, customer and product metrics, pricing information, marketing strategies, and tax-expert training materials—could cause competitive harm if publicly disclosed. It also found that the proposed sealing was limited to the information that needed protection.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted ECF No. 114. She granted in part and denied in part ECF Nos. 115 and 117. The order states that all denials were without prejudice and required any renewed motion or declaration, and certain corrected public filings, to be filed by October 10, 2024.
The detailed version
- Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc. · No. 5:24-cv-00253
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 25, 2024
Background
The court addressed two administrative motions connected to Defendants HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC’s opposition to Plaintiff Intuit Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion refers to HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC together as “Block” and to Intuit Inc. as “Intuit.”
Block’s first motion, ECF No. 114, sought to seal selected portions of exhibits supporting Block’s opposition. Block said the material contained proprietary information, internal business metrics, and information that competitors could use to gain an advantage in the online tax-preparation services marketplace. Intuit did not oppose that motion.
Block’s second motion, initially filed as ECF No. 115 and later refiled as ECF No. 117 with corrected documents, asked the court to consider whether material designated as confidential by Intuit should remain sealed. Intuit identified material involving its tax-expert final review service, training, business data and metrics, pricing information, and marketing strategies. Block did not oppose Intuit’s request to maintain that material under seal.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a presumption of public access. For records more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, a party seeking to seal them must show “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public’s interest in access. For records attached to motions that are not related, or are only tangentially related, to the merits, the lower “good cause” standard applies. The court also required the requests to comply with the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 79-5, including providing support for the claimed harm and narrowly tailoring the proposed redactions.
Rulings
The court granted ECF No. 114. It found compelling reasons to seal Exhibits 15 and 16 to the declaration of Marissa Baron because they contained sensitive internal communications, business data, and strategies concerning Block’s Tax Pro Review and do-it-yourself tax products.
The court granted in part and denied in part ECF Nos. 115 and 117. It denied sealing for portions that Intuit did not seek to keep sealed. It otherwise granted sealing for specified portions involving tax-expert training materials; customer-satisfaction, product-usage, and price-testing data; customer information; pricing and price-testing strategy; marketing strategy; and other confidential business information. For several exhibits, the court granted sealing only for listed portions and otherwise denied sealing because Intuit did not seek to keep the entire document sealed.
The order states that all denials were without prejudice. Any refiled administrative motion or declaration had to be filed by October 10, 2024. The parties also had to file public versions of documents with narrower redactions by that date unless they filed a renewed sealing motion. The order did not decide the merits of Intuit’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.