Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-00253
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Judge Freeman granted Block’s request to file a late motion to seal hearing transcripts and exhibits.
The ruling affected defendants HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC by allowing them to file their motion to seal late. It also addressed the potential effect on Intuit Inc., which the court found would not be prejudiced by the late filing.
What happened
In Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc., defendants HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC, collectively called Block, asked to file late a motion to seal parts of the transcripts and exhibits from a preliminary-injunction hearing.
Block said its lawyers did not receive electronic filing notifications about the deadline and therefore failed to calendar it. Block also said the transcripts and exhibits had not been publicly released, so allowing the late filing would not prejudice Intuit. The court considered the length and reason for the delay, possible prejudice, and whether Block acted in good faith.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman found excusable neglect and good cause because the delay was slightly longer than a month, the materials had not been publicly released, and Block acted promptly after discovering the missed deadline. The court granted Block’s administrative motion for relief for late filing.
The detailed version
- Intuit Inc. v. H&R Block, Inc. · No. 5:24-cv-00253
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 10, 2024
Background
Defendants HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC, collectively referred to as “Block,” filed an administrative motion seeking permission to file late a motion to seal portions of the transcripts and admitted exhibits from the hearing on Intuit Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. No response to Block’s administrative motion was filed.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), a court may extend an expired deadline for good cause when the party’s failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. The court applied a four-factor equitable test: the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the moving party acted in good faith.
Court’s analysis
Block argued that late filing would not prejudice Intuit because Block sought only to seal or redact sensitive business information that had previously been sealed by the court. Block also stated that the unsealed transcripts had not yet been publicly released. Block’s counsel said they did not receive electronic filing notifications about docket entries that set the October 15 deadline and therefore inadvertently failed to calendar it. After discovering the missed deadline, counsel promptly sought Intuit’s consent and took steps to address the issue.
The court noted that the deadline had also been stated on the record during the hearing and that Intuit’s timely sealing motion likely should have prompted Block’s counsel to investigate the deadline sooner. Even so, the court found that a delay of slightly more than a month would not significantly affect the proceedings, particularly because the transcripts and exhibits had not been publicly released. The court also found that Block acted reasonably promptly after discovering the problem and found no indication of bad faith or prejudice to Intuit.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman found that Block’s calendaring mistake fell within the bounds of excusable neglect and that good cause existed to permit the late-filed motion to seal. The court granted Block’s administrative motion for relief for late filing. This order allowed Block to file the sealing motion late; it did not decide whether the requested sealing itself should be granted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.