[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 DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL PORTIONS OF THE
10 HRB TAX GROUP, INC., et al., PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
HEARING TRANSCRIPTS AND
11 Defendants. ADMITTED EXHIBITS 12 [Re: ECF No. 174]
[13] 14 Before the Court is Block’s Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of the Preliminary 15 Injunction Hearing Transcripts and Admitted Exhibits. ECF No. 174 (“Mot.”). No response to 16 the administrative motion was filed. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Block’s 17 motion. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
22 U.S. 589 , 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 23 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 24 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 25 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 26 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 27 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 2 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 3 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 4 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 5 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 6 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 7 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 8 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 The Court finds that the “compelling reasons” standard applies because the motion for 11 preliminary injunction is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of this lawsuit. See 12 Newmark Realty Cap., Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., No. 16-CV-01702, 2017 WL 8294174 , at *2 13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017); E. W. Bank v. Shanker, No. 20-CV-07364, 2021 WL 3112452 , at *17 14 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021). 15 Compelling reasons exist to seal the identified segments of the transcripts and exhibits. 16 Block seeks to seal “business information and marketing strategies . . . which Block keeps 17 confidential and does not publicly disclose.” Mot. at 2. This includes “internal business metrics,” 18 discussions about proprietary business strategy decisions, and “business data, pricing decisions, 19 and marketing decisions.” Id. Block argues that it “could be placed at a competitive disadvantage 20 in the online tax preparation services marketplace” if this information was publicly released, and 21 that the “relevant sealing requests are narrowly tailored” such that “there is no less restrictive 22 alternative to redacting the information at issue.” Id. at 2–3. 23 Courts in this Circuit have recognized that the compelling reasons standard is satisfied for 24 such confidential strategic business information. E.g., Ehret v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 14-CV25 00113, 2015 WL 12977024 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) (finding “a good and compelling 26 reason to seal” internal discussions regarding “proprietary business strategy”). It is also well 27 established that there are compelling reasons to seal confidential and competitively sensitive 1 02864, 2016 WL 4091388 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (granting motion to seal “product2 specific customer data that could be used to the company’s competitive disadvantage”); see 3 Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 15-CV-05128, 2017 WL 2951608 , at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017) 4 (“[S]ources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy may also 5 give rise to a compelling reason to seal, as may pricing, profit, and customer usage information 6 kept confidential by a company that could be used to the company’s competitive disadvantage.” 7 (internal citation omitted)). Finally, the Court finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly 8 tailored to seal only the sealable material. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 9 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 10 ECF No. or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 11 Exhibit No.
[12] Granted, as containing Block’s 13 Internal Block sensitive material related to Intuit business strategies and marketing Business & In its entirety 14 Ex. 49 decisions for the 2024 tax season. Marketing Deck See ECF No. 174-1 ¶¶ 4, 8.
[15] Granted, as containing sensitive
[16] Internal Block material related to business data Intuit 17 Ex. 50 Business & In its entirety and strategies for Block’s DIY Marketing Deck market plan. See ECF No. 174-1 18 ¶¶ 5, 8. Granted, as containing sensitive 19 Internal Block material related to Block’s Intuit Draft In its entirety business and marketing strategies 20 Ex. 53 Advertisement for its Tax Pro Review product. 21 See ECF No. 174-1 ¶¶ 6, 8. Internal Block 22 Document Granted, as containing sensitive Intuit material related to Block’s Including In its entirety 23 Ex. 93 business data and metrics. See Business ECF No. 174-1 ¶¶ 7–8. 24 Metrics Granted, as containing testimony 25 The highlighted regarding Block’s business Transcript of ECF portions at 129:11–130:1; strategy and decisions, business 26 No. 149 Hearing on 130:4–9; 140:19–21; 141:7– data, pricing decisions, and 9/30/2024 12; 141:20–22; 142:7–10. marketing strategies. See ECF
[27] No. 174-1 ¶ 3. 1 . Granted, as containing testimony ECF □□□ ror one ene □□□ regarding Block’s business data 2 || | No. 149 6 P □ ye7.q | and metrics. See ECF No. 174-1 9/30/2024 249:10-11; 249:23-250:7. 93 3 . Granted, as containing n 4 testimony regarding Block’s Transcript of The highlighted . □ 5 ECF . . business strategy and decisions, No. 150 Hearing on portions at 32 16; business data, pricing decisions 10/01/2024 325:18-20; 330:22-25. . , 6 and marketing strategies. See ECF No. 174-19 3.
[7] 8 I. ORDER 9 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Administrative Motion to 10 Seal Portions of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing Transcripts and Admitted Exhibits (ECF No. 11 174) is GRANTED.
[12] 13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 || Dated: December 10, 2024 16 nflecan
H LABSON FREEMAN
17 United States District Judge
Loading…