Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMESURF, INC., Case No.: 22-cv-412-RSH-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL 13 v. 14 INTUIT, INC., [ECF Nos. 238, 241, 244, 248, 251, 264, 15 Defendant. 269, 272, 275, 291, 301, 306, 313, 318, 324, 333, 339] 16 17 18 Pending before the Court are 17 motions to seal filed by the parties, plaintiff 19 Samesurf, Inc. (“Samesurf”) and defendant Intuit, Inc. (“Intuit”). ECF Nos. 238, 241, 244, 20 248, 251, 264, 269, 272, 275, 291, 301, 306, 313, 318, 324, 333, 339; see also ECF Nos. 21 256, 257, 259, 282, 286, 287, 312, 316, 348 (responses). The Court addresses these motions 22 in turn below. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 25 records and documents, including judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 26 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept 27 secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City 28 1 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm 2 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of access is 3 ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because 4 they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 5 confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 6 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 7 (2d Cir. 1995)). 8 To overcome this presumption of access, a party must show either “good cause” or 9 “compelling reasons” to seal a record, depending on the motion to which the record relates. 10 Id. at 1096-97. The Ninth Circuit has made it “clear that public access to filed motions and 11 their attachments does not merely depend on whether the motion is technically 12 ‘dispositive.’” Id. at 1100–01 (“[O]ur circuit looks past the literal 13 dispositive/nondispositive label.”). “Rather, public access will turn on whether the motion 14 is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. If the motion is “more than 15 tangentially related to the merits of a case,” the movant must show “compelling reasons” 16 for overcoming the presumption in favor of public access. Id. at 1096-99. Otherwise, a 17 party need only show good cause. Id.; see, e.g., Baker v. SeaWorld Ent., Inc., No. 14-cv- 18 2129-MMA-AGS, 2017 WL 5029612, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017). The “‘compelling 19 reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098 20 (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010)). 21 The motions at issue here include Intuit’s motion for summary judgment, as well as 22 motions each party has filed to exclude the opposing party’s experts. The “compelling 23 reasons” standard applies to a request to seal documents in connection with a motion for 24 summary judgment. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097-98. Additionally, the Court finds 25 that the Daubert motions here are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, 26 and applies the “compelling reasons” standard to these documents as well. See In re 27 Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 119-20 (9th Cir. 28 2012) (applying compelling reasons standard to documents filed in connection with a 1 Daubert motion); Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., No. 22-cv-4844-BLF, 2025 WL 2607667, at *2 2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025) (same); Dunsmore v. San Diego Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 20- 3 cv-406-AJB-DDL, 2025 WL 2218766, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2025) (same). 4 “Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a 5 compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on 6 hypothesis or conjecture.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97 (alteration in original) 7 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “The mere fact that the production of records may 8 lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 9 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 10 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). Once a party articulates its compelling reasons, “[t]he 11 court must then ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests of the public and the 12 party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 13 1097 (alteration in original) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “What constitutes a 14 ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Id. (quoting 15 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). However, courts generally find that “the ‘compelling reasons’ 16 standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive 17 standing if publicly disclosed.” Google LLC v. Point Fin., Inc., No. 25-cv-04033-BLF, 18 2025 LX 561117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2025) (collecting cases). 19 The fact that material has been designated as confidential pursuant to a protective 20 order does not itself suffice to show compelling reasons to seal that material. See, e.g., 21 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136 (“[T]he presumption of access is not rebutted where, as here, 22 documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive 23 motion.”); In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig., No. 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD), 24 2020 WL 6395595, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2020) (“That a document is designated 25 confidential pursuant to a protective order is of little weight when it comes to sealing court 26 filings.”); In re Incretin Mimetics Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 13md2452 AJB (MDD), 2014 27 WL 1912731, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2014) (“Though the Parties themselves may have 28 stipulated to the confidential nature of this information, the ‘compelling reasons’ standard 1 is invoked even if the motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or 2 protective order.”) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 3 Even if it may be appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, a party should still 4 redact records whenever possible. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a preference 5 for redactions so long as they “have the virtue of being limited and clear”); Murphy v. Kavo 6 Am. Corp., No. 11-cv-00410, 2012 WL 1497489 at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2012) 7 (denying motion to seal exhibits but directing parties to redact confidential information); 8 see also Chambers Civ. Proc. § VIII (Protective Orders and Requests to File Under Seal). 9 II. MOTIONS TO SEAL 10 A. ECF No. 238 11 First is a motion to seal [ECF No. 238] filed by Samesurf in connection with its 12 separate motion to preclude the expert testimony of Saul Greenberg [ECF No. 240]. The 13 basis for the motion is that the documents at issue contain material that Intuit has designated 14 as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” OR 15 “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of the Protective Order in this case. ECF No. 238 at 16 2. Thus, the Court looks to Intuit’s response [ECF No. 256] to address that rationale for 17 sealing the documents at issue. 18 1. Exhibit 15 to Block Declaration 19 Exhibit 15 is Intuit’s engagement and compensation agreement with its expert, Dr. 20 Saul Greenberg.1 Intuit argues that the agreement “includes specific fee structures and 21 compensation terms that … could be detrimental to Intuit or its counsel if made public.” 22 ECF No. 256 at 3. Intuit posits that if made public, this information “to poach experts/fact 23 witnesses, or by future consulting firms to leverage confidential rate information, and by 24 publicly releasing these terms could deter other experts or consultants from working with 25 Intuit or Fenwick and/or increase the cost of future engagements, or limit Dr. Greenberg’s 26 27 28 1 rates in the future.” Id. Intuit does not cite legal authority supporting that “compelling 2 reasons” exist to seal this type of information. The Court is not persuaded that disclosure 3 of Dr. Greenberg’s compensation terms is likely to result in non-speculative harm to any 4 party. 5 2. Exhibit 16 to Block Declaration 6 Exhibit 16 is an engagement agreement between Intuit’s counsel and Dr. 7 Greenberg.2 Intuit advances a similar rationale for sealing this agreement as the rationale 8 provided for De. Greenberg’s engagement agreement with Intuit, and adds, “[t]he 9 agreement contains confidential legal representation terms,” without further elaboration. 10 Id. The Court is not persuaded that compelling reasons exist to seal this document either. 11 3. Portions of Block Declaration Describing Exs. 15 and 16 12 Because the Court declines to seal Exhibits 15 or 16, the Court likewise declines to 13 permit redaction of references to these exhibits contained in the Block Declaration.3 14 4. Conclusion 15 Accordingly, Samesurf’s motion to seal at ECF No. 238 is DENIED. Within 16 fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Samesurf shall file in the public record 17 unredacted versions of the material that Samesurf lodged at ECF No. 239. 18 B. ECF No. 241 19 Next is a motion to seal [ECF No. 241] filed by Samesurf in connection with its 20 separate motion to preclude the expert testimony of Gareth Macartney [ECF No. 243]. The 21 basis for the motion is that the documents at issue contain material that Intuit has designated 22 as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” OR 23 “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of the Protective Order in this case. ECF No. 241 at 24 25 26 27 2 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 239-2. 3 The redacted version of the Block Declaration is filed at ECF No. 240-1. The 28 1 2. Thus, the Court looks to Intuit’s response [ECF No. 257] to address that rationale for 2 sealing the documents at issue. 3 Intuit requests sealing of the following items: (1) portions of Samesurf’s motion to 4 preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Macartney; (2) portions of the Declaration of Adam 5 Skrzecz in support of the motion to preclude; (3) portions of Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the 6 Skrzecz Declaration; and the entirety of Exhibits 6 through 9 of the Skrzecz Declaration. 7 ECF No. 257 at 1. 8 1. Portions of Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 5 to the Skrzecz Declaration4 9 Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 5 to the Skrzecz Declaration consist of excerpts from: the 10 transcript of Dr. Macartney’s deposition of February 2, 2026; the expert report of Jim W. 11 Bergman dated December 11, 2025; Dr. Macartney’s expert rebuttal report dated January 12 15, 2026; and the transcript of Kelly Armstrong’s deposition on July 8, 2025. Intuit writes 13 that the redacted portions “contain confidential information concerning Intuit’s financial 14 performance, internal technical systems, and business practices,” and “concern[] Intuit’s 15 confidential business decisions and its evaluation of third parties’ commercial services.”5 16 ECF No. 257 at 3. Intuit continues, “[d]isclosure of such information would harm the 17 competitive position of Intuit and its business partners, as it discloses Intuit’s business 18 plans and information about its evaluation of third parties, which could be used against 19 Intuit or its business partners in the marketplace.” Id. The Court has reviewed the redacted 20 portions of transcripts and reports, and concludes that “compelling reasons” exist to redact 21 this material from the public record at this stage of the case. 22 23 24 25 4 These exhibits are lodged at ECF Nos. 242-3 through 242-6; Intuit’s proposed redacted version is lodged at ECF No. 257-2 through 257-5. The Court construes Intuit’s 26 proposed redactions as pertaining to the material it has blacked out, rather than the material 27 it has highlighted in yellow. 5 The foregoing statements apply specifically to Exhibit 1; Intuit makes similar 28 1 2. Exhibits 6 through 9 to the Skrzecz Declaration 2 Intuit describes Exhibit 6 as “a document relating to usage of Intuit’s accused 3 products in connection with a third party, which contains confidential information 4 reflecting Intuit’s internal data usage relating to a third party and its non-public business 5 practices.” ECF No. 257 at 6. Exhibit 7 is “a copy of Intuit’s internal document concerning 6 proprietary strategies and analyses on Intuit’s technical systems and business practices,” 7 which “contains Intuit’s confidential business plans, including Intuit’s goals to complete 8 specific technical functionalities for its systems and those offerings relating to third-party 9 commercial services.” Id. Exhibits 8 and 9 are similar in nature to Exhibit 6, and Intuit 10 advances similar rationales for sealing. Id. at 6-7. Reviewing these documents in light of 11 Intuit’s description and rationale, the Court is persuaded that “compelling reasons” exist to 12 seal these documents at this stage of the case. 13 3. Exhibit 10 to the Skrzecz Declaration7 14 Samesurf seeks to seal Exhibit 10 on the grounds that Intuit has designated it 15 pursuant to the Protective Order; but Intuit does not request to seal the exhibit, nor provide 16 a rationale for doing so. 17 4. Samesurf’s Motion and the Skrzecz Declaration8 18 Intuit seeks to redact portions of Samesurf’s motion and the Skrzecz Declaration 19 only to the extent that they describe exhibits or portions of exhibits that are themselves 20 subject to sealing. For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants this request as to 21 references to documents that the Court is ordering sealed or redacted. 22 // 23 // 24 25 6 These exhibits are lodged at ECF No. 242-7 through 242-10. 26 7 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 242-11. 27 8 The redacted version of Samesurf’s motion is filed at ECF No. 243; the unredacted version is lodged at ECF No. 242-1. The redacted version of the Skrzecz Declaration is 28 1 5. Conclusion 2 Accordingly, Samesurf’s motion to seal at ECF No. 241 is GRANTED IN PART 3 and DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted as to (1) the limited redactions proposed 4 by Intuit in connection with Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 5 to the Skrzecz Declaration; (2) Exhibits 5 6 through 9 to the Skrzecz Declaration; and (3) those portions of Samesurf’s motion and 6 the Skrzecz Declaration that describe the foregoing exhibits or portions of exhibits that the 7 Court has determined herein are subject to redaction or sealing. 8 Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Samesurf shall file in the public 9 record: (1) a version of its motion to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Macartney that 10 is redacted only in a manner permitted by this order; (2) a version of the supporting Skrzecz 11 Declaration that is redacted only in a manner permitted by this order; (3) versions of 12 Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 5 to the Skrzecz Declaration that contain only the redactions proposed 13 by Intuit and approved by the Court; and (4) Exhibit 10 to the Skrzecz Declaration. 14 The Clerk of Court is advised that ECF Nos. 242 and 242-1 through 242-10 are 15 accepted for filing under seal. 16 C. ECF No. 244 17 Samesurf has also filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 244] in connection with its 18 separate motion to preclude the expert testimony of Benjamin Bederson, and the associated 19 exhibits, Exhibits 2 and 5 [ECF No. 246]. The basis for the motion is that the documents 20 at issue contain material that Intuit has designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 21 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” OR “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of the Protective 22 Order in this case. ECF No. 244 at 2. Thus, the Court looks to Intuit’s response [ECF No. 23 259] to address that rationale for sealing the documents at issue. 24 Intuit seeks to redact limited portions of Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Elliott M. 25 Clay filed in support of Samesurf’s motion to strike the Bederson testimony. ECF No. 259 26 at 2. Contrary to the representations in the motion to seal, Intuit does not seek to redact or 27 seal Samesurf’s motion to strike itself, nor Exhibit 5 to the Declaration. See id. 28 1 1. Exhibit 2 2 Exhibit 2 to the Clay Declaration contains excerpts of the rebuttal expert report of 3 limited portions of Samesurf’s motion to strike the expert testimony of Benjamin Bederson. 4 Intuit contends that the excerpts contain “confidential information concerning Intuit’s 5 accused products and their functionalities . . . including references to source code and 6 Glance’s internal documents,” and that disclosure of this information would result in 7 competitive harm to Intuit. ECF No. 259 at 3. Intuit proposes narrow redactions rather than 8 sealing the entire exhibit. See id.; ECF No. 260-1. The Court has reviewed the proposed 9 redactions and agrees that compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 10 2. Conclusion 11 The motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ECF No. 12 244. The motion is granted as to the limited redactions proposed by Intuit in connection 13 with Exhibit 2 to the Clay Declaration. 14 Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Samesurf shall file in the public 15 record: (1) its Motion to Strike the Testimony of Benjamin Bederson [ECF No. 245-1]; (2) 16 Exhibit 5 to the Clay Declaration [ECF No. 245-3]; and (3) a version of Exhibit 2 to the 17 Declaration that contains only the redactions proposed by Intuit and approved by the Court 18 [ECF No. 260-1]. 19 D. ECF No. 248 20 Intuit has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 248] in connection with its separate motion 21 to preclude the expert testimony of Jim W. Bergman [ECF No. 250]. Intuit requests sealing 22 of the following items: (1) portions of Samesurf’s motion to preclude; (2) portions of the 23 Declaration of Shannon Turner in support of the motion; (3) portions of Exhibits 1 and 2 24 to the Turner Declaration; and (4) the entirety of Exhibits 3 and 6 through 9 to the Turner 25 Declaration. ECF No. 248 at 1. Exhibits 1 and 2 are expert reports by Mr. Bergman; Exhibit 26 27 9 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 245-2. Intuit’s proposed redactions are lodged at 28 1 3 consists of excerpts of his deposition testimony; and Exhibits 6 through 9 are documents 2 that were shown to Mr. Bergman during his deposition. The Court addresses these in turn. 3 1. Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Turner Declaration10 4 Intuit contends that the redacted portions of the expert reports “contain[] confidential 5 information concerning Intuit’s internal business practices and technical systems,” 6 “sensitive information about Intuit’s private business records and agreements with third 7 parties,” and “information concern[ing] Intuit’s confidential business decisions and its 8 evaluation of third parties relating to its commercial services.” ECF No. 248 at 3-4. Intuit 9 contends that disclosure of such information would result in competitive harm to Intuit. 10 The Court has reviewed the narrow redactions at issue and agrees that compelling reasons 11 exist for the redactions proposed here. 12 2. Exhibits 3 and 6 through 9 to the Turner Declaration 13 Intuit seeks to seal these exhibits in their entirety. Intuit asserts that Exhibits 8 and 9 14 contain confidential or sensitive information, and explains that it is moving to seal Exhibits 15 3, 6, and 7 because Samesurf designated them as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – FOR 16 OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” pursuant to the Protective Order. ECF No. 248 at 4-6. 17 Samesurf has not responded to the motion or provided a rationale for sealing these 18 documents. Additionally, the Court is unable to ascertain that any of these documents— 19 whether Samesurf or Intuit is the party seeking to seal—have been filed in any format or 20 lodged with the Court. The Court is unable to conclude, based on Intuit’s motion alone, 21 that “compelling reasons” exist to seal these documents. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 26 27 10 The redacted version of Ex. 1 is filed at ECF No. 250-3; the unredacted version is lodged at ECF No. 249-1. The redacted version of Ex. 2 is filed at ECF No. 250-4; the 28 1 3. Intuit’s Motion and the Turner Declaration 2 Intuit seeks to redact portions of its motion to preclude and the Turner Declaration 3 only to the extent that they describe exhibits or portions of exhibits that are themselves 4 subject to sealing. For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants this request as to 5 references to documents that the Court is ordering sealed or redacted. 6 4. Conclusion 7 Accordingly, Intuit’s motion to seal at ECF No. 248 is GRANTED IN PART and 8 DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted as to (1) the limited redactions proposed by 9 Intuit in connection with Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Turner Declaration; and (2) those portions 10 of Samesurf’s motion and the Turner Declaration that describe the foregoing exhibits or 11 portions of exhibits that the Court has determined herein are subject to redaction or sealing. 12 Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Intuit shall file in the public 13 record: (1) a version of its motion to preclude the expert testimony of Mr. Bergman that is 14 redacted only in a manner permitted by this order; and (2) a version of the supporting 15 Turner Declaration that is redacted only in a manner permitted by this order. 16 The Clerk of Court is advised that ECF Nos. 249-1 and 249-2 are accepted for filing 17 under seal. 18 E. ECF No. 251 19 Intuit has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 251] in connection with its separate motion 20 for summary judgment [ECF No. 253]. Intuit requests sealing of the following items: (1) 21 portions of Intuit’s motion for summary judgment; (2) Exhibits 1, 2, 4 through 7, and 11 to 22 the Declaration of Geoffrey Miller in support of the motion. ECF No. 251 at 1. The Court 23 addresses these items below. 24 25 26 27 11 The redacted version of Samesurf’s motion is filed at ECF No. 250-1; the unredacted version is lodged at ECF No. 249. The redacted version of the Turner Declaration is filed 28 1 1. Exhibits 1, 2, 6, and 7 to the Miller Declaration 2 Exhibits 1, 2, 6, and 7 to the Miller Declaration contain, respectively: excerpts from 3 the expert report of Stacy Friedman; excerpts from the expert report of Benjamin Bederson; 4 and excerpts from the transcripts of the January 27, 2026, and January 28, 2026, 5 depositions of Stacy Friedman. ECF No. 251 at 3-5. Intuit contends that these exhibits 6 “describe and analyze Intuit’s and Glance’s confidential technical information concerning 7 Intuit’s accused products, including Glance’s source code,” and that disclosure of this 8 information would result in competitive harm to Intuit. Id. The Court has reviewed the 9 exhibits and agrees that compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 10 2. Exhibits 4, 5, and 11 to the Miller Declaration13 11 The only rationale advanced for sealing these exhibits is that they have been 12 designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” 13 pursuant to the Protective Order. This designation does not establish “compelling reasons” 14 for sealing; therefore, the Court declines to seal the exhibits. 15 3. Intuit’s Motion14 16 Intuit contends that its motion for summary judgment includes “confidential 17 technical information” described in the expert reports of Benjamin Bederson and Stacy 18 Friedman, and in the deposition transcript of Stacy Friedman. ECF No. 251 at 3. Intuit 19 seeks to file a redacted version of its motion for summary judgment to the extent it 20 references this confidential information, which the Court has already agreed should be 21 redacted. ECF No. 252. The Court has reviewed Intuit’s proposed redactions and agrees 22 that compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 23 // 24 25 26 12 These exhibits are lodged at ECF Nos. 252-1, 252-2, 252-5, and 252-6. 27 13 These exhibits are lodged at ECF Nos. 252-3, 252-4, and 252-7. 14 The redacted version of Intuit’s motion is filed at ECF No. 253; the unredacted 28 1 4. Conclusion 2 Accordingly, Intuit’s motion to seal at ECF No. 251 is GRANTED IN PART and 3 DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted as to (1) the motion for summary judgment, 4 and (2) the accompanying exhibits, Exhibits 1, 2, 6, and 7. 5 Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Intuit shall file in the public 6 record Exhibits 4, 5, and 11 to the Miller Declaration. See ECF Nos. 252-3, 252-4, 252-7. 7 The Clerk of Court is advised that ECF Nos. 252, 252-1, 252-2, 252-5, and 252-6 8 are accepted for filing. 9 F. ECF No. 264 10 Samesurf has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 264] in connection with its separate 11 motion to exclude the errata of Gareth Macartney [ECF No. 266]. The basis for the motion 12 is that the documents at issue contain material that Intuit has designated as “HIGHLY 13 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” OR “CONFIDENTIAL” under the 14 terms of the Protective Order in this case. ECF No. 264 at 2. Thus, the Court looks to 15 Intuit’s response [ECF No. 282] to address the rationale for sealing the documents at issue. 16 Intuit seeks to seal or redact (1) excerpts from the rebuttal expert report of Gareth 17 Macartney; (2) excerpts from the transcript of Gareth Macartney’s deposition; (3) the errata 18 to the rebuttal expert report; and (4) portions of Samesurf’s motion to exclude the errata. 19 1. Exhibits 115 and 216to the Skrzecz Declaration 20 These documents consist of excerpts from (1) the rebuttal expert report and (2) the 21 February 2, 2026 deposition transcript of Gareth Macartney. Intuit contends that these 22 documents “contain confidential information concerning Intuit’s business practices and its 23 ongoing or recent evaluation of third parties regarding its commercial services,” and that 24 25 26 15 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 265-2. Intuit’s proposed redactions are lodged at 27 ECF No. 283-1. 16 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 265-3. Intuit’s proposed redactions are lodged at 28 1 the disclosure of such information could result in competitive harm by allowing 2 competitors to “discern Intuit’s internal decision-making processes or the scope and nature 3 of its platform dependencies.” ECF No. 282 at 4. Intuit proposed redactions to both 4 excerpts. See ECF Nos. 283-1 (Exhibit A to the Miller Declaration); 283-2 (Exhibit B to 5 the Miller Declaration). The Court has reviewed the redactions at issue and agrees that 6 compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 7 2. Exhibit 3 to the Skrzecz Declaration17 8 This document consists of the errata to the rebuttal expert report of Gareth 9 Macartney. Intuit contends that the document “contains sensitive business information 10 regarding Intuit’s financial performance and internal business practices, including its third- 11 party product usage data and cost allocations for its commercial services,” and that 12 disclosure of such information would result in competitive harm to Intuit because it would 13 enable competitors to learn “Intuit’s expenditures, service utilization patterns, and internal 14 accounting across its business lines.” ECF No. 282 at 6. Intuit requests that the document 15 be sealed in its entirety. The Court has reviewed the document at issue and agrees that 16 compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 17 3. Samesurf’s Motion18 18 Intuit contends that portions of Samesurf’s motion to exclude the errata “contain 19 sensitive technical and business information” the disclosure of which could result in 20 competitive harm to Intuit, as it would allow competitors to “discern Intuit’s internal 21 decision-making processes or the scope and nature of its platform dependencies.” ECF No. 22 282 at 2-3. Intuit confirms that Samesurf’s proposed redactions adequately protect this 23 information. Id. at 3. 24 // 25 // 26 27 17 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 265-4. 28 1 Because the redactions quote portions of the exhibits that are themselves subject to 2 sealing per the foregoing analysis, for the reasons set forth above, the Court grants this 3 request as to the redacted motion. 4 4. Conclusion 5 Accordingly, Samesurf’s motion to seal at ECF No. 264 is GRANTED. 6 Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Samesurf shall file in the public 7 record versions of Exhibits 1 and 2 that contain only the redactions proposed by Intuit and 8 approved by the Court. See ECF Nos. 283-1; 283-2. 9 The Clerk of Court is advised that ECF No. 265-4 is accepted for filing under seal. 10 G. ECF No. 269 11 Samesurf has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 269] in connection with its separate 12 brief filed in opposition to Intuit’s motion to preclude the testimony of Jim Bergman [ECF 13 No. 271]. The basis for the motion is that the documents at issue contain material that Intuit 14 has designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” OR 15 “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of the Protective Order in this case. ECF No. 269 at 16 2. Thus, the Court looks to Intuit’s response [ECF No. 287] to address the rationale for 17 sealing the documents at issue. 18 Intuit seeks to seal or redact (1) excerpts of Jim Bergman’s opening expert report; 19 (2) excerpts of the transcript of Jim Bergman’s deposition; (3) excerpts of Stacy Friedman’s 20 expert report; (4) portions of an internal document summarizing an agreement between 21 Intuit and Glance Networks, Inc., and (5) portions of Samesurf’s brief in opposition to 22 Intuit’s motion to exclude the testimony of Jim Bergman. ECF No. 287 at 2-6. 23 1. Exhibit 1 to the Skrzecz Declaration19 24 This document consists of excerpts of Jim Bergman’s opening expert report that 25 Intuit contends “contain[] confidential information concerning Intuit’s internal business 26 27 19 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 270-1. Intuit’s proposed redactions are lodged at 28 1 practices, financial information, investments, strategies, and decision-making processes,” 2 the disclosure of which would cause Intuit competitive harm. ECF No. 287-1 at 2-3. Intuit 3 proposed alternative, narrower redactions than those proposed by Samesurf. Id. at 3; see 4 ECF No. 288-1 (Exhibit A-1 to the Miller Declaration). The Court has reviewed the 5 redactions at issue and agrees that compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed 6 here. 7 2. Exhibit 2 to the Skrzecz Declaration20 8 This document consists of excerpts of the transcript of the January 30, 2026 9 deposition of Jim Bergman. Intuit contends the excerpts contain confidential information 10 concerning “Intuit’s internal business practices, cost information, pricing and marketing 11 strategies, and its evaluation of third parties regarding its commercial services,” the 12 disclosure of which could cause Intuit competitive harm. ECF No. 287-1 at 3. Intuit 13 proposed alternative, narrower redactions than those proposed by Samesurf. Id. at 3; see 14 ECF No. 288-2 (Exhibit B-1 to the Miller Declaration). The Court has reviewed the 15 redactions at issue and agrees that compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed 16 here. 17 3. Exhibit 3 to the Skrzecz Declaration21 18 This document consists of excerpts of Stacy Friedman’s December 11, 2025 expert 19 report. Intuit contends the excerpts contain “highly sensitive proprietary information about 20 Intuit’s technology, including the functionalities of the accused products and proprietary 21 and confidential information provided by third-party Glance,” the disclosure of which 22 would cause Intuit and its partner competitive harm. ECF No. 287-1 at 4-5. Intuit proposed 23 alternative, narrower redactions than those proposed by Samesurf. Id. at 4; see ECF No. 24 25 26 20 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 270-2. Intuit’s proposed redactions are lodged at 27 ECF No. 288-2. 21 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 270-3. Intuit’s proposed redactions are lodged at 28 1 288-3 (Exhibit C-1 to the Miller Declaration). The Court has reviewed the redactions at 2 issue and agrees that compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 3 4. Exhibit 4 to the Skrzecz Declaration22 4 This document is an internal document summarizing an internal document between 5 Intuit and Glance that includes Intuit’s notes and analysis of the agreement, and contains 6 information regarding Intuit’s “internal business decisions and its . . . evaluation of third 7 parties’ commercial services.” ECF No. 287-1 at 4. Intuit contends that the document 8 should therefore be sealed in its entirety. The Court has reviewed the document at issue 9 and agrees that compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 10 5. Samesurf’s Opposition to Intuit’s Motion to Exclude23 11 Intuit contends that portions of Samesurf’s opposition to Intuit’s motion to exclude 12 testimony of Jim Bergman “disclose confidential financial, technical, and business 13 information” analyzed in its experts’ reports and depositions, and that such disclosures may 14 competitively harm Intuit and its business partners. ECF No. 287 at 2-3. Intuit proposes 15 narrower redactions than those proposed by Samesurf, confirming that Samesurf’s 16 redactions to pages 7-9, 11, and 14-16 adequately protect Intuit’s confidential information. 17 Id. at 3. 18 Because the redactions quote portions of the exhibits that are themselves subject to 19 sealing per the foregoing analysis, for the reasons set forth above, the Court grants this 20 request as to the redacted motion. 21 6. Conclusion 22 Accordingly, Samesurf’s motion to seal at ECF No. 269 is GRANTED. 23 Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Samesurf shall file in the public 24 record (1) versions of Exhibits 1-3 that contain only Intuit’s proposed redactions, see ECF 25 Nos. 270-1 through 270-3, 288-1 through 288-3; and (2) a version of its brief in opposition 26 27 22 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 270-4. 28 1 to Intuit’s motion to exclude Jim Bergman’s testimony that only contains redactions on the 2 pages indicated by Intuit as containing confidential information, and approved by the 3 Court. See ECF Nos. 270; 287 at 3. 4 The Clerk of Court is advised that ECF No. 270-4 is accepted for filing under seal. 5 H. ECF No. 272 6 Intuit has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 272] in connection with its separately filed 7 opposition to Samesurf’s motion to strike Intuit’s expert Gareth Macartney [ECF No. 274]. 8 Intuit requests sealing of the following items: (1) portions of the opposition brief itself; (2) 9 portions of the Declaration of Shannon E. Turner in support of the opposition; (3) Exhibits 10 A and B to the Turner Declaration; and (4) portions of Exhibit H to the Turner Declaration. 11 ECF No. 272 at 2. The Court addresses these items below. 12 1. Exhibit A to the Turner Declaration24 13 This document is the February 11, 2026 errata to the expert report of Gareth 14 Macartney. It is the same document attached as Exhibit 3 to ECF No. 264, Samesurf’s 15 motion to exclude the errata in question, which the Court already determined should be 16 sealed, based on the same justification provided here. See supra; ECF No. 272 at 3-4. The 17 Court therefore agrees with Intuit that Exhibit A to the Turner Declaration should be sealed. 18 2. Exhibit B to the Turner Declaration25 19 This document reflects Intuit’s data regarding the “internal allocation of costs” 20 across its business segments and platforms based on use of third-party services. ECF No. 21 272 at 5. Intuit contends that disclosure of this information could cause Intuit competitive 22 harm. Id. The Court has reviewed the exhibit and agrees that compelling reasons exist for 23 the redactions proposed here. 24 // 25 26 27 24 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 273-2. 28 1 3. Portions of Exhibit H to the Turner Declaration 2 This document is Intuit’s responses to Interrogatories Nos. 8, 9, 11, and 13, which 3 Intuit contends “contains confidential information concerning Intuit’s internal business 4 plans and practices and technical system functionalities,” including confidential 5 information “provided to [Intuit] by third-party Glance Networks, Inc.” ECF No. 272 at 5- 6 6. Intuit contends that disclosure of this information could harm it competitively. The Court 7 has reviewed the interrogatory responses and agrees that Intuit’s redactions are appropriate. 8 4. Portions of Intuit’s Opposition to Samesurf’s Motion to Exclude 9 Macartney Testimony27 10 Intuit contends that its brief filed in opposition to Samesurf’s motion to strike Gareth 11 Macartney’s testimony contains sensitive information relating to its products and internal 12 business practices that, if disclosed, could cause Intuit competitive harm. The Court has 13 reviewed the brief and concludes that Intuit’s narrow redactions are appropriate. 14 5. Portions of the Turner Declaration in Support of Intuit’s Opposition 15 Brief28 16 Intuit contends that the declaration filed in support of its opposition to Samesurf’s 17 motion to strike Gareth Macartney’s testimony contains the same sensitive information 18 referenced in the errata, which the Court agreed should be sealed. The Court reviewed the 19 declaration and concludes that Intuit’s narrow redactions are appropriate. 20 6. Conclusion 21 Accordingly, Intuit’s motion to seal at ECF No. 272 is GRANTED. 22 The Clerk of Court is advised that Intuit’s opposition to Samesurf’s motion and its 23 accompanying declaration and Exhibits A, B, and H, are accepted for filing under seal. See 24 ECF Nos. 273; 273-1 through 4. 25 26 27 26 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 273-4. 27 This document is lodged at ECF No. 273. 28 1 I. ECF No. 275 2 Samesurf has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 275] in connection with its brief in 3 opposition to Intuit’s motion for summary judgment on non-infringement, and certain 4 attached exhibits [ECF No. 281]. The basis for the motion is that the documents at issue 5 contain material that Intuit has designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 6 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” OR “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of the Protective 7 Order in this case. ECF No. 275 at 2. Thus, the Court looks to Intuit’s response [ECF No. 8 286] to address the rationale for sealing the documents at issue. 9 Intuit seeks to seal or redact (1) limited portions of Samesurf’s opposition brief, and 10 (2) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Neil Ozarkar in support of Samesurf’s opposition brief, 11 excerpts of the opening expert report of Stacy Friedman. ECF No. 286 at 1-2. 12 1. Exhibit 1 to the Ozarkar Declaration29 13 This document contains excerpts of Stacy Friedman’s opening expert report that 14 Intuit contends “contains descriptions and analysis of accused functionalities and 15 underlying technology,” disclosure of which would result in competitive harm to Intuit. 16 ECF No. 286 at 4. The Court has reviewed the redactions and agrees that compelling 17 reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 18 2. Exhibit 3 to the Ozarkar Declaration30 19 In its response to Samesurf’s motion to seal, Intuit does not assert that Exhibit 3, 20 transcript excerpts of the deposition of Stacy Friedman, should be filed under seal. See ECF 21 No. 286. The Court therefore concludes an unredacted version of Exhibit 3 should be filed 22 in the public record. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 27 29 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 276-1 28 1 3. Samesurf’s Brief in Opposition to Intuit’s Motion for Summary 2 Judgment31 3 Intuit contends that limited portions of Samesurf’s brief in opposition to Intuit’s 4 motion for summary judgment contain “highly confidential technical information 5 analyzed” in Stacy Friedman’s report, and that disclosure of this information would result 6 in competitive harm to Intuit. ECF No. 286 at 2. The Court reviewed the redacted material 7 and, because the redactions in the opposition brief mirror the redactions the Court agreed 8 are appropriate to keep in the Friedman expert report, the Court agrees that compelling 9 reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 10 4. Conclusion 11 Accordingly, Samesurf’s motion to seal at ECF No. 275 is GRANTED IN PART 12 and DENIED IN PART. 13 Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Samesurf shall file in the public 14 record Exhibit 3, unredacted. See ECF No. 276-2. 15 The Clerk of Court is advised that Samesurf’s opposition to Intuit’s motion for 16 summary judgment and Exhibit 1 attached thereto are accepted for filing under seal. See 17 ECF Nos. 276; 276-1. 18 J. ECF No. 29132 19 Samesurf has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 291] in connection with its reply in 20 support of its motion to strike the testimony of Intuit’s expert Gareth Macartney [ECF No. 21 311]. The basis for the motion is that the documents at issue contain material that Intuit has 22 designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” OR 23 “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of the Protective Order in this case. ECF No. 291 at 24 2. Thus, the Court looks to Intuit’s response [ECF No. 312] to address the rationale for 25 sealing the documents at issue. 26 27 31 This document is lodged at ECF No. 276. 28 1 Intuit seeks to redact limited portions of Samesurf’s reply brief in support of its 2 motion to strike Gareth Macartney’s testimony. ECF No. 312 at 2. Intuit contends that the 3 reply brief contains “confidential information concerning Intuit’s financial performance, 4 internal business plans and practices, product usage, and technical system functionalities,” 5 and that the public disclosure of this information could result in competitive harm to Intuit. 6 Id. at 3. The Court has reviewed the redactions proposed by Samesurf [ECF No. 292], and 7 agreed to by Intuit, and agrees that compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed 8 here. 9 Accordingly, Samesurf’s motion to seal at ECF No. 291 is GRANTED. 10 The Clerk of Court is advised that Samesurf’s reply in support of its motion to strike 11 the testimony of Gareth Macartney is accepted for filing under seal. See ECF No. 292. 12 K. ECF No. 29333 13 Intuit has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 293] in connection with its reply in support 14 of its motion to exclude the expert testimony of Jim W. Bergman [ECF No. 297]. Intuit 15 requests redactions to its reply brief, contending that these limited portions of the brief 16 “reference and disclose Intuit’s confidential financial and business information” analyzed 17 in expert reports by Jim Bergman and Stacy Friedman, and that disclosure of such 18 information would result in competitive harm to Intuit. 19 The Court has reviewed the limited redactions and agrees that compelling reasons 20 exist for the redactions proposed here. 21 Accordingly, Intuit’s motion to seal at ECF No. 293 is GRANTED. The Clerk of 22 Court is advised that Intuit’s reply in support of its motion to exclude testimony of Jim 23 Bergman is accepted for filing under seal. See ECF No. 295. 24 // 25 // 26 27 28 1 L. ECF No. 301 2 Intuit has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 301] in connection with the Joint Statement 3 of Undisputed Material Facts filed together with Samesurf [ECF No. 303]. 4 Intuit contends that the Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts “contains 5 confidential information about the underlying technology of Intuit’s cobrowsing solution” 6 provided to it by third-party Glance, and that disclosure of this information could result in 7 competitive harm to Intuit. ECF No. 301 at 2-3. 8 The Court has reviewed Intuit’s proposed redactions, and agrees that compelling 9 reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 10 Accordingly, Intuit’s motion to seal at ECF No. 301 is GRANTED. The Clerk of 11 Court is advised that the Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts is accepted for filing 12 under seal. See ECF No. 302. 13 M. ECF No. 306 14 Intuit has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 306] in connection with its separately filed 15 opposition to Samesurf’s motion to exclude the errata of Gareth Macartney [ECF No. 308]. 16 Intuit requests sealing of the following items: (1) portions of the opposition brief itself; (2) 17 portions of the Declaration of Shannon E. Turner in support of the opposition; (3) portions 18 of Exhibits A and F to the Turner Declaration; and (4) Exhibits D and E to the Turner 19 Declaration in their entirety. The Court addresses each in turn. 20 1. Exhibit A to the Turner Declaration35 21 This document contains excerpts of the rebuttal expert report of Gareth Macartney, 22 which Intuit contends contain information about Intuit’s “confidential business decisions 23 and its evaluation of third parties relating to its commercial services,” disclosure of which 24 would result in competitive harm to Intuit. ECF No. 306 at 3-4. The Court has reviewed 25 26 27 34 The exhibit to be sealed is lodged at ECF No. 302. 28 1 the narrow redactions to the declaration and agrees that compelling reasons exist for the 2 redactions proposed here. See ECF No. 307-2. 3 2. Exhibit D to the Turner Declaration36 4 This document contains excerpts of the transcript of the February 2, 2026 deposition 5 of Gareth Macartney, which Intuit contends contain “confidential information reflecting 6 Intuit’s internal business practices, sourcing strategies, and decision-making,” disclosure 7 of which would result in competitive harm to Intuit. ECF No. 306 at 4. Specifically, Intuit 8 asserts that the transcript excerpts reveal “information about Intuit’s expenditures, service 9 utilization patterns, and internal accounting across its business lines,” and that the exhibit 10 should be sealed in its entirety. Id. The Court has reviewed the excerpts and agrees that 11 compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. 12 3. Exhibit E to the Turner Declaration37 13 This document is the February 11, 2026 errata to the expert report of Gareth 14 Macartney. It is the same document attached as Exhibit 3 to ECF No. 264, Samesurf’s 15 motion to exclude the errata in question, which the Court already determined should be 16 sealed, based on the same justification provided here. See supra; ECF No. 272 at 3-4. The 17 Court therefore agrees with Intuit that Exhibit E to the Turner Declaration should be sealed. 18 4. Exhibit F to the Turner Declaration38 19 This document is an email chain between Intuit’s and Samesurf’s counsel, which 20 Intuit contends “contains sensitive business information regarding Intuit’s internal 21 allocation of costs data that reflects usage by business segment or platform associated with 22 Intuit’s use of third party services,” and which “reveals Intuit’s resource allocation 23 strategies.” ECF No. 306 at 6. The Court has reviewed the redaction and agrees that 24 compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. See ECF No. 307-5 at 3. 25 26 27 36 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 307-3. 37 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 307-4. 28 1 5. Portions of Intuit’s Opposition to Samesurf’s Motion to Strike 2 Errata39 3 Intuit contends that limited portions of its opposition brief contain sensitive technical 4 and business information, disclosure of which could result in competitive harm to Intuit. 5 ECF No. 306 at 2-3. The Court has reviewed Intuit’s redactions, which describe exhibits 6 or portions of exhibits that are themselves subject to sealing based on the foregoing 7 analysis. For the reasons set forth above, the Court agrees with Intuit’s redactions. See ECF 8 No. 307. 9 6. Portions of the Turner Declaration in Support of Intuit’s 10 Opposition40 11 For the same reasons the Court agrees with Intuit’s redactions of its opposition brief, 12 the Court agrees with its narrow redactions of the Turner Declaration. See ECF Nos. 306 13 at 4; 307-1. 14 7. Conclusion 15 Accordingly, Intuit’s motion to seal at ECF No. 306 is GRANTED. 16 The Clerk of Court is advised that Intuit’s Opposition Brief to Samesurf’s Motion to 17 Strike, its accompanying declaration, and Exhibits A, D, E, and F are accepted for filing 18 under seal. See ECF Nos. 307; 307-1 through 307-5. 19 N. ECF No. 313 20 Samesurf has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 313] in connection with its reply in 21 support of its motion to exclude the errata of Gareth Macartney [ECF No. 311]. The basis 22 for the motion is that the documents at issue contain material that Intuit has designated as 23 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” OR “CONFIDENTIAL” 24 under the terms of the Protective Order in this case. ECF No. 313 at 2. Thus, the Court 25 26 27 39 This document is lodged at ECF No. 307. 28 1 looks to Intuit’s response [ECF No. 316] to address the rationale for sealing the documents 2 at issue. 3 Intuit seeks (1) to redact portions of Samesurf’s reply brief, and (2) to seal Exhibit 4 A to Samesurf’s reply brief. ECF No. 316 at 2-3. 5 1. Exhibit A41 6 This document contains the February 1, 2025 errata to the Expert Rebuttal Report of 7 Gareth Macartney, which Intuit contends contains sensitive information “about Intuit’s 8 revenues, expenditures, and service utilization patterns,” disclosure of which would result 9 in competitive harm to Intuit. ECF No. 316 at 2-3. The Court has reviewed the exhibit and 10 agrees that compelling reasons exist for the redactions proposed here. See ECF No. 314-1. 11 2. Portions of Samesurf’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to 12 Exclude Errata42 13 Intuit seeks to redact portions of Samesurf’s reply brief in support of its motion to 14 exclude the February 1, 2025 Macartney errata to the extent it discloses “confidential 15 financial, technical, and business information analyzed in the” Macartney report. ECF No. 16 216 at 1. The Court has reviewed the narrow redactions and agrees that compelling reasons 17 exist for the redactions proposed here. See ECF No. 314. 18 3. Conclusion 19 Accordingly, Samesurf’s motion to seal at ECF No. 313 is GRANTED. 20 The Clerk of Court is advised that Samesurf’s reply brief in support of its motion to 21 exclude the February 1, 2025 Macartney errata, and its accompanying Exhibit A, are 22 accepted for filing under seal. See ECF Nos. 314; 314-1. 23 O. ECF No. 31843 24 25 26 27 41 This exhibit is lodged at ECF No. 314-1. 42 This document is lodged at ECF No. 314. 28 1 Intuit has filed a motion to seal its Trial Exhibit List [ECF No. 318], attached as 2 Exhibit A to Intuit’s Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law [ECF No. 320-1]. See 3 ECF No. 319. Intuit contends that the Trial Exhibit List contains “confidential information 4 concerning Intuit’s confidential business partners,” and that because this information could 5 reveal “Intuit’s internal decision-making processes or the scope and nature of its platform 6 dependencies,” its disclosure could cause Intuit competitive harm. ECF No. 318 at 3. The 7 Court has reviewed Intuit’s narrow redactions and agrees that compelling reasons exist for 8 the redactions proposed here. See ECF No. 319. 9 Accordingly, Intuit’s motion to seal at ECF No. 318 is GRANTED. 10 The Clerk of Court is advised that Intuit’s Trial Exhibit List is accepted for filing 11 under seal. See ECF No. 319. 12 P. ECF No. 32444 13 Samesurf has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 324] its Motion In Limine No. 1 [ECF 14 No. 326]. The basis for the motion is that the documents at issue contain material that Intuit 15 has designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” OR 16 “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of the Protective Order in this case. ECF No. 324 at 17 2. Thus, the Court looks to Intuit’s response [ECF No. 348] to address the rationale for 18 sealing the document at issue. 19 Intuit seeks to redact portions of Samesurf’s Motion in Limine No. 1 that it contends 20 contain “confidential information concerning Intuit’s confidential business partners and 21 non-public use of third-party commercial services,” disclosure of which could reveal 22 “Intuit’s internal decision-making processes or the scope or nature of its platform 23 dependencies” and result in competitive harm. ECF No. 348 at 1-2. 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court has reviewed Samesurf’s redactions, which Intuit agrees protect its 2 confidential information, and agrees that compelling reasons exist for the redactions 3 proposed here. 4 Accordingly, Samesurf’s motion to seal at ECF No. 324 is GRANTED. 5 The Clerk of Court is advised that Samesurf’s Motion in Limine No. 1 is accepted 6 for filing under seal. See ECF No. 325. 7 Q. ECF No. 333 8 Intuit has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 333] associated with its Motion in Limine 9 No. 2, and associated Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 [ECF No. 335].45 The basis for the motion is that 10 the documents at issue contain material that Samesurf contends “is sealable,” and because 11 Samesurf designated Exhibit 3 as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 12 ONLY” under the terms of the Protective Order in this case. ECF No. 333 at 2-3. 13 Samesurf has not responded to the motion or provided a rationale for sealing Intuit’s 14 motion in limine, or the exhibits attached to the motion. The exhibits’ designation as 15 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not establish 16 “compelling reasons” for sealing. The Court therefore declines to seal Intuit’s Motion in 17 Limine No. 2 and its accompanying exhibits. 18 Accordingly, Intuit’s motion to seal at ECF No. 333 is DENIED. 19 Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Intuit shall file in the public 20 record the unredacted version of its Motion in Limine No. 2, and accompanying Exhibits 21 1 through 3. See ECF Nos. 334; 334-1 through 334-3. 22 R. ECF No. 339 23 24 25 26 27 45 This motion is lodged at ECF No. 334, and the exhibits are lodged at ECF Nos. 334- 28 1 Intuit has filed a motion to seal [ECF No. 339] associated with its Motion in Limine 2 No. 6 [ECF No. 341].46 The basis for the motion is that the documents at issue contain 3 material that Samesurf contends “is sealable.” ECF No. 339 at 2-3. 4 Samesurf has not responded to the motion or provided a rationale for sealing Intuit’s 5 motion in limine. The Court therefore declines to seal Intuit’s Motion in Limine No. 6. 6 Accordingly, Intuit’s motion to seal at ECF No. 339 is DENIED. Within fourteen 7 (14) days of the date of this order, Intuit shall file in the public record the unredacted 8 version of its Motion in Limine No. 6. See ECF No. 340. 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 Based on the foregoing, the motions to seal are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 11 IN PART. ECF Nos. 238, 241, 244, 248, 251, 264, 269, 272, 275, 291, 301, 306, 313, 318, 12 324, 333, 339. 13 The Clerk of Court shall FILE the following documents under seal: 14 • ECF Nos. 242, and 242-1 through 242-10 15 • ECF Nos. 249-1 and 249-2 16 • ECF Nos. 252, 252-1, 252-2, 252-5, and 252-6 17 • ECF No. 265-4 18 • ECF No. 270-4 19 • ECF Nos. 273, and 273-1 through 273-4 20 • ECF Nos. 276, 276-1 21 • ECF No. 292 22 • ECF No. 295 23 • ECF No. 302 24 • ECF Nos. 307, 307-1 through 307-5 25 • ECF Nos. 314; 314-1 26 27 28 1 e ECF No. 319 2 e ECF No. 325 3 Within fourteen (14) days of this order, Samesurf shall FILE in the public record 4 || the following documents: 5 e ECF No. 239 6 ° ECF No. 242-11 7 e ECF Nos. 257-2 through 257-5 8 ECF Nos. 245-1; 245-3 ECF No. 260-1 10 e ECF No. 276-2 i e ECF Nos. 283-1; 283-2 2 e ECF No. 287 e ECF Nos. 288-1 through 288-3 Within fourteen (14) days of this order, Intuit shall FILE in the public record the '° following documents: e ECF Nos. 252-3, 252-4, 252-7 e ECF Nos. 334; 334-1 through 334-3 19 e ECF No. 340 50 IT IS SO ORDERED. JLhut ¢ [over Dated: August 19, 2026 21 Hon. Robert S. Hute 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28