IntusCare, Inc. v. RTZ Associates, Inc.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INTUSCARE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-01132-JST
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: ECF Nos. 178, 179, 180, 182, 183,
187, 188
Before the Court are several motions to file material under seal. Three motions relate to
papers filed in connection with the parties’ replies to their motions to exclude expert testimony.
ECF Nos. 178, 179, 180. Two motions are omnibus motions to seal material after the Court
previously rejected earlier motions to seal as both improperly supported and not narrowly tailored.
ECF Nos. 182, 183; see ECF No. 173 (order denying prior motions to seal). Two motions relate
to Defendant RTZ Associates, Inc.’s motion to bifurcate. ECF Nos. 187, 188.
The “compelling reasons” standard applies to requests to seal information in connection
with a motion to exclude expert testimony at trial. Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No.
12-cv-03587-WHO, 2015 WL 1737951, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2015). Having reviewed the
parties’ renewed omnibus motions, the Court grants the very limited amount of sealing the parties
now request.
As requested by Plaintiff IntusCare, Inc., the Court will seal information in the expert
report and rough transcript of the deposition of Kristopher Hult that reveal “[Intus’s] win rate,
[Intus’s] renewal rate, [Intus’s] total revenues for certain products and services, the numbers and
names of clients in Intus’s salesforce pipeline that are potential targets for [Intus’s] products, and
the numbers and names of RTZ’s clients.” ECF No. 182 at 3–4.
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 189 Filed 07/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
As requested by RTZ, the Court will seal RTZ’s “pro forma adjusted income statement in
its entirety” and portions of the expert reports of Traci Creegan and Peter Schwechheimer that
refer to “pricing terms and pricing metrics” and “non-public revenue and profitability data.” ECF
No. 183 at 2–3.
“RTZ also seeks to seal limited portions of Peter Schwechheimer’s Rebuttal Expert Report
that reference information designated confidential by Intus and for which Intus has requested
sealing.” Id. at 3. Because RTZ seeks to seal information for which Intus requests sealing, Intus
was required to file a statement or declaration in support of sealing within seven days of the filing
of the motion to seal. Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3). Intus failed to file the required statement or
declaration. Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) provides that this failure “may result in the unsealing of
the provisionally sealed document without further notice to” Intus, but the Court will nonetheless
grant RTZ’s motion. The motion seeks to seal the same types of information sought to be
redacted from the Hult report, and the Court finds compelling reasons to maintain that information
under seal.
As to the motions filed by RTZ in connection with its motion to bifurcate, the Court grants
the motion to seal limited portions of paragraph 59 of Creegan’s expert report. However, the
motion to seal the entire Hult expert report and deposition transcript is again denied. See ECF
No. 173 (denying prior motion to seal these documents in their entirety). For efficiency, the Court
will not require RTZ to file a renewed motion. Instead, the Court grants the motion to seal in part,
with the same redactions identified in ECF Nos. 182-4 and 182-6.1
In sum, the omnibus motions to seal, ECF Nos. 182 and 183, are granted. The motions to
seal filed in connection with reply briefing, ECF Nos. 178, 179, and 180, are denied as moot.
RTZ’s motion to seal portions of the Creegan expert report in connection with its motion to
bifurcate, ECF No. 188, is granted. Its motion to seal the Hult expert report and deposition
transcript, ECF No. 187, is granted in part. The same portions of those documents approved for
1 The Court cites to the redacted version of the Hult expert report, ECF No. 182-4, and deposition
transcript, ECF No. 182-6, because Intus failed to comply with the Court’s order to highlight
information sought to be filed under seal in the unredacted versions, ECF No. 182-3 and ECF No.
182-5, respectively.
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 189 Filed 07/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
sealing as to the motion to exclude Hult’s testimony may also be sealed as to RTZ’s motion to
bifurcate.
By July 8, 2026, the parties shall file revised documents consistent with this order.2 Each
motion, opposition, and reply shall be filed as a separate docket entry, with all redacted and
unredacted exhibits attached and clearly labeled. If the motion, opposition, or reply brief contains
redactions, then the redacted version should be filed as the main document, with attachment 1
being the unredacted version of the brief. Each document shall be filed as a separate exhibit. For
example, if attachment 2 is “Declaration of David C. Lee ISO Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions
of Kristopher Hult,” then attachment 3 should be “Exhibit 1 to Lee Declaration – Expert Report of
Kristopher Hult (UNREDACTED),” attachment 4 should be “Exhibit 1 to Lee Declaration –
Expert Report of Kristopher Hult (REDACTED),” and so on. The unredacted versions shall
highlight all portions that have been redacted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
2 The parties requested three days to file updated documents. ECF No. 182 at 3; ECF No. 183
at 5. The Court grants a few additional days because of the upcoming holiday weekend.
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 189 Filed 07/01/26 Page 3 of 3