FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/30/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 606563 | Page 1 of 4 | PUBLIC

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Intuit, Inc., ) Docket No. 9408

 a corporation, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

I. 

On December 9, 2022, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) Complaint 

Counsel filed a motion to compel production of documents (“Motion”) from Respondent Intuit, 

Inc. (“Respondent” or “Intuit”). Specifically, Complaint Counsel seeks to compel Respondent to 

produce documents in response to Complaint Counsel’s First Request for Production of 

Documents (“RFP”) number 22, described more fully below. Respondent filed an opposition to 

the Motion on December 19, 2022 (“Opposition”). Pursuant to an Order issued on December 21, 

2022, directing a further response by Complaint Counsel, Complaint Counsel filed a Reply in 

Support of the Motion on December 28, 2022 (“Reply”). 

As explained below, the Motion is GRANTED. 

II. 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.31(c)(1): “Parties may obtain discovery to the extent that 

it may be reasonably expected to yield information relevant to the allegations of the complaint, to 

the proposed relief, or to the defenses of any respondent.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c)(1). Discovery 

shall be limited if the Administrative Law Judge determines that it is “unreasonably cumulative 

or duplicative,” or the “burden and expense of the proposed discovery . . . outweigh its likely 

benefit.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c)(2)(i), (iii). “Unless the Administrative Law Judge determines that 

the objection is justified, the Administrative Law Judge shall order that . . . [responses] be 

made.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.38(a). 

RFP 22, issued by Complaint Counsel to Respondent on September 12, 2022, requests 

Respondent to produce: 
 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/30/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 606563 | Page 2 of 4 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

All data pertaining to customers and potential customers who interacted with a 

free TurboTax offer or product or service, as contained in your customer 

relationship management database (“CRM”), or any database(s) used to maintain 

customer and potential customer information, feedback, complaints and/or sales. 

Declaration of Roberto Anguizola (Attachment to Motion, hereafter, Anguizola Decl.”) Exh. C at 

33. In its response, served October 3, 2022, Respondent objected on the grounds that the material 

sought is irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. Respondent further stated that based on 

those objections it would not produce responsive documents. Id. at 33-34. 

The Complaint in this case alleges that, in connection with advertising and selling Intuit’s 

tax preparation products and services, Respondent made express and/or implied representations 

that consumers could file their taxes for free using TurboTax, but that in fact “in numerous 

instances Respondent does not permit consumers” to do so, and therefore made false or 

misleading representations in violation of the FTC Act. See e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 119-122. 

Respondent denies that it made any false or misleading representations. Answer ¶¶ 119-122. In 

addition, in briefing before the Commission on Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Summary 

Decision, Respondent further contends that consumers are generally satisfied with Intuit’s 

products, and that survey and consumer satisfaction evidence shows reasonable consumers were 

not deceived by Respondent’s “free” tax filing representations. See Respondent’s Opposition to 

Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Summary Decision, August 30, 2022, at 19. Respondent also 

argues that the consumer complaints identified by Complaint Counsel “represent a miniscule 

proportion of TurboTax customers, compared to the significant number of consumers who have 

rated TurboTax highly.” Id. at 9. 

III. 

The CRM data sought by RFP 22 would show consumer complaints and other feedback 

received by Intuit regarding its free TurboTax offer, product, or service, and is therefore relevant 

to the allegations and the defenses in this case. Indeed, Respondent’s Opposition does not 

seriously contend otherwise. Therefore, Respondent’s objection to discovery on relevance 

grounds is rejected. 

In its Opposition, Respondent raises for the first time an objection that the CRM data 

requested by RFP 22 is cumulative to documents provided by Respondent in response to 

Complaint Counsel’s RFP 19. By failing to raise this objection in Intuit’s October 3 Objections 

and Responses to Complaint Counsel’s RFP 22, the objection is waived. 

Even if not waived, the objection is not valid. RFP 19 requested: 

All documents related to complaints or negative feedback from consumers or 

potential consumers who expected to file their taxes for free using TurboTax but 

were not eligible to do so. 

Anguizola Decl. Exh. C at 29. While production in response to RFP 19 should encompass 

documents from Respondent’s CRM, Respondent has refused to provide the CRM data. 

2 
 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/30/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 606563 | Page 3 of 4 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

Moreover, Respondent’s objection that the CRM data would be cumulative to the consumer 

information requested by RFP 19 is not supported by evidence, but only a conclusory assertion 

that the data would be “largely duplicative.” See Declaration of Derek Woodman (Attached to 

Opposition) ¶ 18. “Parties resisting discovery of relevant information carry a heavy burden of 

showing why discovery should be denied.” In re Daniel Chapter One, 2009 WL 569694, at *2 

(F.T.C. Jan. 9, 2009). General, unsupported allegations of burden do not meet that burden. In re 

Sysco Corp., 2015 WL 3897396, at *3 (June 17, 2015). The motion papers and exhibits 

demonstrate that Intuit possesses two different data sets of consumer complaints and other 

interactions. The CRM data includes particular details, such as the specific consumer product 

being used, notes taken by customer service agents, and any further action or resolution by Intuit. 

The CRM data would also include consumers who began using the free TurboTax edition but 

ceased to do so when they learned they did not qualify. 

Respondent’s contention that producing the requested CRM data would be unduly 

burdensome is also unsupported by evidence. Respondent submits only conclusory allegations 

that production would be time consuming because it would require a privilege review. As noted 

above, such conclusory allegations are insufficient to bar discovery. 

Finally, Respondent claims that discovery of the CRM data should be denied because 

Complaint Counsel’s Motion was untimely under the Scheduling Order issued in this case. 

Respondent first asserts that Complaint Counsel failed to meet and confer with Respondent 

regarding Respondent’s objections to producing the CRM data within five days of receipt of the 

objections, as set forth in Additional Provision 7 of the Scheduling Order (“Within five 

[business] days of serving any objections, the parties will meet and confer to attempt to resolve 

any disputes.”). The motion papers and exhibits show that the parties first met and conferred on 

October 12, 2022, which is one business day beyond the allotted five-day period. However, the 

reasons for the one-day delay are not apparent. The Motion will not be denied solely on this oneday delay, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the relevance of the 

information sought and the fact that Complaint Counsel, as shown below, timely filed its Motion 

to Compel. 

Respondent next contends that Complaint Counsel failed to file its Motion within five 

days of reaching an impasse in negotiations over production of the CRM data, as set forth in 

Additional Provision 8 of the Scheduling Order. That provision states in pertinent part: 

Any motion to compel responses to discovery requests, or to seek certification of 

a request for court enforcement of a nonparty subpoena, shall be filed within 30 

days of service of the responses and/or objections to the discovery requests or 

within 20 days after the close of discovery, whichever first occurs; except that, 

where the parties have been engaging in negotiations over a discovery dispute, 

including negotiations with any nonparty with regard to a subpoena, the deadline 

for the motion to compel shall be within 5 days of reaching an impasse. 

The parties have submitted as exhibits to the motion papers substantial documentation of 

the parties’ conferences on various discovery disputes, including the dispute over production of 

the CRM data. This documentation has been fully reviewed and considered. Based on this 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/30/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 606563 | Page 4 of 4 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

evidence, Respondent has failed to demonstrate that Complaint Counsel failed to timely file the 

Motion. The evidence shows that the parties communicated about the CRM data on October 12, 

26 and 28, November 23, and December 1, and exchanged other relevant emails during this 

period. Anguizola Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9-10, 18, 20. See also Opposition at 3-4 (acknowledging 

communications). The evidence demonstrates that while Respondent did not, in discussions with 

Complaint Counsel, expressly agree to produce the CRM data, Complaint Counsel persisted in 

attempting to obtain Respondent’s compliance, including by significantly modifying the scope of 

the data requested.0F

1

 Respondent did not make it clear that the parties were at an impasse until 

December 5, 2022, when it asserted that any motion to compel would be untimely. Anguizola 

Decl. Exh. K at 1. Complaint Counsel filed the Motion four days later, on December 9, 2022. 

Compare In re Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board, 2018 WL 1522512, at *2 (F.T.C. Mar. 

13, 2018) (denying the respondent’s motion to compel as untimely under scheduling order when 

motion was filed 11 days after the respondent declared in an email to Complaint Counsel that the 

parties were “at an impasse” over privilege claims). 

Furthermore, Intuit is not prejudiced by being required to produce the requested CRM 

data at this stage of proceedings. Expert witness discovery is ongoing, and the CRM data will 

facilitate that discovery. Trial, currently set for March 27, 2023, is still months away. 

IV.

For all the foregoing reasons, Complaint Counsel’s Motion is GRANTED, as modified 

below. To allow sufficient time for Respondent to produce the CRM data, while enabling 

adequate expert witness discovery, it is hereby FURTHER ORDERED: (1) Respondent shall 

produce CRM data requested by RFP 22, as narrowed in scope by Complaint Counsel in its 

email to Respondent of December 1, 2022 (Anguizola Decl. Exh. J), no later than January 23, 

2023; and (2) the fact discovery deadline set forth in the First Revised Scheduling Order dated 

September 12, 2022 is extended for the limited purpose of the document production ordered 

herein; and (3) expert witness reports may be modified as necessary to respond to the document 

production ordered herein; however, nothing in this Order extends the deadline under the First 

Revised Scheduling Order for completing expert witness depositions. A request for an extension 

of that deadline must be by motion in accordance with the requirements of Rule 3.21(c)(2). 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: December 30, 2022 

1 Specifically, in an email dated December 1, 2022, Complaint Counsel offered to narrow its request to certain 

subsets of CRM data, including customer identity, complaint date, product used, and complaint details, including 

service call notes. Anguizola Decl. Exh. J at 1-2. 

4