FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 1 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of: 

Docket No. 9408 Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 3.36 

Pursuant to Rule 3.22(d) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(d), 

Respondent Intuit Inc. respectfully seeks leave to file a short reply brief in support of its Rule 

3.36 motion. Intuit’s proposed reply brief, conditionally filed with this motion, complies with 

Rule 3.22’s timing and word-count requirements. 

Rule 3.22(d) permits reply briefs “in circumstances where the parties wish to draw the 

Administrative Law Judge’s ... attention to recent important developments or controlling 

authority that could not have been raised earlier in the party’s principal brief.” 16 C.F.R. 

§ 3.22(d). Here, Intuit seeks to respond to three discrete points raised in Complaint Counsel’s 

opposition brief that Intuit could not reasonably have anticipated—and thus could not have 

addressed in its motion. 

Complaint Counsel’s arguments are unexpected because they fail to address relevant 

issues and contradict Complaint Counsel’s own prior positions. First, Intuit seeks to respond to 

Complaint Counsel’s argument that Intuit’s requests are overbroad and not reasonably particular. 

Intuit explains in the reply how it would address those burden concerns and also explains that 

Complaint Counsel mischaracterize the requests to wrongly create the appearance of burden 

1 
 

 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 2 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

where there is none. Second, Intuit wishes to rebut Complaint Counsel’s argument that the 

requests are not relevant. Instead of addressing relevance, Complaint Counsel focuses on a red 

herring concerning the merits of Intuit’s defenses. Third, Intuit moves to respond to Complaint 

Counsel’s argument that the documents sought can be obtained through other means—which 

directly contradicts Complaint Counsel’s own suggestion that Intuit file a Rule 3.36 motion 

because the documents were not otherwise available. 

Intuit respectfully submits that these unexpected and inconsistent arguments should not 

be left unaddressed. See CC’s Request for Reply Br. to Resp.’s Opp. to CC’s Mot. to Disregard 

and Strike, Matter of 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 2017 WL 2459062, at *1 (F.T.C. May 30, 2017) 

(seeking leave to file reply to permit complaint counsel to “respond to two factual misstatements 

brought to light for the first time in Respondent’s Opposition,” which “could not have been 

addressed in” complaint counsel’s principal brief and “should not go unrebutted”); Order 

Denying CC’s Mot. to Disregard and Strike, Matter of 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 2017 WL 2459061, 

at *1 (F.T.C. May 31, 2017) (granting leave to file reply). 

For these reasons, Intuit respectfully requests the Court’s leave to file the proposed reply 

brief. 

Dated: October 26, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

Jonathan E. Paikin 

Jennifer Milici 

Derek A. Woodman 

Benjamin Chapin 

Reade Jacob 

Jocelyn Berteaud 

/s/ David Z. Gringer 

David Z. Gringer 

Charles Bridge 

Eleanor Davis 

Phoebe Silos 

7 World Trade Center 

250 Greenwich St. 

2 
 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 3 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

Vinecia Perkins 

Andres Salinas 

Spencer Todd 

Molly Dillaway 

1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: (202) 663-6000 

Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 

Jonathan.Paikin@wilmerhale.com 

Jennifer.Milici@wilmerhale.com 

Derek.Woodman@wilmerhale.com 

Benjamin.Chapin@wilmerhale.com 

Reade.Jacob@wilmerhale.com 

Joss.Berteaud@wilmerhale.com 

Vinecia.Perkins@wilmerhale.com 

Andres.Salinas@wilmerhale.com 

Spencer.Todd@wilmerhale.com 

Molly.Dillaway@wilmerhale.com 

Katherine Mackey 

60 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

Telephone: (617) 526-6000 

Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 

Katherine.Mackey@wilmerhale.com 

Attorneys for Respondent Intuit Inc. 

New York, NY 10007 

Telephone: (212) 230-8800 

Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 

David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com 

Charles.Bridge@wilmerhale.com 

Eleanor.Davis@wilmerhale.com 

Phoebe.Silos@wilmerhale.com 

Shelby Martin 

1225 Seventeenth Street 

Suite 2600 

Denver, CO 80202 

Telephone: (720) 274-3135 

Facsimile: (720) 274-3133 

Shelby.Martin@wilmerhale.com 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 4 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of: 

Docket No. 9408 Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

RESPONDENT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 3.36 

Pursuant to Rule 3.22(d) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(d), 

Respondent Intuit Inc. respectfully submits this reply in support of its motion pursuant to Rule 

3.36. 

First, Complaint Counsel (“CC”) provide no support for their assertion (at 6-8) that 

Intuit’s requests are overbroad and not stated with reasonable particularity. To start, CC’s 

opposition is focused on hypothetical burdens that have not actually materialized and that Intuit 

has not had an opportunity to address through a meet and confer process. Intuit has no intention 

of imposing unreasonable burdens, and if burdens were identified and explained, Intuit is willing 

to cooperate in good faith to minimize them. Moreover, any supposed burdens would not fall on 

CC, but rather on the Commission, which has not engaged with Intuit nor appeared here. CC has 

no standing to assert burdensomeness objections on behalf of someone else. See Gulf Coast 

Energy LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2014 WL 12616133, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2014) (“a party 

does not have standing to quash a non-party subpoena on the basis that the non-party would be 

subjected to an undue burden”). 

CC’s privilege concerns are overblown. Contrary to CC’s apparent position that any and 

all internal documents possessed by the Commissioners or the Secretary are privileged, see Opp. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 5 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

6-7, communications with third parties are not. Other responsive documents, such as documents 

related to Chair Khan’s Twitter account, are not subject to privilege. Further, CC seem to ignore 

that deliberative process is a qualified privilege, and refusing to produce a log would turn it into 

an absolute one hiding documents that may well be properly discoverable. To the extent a log is 

overly burdensome, that could be the subject of discussion and may be addressed by use of a 

categorical privilege log. 

Nor is the use of “all documents” in Intuit’s requests impermissible. CC have routinely 

used the “all documents” formulation when requesting documents from Intuit. See, e.g., Gringer 

Decl. Ex. A (CC First Set of RFPs), Requests 2-7, 15, 18-20, 22, 25. CC also ignores the 

contexts where the “all documents” requests are narrow, such as the requests for “All 

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show who operates Char Lina Khan’s Twitter account.” See 

Streamlight, Inc. v. Gindi, 2018 WL 8967042, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2018) (requests for “all 

documents” concerning certain specific narrow topics are “reasonable” and “narrowly tailored”). 

Because Intuit does not know what documents exist, it often cannot identify responsive 

documents with more specificity. Intuit expects to engage in a good faith meet and confer with 

the subpoenaed parties to obtain relevant documents while minimizing burden. 

CC’s suggestion that the requests are overbroad because they lack a time period is also 

wrong. As CC recognize, many of the requests are inherently time limited. For example, Intuit 

seeks documents relating to the FTC’s recent decision to update its .com Disclosures, to Chair 

Khan’s tweets relating to Intuit, and to the treatment of Intuit’s Rule 2.31 motion. And, again, 

Intuit is willing to discuss ways to cabin its requests to specific date ranges to minimize any 

burden actually raised by the subpoena recipients. As just one example, requests relating to the 

FTC’s Free Guide and .com Disclosures could be temporally limited to the period immediately 

before and during the FTC’s investigation into Intuit. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 6 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

Second, CC are also wrong that the documents sought are not reasonably expected to 

yield relevant information. To start, CC do not seriously dispute that many of Intuit’s requests 

are relevant. See Opp. 2 (Intuit’s requests concerning FTC’s guidance and ability to seek 

monetary relief are “arguably related to the Complaint’s claims”). 

CC’s relevance objection essentially boils down to CC’s belief that Intuit’s defenses are 

not valid. Opp. 4. But “in evaluating whether discovery material is relevant to a claim or 

defense, the Court does not assess the ultimate merits of the claim or defense, but only whether 

the material tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination 

of the claim more or less probable.” Manzo v. County of Santa Clara, 2019 WL 2866047, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. July 3, 2019). Also, Intuit filed its answer over six months ago. A motion to strike 

would be “disfavored,” Dura Lube Corp., 1999 WL 33577395, at *1 (F.T.C. Aug. 31, 1999), and 

the time to file a motion to strike has long since passed, see MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Covington 

Specialty Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1390371, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2021).1 CC also filed a motion 

for summary decision, but did not move on the affirmative defenses. Needless to say, CC’s 

opposition to a discovery motion is not an appropriate forum for adjudicating the merits of 

Intuit’s defenses. 

CC are also wrong that Intuit has failed to articulate how the requests are relevant to its 

defenses. As stated in the motion, the discovery sought directly bears on Intuit’s affirmative 

defense regarding prejudgment. Mot. 5. CC’s own discussion of the evidence related to Intuit’s 

prejudgment defense refutes any notion that Intuit relies on just a “conclusory statement.” Opp. 

1 “Without a Rule of Practice governing motions to strike,” the Commission and this Court “have 

sought guidance from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and cases which have construed 

Rule 12(f).” Matter of Dura Lube Corp., 1999 WL 33577395, at *1 (F.T.C. Aug. 31, 1999); see 

also, e.g., Matter of 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 2017 WL 511541, at *2 (F.T.C. Feb. 1, 2017) (citing 

Rule 12(f) as authority permitting Commission to strike respondents’ affirmative defenses). 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 7 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

6. Intuit should be provided an opportunity to develop those defenses, and Rule 3.36 provides 

the only avenue to do so. 

Third, contrary to CC’s bald assertion (at 8), Intuit cannot obtain the documents sought 

through other means.2

 Even CC recognize that Intuit is not otherwise able to obtain the records 

sought—instead arguing that the few public documents available are sufficient to satisfy Intuit’s 

requests and that all remaining documents might be privileged. See id. But as explained above, 

those privilege concerns are overstated. Even if that were not the case, the potential that 

responsive documents would be privileged does not establish that the documents can be obtained 

through other means. Indeed, as to many of the requests, CC informed Intuit that it is unable to 

provide documents and affirmatively suggested Intuit file the present motion. See Woodman 

Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. 

I. CONCLUSION 

An order should issue authorizing the subpoenas attached to the motion as Exhibits A and 

B. 

Dated: October 26, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

/s/ David Z. Gringer 

Jonathan E. Paikin David Z. Gringer 

Jennifer Milici Charles Bridge 

Derek A. Woodman Eleanor Davis 

Benjamin Chapin Phoebe Silos 

Reade Jacob 7 World Trade Center 

2

 CC emphasize that they have produced “over 7,000 documents to Intuit.” But thousands of 

those documents are screenshots from Intuit’s website or of its advertising produced in response 

to just 3 of Intuit’s 36 requests. CC have not produced any documents responsive to 30 of 

Intuit’s requests, including requests that relate to the documents requested in these proposed 

subpoenas. 

4 
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 8 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

Jocelyn Berteaud 

Vinecia Perkins 

Andres Salinas 

Spencer Todd 

Molly Dillaway 

1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: (202) 663-6000 

Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 

Jonathan.Paikin@wilmerhale.com 

Jennifer.Milici@wilmerhale.com 

Derek.Woodman@wilmerhale.com 

Benjamin.Chapin@wilmerhale.com 

Reade.Jacob@wilmerhale.com 

Joss.Berteaud@wilmerhale.com 

Vinecia.Perkins@wilmerhale.com 

Andres.Salinas@wilmerhale.com 

Spencer.Todd@wilmerhale.com 

Molly.Dillaway@wilmerhale.com 

Katherine Mackey 

60 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

Telephone: (617) 526-6000 

Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 

Katherine.Mackey@wilmerhale.com 

Attorneys for Respondent Intuit Inc. 

250 Greenwich St. 

New York, NY 10007 

Telephone: (212) 230-8800 

Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 

David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com 

Charles.Bridge@wilmerhale.com 

Eleanor.Davis@wilmerhale.com 

Phoebe.Silos@wilmerhale.com 

Shelby Martin 

1225 Seventeenth Street 

Suite 2600 

Denver, CO 80202 

Telephone: (720) 274-3135 

Facsimile: (720) 274-3133 

Shelby.Martin@wilmerhale.com 

5 
 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 9 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of: 

Docket No. 9408 Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

DECLARATION OF DAVID GRINGER IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT’S 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 3.36 

I, David Z. Gringer, declare as follows: 

1. I am a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. I represent the 

respondent, Intuit Inc., in the above-captioned proceeding. 

2. I submit this declaration in support of Intuit’s Reply in Support of Motion for 

Discovery Pursuant to Rule 3.36, filed herewith on October 26, 2022. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is Complaint Counsel’s First Requests for 

Production of Documents to Intuit Inc., dated September 12, 2022. 

4. If the Commission or the Secretary were to identify and explain unreasonable 

burdens imposed by the document requests in the subpoenas Intuit seeks to issue to them, Intuit 

is willing to meet and confer in good faith to minimize those burdens. To date, no one (including 

Complaint Counsel) has expressed to me or any of my colleagues any concerns about any burden 

associated with Intuit’s requests. 

1 
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 10 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on this 26th day of October, 2022, in New York, NY. 

By: /s/ David Z. Gringer 

David Z. Gringer 

2 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 11 of 22 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

EXHIBIT A
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 12 of 22 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of: Docket No. 9408 

Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS TO INTUIT INC. 

 Pursuant to Rule 3.37 of the Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice 

for Adjudicative Proceedings, Complaint Counsel requests that Respondent 

Intuit Inc. (“Intuit”) produce the items and documents specified below. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

1. Response; objections: Within 21 days of service of this request, you are 

required to: (1) confer about the format for the production of electronically stored 

information; and (2) serve a written response to this request on Complaint Counsel 

stating, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities 

will be permitted as requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the 

reasons for the objection shall be stated. If objection is made to part of an item or 

category, the part shall be specified and inspection permitted of the remaining parts. 

The response may state an objection to a requested form for producing electronically 

stored information. If you object to a requested form - or if no form was specified in 

the request – you must state the form you intend to use. Within five days of serving 

your objections, if any, to this request you shall meet and confer with Complaint 

Counsel to attempt to resolve such disputes. 

2. Time, Place, and Manner for Production: Electronic copies of the items 

requested below are to be produced by Tuesday, October 11, 2022, by transmitting 

them to Complaint Counsel via secure file transfer. When you are ready to transmit 

the items requested below, please email Complaint Counsel at: ranguizola@ftc.gov; 

jevans1@ftc.gov; and rplett@ftc.gov, and we will send you an invitation to transmit 

the items via the FTC secure file transfer system. All items requested must be 

produced as they were kept in the usual course of business or must be organized 

and labeled to correspond to the categories in this request. If production of the 

requested items at the time, place, and manner set forth above is not possible, please 

contact Complaint Counsel Roberto Anguizola at (202) 326-3284, James Evans at 

(202) 326-2026, or Rebecca Plett at (202) 326-3664, no later than Friday, October 7, 

1 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 13 of 22 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

2022, to discuss an alternate time, place, or manner for production of the requested 

items. 

3. Applicable Time Period: Unless otherwise specified, the time period 

covered by each request below shall be from November 1, 2020, through the date of 

your complete compliance with these requests. Documents originating before this 

period but referring or relating to actions or conduct within the period should be 

included in your production response(s). If after the date of production, you become 

aware of additional responsive documents, you should produce those documents to 

Complaint Counsel. 

4. If any documents responsive to a document request have been previously 

produced to the Commission during the course of its investigation, In re Intuit 

Matter No. 1923119, you shall identify the document(s) previously provided and 

the date of submission instead of re-submitting the document(s). Identification 

shall be by Bates number if the documents were so numbered when submitted, 

or by author, date, and subject matter if not so numbered, and shall specify to 

which request(s) they are responsive. Documents that may be responsive to more 

than one request need not be submitted more than once; however, your response 

shall indicate, for each document submitted, each document request to which the 

document is responsive. 

5. A complete copy of each document should be submitted even if only a 

portion of the document is within the terms of the document request. The 

document shall not be edited, cut, or expunged and shall include all covering 

letters and memoranda, transmittal slips, appendices, tables, or other 

attachments. 

6. If any of the responsive documents are in the form of ESI, please produce 

these documents in their existing, native formats. 

7. If any requested material is withheld based on a claim of privilege, 

submit, together with such claim, a schedule of items withheld that states 

individually for each item withheld: (a) the nature of the document; (b) the 

identity of the person who created the document; (c) the identity of the person to 

whom the document was directed; (d) the subject matter of the document; (e) the 

date of the document; (f) the identity of all parties who executed the document; 

(g) the nature of the privilege which you claim; and (h) the custodian of the 

document. 

8. As used herein, the singular form of a noun or pronoun shall be 

considered to include within its meaning the plural form of the noun or pronoun 

2 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 14 of 22 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

so used, and vice versa; the use of the masculine form of a pronoun shall be 

considered to include also within its meaning the feminine form of the pronoun 

so used, and vice versa; the use of any tense of any verb shall be considered to 

include within its meaning all other tenses of the verb so used; and the use of 

“and” shall be considered to include “or,” and vice versa. 

DEFINITIONS 

Notwithstanding any definition below, each word, term, or phrase used in 

these requests is intended to have the broadest meaning permitted under the 

Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice. 

1. “Advertisement” or “Advertising” or “Ad” means any written or verbal 

statement, illustration, or depiction that promotes the sale or use of a good or service 

or is designed to increase consumer interest in a brand, good, or service. Advertising 

media covered by this definition includes but is not limited to: packaging and 

labeling; promotional materials; print, including direct mail; television, including 

short form TV ads and infomercials; radio; video advertisements, including 

YouTube ads and ads disseminated through streaming services, and internet, social 

media, and other digital content, including banner advertisements and web pages, 

mobile networks and applications. 

2. “Any” shall be construed to include the word “all,” and the word “all” shall 

be construed to include the word “any.” 

3. “Company,” “You,” or “Your” means Intuit Inc., its wholly or partially 

owned subsidiaries, unincorporated divisions, joint ventures, operations under 

assumed names, and affiliates, and all directors, officers, members, employees, 

agents, consultants, and other persons working for or on behalf of the foregoing. 

4. “Document” or “Documents” are synonymous in meaning and equal in 

scope to the usage of the terms as defined by 16 C.F.R. 3.34(b), and includes, without 

limitation, the complete original and any non-identical copy (whether different from 

the original because of notations on the copy or otherwise), regardless of origin or 

location, of any written, typed, printed, transcribed, filmed, punched, or graphic 

matter of every type and description, however and by whomever prepared, 

produced, disseminated or made, including, but not limited to, any advertisement, 

book, pamphlet, periodical, contract, correspondence, communication, file, invoice, 

memorandum, note, telegram, report, record, handwritten note, working paper, 

routing slip, chart, graph, paper, index, map, tabulation, manual, guide, outline, 

script, abstract, history, calendar, diary, journal, agenda, minute, code book, or label. 

“Document” shall also include electronically stored information (“ESI”). ESI means 

3 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 15 of 22 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

the complete original and any nonidentical copy (whether different from the original 

because of notations, different metadata, or otherwise), regardless of origin or 

location, of any electronically created or stored information, including, but not 

limited to, electronic mail, instant messaging, videoconferencing, and other 

electronic correspondence (whether active, archived, or in a deleted items folder), 

word processing files, spreadsheets, databases, and sound recordings, whether 

stored on cards, magnetic or electronic tapes, disks, computer files, computer or 

other drives, cell phones, Blackberry, PDA, or other storage media, and such 

technical assistance or instructions as will enable conversion of such ESI into a 

reasonably usable form. 

5. “Each” shall be construed to include “every,” and “every” shall be construed 

to include “each.” 

6. “Relating to” or “Regarding” means discussing, describing, reflecting, 

referring, containing, analyzing, studying, reporting, commenting, evidencing, 

constituting, setting forth, considering, recommending, concerning, or pertaining to, 

in whole or in part. 

7. “TurboTax” means any income tax preparation product or service offered 

by Intuit using the TurboTax brand or mark. 

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED 

Produce the following Documents: 

1. A copy of each unique TurboTax advertisement that uses or used any of the 

following words: “free,” “zero,” “$0,” “no cost,” or “gratis.” 

2. All documents relating to any aspect of the creation, development, approval, 

modification, execution, or evaluation of any advertisement responsive to Request 

for Production 1, including client briefs, creative briefs, research analyses, point of 

views, story boards, call reports, meeting reports, or other contact reports. 

3. All documents relating to the advertising and marketing strategy associated 

with any advertisement responsive to Request for Production 1. 

4. All documents relating to data on, or analysis of, consumer perception, 

comprehension, or recall (including copy tests, focus groups, marketing or consumer 

surveys and reports, penetration tests, recall tests, audience reaction tests, a/b tests, 

multivariate tests, and communication tests) of any advertisement responsive to 

Request for Production 1. 

4 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 16 of 22 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

5. All documents, without regard to the applicable time period, relating to the 

TurboTax “Power of Free” advertising campaign. 

6. All documents, without regard to the applicable time period, relating to 

TurboTax Super Bowl advertisements that used any of the following words: “free,” 

“zero,” “$0,” “no cost,” or “gratis.” 

7. All documents relating to the creation, content, placement, use, approval, 

modification, or rejection of any disclaimers or disclosures used in any 

advertisement responsive to Requests for Production 1. 

8. For any advertisement responsive Request for Production 1, documents 

sufficient to show the beginning and ending dates of dissemination, audience size, 

and the times and locations the ads were disseminated. 

9. For print ads responsive Request for Production 1, produce documents 

sufficient to show every publication in which the ads were disseminated. 

10. For video, television and radio ads responsive Request for Production 1, 

documents sufficient to show every network, system, streaming service, or station in 

which the ads were disseminated. 

11. For internet ads responsive Request for Production 1, documents sufficient to 

show the platform used (e.g., mobile, desktop); its successfulness in driving traffic to 

the TurboTax website (e.g., click-through rates per ad, keyword or campaign; traffic 

and cost statistic per ad, keyword or campaign; impressions; quality scores; cross 

device conversion rates); and the URL of the landing page each advertisement 

directed the consumer to. 

12. For any advertisement responsive Request for Production 1, documents 

sufficient to identify the cost of each advertisement. 

13. For any advertisement responsive Request for Production 1, documents 

sufficient to identify the revenue directly or indirectly derived from each 

advertisement. 

14. Documents relating to the return on investment (ROI) or monetization of 

TurboTax advertisements that use or used any of the following words: “free,” 

“zero,” “$0,” “no cost,” or “gratis” or customers acquired by the company through 

such ads. 

5 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 17 of 22 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

15. All documents regarding the use of the phrase “simple U.S. tax returns” in 

TurboTax advertisements, including on websites. 

16. Copies of all materially different consumer-facing popups or websites 

describing Intuit’s eligibility restrictions for using a TurboTax product or service for 

free. 

17. Copies of all materially different websites that include the terms “for simple 

U.S. returns only,” “for simple returns,” “simple tax returns,” or “see why it’s free.” 

18. All documents relating to data on, or analysis of, consumer perception, 

comprehension, or recall (including copy tests, focus groups, marketing or consumer 

surveys and reports, penetration tests, recall tests, audience reaction tests, a/b tests, 

multivariate tests, and communication tests) about the cost of TurboTax products or 

services. 

19. 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. 

20. All documents related to employee complaints or negative employee 

feedback regarding the TurboTax advertisements that use the terms “free,” “zero,” 

“$0,” “no cost,” or “gratis.” 

21. Documents sufficient to show each different customer service script or 

frequently asked questions (FAQs) used by the company to communicate with 

consumers or potential consumers who expected to file their taxes for free using 

TurboTax but were not eligible to do so, and the time period during which each 

script or FAQ was used. 

22. 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. 

23. The schema for any CRM or other database containing the data requested in 

Request for Production 22, including tables, fields, and relationships between tables 

and fields used in those databases. 

24. Data related to negative consumer feedback or complaints about free offers 

pertaining to TurboTax, including data that is not captured in your CRM. 

6 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 18 of 22 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

25. All documents related to any arbitration filed against Intuit related to free 

offers pertaining to TurboTax. 

Dated: September 12, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

s/Rebecca Plett 

Roberto Anguizola 

Rebecca Plett 

James Evans 

Complaint Counsel 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: 202-326-3664 

Email: rplett@ftc.gov 

7 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 19 of 22 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on September 12, 2022, I caused the foregoing 

Complaint Counsel’s First Requests for Production of Documents to Intuit Inc., 

to be served via email on: 

David Z. Gringer 

Phoebe Silos 

Charles Bridge

Eleanor Davis 

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr

LLP 

7 World Trade Center 

250 Greenwich Street 

New York, NY 10007 

David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com

Phoebe.Silos@wilmerhale.com 

Charles.Bridge@wilmerhale.com

Eleanor.Davis@wilmerhale.com 

(212) 230-8800 

Shelby Martin 

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr

LLP 

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2600 

Denver, CO 80202 

Shelby.Martin@wilmerhale.com 

(720) 274-3135 

Katherine Mackey

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr

LLP 

60 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

Katherine.Mackey@wilmerhale.com

(617) 526-6000 

Jonathan E. Paikin 

Jennifer Milici 

Derek A. Woodman 

Vinecia Perkins 

Andres Salinas 

Spencer Todd

Jocelyn Berteaud

Benjamin Chapin

Margaret (Molly) Dillaway

Reade Jacob 

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr

LLP 

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20006

Jonathan.Paikin@wilmerhale.com 

Jennifer.Milici@wilmerhale.com 

Derek.Woodman@wilmerhale.com 

Vinecia.Perkins@wilmerhale.com 

Andres.Salinas@wilmerhale.com 

Spencer.Todd@wilmerhale.com

Joss.Berteaud@wilmerhale.com 

Benjamin.Chapin@wilmerhale.com 

Molly.Dillaway@wilmerhale.com 

Reade.Jacob@wilmerhale.com 

(202) 663-6000 

Attorneys for Respondent, Intuit Inc. 

/s/ Rebecca Plett 

Rebecca Plett 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 20 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of: 

Docket No. 9408 Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

[PROPOSED] 

ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 3.36 

Upon consideration of Respondent’s Request for Leave to File Reply in Support of 

Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 3.36: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s request for leave to file the proposed reply 

brief is GRANTED, and that the conditionally filed reply brief is deemed filed. 

ORDERED: ___________________________ 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: ______________________ 

1 
 

 

PUBLIC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 21 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 26, 2022, I caused the foregoing document to be filed 

electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification of such filing to: 

April Tabor 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite CC-5610 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

I further certify that on October 26, 2022, I caused the foregoing document to be served 

via email to: 

Roberto Anguizola 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: ranguizola@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3284 

James Evans 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: jevans1@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-2026 

Christine Todaro 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: ctodaro@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3711 

Jody Goodman 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: jgoodman1@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3096 

Rebecca Plett 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: rplett@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3664 

Sara Tonnesen 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: stonnesen@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-2879 

Thomas Harris 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: tharris1@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3620 

Colleen Robbins 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: crobbins@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-2548 
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/26/2022 | Document No. 605995 | PAGE Page 22 of 22 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC

Virginia Rosa J. Ronald Brooke, Jr. 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

Email: vrosa@ftc.gov Email: jbrooke@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3068 Tel: (202) 326-3484 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

April Tabor The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Office of the Secretary Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 

Suite CC-5610 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

Dated: October 26, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Molly Dillaway 

Molly Dillaway 

Counsel for Intuit Inc.