Small Reductions Were Made, And No Allocation Was Required.
Under both Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, there are attorney’s fees shifting provisions in favor of a prevailing plaintiff proving that the trade secret was willfully and maliciously misappropriated. These fee entitlements were operative in Silver Fern Chemical, Inc. v. Lyons, Case No. 2:23-cv-0075-TL (W.D. Wash. Oct. 1, 2026 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Exemplary Damages).
A jury awarded plaintiffs over $1.9 million in damages. Plaintiffs then moved for attorney’s fees/costs under the two trade secret statutes, as well as seeking punitive damages. The punitive damages request was denied, but plaintiffs did obtain a substantial fee and costs award, with minor reductions by U.S. District Judge Tana Lin. The total fee award was a little under $1.25 million, and the costs award was little over $42,000.
District Judge Lin found there was fee entitlement under the statutory trade secret statutes, with lodestar principles being applicable. The hourly rates claimed for plaintiffs’ attorneys were largely sustained, because plaintiffs showed prior fee awards which were confirmatory of what their clients sought with respect to hourly rates in the Washington district court venue: $1,025-$350 for senior and associate attorneys; $350-$200 for junior/summer associates; and $330-$150 for paralegals, with one exception: some experienced paralegals with the same experience were billed out at different hourly rates, such that a $3,288 reduction was in order. The other reduction was $11,123 for legal professional e-filing, when this really should be considered as an administrative/clerical expense. The district judge found there was no need for segregation of hours on certain unsuccessful claims, because their core facts were involved on successful claims. Work for a higher billing partner was found acceptable, because the overall mix showed that associates and lead counsel at lower rates were utilized. Block billing entries were minimal; but, to the extent they were at issue, they related to the same task such that the time was allowable. With respect to costs, the main challenge was for use of transcripts not used at trial, but the district judge determined that “use of the case” governed under federal costs standards, not saying anything about whether the transcripts were necessary at trial was a predicate for costs recovery (28 U.S.C. § 1920(2)).