Seattle Trademark Lawyer

In April, National Products won its false advertising trial against Gamber-Johnson LLC. (Last STL post on the case here.)

The court awarded it attorney’s fees.

National Products then moved to submit the billing records supporting its request for fees in camera, while submitting a redacted version to Gamber-Johnson.

The court didn’t go for it.

“NPI represents to the court that the in camera records consist entirely of detailed billing statements for NPI’s legal fees related to this litigation,” the court wrote. “NPI concedes, however, that the billing statements are not necessary to support its requested amount of attorneys’ fees. NPI then takes the position that by providing its unredacted billing statements to the court, but not to opposing counsel, it has ‘exceeded’ its obligations. The court disagrees.

“By providing heavily redacted copies of its billing statements to Gamber-Johnson’s counsel and unredacted statements to the court, in camera, NPI garners an unfair advantage that hinders Gamber-Johnson’s ability to object to certain fees and costs set forth in the billing statements. Accordingly, the court DENIES the motion for in camera review and returns the billing statements, unopened, to NPI.

The case cite is National Products, Inc. v. Gamber-Johnson LLC, No. 08-0049 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 3, 2010) (Robart, J.).