Ellen Pao's lawyers contend that her case was not frivolous, file to dismiss KPCB's $972K in legal fees
Liz Gannes / Re/code :
Context & Ripple Effects
This filing lands mid-fight over who pays for the trial. Kleiner Perkins has billed Ellen Pao $972K in court costs on the theory that her suit was frivolous and therefore recoverable; her lawyers' dismissal motion attacks that premise directly, since a non-frivolous finding would strip away the legal basis for the bill.
The fee fight sits inside a larger endgame: Pao has already filed a notice of appeal and had sought $2.7M to forgo appealing — nearly triple her pre-trial settlement offer — while the judge has since tentatively pegged her owed costs near $275K, roughly a third of what Kleiner requested.
First-order effects
- Pao's immediate exposure shifts from the headline $972K toward whatever figure survives the judge's review — the tentative $275K assessment shows the disputed amount was already being cut by more than two-thirds.
- Kleiner Perkins loses, for now, the 'frivolous case' framing it needs to justify full fee recovery; the dismissal motion forces the firm to defend the suit's seriousness rather than assert it.
Second-order effects
- The contested cost bill becomes leverage in the appeal-era standoff: every dollar shaved off the assessed fees changes the economics of Pao's $2.7M walk-away demand versus continuing to appeal.
- A judge willing to discount a plaintiff's cost liability well below the winning side's request weakens fee recovery as a deterrent weapon in Silicon Valley litigation, lowering the financial risk for future plaintiffs weighing similar discrimination suits.
Third-order effects
- If courts routinely split the difference on post-trial cost claims, fee recovery stops functioning as an automatic penalty against losing plaintiffs in venture-backed disputes, shifting the calculus for employees deciding whether to sue prominent firms like KPCB.
- The pattern points toward litigation between tech employers and their former staff becoming a standing negotiation over settlement terms, appeals, and reimbursable costs rather than ending at the jury's verdict.
The trend: High-profile tech-industry discrimination suits are increasingly decided in the costly aftermath — appeals, settlements, and court-fee fights — rather than in the courtroom verdict itself.