It's much worse than the article suggests:
The suit is directed at Mocek asks for damages because he posted material *that was released by the city*, which they allege contain trade secrets of the contractors. The notion is that the city released documents before they could be vetted by the contractors... and therefore the contractors will suffer harm (potentially, fair enough). But the complaint should, surely, be addressed to the city (who released the docs) not Mocek, who received them?
So (and this is based solely on the contractors lawsuit): the Mocek asked the city for documents; the city asked the contractors for redacted versions; the city provided Mocek those documents and (allegedly) accidentally some unredacted related docs; Mocek posted them; the contractors sued Mocek demanding that he not post any of the documents the city had given him; and would like a restraining order preventing the city from releasing the unredacted docs. Oh, and the contractors would like damages from Mocek for, apparently, posting the documents they prepared in response to his freedom of information request.
The contractors make great play, as the article notes, the risk if CyberBadGuys get the information... but again, that's addressed to the wrong people: it's not Mocek's responsibility to maintain the cybersecurity of the city's power system, that's the responsibility of the city. So if this was a rational (rather than SLAPP) lawsuit, surely it should be the city suing Mocek...
Finally, the contractors want to a complete list of everyone who has accessed the docs, which can be found at https://www.muckrock.com/foi/seattle-69/smart-meter-security-audit-plans-schedules-proposals-contracts-discussion-results-seattle-10378/, which is well worth a visit!