In June 2010, plaintiff Rhonda Holmes, an attorney, and her law firm, Gordon & Holmes, learned that Courtney Love Cobain had allegedly made libelous comments about them. Ms. Cobain had previously retained Holmes as her attorney to prosecute certain fraud claims affecting the estate of her late husband, Kurt Cobain. Holmes then gave a statement to Page 6 of the New York Post, confirming that she was working on a massive fraud case for Ms. Cobain. However, shortly thereafter, Holmes’ communications with Ms. Cobain stopped. Ms. Cobain later sent a Tweet in June 2010, which stated that she was “devastated when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off.” A copy of the Tweet was then appeared on the Web site Tweet Soup, an archive site that no longer exists). Ms. Cobain then allegedly made subsequent statements to a reporter, who published those statements in an online article. The article, entitled “My Cupcake with Courtney Love,” appeared in a now defunct online journal and had Ms. Cobain quoted as saying that she believed that an unnamed attorney in San Diego was “gotten to.” After learning of Ms. Cobain’s statements, Gordon & Holmes, Holmes, and Rhonda J. Holmes, a professional corporation, sued Ms. Cobain in May 2011. They alleged that Ms. Cobain’s comments constituted libel and defamation. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, defense counsel successfully moved for nonsuit against the claims of Gordon & Holmes. In addition, Rhonda J. Holmes, a professional corporation, voluntarily dismissed its claims during the trial. Hence, only the claims that went to the jury for deliberation were those made by Holmes, an individual, regarding the alleged defamation. During trial, defense counsel moved to exclude the plaintiff’s linguistics expert. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that an expert was needed to explain the definition of what “bought off” meant. Judge Michael Johnson agreed with the defense that the interpretation of “bought off” was to be made by the reasonable reader and that it did not require an expert’s own interpretation to be substituted in place of the reasonable reader. Defense counsel contended that during the course of her brief representation of Ms. Cobain, Holmes reassured her that she also believed that there was a vast conspiracy to defraud Ms. Cobain and her daughter, Frances, out of millions of dollars related to Mr. Cobain’s estate. Counsel also contended that Holmes told Ms. Cobain that she was also the subject of that conspiracy, in that Holmes’ computer was constantly being hacked and legal briefs regarding the fraud case were being deleted. In addition, defense counsel contended that Holmes claimed that she was accosted in a parking lot, that she was being followed, and that hackers had taken over $100,000 from her savings account. Counsel argued that Ms. Cobain believed Holmes’ allegations. Thus, defense counsel argued that when Holmes stopped communications with Ms. Cobain shortly after Holmes gave a statement to the New York Post, Ms. Cobain believed that whoever was behind the conspiracy may have gotten to Holmes. Defense counsel asserted that, almost one year after Holmes’ brief representation of Ms. Cobain had ended, Ms. Cobain responded to an inquiry from a Twitter follower and made the statement at issue. However, counsel argued that Ms. Cobain believed that she sent the Tweet as a direct message and that she deleted the Tweet once she realized that it was public. In response, plaintiff’s counsel noted that the individual that Ms. Cobain was allegedly “responding” to with the Tweet testified that she did not make any alleged inquiry., Holmes sought recovery of $8 million in presumed damages for her reputational harm. She also sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress.