Again, from Judge Paul Byron (M.D. Fla.) in Grayson v. No Labels, Inc., decided last week (for another opinion in the same case, about a different expert, see this post):
The Plaintiff, Alan Grayson, contends in his Second Amended Complaint that the Defendants, acting through Progress Tomorrow, published false and defamatory statements which damaged him "personally, professionally, and ultimately politically." The allegedly defamatory statements fall into three categories: (1) citation to a Congressional Ethics Investigation finding candidate Grayson had "Abused His Office for Financial Gain," including by using "taxpayer resources to conduct his high-risk investor scheme;" (2) images of Grayson's passport photograph with dollar signs replacing his eyes, an attaché case containing $150,000, and images implying he flew to the Cayman Islands to launder the money; (3) statements relating to accusations made by Grayson's ex-wife in connection with their divorce proceedings during which she accuses him of spousal abuse….
The Plaintiff retained Mr. David Heller to offer expert testimony concerning the cost associated with repairing the Plaintiff's reputation within the 9th Congressional District. Mr. Heller concludes that the cost of producing and purchasing mail, television and internet advertising designed to rehabilitate Mr. Grayson's reputation within the 9th Congressional District is $16.777 million dollars. That said, Mr. Grayson has not spent any money to date to rehabilitate his reputation in the 9th Congressional District or anywhere else. Further, it is undisputed that Mr. Grayson's intention is to run for the United States Senate and not the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding this fact, Mr. Heller's opinion is limited to the cost of rehabilitating Mr. Grayson's reputation within Florida's 9th Congressional District.
