| McGraw et al ANSWER filed 1/26/07 FULL DOCUMENT - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
Linda in L.A.
 Posted:
Sat May 09, 2009 4:12 am |
|
|
|
| petals wrote: | | I saw a ruling in this case posted at scared monkeys this afternoon. Someone else can copy it over here if they want to. It looks like the Judge has granted the motion to dismiss Skeeter's estate. I showed it to my husband, the attorney, and he thinks it is a bad, bad ruling for Dr. Phil. It really leaves Dr. Phil hanging out to dry. |
I'm no attorney...but it the court has ruled it was noteworthy news and therefore not an invasion of privacy...they can't later come back and say it was. So at a minimum...at least the invasion of privacy has been dealt with in my opinion.
As to dismissing Skeeter from commiting fraud...it could open the door for Dr. Phil. Saying Skeeter didn't...doesn't necessarily mean Dr Phil didn't.
|
|
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1824
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| resigned
Posted:
Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:32 am |
|
|
|
Case Number: BC363201
DEEPAK KALPOE VS PHILLIP C MCGRAW
Filing Date: 12/13/2006
Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
Future Hearings
01/29/2010 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Compel (c/f 11-16-09)
05/06/2010 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference
05/17/2010 at 09:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial
----------------------------------
Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
11/10/2009 Reply/Response (IN SUPPORT OF SATISH KALPOE'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
11/03/2009 Opposition Document (TO PLTF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER INTERROGATORY ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCS. )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
|
|
"Our Pat"
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 36032
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AC
Posted:
Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:30 am |
|
|
|
12/31/2009
Motion to Compel (PLTFS TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION IN CALIFORNIA SET: 1-29-10)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
So, what will happen if the defendants do not show?
|
|
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 7169
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:56 am |
|
|
|
| AC wrote: | 12/31/2009
Motion to Compel (PLTFS TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION IN CALIFORNIA SET: 1-29-10)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
So, what will happen if the defendants do not show? |
.. perhaps sanctions for not complying with discovery requests?
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10481
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| resigned
Posted:
Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:03 am |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 Proof of Service (RE RESPONSE IN OPPO. TO MOTION TO COMPEL, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/13/2010 Miscellaneous-Other (JOINT SEPARATE STATEMENT RE SATISH KALPOE'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
01/13/2010 Proof of Service (RE JOINT SEPARATE STATEMENT, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
|
|
"Our Pat"
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 36032
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| resigned
Posted:
Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:19 am |
|
|
|
The Court ruled that the Kalpoes have until June 1, 2010 to be deposed in the State of California.
|
|
"Our Pat"
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 36032
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:15 pm |
|
|
|
they can be deposed in aruba too.
is this some kind of ploy?
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_657.html
maybe they can't get visas.
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 18737
Location: in my mind's eye
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Reporters go all over the world to take depositions for cases originating in the U.S. Having said that, it may be that that rule does not extend to parties who are plaintiffs in an action. I don't know.
Since the Kalpoes went to Aruba as minors to live with their mother who married an aruban, they may not have needed a passport. Surinamme and Aruba both having ties to The Netherlands may have made that unnecessary.
Remember that the Kalpoe brothers were reported to be legal residents on Aruba - one of them had temporary renewal issues at some point after Natalee's disappearance.
I wouldn't be surprised they're having problems obtaining documentation from Surinamme - citizenship or passports etc.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 24636
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AC
Posted:
Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:10 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | Reporters go all over the world to take depositions for cases originating in the U.S. Having said that, it may be that that rule does not extend to parties who are plaintiffs in an action. I don't know.
Since the Kalpoes went to Aruba as minors to live with their mother who married an aruban, they may not have needed a passport. Surinamme and Aruba both having ties to The Netherlands may have made that unnecessary.
Remember that the Kalpoe brothers were reported to be legal residents on Aruba - one of them had temporary renewal issues at some point after Natalee's disappearance.
I wouldn't be surprised they're having problems obtaining documentation from Surinamme - citizenship or passports etc. |
This case was filed such a long time ago. Wouldn't you think the necessary papers would have been initiated long ago? I mean, why wait until now?
|
|
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 7169
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:23 pm |
|
|
|
| AC wrote: |
This case was filed such a long time ago. Wouldn't you think the necessary papers would have been initiated long ago? I mean, why wait until now? |
One would think so, particularly when they have U.S. lawyers representing them.
If you read up on the complex issues surrounding citizenship in Surinamme and The Netherlands etc. and when the rules changed in that regard, it might shed some light on what possibly may be the problem.
Don't discount the fact that counsel for the defendants are probably bringing motions to compel at every turn. Case management attempts to keep a case moving along and when pressed by defence counsel, the Court may have given a timeframe for completion of those depositions simply as a case management matter.
I don't read too much into the "order". Judges make orders all the time and they don't necessarily or even usually mean that a party is resistant to fulfilling their obligations.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 24636
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AC
Posted:
Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: |
One would think so, particularly when they have U.S. lawyers representing them.
If you read up on the complex issues surrounding citizenship in Surinamme and The Netherlands etc. and when the rules changed in that regard, it might shed some light on what possibly may be the problem.
Don't discount the fact that counsel for the defendants are probably bringing motions to compel at every turn. Case management attempts to keep a case moving along and when pressed by defence counsel, the Court may have given a timeframe for completion of those depositions simply as a case management matter.
I don't read too much into the "order". Judges make orders all the time and they don't necessarily or even usually mean that a party is resistant to fulfilling their obligations. |
Thanks, Heli.
|
|
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 7169
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:36 pm |
|
|
|
given their brush with the law
which may not be over yet, they may put their very residence in aruba in jeopardy if they leave. they would not be dutch citizens as arubans are since suriname became independent before they were born (1975). they would also need a visa for the us. knowing this the defense might be using it to complicate their lives. remember the last motion to compel that was going to kill the case? it came and went and the case is still here. they don't have to be there in person to be deposed.
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 18737
Location: in my mind's eye
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| resigned
Posted:
Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:37 pm |
|
|
|
"plaintiffs are ordered to give ...depositions in CA ..
We'll see.
|
|
"Our Pat"
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 36032
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bubbles
Posted:
Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:18 pm |
|
|
|
| AC wrote: | 12/31/2009
Motion to Compel (PLTFS TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION IN CALIFORNIA SET: 1-29-10)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
So, what will happen if the defendants do not show? |
Nothing until the judge rules in favor of defendants. (And the judge will most likely rule in their favor since plaintiffs brought the suit).
After that, Dr Fraud would have to file another motion if the depo date cannot be agreed or the plaintiffs skip out on the scheduled depo. As a practical matter, Dr Fraud's atty's will try to reschedule, since it happens all the time. If unable then they may file for dismissal.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 8749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bubbles
Posted:
Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:23 pm |
|
|
|
Re: "plaintiffs are ordered to give ...depositions in C
| resigned wrote: |
We'll see. |
Where is the judge's ruling and where is the rest of the defendants' papers?
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 8749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bubbles
Posted:
Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:26 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | Reporters go all over the world to take depositions for cases originating in the U.S. Having said that, it may be that that rule does not extend to parties who are plaintiffs in an action. I don't know.
Since the Kalpoes went to Aruba as minors to live with their mother who married an aruban, they may not have needed a passport. Surinamme and Aruba both having ties to The Netherlands may have made that unnecessary.
Remember that the Kalpoe brothers were reported to be legal residents on Aruba - one of them had temporary renewal issues at some point after Natalee's disappearance.
I wouldn't be surprised they're having problems obtaining documentation from Surinamme - citizenship or passports etc. |
Defendants do not have to chase plaintiffs if plaintiffs filed in CA.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 8749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bubbles
Posted:
Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:30 pm |
|
|
|
Re: they can be deposed in aruba too.
That part is not relevant since the Kalpoes brought the lawsuit and did so in CA.
The link would only be relevant if the parties were reversed.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 8749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AC
Posted:
Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Thanks, Bubbles.
|
|
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 7169
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
