McGraw et al ANSWER filed 1/26/07 FULL DOCUMENT

[Fashionista]

this was a conspiracy on another forum as to why it had disappeared, like someone here at RU had hidden secret information. Pretty funny Fash!!

[bbeba103]

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 03/11/2011 at 08:32 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles CA 90012 Motion for Summary Judgment ((c/f 1-6-11))

04/04/2011 at 08:32 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Angeles, CA 90012 Final Status Conference (T/D 4-11-2011)

04/11/2011 at 08:32 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Jury Trial (J/T 25 DAY EST.)

https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/OnlineS ... /index.asp

[bbeba103]

[bbeba103]

[Luke Davis]

http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/15/dr-phil-n ... eposition/

Dr. Phil Loses Battle in Natalee Holloway Case

[hopeless1]

http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/15/dr-phil-natalie-holloway-the-dr-phil-show-beth-holloway-deepak-satish-kalpoe-defamation-deposition/

Dr. Phil Loses Battle in Natalee Holloway Case

What? The attorneys for CBS and Dr. Phil didn't think the Kalpoe's should need to depose Beth. The defendants complaint was that the Kalpoe's were going to delay the hearing and/or trial again. The judge is allowing the deposition but says it will not change any of the hearing dates. So actually, Dr. Phil wins.

[charlierat]

What? The attorneys for CBS and Dr. Phil didn't think the Kalpoe's should need to depose Beth. The defendants complaint was that the Kalpoe's were going to delay the hearing and/or trial again. The judge is allowing the deposition but says it will not change any of the hearing dates. So actually, Dr. Phil wins.

Not exactly. The Kalpoes noticed Beth Holloway's deposition. Through counsel, Dr'ed Phil opposed the notice on the grounds that the deposition was not necessary and would unduly delay the trial. The Judge said "bullshit" on both counts: the Kalpoes are clearly entitled to take Beth Holloway's depostion and doing so will not cause any delay in the trial date. To claim that this was a win for Dr'ed Phil is just spin.

For the record, I doubt that Beth will have anything meaningful to add to the case during her deposition. I don't think that she had any knowledge of the plot to Skeeterize Deepak's interview, but I could be wrong.

[Luke Davis]

Not exactly. The Kalpoes noticed Beth Holloway's deposition. Through counsel, Dr'ed Phil opposed the notice on the grounds that the deposition was not necessary and would unduly delay the trial. The Judge said "bullshit" on both counts: the Kalpoes are clearly entitled to take Beth Holloway's depostion and doing so will not cause any delay in the trial date. To claim that this was a win for Dr'ed Phil is just spin.

For the record, I doubt that Beth will have anything meaningful to add to the case during her deposition. I don't think that she had any knowledge of the plot to Skeeterize Deepak's interview, but I could be wrong.

I think you are wrong. She appeared on several shows promoting the Dr. Phil show and stuck to a script no matter what she was asked. imo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELxTwuoveLA

[Luke Davis]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1

City News Service reports Thursday that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe can take their lawsuit to trial and set a trial date for Oct. 12.

[CherokeeKid]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18004687?nclick_check=1

City News Service reports Thursday that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe can take their lawsuit to trial and set a trial date for Oct. 12.

WOW! Great news!

[Queen]

What? The attorneys for CBS and Dr. Phil didn't think the Kalpoe's should need to depose Beth. The defendants complaint was that the Kalpoe's were going to delay the hearing and/or trial again. The judge is allowing the deposition but says it will not change any of the hearing dates. So actually, Dr. Phil wins.

Not for long lol

[resigned]

Future Hearings

10/31/2011 at 08:32 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Compel

11/16/2011 at 08:32 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference (T/D 11-21-2011)

11/21/2011 at 08:32 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial (J/T 35 DAY EST.)

[dugo]

I post here just below /Post by resigned » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:06 am/ in this sticky. That's a long time ago. I think posts are missing ITT.

Anyaways WTF! Trial in 2013? I was young when this case started.

Future Hearings

05/15/2012 at 08:30 am in department 89 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Status Conference (RE PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS/MOTIONS INLIMINE)

05/16/2012 at 08:30 am in department 89 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Status Conference ((2ND DAY) RE PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS &MOTIONS IN LIMINE)

04/08/2013 at 08:32 am in department 89 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference

04/22/2013 at 09:00 am in department 89 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial (10 WEEKS)

[Queen]

Can this just be overrrrrrr allllready??

[resigned]

:wtf: Can this just be overrrrrrr allllready??

I think it already has been for some time.

[Queen]

Looks like its been oked to move forward still?

[resigned]

Looks like its been oked to move forward still?

I do agree that the case has been okayed to move forward - but that appears the only place it is going. The date just keeps getting moved. What is there left to discover since this case was filed in 2006? Are the Kalpoe attorneys waiting for Joran to be available to appear at trial to testify on their behalf? hehehe

[hopeless1]

[resigned]

You'd think the Kalpoes would be eager to get this case to court after all these years.........well, if they thought they actually had a shot of winning.

[Flippy]

You'd think the Kalpoes would be eager to get this case to court after all these years.........well, if they thought they actually had a shot of winning.

Is the dispute in the case whether depak's words were altered or just a question of whether or not they deserve to be compensated for the alteration?

[resigned]

IMO. it is both. TV "talk" shows walk a thin line and this case is no exception.The Kalpoes will have a hard time getting a jury in LA to award them anything for defamation of them. The ALE would have to be first on the two -liars -for-nine -days-while they-knew- a girl- they -were- last with- was- missing defamers list......Dr. Phil just "enhanced" it a bit for entertainment value. Heck, the reason that Deepak was speaking to Skeeters was an attempt to capitalize off of a missing person that he knew he had lied over for a "bro". Hard to claim that he was defamed too badly if he was willing to sell his notoriety himself.

[Flippy]

IMO. it is both. TV "talk" shows walk a thin line and this case is no exception.The Kalpoes will have a hard time getting a jury in LA to award them anything for defamation of them. The ALE would have to be first on the two -liars -for-nine -days-while they-knew- a girl- they -were- last with- was- missing defamers list......Dr. Phil just "enhanced" it a bit for entertainment value. Heck, the reason that Deepak was speaking to Skeeters was an attempt to capitalize off of a missing person that he knew he had lied over for a "bro". Hard to claim that he was defamed too badly if he was willing to sell his notoriety himself.

I agree that a jury (at least an american one) would have a hard time awarding defamation of character money to someone who was very obviously trying to obfuscate the truth behind a missing American teenager, any more than Casey Anthony would get anywhere suing Nancy Grace for the same.

However, as a self-appointed representative of reasonable people, what "Team Phil" did was more a bit more than "enhancement"...There should be an opening for a penalty for what they did in the same way that you can sue the makers of a faulty product for "compensation" and also for "punitive" damages. The compensation for Kalpoes would be low or none....but it should scare all of us if we accept that is okay for a national media outlet to come up to any of us and say "Do you club baby seals?" and when we reply "No of course not I would never do that" and see on the evening news ourselves saying "Of Course I do that"....there should be some concern from all of us that this is a bad thing that was done to bad people.

[resigned]

IMO. it is both. TV "talk" shows walk a thin line and this case is no exception.The Kalpoes will have a hard time getting a jury in LA to award them anything for defamation of them. The ALE would have to be first on the two -liars -for-nine -days-while they-knew- a girl- they -were- last with- was- missing defamers list......Dr. Phil just "enhanced" it a bit for entertainment value. Heck, the reason that Deepak was speaking to Skeeters was an attempt to capitalize off of a missing person that he knew he had lied over for a "bro". Hard to claim that he was defamed too badly if he was willing to sell his notoriety himself.

I agree that a jury (at least an american one) would have a hard time awarding defamation of character money to someone who was very obviously trying to obfuscate the truth behind a missing American teenager, any more than Casey Anthony would get anywhere suing Nancy Grace for the same.

However, as a self-appointed representative of reasonable people, what "Team Phil" did was more a bit more than "enhancement"...There should be an opening for a penalty for what they did in the same way that you can sue the makers of a faulty product for "compensation" and also for "punitive" damages. The compensation for Kalpoes would be low or none....but it should scare all of us if we accept that is okay for a national media outlet to come up to any of us and say "Do you club baby seals?" and when we reply "No of course not I would never do that" and see on the evening news ourselves saying "Of Course I do that"....there should be some concern from all of us that this is a bad thing that was done to bad people.

I agree that it is wrong for media to twist a person words to mean something contrary to what they actually said, but I have never been certain that I have heard all of the tapes. There seemed to be 3 tapes being floated. The hard drive version of Skeeters, the ALE/AHATA/Arlene version, and the Dr. Phil version. IMO, it has never been cleared up what is the Skeeters original and how much difference was in the Dr. Phil aired version. The FBI and NFI never divulged any finding in detail, at least that I recall having seen. The law is the law and if Dr. Phil edited the tape to the point that it is obviously a major change, done malicously, then I would find for the plaintiff. But to award any damages to those two brothers for their lies. No freaking way. IMO, they defamed themselves...a young woman was probably dead and has never been found partly due to their lies, not to mention the 2 guards they let sit in jail while they were plotting how to make money off their lies.

[yankee-in-france]

I agree with both of you, but, Flippy is a libel suit a proper forum for a cause of action that, if true, is a crime. Isn't altering a tape to such extent a crime? If it is, then should a criminal case have been filed against the responsible individuals. I think that Pat is suggesting a verdict for the Plaintiff if the evidence supports that finding with a - $0 - damage finding which might be the proper one but how is this going to protect all of us against the unscrupulous amongst as you mention, Flippy.

[resigned]

First I have seen this article.....



Kalpoe Brothers Cannot Seek Punitive Damages

Written by Information Provided to San Fernando Valley Sun
Thursday, 27 December 2012 02:30

LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Two brothers who allege they were defamed on a "Dr. Phil" episode about Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba cannot seek punitive or general damages in their $800 million lawsuit, a judge affirmed.

Deepak and Satish Kalpoe filed their complaint in December 2006 against Phil McGraw and CBS, maintaining their reputations were damaged in a Sept. 15, 2005, "Dr. Phil" show in which it was implied that they drugged the 18-year- old Alabama college student and raped her.

On Nov. 13, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William MacLaughlin granted a defense motion to prevent the Kalpoes from asking for punitive or general damages because they did not comply with the California Civil Code and make a written demand for a retraction of the material they believed was defamatory within 20 days.

Attorneys for the Kalpoes maintained in their court papers that the retraction rule only applied to media outlets engaged in the "immediate and rapid dissemination of news." They asked MacLaughlin today to reconsider his previous ruling, saying the Kalpoe siblings otherwise would be "stripped of their right to proceed on the full merits of the overwhelming majority of their causes of action."

The Kalpoe attorneys said the ruling affects 21 of their 24 causes of action. They claimed that demanding a retraction would have been futile and asked the judge to either reverse his prior ruling or hold off a final ruling until trial, when they could present additional evidence. MacLaughlin said he was denying the motion because they did not present any new facts or new law. "I'm certainly not unaware of the consequences of the court's ruling," the judge said.

MacLaughlin has yet to rule on whether the Kalpoes are public figures. If he makes that finding, the brother would have a higher standard of proof ahead of them to show they were defamed. Trial is scheduled for April 22.

Holloway, of Mountain Brook, Ala., was vacationing with friends on the Caribbean island resort when she vanished the night of May 30, 2005. Aruban authorities in 2008 cleared the Kalpoes of any involvement in her disappearance and presumed death.

The brothers contend the "Dr. Phil" episode in which Deepak Kalpoe was interviewed by the late private investigator Jamie Skeeters implied they helped kill Holloway and dispose of her body.

http://www.sanfernandosun.com/sanfernsu ... e-damages-


Tsk, tsk, tsk......that's a damn shame.