Although the case is still ongoing, Dr. Phil and CBS won't be paying punitive damages in the lawsuit following the Natalee Holloway episode

It's been a while since the Natalee Holloway disappearance case has been in the news, but Phillip McGraw (Dr. Phil), CBS Paramount Domestic Television and Peteski Productions are still dealing with the repercussions of a show they aired that has resulted in a 7-year lawsuit.

Tuesday, though, it was decided by a California appeals court that the defendants will not have to face punitive damages for the information broadcasted on the show. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Deepak Kalpoe and Satish Kalpoe. They lived in Aruba and were questioned about Holloway's disappearance by a private investigator hired by the Dr. Phil show.

The interviews were allegedly said to be private, but were secretly recorded. From that material, it appeared that Deepak admitted that he and his brother had sex with Holloway. But Deepak denies that now and says that the tapes were manipulated. The brothers are suing for defamation, invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress, misrepresentation and deceit.

The case is currently ongoing in a Los Angeles Superior Court. The defendants' motion for summary judgement is pending.

According to The Hollywood Reporter: "...an appeal was pursued regarding to the judge's ruling that barred the Kalpoe brothers from introducing evidence regarding general or punitive damages for failure to demand a correction. The basis for limiting damages in the absence of a demand for correction is California Civil Code section 48a, enacted in 1931 and amended in 1945. Plaintiffs in libel cases can only collect 'special damages' (quantifiable monetary losses) without a correction demand made within 20 days."

California appeals court judge Fred Woods explained in his ruling why the plaintiffs appeal does not fall into the scope of the statute:

"A close examination of the cases reveals the scope of section 48a is determined by the type of media involved, and not upon specific content," writes the judge. "Therefore we cannot conclude the statute only applies to visual and sound broadcasting which is engaged in the business of rapid and immediate dissemination of the news. The language of the statute clearly applies to all types of television shows."