This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," September 13, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight, a possible breakthrough in the Natalee Holloway case. A California judge has ordered the Kalpoe brothers to turn over documents and e-mails that the judge says are relevant to the most fundamental issues in this case.
John Q. Kelly is an attorney for Natalee Holloway's parents. He joins us in New York.
John, you were part of this lawsuit originally, but your client got bounced out of it. Btu tell me, what is the order that this judge has issued and why is it significant?
JOHN Q. KELLY, ATTORNEY FOR HOLLOWAY FAMILY: Well, the key issue is whether the Kalpoe's have to turn over all the documents in their possession including all their e-mail correspondence between them and Joran Van der Sloot or any other third parties during the uncertain period of time after Natalee's disappearance. And we're hoping that it would shed some light on Natalee's disappearance and the Kalpoe's involvement with it and think of it (ph) if they're kind enough to turn it all over.
VAN SUSTEREN: You say shed some light. Is it fair to say this might be a bombshell in the case?
KELLY: Well, depending on what is in the records they have right now. I know for a fact that the former prosecutor Karen Yanson (ph) had diligently turned over all the prosecution filed up to a certain point to the Kalpoes and Mr. Van der Sloot as the investigation was going on. And I think having now seen the light of day and Dr. Phil's attorneys having these two questioned, the Kalpoes, taking their deposition, it could be rather powerful, to say the least.
VAN SUSTEREN: These e-mails and documents have never been in the possession of you or your client Dave and Beth, is that right?
KELLY: Some of them may have been, Greta. I have seen some of the prosecution filings, I've seen a lot of the police reports and things, but obviously there's a lot out there we have not seen yet and we would like to be privy to. And I would certainly like to see Dr. Phil's attorneys be privy to them.
VAN SUSTEREN: John, there is some question whether the documents will be produced. The Kalpoe brothers will say, we don't have them, they are in the possession of the prosecutor in Aruba. Is that true? Is that the way it's going to be fought at this point?
KELLY: I believe David Koch (ph), one of the attorneys for the Kalpoes actually signed a declaration at the court indicating that even if the court ordered the documents be turned over, they were not going to turn them over, which was sort of, for lack of a better word, arrogant on his part. The court did not necessarily like that.
But I can't see them both using the courts as a sword and then a shield. They can't bring this action, they can't seek damages and not obey the quarters of the ort - the orders of the court and expect their case to go forward.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. So now back this up a little bit. Explain what this lawsuit is about and how your client was once in it and is now out of it?
KELLY: The Kalpoe brothers claim - Deepak claims that when he was interviewed by Jamie Skeeters (ph), who subsequently passed away, he said on the tape that he was not involved in Natalee's disappearance and in no way did he engage in any sexual activity with her before disappearance. Deepak claims subsequently either Dr. Phil's production company or Jamie Skeeters altered the tape to reflect that Deepak had been involved in Natalee's disappearance and engaged in sexual activity with her prior to her disappearance. And therefore they have brought a lawsuit claiming libel, defamation, invasion of privacy and a lot of other claims based on the alleged alteration of the tape, a ledger alteration.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. So that was filed in the State of California by these Aruban residents - I don't know what their status is in Aruba. They live there, I don't know what their legal status is.
They filed in the State of California and then you and your clients seized upon the moment to try to get into the litigation so you would get them under oath. Is that right?
KELLY: We did. Our premise was that they were claiming that the basis of their claim was that it was false, by saying that they were involved in Natalee's disappearance. Our claim was the wrongful death action, the assault and wrongful death action that we brought against Deepak and Satish was based on the same set of salient operative fact, that whether they were involved or not in Natalee's disappearance is something that should be litigated by the courts out in California once they have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction.
VAN SUSTEREN: And then of course the court said that your client could not bring the action so you guys got bounced out in June.
KELLY: We did. Unfortunately. We would have liked to stay in there, but that was the ruling.
VAN SUSTEREN: But you'd like to stay in there but even though you got bounced out, it is s till a huge victory for you because I suspect, I don't know, that you are working with the lawyers of Dr. Phil's because that would enable you to get more information about the investigation, right? Or won't you answer?
KELLY: I'll answer, of course. I've had a number of conversations with the attorneys of Dr. Phil and I like to keep them posted and they like to keep me posted. And that's an open line there, for sure.
VAN SUSTEREN: So getting really bounced out was not really a loss at all and your foot is still in the door, so to speak.
KELLY: It was a hail Mary and we also would like to know we want the Kalpoe brothers to know we're watching their every move and if there is ever even a crack in the door we're going to seize the opportunity and go after them.
Content and Programming Copyright 2007 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2007 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.