BRENDA CARATACHEA vs. CALIFORNIA BEVERAGE MARKETING CO - We believe Attorney Edye Hill is the attorney for the defendant in this matter. The Los Angeles online case summary for this matter lists Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar as defendants' counsel. The opposition to the motion at issue in the ruling has a declaration by Edye Hill, and no one else, reflecting her personal knowledge and involvement in these issues.

From the tentative ruling this is what happened:

Attorney Edye Hill from Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar represents the defendants.

Plaintiff scheduled the deposition of Ms. Hill's client for January 4th. A day before defense counsel said there would be no deposition. No reason was given.

Plaintiff's counsel then wrote requesting new dates for the deposition.

No response from the Ford Walker law firm.

So plaintiff's counsel noticed the deposition again for February 9th.

Guess what?

The day before, February 8th, defendants' counsel again said there would be no deposition. No reason was given.

Plaintiff then filed this motion to compel.

If the situation were not bad enough - wait until you see the legal arguments from Edye Hill, Esq. and the judge's comments.



1. Ms. Hill argued the motion to compel was moot because her client was now willing to be deposed on one of three dates.

The judge said no legal authority was cited for this argument. Probably because none exists.

It is in our view a ridiculous argument and one likely to lead to sanctions.

You can't repeatedly refuse to attend depositions, give no reason why, make someone file a motion to compel, then claim it's moot because you'll voluntarily do a deposition. What would likely happen, without a court order, is a day before the deposition Ms. Hill's office would say it is not going forward.



2. Attorney Hill argued plaintiff unilaterally scheduled the deposition and this was improper.

Hello?

The judge again said Edye Hill had no legal authority for her position.

Why? Because California law specifically allows this. We're guessing the Ford Walker firm has unilaterally scheduled depositions.

As the judge noted, what was plaintiff to do?

Ms. Hill's office kept canceling and refused to even discuss dates.

How does one "mutually" arrive at a deposition date when Edye Hill's firm will not discuss the issue?



3. Edye Hill argued plaintiff failed to prove there was bad faith in what happened.

For the third time the judge had to note there is no such requirement in California law.

Basically, Ms. Hill was pulling arguments out of her butt. It is embarassing to read this ruling.



4. Ms. Hill then argued plaintiff had not been prejudiced by what happened.

For the fourth time the judge explained there is no such requirement in the law.



5. Attorney Edye Hill claimed there was insufficient notice before an informal discovery conference.

The judge said a conference was not required, and the fact plaintiff's counsel had gone above and beyond what the law requires to try and get the deposition done was hardly a reason to deny the motion.



The court then said the Ford Walker firm was engaged in "misuse of the discovery process" and was acting without "substantial justification".

Due to the shenanigans and the poor legal arguments from attorney Edye Hill, the judge first sanctioned Ms. Hill's client.

Then the judge jointly sanctioned Ms. Hill's law firm for $1750, payable within twenty days.



Can it get worse for attorney Hill?

Yes. Imagine you are the judge reading this glop and repeatedly having to note there is no legal authority for an argument. What do you think the judge's opinion will be the next time they see Edye Hill's name on legal papers?

The judge's initial thought will probably not be one of excitement as they prepare to read scintillating legal argument from an excellent attorney.

Could this hurt a client down the road? It is something you will want to consider before hiring Ms. Hill to be your attorney.

We don't know why the depositions were cancelled and that could be purely the client's fault. But the legal arguments opposing the motion to compel are on the Ford Walker firm and Ms. Hill. It is not good lawyering. Their client may be upset if they are billed for this work.

Would you hire Edye Hill to be your attorney?

Not a chance. After reading the judge's tentative order we assumed a first year attorney was responsible for the many poor legal arguments rejected by the judge. We were shocked to see Ms. Hill has been an attorney since 2002.

Not only were the legal arguments ill advised and made without authority, if that is all you have why spend your clients' money preparing an opposition and forcing plaintiff to spend more time which will be added to a sanctions award?



How many times did the judge say Edye Hill was making improper legal arguments?

5 times. Claiming the motion was moot, claiming the deposition was improperly unilaterally scheduled, claiming bad faith was needed for a motion to compel, claiming prejudice was needed, and claiming insufficient notice before an informal conference to resolve matters.

was admitted to the California Bar in 2002. Bar Number 223377.

Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar Limited Liability Partnership
1 World Trade Center Floor 27
Long Beach, California 90831

Law School: Washington College of the Law, Washington DC