Esther Tenao Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
Plaintiff in Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ESTHER TENAO ATAM,
Plaintiff
vs.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
(SCPMG), et al,
Defendants
Case No.: 22STCV37929
RESPONSE TO GILLIAN FRIEDMAN’S
OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (DUCES
TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS
NOW COMES, ESTHER TENAO ATAM, Plaintiff, and files this Response to Gillian
Friedman’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for personal appearance and
production of things (hereinafter “the Subpoena”).
Gillian Friedman (hereinafter “Gillian”) is the Deputy Attorney General of the State of
California, and is the counsel for the Board of Registered Nursing. On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff
sent Gillian the Subpoena seeking Gillian’s personal attendance and production of any document
showing his communication with investigators that he sent to Plaintiff’s home on 12/16/2022.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
RESPONSE TO GILLIAN FRIEDMAN’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (DUCES
TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS
On January 23, 2023, Gillian, through Armando Zambrano, filed an Objection to the
Subpoena. Accordingly, Plaintiff files a response thereof and states as follows:
i. Gillian Friedman is lying. He has documents responsive to the Subpoena
The California Rules of Professional Conduct provide that in presenting a matter to a
court `an attorney must employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the
attorney, only those means consistent with truth. See Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-
200(A). Thus, an attorney must not do any of the following: [¶] . . . Seek to mislead the judge,
judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. See Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 5-200(B); see also 1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure ([5th ed. 2008]) Attorneys, [§ 461, p.
576].
In Gillian’s objection, Gillian first avers that there are no documents responsive to the
Subpoena. Gillian’s averment is far from the truth. On December 16, 2022, two investigators
knocked at Plaintiff’s door at 7:20 am. They flashed their badges at Plaintiff, which showed they
were from the Attorney General’s office, and demanded to come in to talk. Plaintiff told them
they have three minutes to get off her property and they challenged Plaintiff and asked her “or
what?” In consideration of the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that the investigators visited
Plaintiff’s home at the order and/or direction of Gillian. It is not a coincidence how two
investigators from the Attorney General’s office can randomly knock at Plaintiff’s house and
demand to talk to Plaintiff, while Plaintiff has an ongoing dispute with the BRN, whose counsel
is the Attorney General.
It follows; Gillian is clearly lying before this Honorable Court by claiming his office has
no record of any communication with the investigators he sent to Plaintiff’s house on December
16, 2022.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
RESPONSE TO GILLIAN FRIEDMAN’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (DUCES
TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS
ii. There is basis to compel Gillian to appear before the Court
The testimony of a witness in California may be taken by deposition when the witness is
the only one who can establish facts or a fact material to the issue. See Code Civ. Proc., sec.
2021.
Section 820 examinations "are permissible if there is a showing of good cause." See
Kees v. Medical Board, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1801 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (Emphasis added). Further, a
person should only be subjected to a mental examination if such an examination is the least
intrusive means of determining a physician’s mental condition. See Kees v. Medical Board, 7
Cal. App. 4th 1801 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). “The only guideline set forth in section 820 is simply
"[w]henever it appears that . . . the licentiate’s ability to practice is impaired due to mental illness.
. . ."” Alexander D. v. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 231 Cal.App.3d 92, 98 (Cal. Ct. App.
1991).
First, as BRN’s attorney, Gillian is the right party to appear before the Court and
establish the facts stated in the Subpoena.
Next, Gillian failed to properly advice his client regarding applicable law on Section 820
examinations. There was no good cause to compel Plaintiff to subject to a mental examination.
Gillian insisted that Plaintiff subject to the mental examination or have her license revoked and
pay fines. Gillian ignorantly failed to notice that the information that was submitted to the BRN
was false. Interestingly, Gillian failed to investigate the veracity of the allegations that were
submitted to the BRN. BRN received a report from Sarah Poetter containing false allegations
against Plaintiff and a false account of the incidence on August 28, 2020. Notably, on or about
July 13, 2022, the BRN issued Plaintiff a Petition and Order Compelling Mental and/or Physical
Examination. Said Petition alleged that Plaintiff, on August 28, 2022, had a mental breakdown
and displayed concerning behavior. The Petition also threatened to revoke Plaintiff’s license in
the event she failed to submit to a mental and/or physical examination. Thomas Rinaldi further
threatened Plaintiff via direct email contact, and maintained that Plaintiff’s license would be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4
RESPONSE TO GILLIAN FRIEDMAN’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (DUCES
TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS
revoked should she fail to comply.
The incidence that happened on August 28, 2020, which incidence forms the basis of this
claim, discredits the BRN’s averments. On or about August 28, 2022, Plaintiff was engaged in a
casual conversation with Mr. Edwards, a previous co-worker, when Plaintiff mentioned that she
had been harassed by two males within the last year at another job she held before. At that time,
Plaintiff considered Mr. Edwards to be a friend since they often worked in the same shift as
nurses. It is after this incidence that Mr. Edwards started making negative remarks about Plaintiff
to the hospital’s patients and staff, in an effort to discredit her and make her appear as
incompetent and incapable of performing her duties as a nurse.
Plaintiff then expressed to her manager, Sarah Potter, her concerns of bullying by Xavier
Edwards. Given her religious and cultural background, Plaintiff only stated what she felt were all
within her realm of possible explanations of her bizarre coincidental car accidents. Plaintiff avers
that the fears were valid to her. She never sought to make any definite claims, but simply wanted
to be heard. Since this topic was completely out of the realm of understanding of Sarah Poetter,
she not only told Plaintiff promptly and harshly that she could not help her, but also proceeded to
immediately ask Plaintiff to get a psychiatric evaluation and clearance before she could return to
work.
Plaintiff was immediately asked to leave the work premises on the basis that she was
mentally unstable and unfit to function as an ER nurse. In shock at how quickly the situation had
escalated, Plaintiff asked how this was fair, and Sarah’s response was that she had no answers at
the moment and that Plaintiff needed to vacate the premises and not to return until she had a
psychiatric clearance note. Accordingly, her shifts for August 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st and 31st,
were canceled with no information about when she could return to work. She was further told
that Plaintiff order to return to work, she needed a clearance note from a psychiatrist. Sarah
Potter perceived Plaintiff as having a ‘psychotic break’.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 5
RESPONSE TO GILLIAN FRIEDMAN’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (DUCES
TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS
The staff and management of Kaiser (SCPMG) then started making the false allegations
against Plaintiff, that she is not mentally capable of fulfilling her duties. Plaintiff believes that
these actions by the management at Kaiser were acts of retaliation against her and their effort to
portray Plaintiff as mentally unbalanced because she had complained about bullying by her co-
worker, Xavier Edwards. Furthermore, Plaintiff believes that her mistreatment was substantially
motivated by hostility to her ethnic background and foreign accent, and for this reason,
the staff at Kaiser attempted to portray Plaintiff as having suffered a psychotic break and also
portray her as unfit to work as a registered nurse.
In a bid to protect her rights and to seek legal redress, Plaintiff filed this case against inter
alia, her former employer. Plaintiff sought to prove to this Honorable Court the true account of
the events that occurred on August 28, 2020.
Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that there is absolutely nothing in BRN’s record that shows
Plaintiff is mentally incompetent. Notably, the BRN interviewed Plaintiff on or about July 2021
and received her complete medical record on August 3, 2021. Upon receiving Plaintiff’s records,
the Board found no issue. Also, nowhere in Plaintiff’s history of nursing was there any record of
bad patient care or any medical errors. It is therefore hard to understand why the BRN subjected
Plaintiff to a mental examination, yet all records show that she is not mentally incompetent at all.
Consequently, on January 6, 2023, Gillian sent Plaintiff a letter notifying her of the
Board’s Decision and Order revoking Plaintiff’s RN practicing license. In said decision and
order, the Board averred that Plaintiff failed to enter appearance and defend herself from the
accusations brought before the Board by Loretta Melby. Consequently, the Board entered the
decision against Plaintiff in default, which decision revoked Plaintiff’s practicing license.
The foregoing therefore amounts to good cause to compel Gillian to appear before the
Court and explain why the BRN revoked Plaintiff’s license based on false allegations from
Plaintiff’s former employer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
RESPONSE TO GILLIAN FRIEDMAN’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (DUCES
TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS
iii. The Affidavit in support is not defective
Contrary to Gillian’ averments, Plaintiff’s Affidavit is fully compliant with CCP §
1985(b). First, Plaintiff specified the exact information desired to be produced. Notably, Plaintiff
expressly demanded Gillian produce any document showing Gillian’s communication with the
investigators that he sent to Plaintiff’s home on 12/16/2022.
Next, Plaintiff made a showing of good cause why Gillian should produce said
information. Notably, investigators were sent to Plaintiffs’ home on or about 12/16/2022 at about
0720 am for the purpose of harassing plaintiff. Clearly, this is a good cause requiring Gillian to
produce the requested information.
Lastly, Plaintiff demonstrated how the requested information is material to the case, by
stating that the requested information would show how Plaintiff has been subjected to oppression
and harassment by Gillian and the Defendants herein.
It follows’ Gillian’s objection should be denied.
Plaintiff has not refused to pay the witness fees
Plaintiff does not dispute that she should pay witness fees. However, Cal. Gov. Code §
68097.2 does not specify when such fees are payable to the witness. Accordingly, Gillian cannot
object to the Subpoena on the ground that the witness fees has not yet been paid. Plaintiff
understands that the witness fee must either be paid upon service of the subpoena if the witness
requests it, or at the deposition/hearing.
It should be noted that Plaintiff has not refused to pay said witness fees. Therefore,
Plaintiff asserts that the Subpoena should not be deemed objected based on this ground, since
Plaintiff is ready to pay said witness fees at the deposition/hearing.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing facts, arguments, and points of law, Plaintiff prays this Court
compels Gillian Friedman to appear before the Court for deposition on said issue, and produces
the documents demanded in Plaintiff’s Subpoena.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 7
RESPONSE TO GILLIAN FRIEDMAN’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (DUCES
TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS
DATED: ______________
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Esther Tenao Atam
Plaintiff in Pro Per
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 8
RESPONSE TO GILLIAN FRIEDMAN’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (DUCES
TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], a copy of the foregoing document has been
sent to the Defendants in the following address:
DATED:
____________________________
Esther Tenao Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
Plaintiff in Pro Per
Lisa M. Magorien, Esq. (SBN: 259877)
Imagorien@Ibbklaw.com
Morgan A. Chase, Esq. (SBN: 333573)
mchase@Ibbklaw.com
LAGASSE BRANCH BELL + KINKEAD LLP
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 950
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 345-5080
Facsimile: (858) 345-5025
Attorney for SCPMG
ROB BONTA (AG)
GILLIAN E. FRIEDMAN (Deputy AG)
300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230
Public: (213) 269-6000
Telephone: (213) 269-6294
Facsimile: (916) 731-2126
Email: Gillian.Friedman@doj.ca.gov
Attorney for BRN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 9
RESPONSE TO GILLIAN FRIEDMAN’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (DUCES
TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF THINGS
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )