IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT “BOB” ROSS AND EUGENIO 

VARGAS

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al.,

Defendants/Counterclaim

Plaintiffs.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-343-Y

Consolidated with 

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-430-Y

 Judge Terry R. Means

PLAINTIFFS’ APPENDIX TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

Plaintiffs Robert (Bob) Ross and Eugenio Vargas pursuant to Local Rules 7.1(i), and § C 

of this Court’s Case Management Requirements, submits this appendix of documents, and in 

support of PLAINTIFFS’ APPENDIX TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND BRIEF IN 

SUPPORT:”

Item Description Pgs.

1 Subpoena for National Officers Credit Card Statements, Receipts and 

Expenses

1-2

2 Guerrieri, Bartos & Roma, P.C. to Chinery-Burns & Lee 3-4

3 APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log 5-14

4 Declaration of Kerri Phillips 15-16

5 Emails To and From Kit Gomez Alba and Josh Black-APFA National 

Secretary – Re-Open Ross Article VII Hearing

17-21

6 APFA Produced Emails from Josh Black - REDACTIONS 22-24

NON-PUBLISHED CASES

5 Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v Maxwell, CV-NO.3:16-CV-3198-B

(N.D. Tex. Sep 26, 2018)

25-31

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 1 of 33 PageID 5000
Respectfully submitted,

K.D. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips

Kerri Phillips

Texas Bar No. 24065906 

Phone: (972) 327-5800

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway

Plano, Texas 75024

Fax: (940) 400-0089

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the true and correct copy of this document was sent to all counsel of record, 

hereunder listed via ECF Filing on this the 29th day of February 2024.

/s/ Kerri Phillips

Kerri Phillips, Esq.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 2 of 33 PageID 5001
APFA VII.-008273 APPENDIX 1

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 3 of 33 PageID 5002
APFA VII.-008290 APPENDIX 2

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 4 of 33 PageID 5003
APFA VII.-005280 APPENDIX 3

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 5 of 33 PageID 5004
APFA VII.-005281 APPENDIX 4

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 6 of 33 PageID 5005
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

1

# AUTHOR RECIPIENT CC DATE(S) DOCUMENT 

TYPE

PRIVILEGE

1. Julie 

Hedrick

Charlette 

Matts

04/03/2023 Email Attorney client 

privilege

2. Julie 

Hedrick

Officers, 

Charlette 

Matts

04/16/2023 Email Attorney client 

privilege

3. Osborne 

Law Offices

Julie Hedrick, 

Joshua Black

03/01/2021 Memorandum Attorney client 

privilege

4. Julie 

Hedrick 

Margot 

Nikitas

Charlette 

Matts 

Officers

03/31/2023

01/27/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

5. Julie 

Hedrick

Charlette 

Matts, Officers

03/31/2023 Email Attorney client 

privilege

6. Margot 

Nikitas

Officers, Legal 

Department

07/11/2022 Memorandum Attorney client 

privilege

7. Alyssa 

Urban

Marcus 

Gluth 

Marcus Gluth

Alyssa Urban 

12/08/2022

12/08/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

8. Joshua 

Black 

Bill Osborne

Joshua 

Black 

Bill Osborne 

Joshua Black 

Bill Osborne 

National 

President 

National 

President 

07/14/2020 

07/14/2020 

07/14/2020 

Email Attorney client 

privilege

9. Susannah 

Bender

Lori Bassani 

Lori Bassani 

Susannah 

Bender 

Mark 

Richard; 

Kathleen 

Phillips 

08/14/2019 

08/14/2019 

Email Attorney client 

privilege

APPENDIX 5

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 7 of 33 PageID 5006
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

2

10. Margot 

Nikitas 

National 

President 

Julie Hedrick 

Margot Nikitas 

Mark 

Littleton; 

Officers 

06/09/2022 

06/06/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

11. Julie 

Hedrick 

Jeff Bartos 12/14/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

12. Julie 

Hedrick 

Bill Osborne Joshua 

Black 

07/13/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

13. Bill Osborne 

Julie 

Hedrick 

National 

President

Bill Osborne 

Joshua 

Black

Joshua 

Black 

07/14/2020 

07/13/2020 

Email Attorney client 

privilege

14. Susannah 

Bender 

Lori Bassani Mark 

Richard; 

Kathleen 

Phillips 

07/19/2019 Email Attorney client 

privilege

15. Margot 

Nikitas 

Base 

Presidents; 

Officers 

03/25/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

16. Margot 

Nikitas

Margot 

Nikitas 

Michael Rake 

Michael Rake

01/21/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

17. Margot 

Nikitas

Julie 

Hedrick

Erik Harris

Josh Back 

APFA Officers

Margot 

Nikitas; APFA 

Officers 

01/27/2022

-

01/28/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

18. Margot 

Nikitas 

Michael Rake Tom 

Reber; 

Mike 

McGaughe

y 

01/21/2022

-02/14/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

19. Bill Osborne Joshua Black 08/07/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

20. Bill Osborne Julie Hedrick; 

Joshua Black; 

Margot Nikitas 

08/06/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

APPENDIX 6 APPENDIX 6

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 8 of 33 PageID 5007
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

3

21. Margot 

Nikitas 

Michael Rake Tom 

Reber; 

Mike 

McGaughe

y

01/21/2022

-

02/14/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

22. Margot 

Nikitas 

Michael Rake Tom 

Reber; 

Mike 

McGaughe

y

03/22/2022

-04/20/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

23. Margot 

Nikitas

Michael Rake Tom 

Reber; 

Mike 

McGaughe

y

03/22/2022-

04/25/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

24. Margot 

Nikitas 

Tom Reber 

Tom Reber

Erik Harris 

Margot 

Nikitas 

01/21/2022

01/21/2022 

Email Attorney client 

privilege

25. Tom Reber Erik Harris Margot 

Nikitas 

01/07/2022-

01/11/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

26. Tom Reber Erik Harris Margot 

Nikitas 

11/16/2021-

12/08/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

27. Tom Reber Erik Harris Margot 

Nikitas 

10/29/2021 

-11/02/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

28. Erik Harris Tom Reber Margot 

Nikitas 

08/23/2021-

08/24/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

29. Margot 

Nikitas

Officers Officers 01/27/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

30.9 Mark 

Richard

Margot Nikitas Officers 08/28/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

31. Margot 

Nikitas

Board of 

Directors

Officers 11/11/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

32.1 Margot 

Nikitas

Board of 

Directors

Officers 11/11/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

33. Margot 

Nikitas

Board of 

Directors 

Officers 11/11/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

34. Margot 

Nikitas 

Board of 

Directors 

Officers 11/11/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

35. Bill Osborne Julie Hedrick, 

Joshua Black 

Margot 

Nikitas 

08/06/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

36. Margot 

Nikitas 

Officers 01/27/2022

-

01/28/022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

37. Margot 

Nikitas

Officers. Bill 

Osborne, 

Sanford 

Denison 

Paul 

Hartshorn 

Jr. 

06/03/2022 Email and 

attachment 

Attorney client 

privilege, Work 

product privilege

APPENDIX 7

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 9 of 33 PageID 5008
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

4

38. Sanford 

Denison 

Julie Hedrick Officers, 

Alyssa 

Urban, Bill 

Osborne 

10/25/2022 Email and 

attachment

Attorney client 

privilege, Work 

product privilege

39. Margot 

Nikitas 

Sanford 

Denison, 

Charlette 

Matts 

04/18/2022

-

02/28/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

40. Joshua 

Black

Officers, 

Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Orborne 

11/01/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

41. Julie 

Hedrick 

Officers, 

Charlette 

Matts 

03/31/2023 Email Attorney client 

privilege

42. Joshua 

Black

Officers, 

Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Osborne 

11/01/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

43. Joshua 

Black 

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas

02/18/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

44. Joshua 

Black 

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas

12/18/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

45. Joshua 

Black

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

02/18/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

46. Alyssa 

Urban

Erik Harris 08/10/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

47. Alyssa 

Urban

Sanford 

Denison, 

Officers 

08/11/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

48. Bill Osborne Margot 

Nikitas, 

Officers 

Julie 

Hedrick, 

Joshua 

Black 

02/07/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

49. Margot 

Nikitas 

Officers 02/07/2022 Email and 

attachment 

Attorney client 

privilege, Work 

product privilege

50. Joshua 

Black 

Bill Osborne Officers, 

Margot 

Nikitas 

12/01/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

51. Joshua 

Black

Officers, 

Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Osborne 

02/18/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

52. Joshua 

Black

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

02/18/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

53. Margot 

Nikitas 

Officers 04/22/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

54. Margot 

Nikitas 

Julie 

Hedrick 

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

01/27/2022-

01/28/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

APPENDIX 8

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 10 of 33 PageID 5009
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

5

Erik Harris

Joshua 

Black 

55. Joshua 

Black 

Margot 

Nikitas 

Margot 

Nikitas, 

Officers 

05/10/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

56. Joshua 

Black 

Bill Osborne

Sanford 

Denison 

Julie 

Hedrick 

Officers, 

Sanford 

Denison, Bill 

Osborne, 

Alyssa Urban 

09/07/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

57. Margot 

Nikitas 

Officers 05/16/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

58. Erik Harris Officers 09/16/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

59. Julie 

Hedrick 

Officers, 

Charlette 

Matts 

06/05/2023 Email Attorney client 

privilege

60. Article VII Officers, Jeff 

Bartos 

12/23/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

61. Margot 

Nikitas, 

Julie 

Hedrick, 

Erik Harris, 

Joshua 

Black 

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

03/02/2022 Email and 

attachment 

Attorney client 

privilege, Work 

product privilege

62. Margot 

Nikitas 

Officers 03/07/2022-

03/16/2022

Email and 

attachment 

Attorney client 

privilege, Work 

product privilege

63. Margot 

Nikitas 

Officers 03/18/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

64. Margot 

Nikitas 

Erik Harris, 

Joshua Black, 

Officers 

Robert 

Norvell 

06/01/2021

-

06/14/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

65. Joshua 

Black 

Margot Nikitas Officers 02/03/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

66. Joshua 

Black 

Officers, 

Alyssa Urban, 

Charlette 

Matts 

02/27/2023 Email Attorney client 

privilege

APPENDIX 9

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 11 of 33 PageID 5010
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

6

67. Margot 

Nikitas 

Bill Osborne, 

Officers 

03/22/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

68. Margot 

Niktias 

Officers Charlette 

Matts

04/19/2022 

-02/28/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

69. Alyssa 

Urban

Officers 02/28/2028-

08/01/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

70. Joshua 

Black

Bill Osborne

Sanford 

Denison 

Officers Alyssa 

Urban, 

Charlette 

Matts 

02/27/23

-

02/28/23

Email Attorney client 

privilege

71. Bill Osborne

Mark 

Richard 

Officers Bill 

Osborne 

06/11/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

72. Joshua 

Black

Officers, Base 

Presidents 

06/23/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

73. Bill Osborne 

Joshua 

Black 

Officers, Bill 

Osborne 

06/20/2020-

06/23/2020

Email Attorney client 

privilege

74. Bill Osborne 

Joshua 

Black 

Julie Hedrick, 

Joshua Black, 

Bill Osborne 

07/14/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

75. Bill Osborne Joshua Black, 

Julie Hedrick, 

Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Osborne 

08/03/2020-

08/04/2020

Email Attorney client 

privilege

76. Bill Osborne 

Joshua 

Black 

Joshua Black, 

Julie Hedrick, 

Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Osborne 

Email Attorney client 

privilege

77. Bill Osborne Joshua Black 08/07/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

78. Julie 

Hedrick

Bill Osborne

Joshua 

Black 

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas

08/08/2020-

08/09/2020

Email Attorney client 

privilege

79. Margot 

Nikitas

Officers 10/02/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

80. Bill Osborne Margot 

Nikitas, Julie 

Hedrick, 

Joshua Black 

10/05/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

APPENDIX 10

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 12 of 33 PageID 5011
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

7

81. Bill Osborne Julie Hedrick, 

Joshua Black 

02/28/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

82. Margot 

Nikitas 

Officers 06/01/2021-

06/04/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

83. Joshua 

Black

Margot 

Nikitas 

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

09/09/2021-

09/12/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

84. Bill Osborne Joshua Black, 

Julie Hedrick, 

Erik Harris, 

Margot Nikitas 

09/17/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

85. Bill Osborne 

Joshua 

Black 

Bill Osborne, 

Joshua Black 

09/22/2021-

09/23/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

86. Bill Osborne

Margot 

Nikitas 

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas

05/11/2021-

11/16/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

87. Bill Osborne Julie Hedrick, 

Joshua Black, 

Margot Nikitas 

03/17/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

88. Erik Harris Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

05/03/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

89. Bill Osborne

Joshua 

Black 

Sanford 

Denison 

Joshua Black, 

Sanford 

Denison, Julie 

Hedrick, 

Alyssa Urban, 

Bill Osborne 

09/07/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

90. Joshua 

Black 

Officers, Bill 

Osborne, 

Margot Nikitas 

10/20/2021-

11/01/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

91. Article VII Officers, Jeff 

Bartos 

12/21/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

92. Joshua 

Black 

Officers, 

Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Osborne 

11/01/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

93. Joshua 

Black

Officers, 

Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Osborne

11/01/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

94. Erik Harris Officers, 

Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Osborne

10/22/2020 Email Attorney client 

privilege

95. Joshaua 

Black 

Bill Osborne 09/17/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

APPENDIX 11

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 13 of 33 PageID 5012
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

8

96. Bill Osborne

Mark 

Richard

Bill Osborne 06/11/2020-

07/13/2020

Email Attorney client 

privilege

97. Margot 

Nikitas 

Erik Harris

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

08/07/2020-

08/17/2020

Email Attorney client 

privilege

98. Margot 

Nikitas 

Erik Harris 

Officers, Bill 

Osborne, 

Margot Nikitas 

08/25/2020

-

08/27/2020

Email Attorney client 

privilege

99. Bill Osborne

Mark 

Richard 

Bill Osborne 06/11/2020-

07/13/2020

Email Attorney client 

privilege

100. Julie 

Hedrick 

Charlette 

Matts

Officers 04/03/23 Email Attorney client 

privilege

101. Julie 

Hedrick 

Jeff Bartos 

Officers 12/27/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

102. Article VII Officers, Jeff 

Bartos

12/21/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

103. Article VII Officers, Jeff 

Bartos 

12/23/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

104. Article VII Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

04/19/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

105. Joshua 

Black

Margot 

Nikitas 

Margot 

Nikitas, 

Officers

09/09/2021

-

09/12/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

106. Erik Harris 

Margot 

Nikitas 

Margot 

Nikitas, 

Officers 

04/20/2022

-

05/03/2022

Email Attorney client 

privilege

107. Julie 

Hedrick 

Charlette 

Matts

12/14/2023 Email Attorney client 

privilege

108. Julie 

Hedrick 

Margot 

Nikitas 

Bill Osborne 

Charlette 

Matts, Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Osborne 

Officers 08/05/2020-

12/14/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

109. Julie 

Hedrick 

Article VII

Charlette 

Matts, 

Officers, Bill 

Osborne, 

Margot Nikitas 

04/27/2022

-

12/14/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

APPENDIX 12

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 14 of 33 PageID 5013
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

9

110. Julie 

Hedrick 

Bill Osborne 

Charlette 

Matts, Margot 

Nikitas, 

Sanford 

Denison

Julie 

Hedrick, 

Joshua 

Black, Erik 

Harris

04/26/2022-

12/14/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

111. Julie 

Hedrick

Bill Osborne 

Charlette 

Matts, Margot 

Nikitas, 

Sanford 

Denison, Julie 

Hedrick, Erik 

Harris, Joshua 

Black

Bill 

Osborne 

04/26/2022-

12/14/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

112. Julie 

Hedrick 

Margot 

Nikitas 

Charlette 

Matts, Officers 

04/26/2022-

12/14/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

113. Julie 

Hedrick 

Margot 

Nikitas 

Erik Harris 

Charlette 

Matts, 

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

04/27/2022-

12/14/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

114. Julie 

Hedrick 

Margot 

Nikitas 

Bill Osborne 

Joshua 

Black 

Charlette 

Matts, Bill 

Osborne, 

Article VII, 

Officers, 

Margot Nikitas 

04/27/2022

-12/14/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

115. Julie 

Hedrick 

Bill Osborne 

Charlette 

Matts, Margot 

Nikitas, 

Officers, 

Article VII 

Sanford 

Denison 

04/27/2022-

12/24/2023 

Email Attorney client 

privilege

116. Julie 

Hedrick 

Article VII 

Charlette 

Matts, 

Officers, 

Margot 

Nikitas, Bill 

Osborne, 

Article VII 

04/28/2022-

12/14/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

117. Julie 

Hedrick 

Article VII 

Charlette 

Matts, 

Officers, Bill 

Osborne, 

Margot Nikitas 

04/29/2022

-12/14/2023

Email Attorney client 

privilege

APPENDIX 13

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 15 of 33 PageID 5014
APFA Defendants’ Privilege Log

Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343 (N.D. Tex.)

Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22cv430 (N.D. Tex.)

Updated 02-26-24

10

118. Julie 

Hedrick 

Alyssa Urban 11/14/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

119. Jeff Bartos John Grunert Charlette 

Matts

01/31/2024 Email Attorney client 

privilege

120. Alyssa 

Urban

Erik Harris 

Jeff Bartos, 

Alyssa Urban

12/09/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

121. Julie 

Hedrick 

Jeff Bartos 12/15/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

122. Article VII Officers, Jeff 

Bartos 

12/23/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

123. Jeff Bartos John Grunert Charlette 

Matts

01/31/2024 Email Attorney client 

privilege

124. Article VII Officers, Jeff 

Bartos

12/21/2022 Email Attorney client 

privilege

125. Joshua 

Black 

Jeff Bartos 01/08/2023 Email Attorney client 

privilege

126. Margot 

Nikitas 

Erik Harris, 

Joshua Black

08/25/2021 Email Attorney client 

privilege

127. Margot 

Nikitas

Joshua Black 08/24/2021-

08/25/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

128. Margot 

Nikitas

Joshua Black 08/24/2021-

08/25/2021

Email Attorney client 

privilege

APPENDIX 14

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 16 of 33 PageID 5015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ROBERT “BOB” ROSS AND EUGENIO

VARGAS 

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, 

v. 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaim 

Plaintiffs. 

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-343-Y 

Consolidated with 

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-430-Y 

 Judge Terry R. Means 

DECLARATION OF KERRI PHILIPS ON DISCOVERY 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Kerri Phillips, declare: 

1. “I am over 18 years of age and licensed to practice law in the State

of Texas. I have never been convicted of any felony or other crime involving

moral turpitude. I am fully competent to make this declaration.

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this

declaration and the facts are true and correct. 

3. I am the Counsel of Record for the Plaintiffs, Robert “Bob”

Ross and Eugenio Vargas in the pending actions before the United State

Federal District Court in the above-entitled and numbered causes of actions. 

I am familiar with the documents produced to the Plaintiffs in these pending 

cases by the Defendants APFA, Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris. 

4. After a full review of the documents served on the Plaintiffs by

Defendants as of February 28, 2024, a substantial number of documents have 

not been produced evidencing the audits of Marcy Dunaway or 

Nena Martin—this includes the audit reports conducted in August of 

2023, the documents used to perform the audit, communications with 

the APFA Board of Directors and/or Executive Committee members, 

discussing the scope, the cost, documents authorizing the audits, the costs, 

the auditors engagement agreement, the invoices, communications to the 

affected members, and emails forwarding the audit reports to any leaders. 

APPENDIX 15

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 17 of 33 PageID 5016
5. Additionally, documentation of the bills for the Hedrick

Administration have not been produced to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants. 

This includes any bills or expenses for the credit card statements, food costs, 

alcohol costs, legal costs, costs of improvements or remodeling, hotel costs, or 

otherwise reimbursable expenses provided to Nena Martin in her Article

VII Arbitration. 

6. Attached is a true and correct copy of an email communication

I received from Robert "Bob" Ross on April 13, 2022 forwarding an email from 

his union representative, Kit Gomez-Alba, on February 28, 2022 and February 

27, 2022 to the Josh Black, APFA National Secretary, asking to reopen his 

Arbitration Hearing due to discovery of new evidence. 

7. Attached is also a true and correct copy of an email

communication from Kit Gomez-Alba I received on February 29, 2024 

forwarding the only response she received from Josh Black, APFA secretary 

confirming that he communicated her letter requesting to reopen the 

Disciplinary Arbitration Hearing due to discovery of new evidence on February 

28, 2022. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

EXECUTED on this 29th of February 2024. 

________________________ 

Kerri Phillips 

APPENDIX 16

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 18 of 33 PageID 5017
1

Kerri Phillips

From: 1rross

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 1:00 PM

To: Kerri Phillips

Subject: FW: Letter

Attachments: Oct. 22. 2020 Audit Bob Ross.pdf; Bob Ross Letter to Arbitrator Feb 26 1d 1 1 1 1(1).docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed

From: Kit Gomez Alba 

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 8:39 AM 

To: secretary

Cc: 1Rross 

Subject: Fwd: Letter 

I sent the following email last night at 6:53 p.m. It is after 10:30 A.M. in Euless and i haven't received a confirmation 

email with a time-stamp stating that it was forwarded to the Arbitrator. We require confirmation from you that it was 

sent either last night or this morning. 

Kit Gomez Alba 

Co-representative for Bob Ross 

---------- Forwarded message --------- 

From: Kit Gomez Alba

Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 6:53 PM 

Subject: Letter 

To: <secretary

Cc: 1Rross 

Dear Josh: 

Please forward this letter immediately to the Arbitrator. 

Thank you. 

Kit Gomez Alba 

Co-counsel for Bob Ross 

Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by PlaintiffRedacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by PlaintiffRedacted by Plaintiff

APPENDIX 17

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 19 of 33 PageID 5018
February 26, 2022 

Dear Arbitrator Armenderiz: 

We apologize for bothering you after submission of our final post-closing brief, however vital 

information came to our attention and we thought it prudent for you to have in your possession 

while considering this matter. Attached is a document that Mr. Ross received in the mail on 

February 11, 2022 related to a separate legal matter. His legal counsel considered it confidential 

and only gave us permission to release it to you today. This document was attached to a separate 

Tarrant County court filing, referred to as Exhibit B, called "Confidential Memorandum” dated 

October 22, 2020. It appears to have been drafted and issued by the accounting firm Wood, 

Stephens & O’Neill, LLP. This is an independent accounting firm with long history of working 

with APFA. This “Confidential Memorandum” was directed to the APFA Board of Directors and 

the APFA Executive Committee and states the following:

“To prepare an overpayment schedule of the accrued and unused sick, and accrued and 

unused vacation time payments made to Bob Ross in 2018, similar to the overpayment 

schedules we prepared previously for the other three officers. Please see the enclosed 

schedules B and C for each officer. These overpayment schedules for the other officers 

were previously provided to the Board of Directors. Please note the Bob Ross confidential 

transition agreement states that he will be paid all his accrued and unused sick, and 

accrued and unused vacation time. This agreement doesn’t specify that the payments be made 

in accordance with the policy manual guidelines. Consequently, these payments appear 

appropriate and in compliance with the transition agreement. This agreement also specifies 

reimbursement payments to him of up to $10,000 in actual moving expenses. His moving 

expense reimbursement payments did not exceed this amount.”

We need to make you aware of this document since Mr. Ross was never given a copy of this in 

the document dump delivered to us by APFA just before arbitration hearing. 

We believe this document may have been intentionally withheld due to the nature of its content 

and the fact it is exculpatory with regard to the calculation Ross’ sick and vacation pay as well as 

his moving expenses under his transition agreement.

The intended recipients of this document were the APFA Board of Directors and Executive 

Committee. We have confirmed the intended recipients were in fact, never shown this document. 

Had the Executive Committee been given this document for review, this would have had 

significant impact when they were considering the validity of the charges against Mr. Ross. To 

have withheld a document from its intended recipients (the governing body) is indicative of 

nefarious behavior within APFA 

Had this document been properly disseminated, it’s existence would have been known and could 

have been used in Mr. Ross’ defense at the hearing. It has only surfaced due to being obtained in 

the separate legal issue.

APPENDIX 18

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 20 of 33 PageID 5019
We therefore request that this document be included for your review under the APFA Policy 

Manual Section 17.Q, which allows for consideration of additional documentation, information 

and testimony after the closing of a hearing upon “showing good cause.” The relevant language 

from the Policy Manual is as follows: 

"Section 17.Q: REOPENING THE HEARING 

1. At any time prior to the issuance of the Arbitrator's decision, a hearing may be

reopened.

a. A hearing may be reopened only upon the showing of good cause."

Good Cause clearly exists, as this clarifying document was withheld despite its exculpatory 

nature. It is reasonable to assume that it was withheld because of its content. It should not escape 

your notice that this document was something Mr. Ross should have been made aware of this 

internal matter. 

Furthermore, we now must question whether Ms. Chinery and Ms. Lee were made aware of this 

document by Mr. Black who was one of the recipients. We must also question the impartiality of 

Mr. Black and other APFA National officers as they recently attended the wedding of Ms. 

Chinery in Hawaii to one of APFA’s attorneys. We await your response to these matters and 

request that no award is rendered without consideration of this important document. We are 

enclosing the document for your review and entered into the record. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Kit Gomez Alba 

sable227

Co-counsel for Robert Ross 

Cc: Robert Ross 

 Gina Guidry 

Attachment: October 22, 2020 Audit 

Redacted by Plaintiff

APPENDIX 19

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 21 of 33 PageID 5020
APPENDIX 20

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 22 of 33 PageID 5021
1

Kerri Phillips

From: Kit Gomez Alba <sable227

Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 11:08 AM

To: Kerri Phillips

Subject: Fwd: Letter

---------- Forwarded message --------- 

From: National Secretary <secretary

Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM 

Subject: Re: Letter 

To: Kit Gomez Alba <sable227

Cc: 1Rross <1rross

Sent on 

From: Kit Gomez Alba <sable227

Date: Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 8:54 PM 

To: National Secretary <secretary

Cc: 1Rross <1rross

Subject: Letter 

Dear Josh: 

Please forward this letter immediately to the Arbitrator. 

Thank you. 

Kit Gomez Alba 

Co-counsel for Bob Ross 

Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff

APPENDIX 21

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 23 of 33 PageID 5022
$3)$ 9,,

CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff

APPENDIX 22

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 24 of 33 PageID 5023
APPENDIX 23

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 25 of 33 PageID 5024
$3)$ 9,,

CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

R Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff Redacted by Plaintiff

APPENDIX 24

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 26 of 33 PageID 5025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY (IN LIQUIDATION),

§

§

§

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-03198-B

§

JAMES THORNTON MAXWELL §

§

§

 Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford’s Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation (Doc. 253) on Plaintiff Lincoln General Insurance Company’s Motion to Enforce

Court’s Order and for Sanctions Against James T. Maxwell (Doc. 246) and Defendant James

Thornton Maxwell’s Objections to Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 256). Before Defendant James Thornton Maxwell’s, a/k/a Jim Maxwell,

objections were filed, this Court entered its Order Adopting Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 255) on September 20, 2018. One

day later, on September 21, 2018, Maxwell filed his objections. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 6(d), Maxwell had an additional three days to file his objections to the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge because he was served

via certified mail. Thus, on September 21, 2018 Maxwell’s objections were timely. 

- 1 -

APPENDIX 25

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 27 of 33 PageID 5026
The Court will therefore VACATE its September 20, 2018 Order Adopting Findings,

Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 255) and conduct

a de novo review of the pleadings, files, and record in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), as well as the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge and Defendant Jim Maxwell’s Objections thereto. 

I. 

BACKGROUND

The issue before the Court relates to Defendant Jim Maxwell’s abusive and dilatory conduct

during post-judgment discovery proceedings. The Court tried this case in 2013, which resulted in a

$16.5 million judgment in favor of Plaintiff. See Lincoln General Insurance Co. v. U.S. Auto Insurance

Services Inc., et al., No. 3:10–CV–2307–B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2017) (Doc. 170). On November 15,

2016, after a lengthy appeals process, the Court determined it was appropriate to sever the remaining

claims against Defendants. Doc. 227, Order on Severance. Pursuant to that Order, this civil case

(No. 3:16–CV–3198) was opened against Defendant James (“Jim”) Maxwell. Id. In that order, this

Court also granted Plaintiff “the right to fully pursue discovery concerning the financial and personal

assets of Doug Maxwell and Jim Maxwell in the severed case.” Id. at 2. 

After the severance order, Plaintiff served Defendant Jim Maxwell with a Notice of Oral and

Video Deposition and a Subpoena Duces Tecum. Doc. 229, Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, 4. On March 23,

2017, Plaintiff took Maxwell’s deposition, but Maxwell provided only limited responsive documents

and refused to answer numerous questions. Id. On June 6, 2017, Plaintiff moved the Court to compel

Maxwell to respond to the document requests and retake Maxwell’s deposition. Id. Plaintiff also

- 2 -

APPENDIX 26

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 28 of 33 PageID 5027
requested sanctions. Id. On July 5, 2017, this Court referred Plaintiff’s motion to United States

Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney. Doc. 230, Order Referring Mot. After conducting a hearing on

this motion, Judge Stickney granted the Plaintiff’s motion on October 17, 2017. Doc. 241, Order

(“Judge Stickney’s Order”). Judge Stickney’s Order required Maxwell to produce a number of

documents related to his financial status, and appear at another deposition where he was required

to answer questions completely and honestly. Id. Importantly, the Order also specifically warned

Maxwell: “Further abuse by Respondent [Maxwell] will result in sanctions and the striking of his

pleadings.” Id. at 2. 

However, despite Judge Stickney’s clear admonition, Maxwell still refused to comply. Plaintiff

noticed a second deposition, pursuant to Judge Stickney’s Order, on November 16, 2017. Doc. 246,

Pl.’s Mot. to Enforce Court’s Order, 2. While Maxwell did appear for the deposition, he failed to

produce documents that were responsive to the straightforward terms set out in Judge Stickney’s

Order. See Doc. 253, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, 8–9. Additionally, Plaintiff characterized Maxwell’s testimony during the deposition as

“evasive, combative, and misleading.” Id. at 9–10. 

On August 31, 2018, based on Maxwell’s abusive behavior at the deposition and disregard

for document requests, Judge Rutherford found that Maxwell “willfully ignored the Court’s warning

and did not correct his behavior when he had the opportunity.” Id. Further, Judge Rutherford found

that Maxwell demonstrated a pattern of “contumacious conduct” towards his discovery obligations

and this Court’s orders without any justifiable excuse. Id. at 10–11. Judge Rutherford then, pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), recommended that this Court order the sanction

- 3 -

APPENDIX 27

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 29 of 33 PageID 5028
Judge Stickney originally warned of in the October 17, 2017 Order—the striking of Maxwell’s

pleadings—because “no lesser sanction would be sufficient to deter Respondent’s behavior.” Id. at

11. Judge Rutherford also recommended that Maxwell pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and

costs incurred in bringing its Motion to Enforce Court’s Order and for Sanctions under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 27(b)(2)(A).

II. 

ANALYSIS

After conducting a de novo review of the motions, responses, files, and records in this case,

as well as the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

Rutherford and Defendant Maxwell’s Objections, the Court is of the opinion that the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation are correct. A district court “has broad discretion under Rule

37(b) to fashion remedies suited to the misconduct.” Pressey v. Patterson, 898 F.3d 1018, 1021 (5th

Cir. 1990). However, typically, to impose the severest of remedies under Rule 37(b)—e.g., striking

pleadings, entering default judgment, or dismissing the action with prejudice—a party’s violation of

a discovery order must be committed willfully or in bad faith. Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire &

Rubber Co., 685 F.3d 486, 488 (5th Cir. 2012); Plasticsource Workers Comm. v. Coburn, 283 F. App’x

181, 184 (5th Cir. 2008) (affirming default judgment under Rule 37(b) based on willful violation of

discovery order). Additionally, the district court should find that “a lesser sanction [under Rule

37(b)] would not substantially achieve the desired deterrent effect.” Coburn, 283 F. App’x at 184

(citing Smith v. Smith, 145 F.3d 335, 344 (5th Cir. 1998)). 

Here, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Rutherford’s findings and application of the

- 4 -

APPENDIX 28

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 30 of 33 PageID 5029
law. Based on the unambiguous requirements and warnings in Judge Stickney’s Order, Judge

Rutherford had ample evidence to conclude that Maxwell behaved willfully when he violated that

Order. Further, with good reason, Judge Rutherford concluded that Maxwell’s “pattern of

contumacious conduct” in these proceedings indicated that “no lesser sanction” would be “sufficient

to deter” Maxwell. Doc. 253, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, 10–11. 

From his Objections, the Court is able to discern two specific objections that Maxwell has

raised in response to Judge Rutherford’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation: (1) that this

Court should have ordered a protective order based on counsel for Plaintiff’s discovery requests; and

(2) that his discovery productions are, in fact, responsive to Judge Stickney’s Order. 

First, Maxwell argues that both his Motion to Dismiss or for Protective Order (Doc. 235) and

Plaintiff Lincoln General Insurance Company’s Response (Doc. 236) “have been ignored by the

Court without comment” and that he is entitled to a protective order based on the “oppression and

undue burden” caused by Plaintiff’s discovery requests. See Doc. 256, Maxwell’s Objs., 2–3. To start,

Maxwell was put on notice that “a party filing objections must specifically identify those findings,

conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made.” Doc. 253, Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendations, 12. Thus, Maxwell’s first objection is unrelated to Magistrate

Judge Rutherford’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation and can be overruled on that

ground alone. However, the Court will note on January 9, 2018, Magistrate Judge Stickney denied

his motion after full briefing and a hearing because, in large part, Maxwell’s Motion to Dismiss was

a “reiteration of his Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.” Doc. 245, Order Denying Mot. to

Dismiss or for Protective Order, 2. Thus, Maxwell’s Motion to Dismiss was considered and

- 5 -

APPENDIX 29

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 31 of 33 PageID 5030
subsequently denied after a hearing and full consideration by Magistrate Judge Stickney. Maxwell’s

first objection is overruled. 

Next, Maxwell argues again, as he has in previous motions (See Doc. 247, Def.’s Resp. to

Pla.’s Mot. to Enforce Court’s Order and for Sanctions, 3–5 and Doc. 249, Def.’s Mot. to Quash,

1–2), that his previous production is sufficiently responsive to Judge Stickney’s Order on October

17, 2017. Doc. 256, Def.’s Objs., 4–5. Maxwell claims the flash drive he produced covers the items

Judge Stickney ordered him to produce, except for documents that were previously produced or that

do not exist. Id. However, of the 360 pages of documents produced in the flash drive, 323 were

banking documents related Sante Fe Insurance Company in 2010, which were “marginally relevant”

to the items he was ordered to produced. Doc. 248, Pl.’s Reply in Support of Mot. To Enforce, 3–4.

Further, of the remaining 37 pages, it appears that only a few of these were new and responsive

documents. Id. (noting that his 2016 tax returns and some K-1's related to Neutron Depot were new

documents). Thus, the Court finds that Maxwell’s objection that he produced all the requested items

in Judge Stickney’s Order “to the maximum extent possible” baseless. Maxwell’s behavior and

testimony at his November 16, 2017 deposition further undercut his assertions that he has fully

complied with this Court’s orders.1

 The Court overrules this objection as well. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the

1

See Doc. 246-2, Def.’s Oral Depo., 7–8 (testifying he produced most of the documents from his file

cabinet and that they were mostly reproduction); Id. at 8–9 (testifying the only third party he requested

documents from was his son-in-law, but he did not inform him or any other party of Judge Stickney’s Order);

Id. at 18–19, (testifying he made no effort to obtain documents related to money transfers to his family or

regarding the Maxwell Family Trust, which were both items covered in Judge Stickney’s Order); Id. at 22

(testifying that in regard to corporate and financial documents he was ordered to produced, he attempted to

obtain them by logging in to his account online, and when that failed, he never contacted the bank or made

any additional effort to obtain them). 

- 6 -

APPENDIX 30

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 32 of 33 PageID 5031
United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 253) are ADOPTED, and Plaintiff Lincoln General Insurance

Company’s Motion to Enforce Court’s Order and for Sanctions Against James T. Maxwell (Doc.

246) is GRANTED. Defendant James Thornton Maxwell’s Objections to Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 256) are OVERRULED. This Court’s

September 20, 2018 Order Adopting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 255) is VACATED. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), the Court ORDERS

Defendant James Thornton Maxwell’s pleadings related to Plaintiff’s remaining claims against him

be struck from the record. Thus, Maxwell’s Answer found at Lincoln General Insurance Co. v. U.S.

Auto Insurance Servs. Inc., et al., No. 3:10–CV–2307–B (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2011) (Doc. 68) is

hereby STRUCK from the record. The Court also ORDERS under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(b)(2)(C) that Maxwell pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this

motion. Finally, Plaintiff Lincoln is ORDERED to file an application for attorneys’ fees and costs,

accompanied by supporting evidence establishing the reasonable amount to be awarded under Rule

37(b)(2)(C) no later than October 10, 2018, fourteen days after the entry of this order. 

SO ORDERED.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2018.

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

- 7 -

APPENDIX 31

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 217 Filed 02/29/24 Page 33 of 33 PageID 5032