IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS,

 Plaintiff/Counterclaim 

Defendant,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., 

 Defendants/Counterclaim 

Plaintiff.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

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

 Judge Terry R. Means

APFA DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION

TO MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES

Defendants the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”), Julie Hedrick 

and Erik Harris (collectively, “the APFA Defendants”) hereby oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Extend Deadlines, Doc. 120. This is one of three recent motions by Plaintiff in the final six 

weeks of discovery seeking to modify the Scheduling Order issued in February 2023. Plaintiff 

raises two primary grounds for the requested extension: (1) a claim that “newly discovered 

evidence” warrants an amendment of the pleadings and additional time for discovery; and (2) a 

claim that the existing discovery schedule might interfere with the APFA’s upcoming union

officer election. Plaintiff also incorrectly asserts that Defendants have “conceal[ed] all their 

evidence” and “fail[ed] to serve discovery responses.” As we show below, Plaintiff’s contentions 

in support of his motion have neither factual basis nor merit. We respectfully submit that the 

motion should be denied.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 131 Filed 10/10/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 2646
2

Procedural Background

This Court issued a Scheduling Order on February 22, 2023. Doc. 77. Among other 

things, the Order allowed Plaintiff until April 7, 2023, to join additional parties, and until July 

31, 2023, to amend his pleadings. The Court ordered that “[t]he parties shall cease all discovery 

activity under the Federal Rules ... on October 31, 2023”, and file dispositive motions by 

December 15, 2023. Id. at ECF 2. The Court directed that “the parties and their counsel shall 

strictly comply with the terms of this ... order.” Id. at ECF 3-4.

After the April 7, 2023, deadline, Plaintiff filed two motions for leave to join additional 

parties, both of which were denied. In both instances, Plaintiff sought to add APFA National

Officers Josh Black and Larry Salas as defendants, and in both instances claimed a “recent[] 

discover[y]” that Mr. Black and Mr. Salas had received by email an accountant’s memorandum

which Plaintiff contends bears on his claim. See Pls.’ Br. Supp. Mot. For Leave to Amend, Doc. 

89 at ECF 11 (“Plaintiff recently discovered evidence that all four APFA National Officers had 

notice of the Confidential Memo in October of 2020”); Pls.’ Second Motion for Leave to File, 

Doc. 105 at ECF 2 (claiming “discover[y of] ... new evidence on March 7, 2023, regarding

notice of the Confidential Memo having been sent to all four National Officers.”). 

This Court denied both motions as untimely. Orders, Docs. 103 and 108. The Court

specifically noted Plaintiff’s contention that Eugenio Vargas, who is represented by the same 

counsel as Mr. Ross in the parallel lawsuit in this Court, learned of Mr. Salas’ and Mr. Black’s 

receipt of the memo no later than April 7, 2023. Doc. 108 n.1.

Meanwhile, each party has served and responded to written discovery, and the parties are 

in the process of supplementing discovery as well as addressing a Motion to Compel filed by 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 131 Filed 10/10/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 2647
3

Plaintiff. Defendants noticed Mr. Ross for deposition in late October, and Plaintiff has filed a 

Motion to Quash and for a Temporary Protective Order. The discovery motions have both been 

referred to Magistrate Judge Cureton. Docs. 116, 129.

1

Plaintiff filed this Motion on September 19, 2023. The motion contends that on 

September 1, 2023, Ross “uncovered” evidence showing that Mr. Salas and Mr. Black had 

received the Confidential Memo. Doc. 120 ¶¶ 13-15. This new discovery, he claims, “brings 

rise to additional claims” and thus requires “additional discovery.” Id., ¶ 16.

Plaintiff also contends that the existing Scheduling Order might interfere with the APFA’s 

regularly scheduled National Officer election, which will take place in January 2024, and seeks 

an extension of the schedule so that no deposition will be taken until February next year. 

Plaintiff submitted no evidence in support of his clam that depositions in October 2023 would 

interfere with an election three months later, nor does he show how his deposition would impact 

his role in any election since, as he admits, he is barred from holding union office, see Doc. 75 ¶ 

40.

Argument

Defendants respectfully submit that neither rationale advanced in support of the motion 

has merit, and that Plaintiff’s motion to extend the schedule by at least four months is 

unwarranted and should be denied.

1. Plaintiff’s first reason to extend the schedule is the alleged “discovery” of 

evidence regarding non-parties Josh Black and Larry Salas. This is the third time Plaintiff has 

1 To the extent the present motion includes a “Notice of Objection” to Mr. Ross’ 

deposition, and arguments regarding the propriety of his deposition at this time, the issues raised 

therein are also raised in the Motion to Quash his deposition which has been referred to 

Magistrate Judge Cureton. Defendants will address the issues regarding Mr. Ross’ deposition in 

its response to that Motion to Quash rather than in this filing.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 131 Filed 10/10/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 2648
4

claimed to have just uncovered the same evidence, going back to at least April 2023. The Court 

has twice noted and rejected the earlier claimed “discovery” as grounds to file belated 

amendments to the pleadings, and this repeat effort, but now even farther removed from the 

original “discovery” - should likewise be denied. (We note that the same alleged “discovery” is 

also the foundation for two other pending motions – again seeking leave to amend the Complaint

– which have yet to be fully briefed, see Docs.125, 128).

2. Plaintiff’s second reason to extend the schedule is to avoid interference with the 

APFA’s National officer elections. Plaintiff submits no evidence supporting that contention, and 

instead describes in a lengthy footnote his allegations regarding audits of non-party former APFA 

National Officers and potential candidates for office, and the groundless surmise that civil 

discovery in a lawsuit brought by Ross would somehow “stifle free speech and the democratic 

process within the union.” Doc. 120 n.2. There is no evidence to support that conclusion. Mr. 

Ross is barred from holding union office, and so can make no claim on his own behalf, nor does 

he even hint, much less prove, that taking his deposition in October would interfere with the 

candidacies of other people in January. This objection is meritless.

3. Finally, Plaintiff wrongly suggest that Defendants have in some way “fail[ed] to 

serve discovery responses” and are “concealing all of their evidence and avoiding depositions, 

whilst forcing Plaintiff to be deposed,” rendering their conduct “abusive.” Doc. 120 ¶ 19. These

inflammatory accusations are utterly without basis or merit. Between the Ross and Vargas 

companion cases, Defendants timely responded to 92 Requests for Admission and 30 Requests 

for Production, answered 60 Interrogatories, and produced in excess of 5000 pages of 

documents, which production is in the process of being supplemented. Defendants noticed Mr. 

Ross’s deposition on a date initially agreed to by counsel but which counsel has now moved to 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 131 Filed 10/10/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 2649
5

quash. Defendants have not delayed the discovery process, but have instead attempted to move 

forward on a timely basis within the confines of the Court’s Scheduling Order. Defendants are 

prepared to conclude discovery within the confines of that Order (subject to completing the 

already-requested depositions). 

Conclusion

Defendants respectfully submit that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ James D. Sanford

JAMES D. SANFORD

Tex. Bar No. 24051289

Gillespie Sanford LLP

4803 Gaston Ave.

Dallas, TX 75246

Tel.: (214) 800-5111; Fax.: (214) 838-0001

Email: jim@gillespiesanford.com

JEFFREY A. BARTOS (pro hac vice)

D.C. Bar No. 435832

Guerrieri, Bartos & Roma, PC

1900 M Street, N.W. Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036

Tel.: (202) 624-7400; Fax: (202) 624-7420

Email: jbartos@geclaw.com

Counsel for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris

CHARLETTE L. MATTS (pro hac vice)

Tex. Bar No. 24133870

Association of Professional Flight Attendants

1004 W. Euless Blvd.

Euless, TX 76040

Tel.: (682) 301-8454

Email: Cmatts@apfa.org

Counsel for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 131 Filed 10/10/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 2650
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 10, 2023, I electronically submitted this document to the clerk of 

the court for the U.S. District for the Northern District of Texas using the court’s electronic case 

filing system. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the 

following individuals, who have consented to accept this Notices as service of this document by 

electronic means: 

KERRI PHILLIPS

K.D. Phillips Law Firm, PLLC 

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway 

Plano, TX 75024

Phone: (972) 327-5800

Fax: (940) 400-0089

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

MICHAEL R RAKE

Michael R. Rake, Attorney at Law 

PO Box 1556

Lake Dallas, TX 75065 

Tel.: (940) 498-2103

Fax: (940) 498-2103

Email: mrake1@mrakeattorney.com

/s/ James D. Sanford

JAMES D. SANFORD

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 131 Filed 10/10/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 2651