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 Plaintiffs,

AND

EUGENIO VARGAS,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

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

Consolidated with 4:22-CV-430-Y

Judge Terry R. Means

THE APFA DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE

IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

The Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”), its National President Julie 

Hedrick and its National Treasurer Erik Harris (collectively, “the APFA Defendants”) hereby 

oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (Ross Dkt. 197; Vargas Dkt. 188).1 Because the two 

Motions are identical, and in light of the Order consolidating these matters, the APFA Defendants 

file a single response to both Motions.

1 It is unclear to the APFA Defendants if these motions, which were improperly filed under 

seal, are still pending in light of the Court’s Orders striking motions which had been filed under 

seal, and Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of motions which were not sealed. See Ross Docs. 200 (Order) 

and 199 (Notice of Withdrawal); Vargas Docs 190 (Order) and 191 (Notice of Withdrawal). 

Nonetheless, this Response is filed because these motions are still shown as active on the Court’s 

docket.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 210 Filed 02/26/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4875
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Magistrate Judge Cureton held a hearing on a number of Plaintiffs’ motions to compel on 

December 26, 2023 (The transcript of that hearing has been filed as pages 26-81 of the Plaintiffs’ 

Appendix in support of these Motions). As is relevant here, the parties agreed and Magistrate 

Judge Cureton ordered that Plaintiffs’ depositions would take place on February 1 and 2, 2024. 

Pls.’ Appx. 77 (Tr. 52); Dkt. 187 (Ross) (Order, 12/26/23); Dkt. 178 (Vargas) (Order, 12/26/23). 

In addition, Magistrate Judge Cureton ordered the APFA Defendants to produce certain 

documents regarding another former officer of the union, Nena Martin, and to “go back and 

double-check” for certain emails, which were “all to be produced after a suitable confidentiality 

agreement is reached by the parties.” Pls.’ Appx. 65:11-16; see also Dkt. 187 (Order, 12/26/23) 

(setting deadline for production).

Shortly after the hearing, APFA counsel provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a proposed 

Confidentiality Agreement, as directed by Magistrate Judge Cureton. Appx. 1 (Email, 1/3/24). 

Defense counsel followed up on January 11, 2024, and Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that she 

“should have something for you next week.” Pls.’ Appx. 12-13. Further emails and exchanges of 

position on, and drafts of, a confidentiality order, failed to produce an agreed order, and the 

parties eventually sought the assistance of Magistrate Judge Cureton. Pls.’ Appx. 1-10. After a 

teleconference and further emails, on February 13, 2024, the parties agreed to the terms of an 

interim confidentiality agreement, and the APFA Defendants produced over 2600 pages pursuant 

to that agreement that same day. Appx. 8 (email with document production).2

2 The APFA Defendants continue to take their discovery obligations seriously, and are 

continuing to meet their duty to supplement discovery responses. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 210 Filed 02/26/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID 4876
3

Defendants began the depositions of Mr. Ross and Mr. Vargas on February 1 and 2, 

respectively. As described in the Defendants’ pending motion for sanctions, those depositions 

were prematurely terminated by Plaintiffs. See Dkt. 205 (Defs.’ Mot. Sanctions) (Ross).

On the first business day after the aborted Vargas deposition, and while the parties were 

in the process of negotiating an interim confidentiality agreement, Plaintiffs filed the motions at 

issue here. Plaintiffs’ Motions are premised on two grounds: first, they claim that the APFA 

Defendants violated the Court’s Order of December 26, 2023, with regard to the production of 

additional documents; and second, that the APFA Defendants engaged in “abusive and harassing” 

conduct toward “Plaintiffs and their Counsel” in connection with the depositions of Mr. Ross and 

Mr. Vargas on February 1 and 2, 2024. With regard to the production of documents, Plaintiffs

contend that APFA “stall[ed] any final agreement to an agreed confidentiality order” and 

“refused all offers to enter into an interim confidentiality agreement.” Dkt. 197 ¶ 16 (Ross).With 

regard to the depositions, Plaintiffs take particular exception to the deposition location, a hotel 

conference room near DFW International Airport, and contend that “APFA conspired to deceive 

the Plaintiffs and their counsel to hold the depositions” at that location, in an “abusive use of 

gamesmanship that resulted in ... duress and intimidation.” Dkt. 197 ¶ 18 (Ross). For relief, 

Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant their then-pending motions for summary judgment (which have 

since been unfiled), and for attorneys’ fees in connection with their motions. Dkt. 197, ¶¶ 20-21

(Ross).

ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs’ Motions are without basis in fact or law, and should be denied. With respect to 

document production, the record shows that the APFA Defendants took the initiative to reach 

agreement on confidentiality to permit production of documents, and once that was 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 210 Filed 02/26/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID 4877
4

accomplished, promptly produced them, with no prejudice to Plaintiffs. Regarding the 

depositions, Plaintiffs provide no factual support for their contentions, and the transcripts of the 

depositions themselves (filed in connection with the Defendants’ pending motion), belie 

Plaintiffs’ characterization of events.

A. The APFA Defendants Complied With the Court’s Directive Regarding the 

Document Production Order.

The APFA Defendants fully and in good faith complied with the directive of Magistrate 

Judge Cureton, that the documents be “produced after a suitable confidentiality agreement is 

reached by the parties.” Pls.’ Appx. 65:11-16. Defendants proposed the terms of an agreement on 

January 3, 2024, based on a draft which had been proposed back in May 2023. Appx. 1 (emails).

The APFA Defendants have remained willing to join Plaintiffs in seeking appropriate 

confidentiality protections to facilitate discovery. But Plaintiffs were unwilling to even confer 

over the issue from May 2023 until the December 26, 2023 hearing with the Magistrate Judge. 

On January 16, Plaintiffs first suggested a few changes, and the parties then agreed to 

consult the Magistrate Judge to assist in resolving the issue. Further emails in which each side 

addressed their concerns ensued, and a conference call with the Magistrate Judge was held on 

February 2, 2024, followed by further email correspondence regarding the content of a potential

confidentiality agreement. On February 12, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that she would 

withdraw this sanctions motion if the parties’ agreed to confidentiality and the APFA Defendants 

produced “the outstanding discovery”. Appx. 5 (Feb. 12, 2024, 6:05 p.m. email). The parties then 

agreed to interim confidentiality terms on February 13, 2024, and the APFA Defendants 

produced over 2,600 pages the same day. Pls.’ Appx. 1-13; Appx. 8.

3

3 Defendants anticipate supplementing their production this week. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 210 Filed 02/26/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4878
5

The record thus reflects the Defendants doing exactly what the Federal Rules and this 

Court require of them – engaging in good faith efforts to resolve disputes, reaching agreement, 

and then acting on that agreement. Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion, filed while the parties were in the 

midst of the discussions which led to agreement, should be denied.

Plaintiffs appear to also complain about APFA’s discovery responses earlier in the case, 

see Dkt. 197 ¶ 16 (Ross), but fail to mention that their multiple motions to compel were 

addressed and denied, with one exception, by Magistrate Judge Cureton in his Order of 

December 26, 2023. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ suggestion that APFA has in any way attempted to 

“delay the Court’s resolution of these claims,” ibid., is utterly belied by the record.

B. The Depositions Were Properly Noticed and Conducted.

Plaintiffs also take issue with, and seek sanctions for, the fact that depositions were 

conducted at a hotel conference room, rather than defense counsel’s office. 

The APFA Defendants served amended notices for the Ross and Vargas depositions on 

January 5, 2024. Dkt. 206 at Appx. 1-4 (Ross). The amended notices specified the location as the 

“Springhill Suites – DFW Airport South/Centreport” and listed the address. Plaintiffs neither 

objected nor sought protection from the deposition over the next three weeks. Plaintiffs’ failure 

to object to the deposition location, alone, should defeat that portion of the sanctions request.

Further, Plaintiffs incorrectly contend, without any factual support or basis, that “the 

hotel [was] reserved and filled with APFA . . . leadership,” and that two National Officers 

“lurked nearby in doorways and throughout the hotel” during the depositions. Dkt. 197 ¶¶ 10-11

(Ross). Plaintiffs also contend, again without evidence, that “APFA, Julie Hedrick’s and Erik 

Harris’ conduct prior to and throughout the depositions ... were abusive and harassing to both 

Plaintiffs and their Counsel.” Id., ¶ 10. The failure of Plaintiffs to produce any evidence 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 210 Filed 02/26/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID 4879
6

supporting these inflammatory charges should be sufficient to deny their motions; however, 

should a review of the record be helpful in addressing this issue, Defendants respectfully refer to 

the Court to the transcripts of both depositions, which have been filed in support of the APFA’s 

motion for sanctions. There is no factual or legal basis for sanctions against the APFA 

Defendants in connection with their attempts to depose Mr. Ross and Mr. Vargas.

CONCLUSION

The APFA Defendants respectfully submit that Plaintiffs’ Motions should be denied.

Dated: February 26, 2024 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 the APFA Defendants

CHARLETTE L. BRODERICK (pro hac 

vice)

Tex. Bar No. 24133870

Association of Professional Flight 

Attendants

1004 W. Euless Blvd.

Euless, TX 76040

Tel.: (682) 301-8454

Email: Cbroderick@apfa.org 

Counsel for APFA

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 210 Filed 02/26/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID 4880
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on February 26, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document 

was served upon all persons who have requested notice and service of pleadings in this case via 

the Court’s ECF system.

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 210 Filed 02/26/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID 4881