1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS, § 

§ 

 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, § 

§ 

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00343-Y 

§ 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, § 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND § 

ASSOCIATES, INC., JULIE § 

HEDRICK, AND ERIK HARRIS, § 

§ 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs § 

MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY AND SUPPORTING BRIEF 

Defendant and Counterclaim/Plaintiff Association of Professional Flight Attendants 

(“APFA”), by its undersigned counsel, respectfully moves, pursuant to Rule 26(c) F.R.C.P., for a 

stay of discovery pending ruling on APFA’s dispositive motion for summary judgment (Doc. 

42), which is predicated on entirely legal grounds, and which if granted will be dispositive of this 

case. In support thereof APFA submits the following brief. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

This litigation was initiated by Plaintiff Ross, on April 20, 2022 (Doc. 1), in an attempt to 

vacate a “final and binding” arbitration decision adverse to him. On May 16, 2022, the Union 

Defendants answered and APFA counterclaimed for enforcement of the arbitrator’s decision 

(Doc. 8). The Union Defendants thereafter moved on July 21 to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims 

against the Union Defendants on entirely legal bases (Doc. 27) -- for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. On October 22, 2022 the Court granted the Union 

Defendants’ motion and dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims against them, including Plaintiff’s 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 54 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1419
2 

claim seeking to vacate the arbitrator’s decision, and ordered that this case proceed as to APFA’s 

counterclaim for enforcement of the arbitrator’s decision (Doc. 51). 

On September 20, 2022, Defendant APFA moved for summary judgment to enforce the 

arbitration decision against Ross pursuant to its counterclaim (Doc. 42). As APFA advised the 

Court in its motion for summary judgment, the Union Defendants’ motion to dismiss Ross’s 

claims and the APFA’s pending motion to enforce the arbitration award are essentially two sides 

of the same coin -- validating the arbitration award and negating Ross’s attempt to vacate it -- 

and together the two motions are completely dispositive of this case as between these parties. 

Doc. 43 at p, 2-3 fn. 1. 

On October 6, Ross obtained an extension of time to respond to APFA’s summary 

judgment motion to enforce the arbitration award until November 1 (Doc. 49). Five (5) days 

later, on October 11, while the foregoing dispositive motions were pending and over two (2) 

months after the discovery period had begun on August 3 (Doc. 28), Ross’s counsel initiated 

discovery sending Defendants’ counsel a copy of five (5) subpoenas duces tecum and indicated 

they would be served that week. 

The subpoenas were sent to third parties, including the Arbitrator,1 and were drafted in 

broad and generic formats: the five (5) subpoenas seek “any and all documents ... relating to 

internal union disciplinary procedures” against Ross, Eugenio Vargas and Nena Martin; “relating 

to the parties;” and “in relation to the Association of Professional Flight Attendants,” Vargas, 

Martin and Ross, without limitation or qualification. The subpoenas do not request documents 

1 Courts have “repeatedly condemned” and prohibited discovery aimed at arbitrators, including 

depositions and document subpoenas. Legion Ins. Co. v. Ins. General Agency, Inc., 822 F.2d 541, 543 

(5th Cir. 1987); Positive Software Sols., Inc. v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 476 F.3d 278, 285 (5th Cir. 

2007) (en banc); Vantage Deepwater Co. v Petrobras Am. Inc., 966 F.3d 361, 372-75 (5th Cir. 2020); 

Affordable Care, LLC v. McIntyre, Civil Action 121-cv-85-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2022). 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 54 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 1420
3 

“relating to” the legal issues presented by the Union Defendants’ motion to dismiss Ross’s 

claims or by APFA’s pending motion for summary judgment to enforce the arbitration decision 

issued against him. The Union Defendants and the Arbitrator have served an objection pursuant 

to F.R.P.C. 45(d)(2)(B) to the subpoena served on the arbitrator and an objection has been served 

to a subpoena directed to one other of the third parties served. 

APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES 

A stay of discovery “is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise 

result." Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 961 F. 3d 389, 397 (5th Cir. 2020), citing Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009). Whether to grant a stay is committed to the Court’s discretion. 

Thomas v. Bryant, 919 F.3d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 2019). The operative factors are "(1) whether the 

stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether 

the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will 

substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public 

interest lies." Nken, 556 U.S. at 426. "The first two factors are the most critical." Valentine v. 

Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 801 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). The burden of establishing the 

appropriateness of a stay of discovery is upon the moving parties. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 

681. 708 (1997). 

The Fifth Circuit has also held that a district court has “broad discretion” under F.R.C.P. 

26(c) to stay discovery for “good cause” when resolution of preliminary questions raised by a 

dispositive motion to dismiss or for summary judgment would “preclude the need for [] 

discovery altogether thus saving time and expense.” Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l AFLCIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 (5th Cir. 1990). And this Court has granted motions to stay discovery 

pending the Court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss which raises substantial arguments that would 

be dispositive of the entire case and/or when the conduct of discovery would be unduly 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 54 Filed 11/09/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 1421
4 

burdensome and would not aid in, and was not necessary for, resolution of the threshold 

dispositive motion. Endure Indus. v. Vizient, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162157, 2021 WL 

3771770 at *2-3 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (J. Brown); Primesource Bldg. Prod., Inc. v. Lee Grp. Int'l, 

Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195681, 2020 WL 6140462, at *1 (N.D. Tex., 2020) (J. Starr); Von 

Drake v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.,), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25090, 2004 WL 1144142, at 

*1 (N.D. Tex.) (J. Kaplan); See also Fujita v. United States, 416 Fed. App'x 400, 402 (5th Cir. 

2011). 

ARGUMENT 

APFA respectfully submits that a stay of discovery is plainly appropriate here. APFA’s 

pending motion for summary judgment to enforce the arbitrator’s decision (Doc. 42) is purely 

legal not factual in nature, and is predicated upon the well settled axiom of federal labor law that 

an arbitration decision is to be judicially enforced in federal court except in very rare 

circumstances that Plaintiff Ross does not even allege are present here. Brief in Support of 

Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 43 at pp. 6-7). Likewise, the Court’s recent ruling was 

legally premised, based entirely upon a nonexistent jurisdictional predicate. Order (Doc. 51 at 

pp. 1-2); Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27 at pp. 5-6). 

Not only has APFA made a “strong showing” that the Union will succeed on the merits 

of the pending and dispositive motion for summary judgment, Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 

961 F. 3d at 397, but Ross cannot show any conceivable injury that could result from postponing 

compliance and/or litigation over the subpoenas. 

Further, these subpoenas are objectionable as boilerplate in format, e.g., Feldman v. 

Stryker Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264435, 2020 WL 13430174 at *2 (N.D. Tex. 2020) (J. 

Scholer), and the subpoena to the arbitrator may also implicate disputes over arbitral immunity. 

Vantage Dependable Co. v. Petrobras Am., Inc., 966 F. 3d 361, 372-74 (5th Cir. 2020); Positive 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 54 Filed 11/09/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 1422
5 

Software Sols., Inc. v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 476 F.3d 278, 285 (5th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). 

And the subpoenas do not relate to the legal issues pending before the Court. Landry v. Airline 

Pilots, 416 F. 2d at 435-36 (stay of discovery affirmed where issues raised were “purely legal 

and ... discovery will therefore not aid in their resolution.”) Because Plaintiff waited two months

before initiating discovery there can hardly be any exigency to the subpoenas. 

 CONCLUSION 

The affected parties and the Court will benefit from postponing and likely avoiding the 

discovery disputes the subpoenas may generate. And no conceivable prejudice to Plaintiff Ross 

will result from the stay of discovery to allow APFA’s legally premised and dispositive motion 

for summary judgment to be decided.

Date: November 9, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Tex. Bar No. 05655560 

Baab & Denison, LLP 

6301 Gaston Ave., Suite 550 

Dallas, TX 75214 

Tel.: (214) 637-0750 

Fax.: (214) 637-0730 

Email: denison@baabdenison.com 

WILLIAM W. OSBORNE JR.* 

D.C. Bar No. 912089 

Osborne Law Offices P.C. 

5335 Wisconsin Avenue N.W., Suite 440 

Washington, D.C. 20015 

Tel.: (202) 243-3200 

Fax: (202) 686-2977 

Email: b.osborne@osbornelaw.com 

Counsel for Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 54 Filed 11/09/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 1423
6 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

Undersigned counsel for the Union Defendants certifies that on the 9th day of November 

2022 he sent an email to both counsel of record for Plaintiff Ross requesting that they advise by 

return email whether Plaintiff Ross opposed or did not oppose this motion to stay discovery in this 

case pending ruling by the Court on APFA’s pending motion for summary judgement (Doc. 42). 

Counsel for Plaintiff Ross has advised by email to undersigned counsel for the Union Defendants 

that Plaintiff Ross is opposed to this motion to stay discovery. 

Undersigned counsel for the Union Defendants further certifies that he has conferred with 

counsel for Defendant McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc who advised that this Defendant 

does not oppose this motion to stay discovery. 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 9th day of November 2022 a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was served on the below listed counsel of record for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant 

Ross by a means permitted by Rule 5(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”). 

KERRI PHILLIPS 

HEATHER ABREU 

K.D. Phillips Law Firm, PLLC 

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com 

Email: Heather@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/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 54 Filed 11/09/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 1424