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’ MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

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

and Erik Harris (collectively, “the APFA Defendants”) hereby move the Court to amend the 

Initial Scheduling Order, Doc. 77, solely to extend the fast-approaching deadline for pretrial and 

dispositive motions. The APFA Defendants do not seek to amend the Initial Scheduling Order in 

any other respect. The basis for this request is that Plaintiffs Ross and, from the companion 

Vargas case, Eugenio Vargas have stymied the APFA Defendants’ attempts to depose them. The 

Plaintiff’s motion to quash his Notice of Deposition is pending before the Court and referred to 

Magistrate Judge Cureton. The APFA Defendants therefore seek to extend the dispositive motion 

deadline to a date 45 days after the two Noticed depositions have been taken.

Counsel for the APFA Defendants has conferred with counsel for the other parties in this 

action. Plaintiffs’ counsel does not agree to this motion unless the APFA Defendants agree to a 

general extension of discovery and other deadlines as requested in Plaintiffs’ pending Notice of 

Objection and Motion to Extend Deadlines, Doc. 120, and Motion to Quash, Doc. 121. Counsel 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 151 Filed 11/09/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 3071
2

for Defendant McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc. has stated that he does not oppose the 

APFA Defendants’ requested relief.

This motion has become necessary because the APFA Defendants have been prevented 

from taking the deposition of Plaintiff during the discovery period and will not be able to 

complete this essential final component of discovery until, by any reasonable measure, after the 

existing dispositive motion deadline of December 15, 2023.

The Initial Scheduling Order set October 31, 2023, as the close of discovery. Doc. 77 at 

2. In August 2023, the APFA Defendants counsel began the process of finding mutually 

agreeable dates for the depositions of Plaintiff Ross and Eugenio Vargas, who is the Plaintiff in 

the related case of Vargas v. APFA, No. 4:22-cv-00430-Y. The APFA Defendants proposed eight 

days in October for those depositions. Appx. 4 (email J. Bartos to K. Phillips, 8/31/23). 

Plaintiff’s counsel responded on September 6, 2023, that she had “inquired with my clients about 

the week of October 24-26,” Appx. 3 (email K Phillips to J. Bartos, 9/6/23), and later confirmed 

that “My clients are available for depositions on those dates you requested, October 24-26, [but 

only] virtually,” Appx. 1 (email K. Phillips to J. Bartos, 9/12/23). On September 15, 2023, the 

APFA issued Notices of Deposition for those dates, indicating in-person depositions, but stating 

that APFA was “amenable to making any arrangement needed for your participation by remote 

means, but do need to have the witnesses present in person.” Appx. 5-9 (email J. Bartos to K. 

Phillips, 9/15/23, with attached Notices of Deposition).

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Objection ... and Motion to Extend 

Deadlines,” in which he contended that he was no longer available in late October due to his 

anticipated work schedule, and sought an indefinite extension of the discovery period for all 

purposes, Doc. 120 at ¶¶ 17-21. That motion is pending. Plaintiff then filed a “Motion to Quash 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 151 Filed 11/09/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 3072
3

Defendant’s Notice to Take Deposition” and sought a “Temporary Protective Order” postponing

the Noticed deposition until after January 2024. Doc. 121. He again asserted that he could not 

be deposed on the Noticed date because he was scheduled to be working. Id., ¶ 6.1 This Court 

referred that latter motion to Magistrate Judge Cureton. Doc. 129. Under that referral Order, the

parties were directed to confer by no later than November 3, 2023. The AFPA Defendants again 

proposed deposition dates—this time seeking agreement to take Mr. Ross’ deposition in 

December, which would avoid the asserted scheduling conflict—but Plaintiff has refused to 

agree to any dates for the Noticed depositions absent a general extension of the discovery period. 

Appx. 10-11 (emails J. Bartos and K. Phillips, November 2, 7, and 8, 2023). The APFA 

Defendants’ opposition to that Motion to Quash is due on November 30, 2023. Doc. 129.

The current state of the schedule is thus as follows: the discovery deadline of October 31, 

2023, remains in effect, although subject to Plaintiff’s pending motions to extend (one of which, 

associated with the Motion to Quash, has been referred to Magistrate Judge Cureton); Plaintiff 

refused to appear for his deposition in October as Noticed, or even in December, and his counsel 

insists he will not appear unless his motion to extend discovery generally is granted (or, 

presumably, unless he is ordered to in connection with his pending Motion to Quash); and yet 

dispositive motions are due on December 15, 2023.

Plaintiff Ross filed this lawsuit against the APFA Defendants. The APFA Defendants have 

a right to depose Plaintiff Ross and timely attempted to exercise that right. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(a)(1)(“[a] party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave 

of court ....”)(emphasis added)). In order to determine if there are material facts in dispute which 

1 The APFA Defendants will address, in response to the Motion to Quash, how Mr. Ross 

himself voluntarily selected the schedule which created a conflict with his deposition date, and 

could have easily changed his schedule even after it was set.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 151 Filed 11/09/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3073
4

would impact summary judgment, and to present such a motion based on a completed 

evidentiary record after the close of discovery, the APFA Defendants need to take Mr. Ross’ 

deposition (and Mr. Vargas’ deposition in the companion case). As described above, they have 

been prevented from doing so until a ruling is issued on the Motion to Quash and the parties are 

able schedule the depositions. In this context, the APFA Defendants have no choice but to seek a

limited amendment to the Scheduling Order to extend the dispositive motion deadline. The 

APFA Defendants do not seek any other amendment to the Scheduling Order, but seek only to be 

able to complete the depositions which they noticed back in September 2023 before they file for 

summary judgment or other pretrial relief.

Under the current Scheduling Order, the dispositive motion deadline is 45 days after the 

close of discovery. Since Mr. Ross and Mr. Vargas have formally moved to delay their 

depositions, the APFA Defendants seek a new pretrial and dispositive motion deadline of 45 days 

after the completion of the Noticed depositions of Mr. Ross and Mr. Vargas following resolution 

of the Motions to Quash.

Dated: November 9, 2023 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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 151 Filed 11/09/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 3074
5

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

Email: jbartos@geclaw.com

abird@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

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that on November 7, 2023, I spoke with Michael Rake, counsel for Defendant 

McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc., who stated that he does not oppose the relief requested 

herein. I further certify that in an exchange of emails between November 2 and November 8, 

2023, I conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel Kerri Phillips regarding the requested relief. Plaintiff’s 

counsel would not agree to the relief requested unless the APFA Defendants agreed to a general 

extension of discovery and other deadlines as requested in Plaintiffs’ pending motions. 

/s/ Jeffrey A. Bartos_____ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 151 Filed 11/09/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 3075
6

I certify that on November 9, 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 151 Filed 11/09/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 3076