IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

EUGENIO VARGAS,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

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

 Judge Terry R. Means

(Relates to Motion Referred to 

Magistrate Judge Cureton)

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION

TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 15 PageID 4592
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................2

ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................6

A. The APFA’s Document Production Is Appropriate.............................................................6

B. Requests 3(g), 7 and 8 Are Objectionable in toto................................................................8

C. The Document Production Was In The Proper Format .....................................................10

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 2 of 15 PageID 4593
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page(s)

Arcuri v. Trump Taj Mahal Assocs.,

154 F.R.D. 97 (D.N.J. 1994)......................................................................................................7

MetroPCS v. Thomas,

327 F.R.D. 600 (N.D. Tex. 2018)........................................................................................9, 10

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Chung,

325 F.R.D. 578 (N.D. Tex. 2017)......................................................................................2, 6, 8

Upjohn Co. v. U.S.,

449 U.S. 383 (1981)...................................................................................................................7

Vargas v. APFA,

No. 4:22cv403-Y (N.D. Tex.)....................................................................................................3

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 3 of 15 PageID 4594
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

EUGENIO VARGAS,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

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

 Judge Terry R. Means

(Relates to Motion Referred to 

Magistrate Judge Cureton)

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION

TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Defendants the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”), its President, 

Julie Hedrick, and its Treasurer, Erik Harris (collectively herein, “Defendants”) hereby oppose 

Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Production of Document, Doc. 139.

As set forth below, Plaintiff served sweeping Requests for Production on the Defendants 

in August 2023. The Defendants responded in writing and have produced upwards of 6000 pages 

of responsive documents. Plaintiff’s complaints regarding the scope of the production are 

inaccurate, and his sparse assertions for why the few Requests for which no responsive 

documents have been produced are appropriate under the Federal Rules are unconvincing and 

incorrect as a matter of law. Plaintiff has not met his burden for obtaining the relief requested. 

The Defendants have complied with their obligations under the Federal Rules, and this motion 

should be denied.

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 4 of 15 PageID 4595
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As explained more fully in the Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s prior motion to 

compel, Doc. 148, this case arises out of an internal union arbitration under Article VII of the 

APFA Constitution which addressed charges of misconduct by Plaintiff Eugenio Vargas during 

his term as APFA National Treasurer, resulting in a final and binding determination that Mr.

Vargas had engaged in the unauthorized expenditure and receipt of funds in violation of the 

APFA Constitution and Policy Manual, and which he has largely not paid back to the Union. 

This lawsuit is Mr. Vargas’s effort to avoid his responsibility under that arbitration award. APFA, 

in its counterclaim, seeks to hold Mr. Vargas responsible for his breach of fiduciary duty under 

federal law.

On August 13, 2023, Plaintiff served the APFA Defendants with fourteen Requests for 

Production, some with multiple subparts. Pl.’s Appx. 23-31. The Requests generally sought “all 

documents and communications of any kind” on a wide variety of subjects; some were expressly 

or impliedly limited in time to the period April 1, 2020, to the present (numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,

and 12), while others contained no such express or implied limitation on time (1, 5, 10, 11, 12,

and14). While his Proposed Order lists all fourteen of the Requests as if they were at issue 

here, See Pl.’s Proposed Order, his Brief addresses only seven of these Requests (Requests 2-8), 

Pl.’s Br. Supp. 2d Mot. Compel, Doc. 140, at pages 10, 11, 13. Plaintiff is obligated to 

“specifically and individually identify each discovery request in dispute and specifically, as to 

each request, identify the nature and basis of the dispute ... and must include a concise 

discussion of the facts and authority that support the motion as to each discovery request in 

dispute.” Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Chung, 325 F.R.D. 578, 594 (N.D. Tex. 2017) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Defendants address only the 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 5 of 15 PageID 4596
3

particular Requests which Plaintiff discusses in his brief. See Doc. 140 at 13 (asking Court to 

“[c]ompel Defendants to produce documentation responsive” to only Requests 2-8).

Without repeating the full text of each Request herein, most of them sought “documents 

or communications” among various people on these particular subjects:

• The “Transition Agreement” between Robert Ross, who is Plaintiff in the 

related case of Ross v. APFA, No. 4:22cv343-Y (N.D. Tex.), and APFA’s Board 

of Directors governing his early departure from office in the face of a recall 

petition, in 2018. (RFP 2);

• The Article VII Arbitration of Robert Ross (RFP 4);

• A hypothetical merger between APFA and another union, the Association of 

Flight Attendants (“AFA”) (RFP 5); and

• The Article VII Arbitration of Mr. Vargas (RFP 6).

In addition, Plaintiff sought all communications regarding other Article VII Arbitrations

involving APFA members who are not parties to this or the Ross lawsuits: Nena Martin, Melissa 

Chinery-Burns and Sandra Lee (RFP 7, 8).

Finally, in Request No. 3, Plaintiff made a sweeping request for

All documents and communications of any kind between the National Officers, 

[Base President] John Nikitas, [APFA Member] Melissas Chinery-Burns, and 

[outside counsel] William Osborne since April 1, 2020, discussing any of the 

following:

a. The Ross Administration;

b. Article VII of the APFA Constitution;

c. The Ross Transition Agreement; 

d. Hal O’Neil’s accounting review of the Ross Transition Agreement;

e. The Confidential Memo;

f. The Overpayment of Wages Letter; and

g. The American Airlines December 13, 2014, Collective Bargaining

Agreement.

1

1 With respect to Request 3(g), APFA is the certified collective bargaining representative for the 

American Airlines Flight Attendants, with the responsibility to negotiate and enforce its 

collective bargaining agreement with American. APFA is currently in negotiations with 

American Airlines regarding amendments to the current collective bargaining agreement, see

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 6 of 15 PageID 4597
4

To identify potentially responsive documents, the APFA searched its paper and electronic 

files through a variety of mechanisms, including searching emails of relevant individuals and 

archived material, and obtaining documents directly from union representatives. Defendants 

served written responses and nearly 5000 pages of responsive documents on September 13, 

2023. See Pl.’s Appx.48-53; Defs.’ Appx. 1-3 (Matts Declaration) and 5 (9/13/23 transmittal 

email).

While objecting to aspects of Requests 2, 4, and 6, Defendants served documents 

responsive to those Requests which were relevant to this case, not privileged, and which could be 

reasonably identified. APFA agreed to produce responsive documents, if any, during the term of 

the current National Officers discussing a merger with AFA, but found no such documents. 

Defendants objected to, and did not identify responsive documents in its production 

regarding the sweeping Request 3, on the ground that it failed to describe with reasonable 

particularity the item or category of items to be produced, sought irrelevant information, and is 

overly burdensome. In addition, Plaintiff’s requests for communications with outside counsel Mr. 

Osborne sought privileged information. 

Defendants also objected to Requests 7 and 8, and did not produce responsive documents 

thereto, because those Requests sought communications involving Article VII Arbitrations

involving non-parties Nena Martin, Melissa Chinery-Burns and Sandra Lee, which have nothing 

to do with this case. Pl.’s Appx. 56. The Defendants objected that these requests sought 

information that was not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the 

needs of the case, and are overly burdensome. Id.

https://www.apfa.org/negotiations-status/, and the present lawsuit does not involve any aspect of 

the collective bargaining agreement.

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 7 of 15 PageID 4598
5

Defendants then supplemented their production on multiple occasions, as they identified

additional responsive documents. Between October 12 and October 21, 2023, Defendants 

produced an additional 1885 pages of documents, largely involving email communications on 

various topics from Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. Defendants also provided Plaintiff’s 

counsel with a privilege log (which they will supplement as appropriate). Defs.’ Appx. 12

(production and privilege log transmittal emails). This supplemental production included

communications responsive to portions of Request 3i . In response to Plaintiff’s conferral 

requests, the APFA searched for and produced documents responsive to those portions of 

Request 3 which bore on the issues before the Court – communications among the identified 

parties regarding the Article VII charges and Awards against Mr. Ross and Mr. Vargas, the 

Transition Agreement, overpayments to Ross, and efforts to collect. Additional responsive 

documents were produced in the supplemental productions. Defs.’ Appx. 2-3 (Matts Decl. ¶5); 

Defs.’ Appx. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13. APFA maintains its objection to requests for all 

communications regarding “The Ross Administration” more generally; Article VII of the APFA 

Constitution more generally; and the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with American 

Airlines. 

In accordance with its obligations under the Federal Rules, APFA continues to search for 

responsive documents and will produce them as they are identified. Id.

Plaintiff has now moved to compel, and without addressing the terms of each particular 

Request, or the responses provided, asserts that all the requested documents are relevant, Doc. 

140 at 10, 13. Plaintiff contends generally (and incorrectly) that “Defendants failed to provide 

responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests”, Doc. 140 at 1, that “only a limited number of 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 8 of 15 PageID 4599
6

documents were produced,”, and that “virtually no email exchanges or communications of any 

kind were produced” at all. Id. at 7. 

Plaintiff’s Brief concludes with a request to compel production of “documentation 

responsive of [sic] Requests for Production No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.” Doc. 140 at 13. His 

Proposed Order, however, would compel production of all fourteen Requests, including the seven 

which are not mentioned in his Brief. In addition, while the Requests for Production did not 

specify a format for production of electronically stored documents, Plaintiff seeks production in 

“original .PST format.” Pl.’s Proposed Order.

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing either that the Defendants’ 

responsive production is in any way deficient or that the Requests for Production for which no 

documents were produced seek information that is relevant to the action or will lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence. See Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Chung, 325 F.R.D. 

at 594. His motion should be denied. 

A. The APFA’s Document Production Is Appropriate. 

The APFA searched for and produced non-privileged documents responsive to Requests 

for Production 2, 4 and 6. See Pl.’s Appx. 48-50; Defs.’ Appx. 5 (9/13/23 transmittal email). 

APFA objected to the production of privileged documents, and produced a privilege log. Defs.’ 

Appx. 12 (privilege log email).2

2 Plaintiff has not addressed the privilege log which was provided, but does make a broad and

unsupported assertion that the APFA and its in-house counsel do not have an attorney-client 

privilege vis-à-vis members of the APFA. That view is mistaken. See Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 

U.S. 383, 395 (1981) (organizational attorney-client privilege applies to communications made 

by employees to corporate counsel for the purpose of counsel rendering legal advice to the 

corporation); Arcuri v. Trump Taj Mahal Assocs., 154 F.R.D. 97, 109 (D.N.J. 1994) (rejecting 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 9 of 15 PageID 4600
7

The APFA Defendants agreed to search for and produce documents responsive to Request 

5, which sought communications “discussing a merger between APFA and AFA,” but limited the 

period of time to the tenure of the current National Officers, and found no responsive documents 

to produce.3 

The APFA has also searched for and produced documents responsive to subparts (b), (c), 

(d), (e) and (f) of Request 3, as well as subpart (a) insofar as it pertains to Mr. Ross or Mr. Vargas 

and the issues in this case. For all these Requests, APFA has been and is conducting additional 

review to comply with its obligation to supplement production.

Plaintiff’s response to the production of thousands of pages of responsive documents is to 

complain that they are “only a limited number of documents”, and to contend that “virtually no 

email exchanges or communications of any kind were produced”, and that “Notably missing ... 

are any emails from the National Officers, Julie Hedrick, Josh Black, Larry Salas, and Erik 

Harris,.” Doc. 140 at 7. These sweeping statements are demonstrably incorrect. The thousands 

of pages of documents produced contain hundreds of pages of emails specifically responsive to 

Plaintiff’s requests from and among all of those individuals, many of which, for illustrative 

purposes, we identify by bates-number in the Defendants’Appendix hereto (and can produce for 

in camera review). See Defs.’ Appx. 14-16.

4

attempt by union members to pierce attorney-client privilege between union officers and 

counsel).

3Plaintiff theorizes that he was subjected to Article VII charges by two rank and file members, 

and found by an independent Arbitrator to have engaged in financial malfeasance in office, 

because he opposed the possibility of such a merger. But neither he nor APFA has any evidence 

to support that theory. 

4 A list of the emails produced in the extant discovery, by bates-number, indicating those which 

involve the National Officers (who Plaintiff asserts are not in any produced email) is provided at 

Defendants’ Appendix 14-16. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 10 of 15 PageID 4601
8

B. Requests 3(g), 7 and 8 Are Objectionable in toto. 

With respect to the remainder of Request 3 and to Requests 7 and 8, for which no 

documents have been produced, Plaintiff had the initial obligation in his Requests to seek only 

“matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,” 

and “to describe with reasonable particularity each ... category of items to be inspected,” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and 34(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff also has the burden, on this motion, “to specifically, 

as to each request, identify the nature and basis of the dispute ... and ... include a concise 

discussion of the facts and authority that support the motion as to each discovery request in 

dispute,” Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Chung, 325 F.R.D. at 594.

Plaintiff did not meet his obligations in either these Requests or in his motion. The 

information sought was not described with reasonable particularity, and as drafted is not relevant, 

not likely to lead to admissible evidence, and compliance with these Requests would impose an 

undue burden on the Defendants.

Request 3 has seven subparts. As described above, Defendants in their supplemental 

production produced responsive documents regarding subparts (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of Request 

3, as well as subpart (a) insofar as it pertains to Mr. Ross or Mr. Vargas and the issues in this 

case. That subpart sought, in addition, all communications regarding “the Ross Administration,” 

which he defined as “Robert ‘Bob’ Ross, Nena Martin, Eugenio Vargas, or Marcy Dunaway,” 

Pl.’s Appx. 29. Communications regarding Mr. Ross and Mr. Vargas, and which pertain to the 

Plaintiff complains that there are no or any communications with Joe Burns in these 

emails. Mr. Burns is an attorney retained by APFA solely for the limited function of assisting 

with ongoing collective bargaining negotiations with American Airlines, and the fact that none of 

the responsive emails relating to internal APFA discipline were with Mr. Burns should not be 

surprising. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 11 of 15 PageID 4602
9

issues in this case, have been produced. But the demand to produce communications regarding 

Ross or Vargas more generally as well as non-parties Martin and Dunaway, without any 

reference to the issues before the Court in this case, is plainly inappropriate. See MetroPCS v. 

Thomas, 327 F.R.D. 600, 610 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (discovery requests are “facially overbroad 

where [they] ... seek all documents concerning the parties to [the underlying]] action, regardless 

of whether those documents relate to that action and regardless of date; [t]he requests are not 

particularized; and [t]he period covered by the requests is unlimited.”). With particular respect to 

communications regarding Ms. Martin and Ms. Dunaway, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the 

relevance of any such communications, much less all of them (which is what he seeks); nor has 

he accounted for the burden it would impose on those individuals to have information regarding 

them disclosed in unrelated litigation. 

Subpart (g) of Request 3 seeks communications among specified people regarding the

“American Airlines December 13, 2014, Collective Bargaining Agreement.” This case does not 

involve that Collective Bargaining Agreement, and Plaintiff does not even attempt to explain 

how any such documents would bear on this matter. Moreover, given that APFA’s primary 

function as the collective bargaining representative is to negotiate and enforce its collective 

bargaining agreement on behalf of over 26,000 Flight Attendants, a request for all 

communications regarding that agreement is patently overly broad and unduly burdensome in 

any context, see MetroPCS, 327 F.R.D at 610, and would likely interfere with the APFA’s 

ongoing contract negotiations with American.

Requests 7 and 8 seek communications involving Article VII Arbitrations involving nonparties Nena Martin, Melissa Chinery-Burns and Sandra Lee. Pl.’s Appx. 30. The APFA 

Defendants objected that these requests sought information that is not relevant to any party’s 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 12 of 15 PageID 4603
10

claim or defense, is not proportional to the needs of the case, and is overly burdensome. As with 

Request 3(a), Plaintiff has not met his burden of making reasonably particular requests, nor has 

he demonstrated the possible relevance of such documents, nor indicated how such document 

might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request would unfairly disclose personal 

information regarding non-parties with no offsetting value to the resolution of this litigation.

C. The Document Production Was In The Proper Format. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s brief contains a lengthy exposition regrading tools which a party might 

use to search for and recover emails using Microsoft Outlook, Doc.140 at 6, and he asks in his 

Proposed Order for a directive that APFA produce documents in “.PST format.” But his 

Requests for Production did not seek documents in any particular format. See Pl.’s Appx. 23, 

and the APFA should not be made to incur the time and expense of producing the same 

documents in more than one format. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(iii) (“A party need not 

produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.”). Indeed, Plaintiff’s 

counsel only requested any documents in .PST format on October 21, 2023, and then only in 

connection with APFA’s response to a different set of Requests for Production. See Pl.’s Appx. 

110-111 (Doc. 141-2 at 13-14). Plaintiff’s new demand in his brief for a wholesale second 

production in a different format, which he had not previously requested, and for which he has 

never articulated a rationale, would do nothing more than impose undue costs on APFA.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff’s motion 

should be denied.

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 13 of 15 PageID 4604
11

Dated: November 17 , 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

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

Email: jbartos@geclaw.com

Counsel for the, Association of Professional Flight 

Attendants, 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-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 14 of 15 PageID 4605
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 17 , 2023, 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

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-00430-Y Document 153 Filed 11/17/23 Page 15 of 15 PageID 4606