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. Doc. 216. As set forth below, the Motion should be 

denied because the APFA Defendants have fully complied with this Court’s Order and their 

obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 26, 2023, Magistrate Judge Cureton held a hearing addressing a number of 

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel. As is relevant here, during the hearing, the Court engaged with 

counsel on the subject of certain requests pertaining to former APFA officer Nena Martin. 

Referring specifically to Plaintiff Ross’s Second Motion to Compel, the Court identified the 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID 5762
2

document requests at issue as requests 1, 3, 4, and 6-11. Appx. 3 (Tr. 19:6-9). Request 8 

involved communications among certain people “discussing the Martin Article VII Arbitration,” 

and Request 9 involved communications “discussing Nena Martin’s charges against Melissa 

Chinery-Burns.” Appx. 9-10. When asked by the Court about the relevance of documents

concerning Ms. Martin, Plaintiffs’ counsel hypothesized that the internal union charges against 

Martin were “part of a plot to attack ... their administration,” Appx.4 (Tr. 32), and that the “three 

separate arbitration hearings” were thus all relevant to the claims herein, Appx.5 (Tr. 34:4-25); 

see also Appx. 6 (Tr. 37:3-20). The Court concluded, based on those representations, that these 

requests concerning Ms. Martin “could [] potentially lead to relevant evidence”, and ordered the 

defendants to produce documents responsive to the requests at issue. Appx. 6 (Tr. 37:22-23).

1

The Court denied nearly all of the relief requested, but, as is relevant here, granted Mr. 

Ross’s motion “with regard to responsive documents related to Nena Martin.” Doc. 187 (Order, 

12/26/23). The Court also ordered the APFA Defendants to “redouble their efforts” to find and 

produce additional documents sent to or from Julie Hedrick. The Court set a deadline of January 

25, 2024, for the production of documents, with the understanding that a confidentiality 

agreement would be in place by that date. Id.; see also Doc. 219 (Order) at ECF 5 (discussing 

confidentiality agreement issue). 

Following the Court’s Order, the APFA undertook to identify documents which had been 

ordered to be produced. Counsel for APFA led a process to locate the documents responsive to 

1 Mr. Ross’s Requests for Production included a separate Request for “All 

documents produced to any party ... in connection with [the] ... Martin Article VII Arbitration.” 

Appx. 11 (Request 13). Defendants’ response objecting to that Request was not at issue in the 

Motion to Compel and was not discussed in the hearing either. See Pl.’s’ Br. Supp. 2d Mot. 

Compel, Doc. 141, at 10-14 (identifying requests at issue); Pl.’s’ Reply, Doc. 173, at 4 (same);

Appx. 3 (Tr. 19:6-9).

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID 5763
3

Ross Requests 8 and 9, and to ensure that all responsive emails to or from Julie Hedrick, 

regardless of email address, were produced. This process resulted in the production of a 

substantial number of documents concerning Ms. Martin, as well as a limited number of 

documents regarding Ms. Hedrick (reflecting the fact that the prior production had been 

thorough). Appx. 13-14 (Broderick Decl.), ¶¶ 2-5.

However, as the Court is aware, the parties did not agree upon confidentiality terms by 

January 25, and therefore APFA did not produce further documents by that date. As explained by 

the Court in its Order of March 1, 2024, the delay in production was “largely a result of Phillips’ 

unwillingness to enter into a basic confidentiality agreement.” Doc. 219 at ECF 6. Ultimately, an 

interim confidentiality agreement was reached on February 13, 2024, and the APFA Defendants 

produced over 2,600 pages pursuant to that agreement that same day. The APFA subsequently 

supplemented its production pursuant to its obligations under the Federal Rules.

Plaintiffs’ counsel did not raise any specific issues regarding the APFA’s document 

production, nor attempt to confer regarding any perceived deficiencies. Instead on February 21, 

2024, counsel sent an email announcing that she would be “refiling our motion for sanctions as 

your document production and updated privilege log fails to comply with the court’s orders to 

produce documents.” Appx. 17. In response to a request for explanation regarding the 

sufficiency of the production, counsel declined on the ground that “The number of documents 

and communications missing ... are too numerous to itemize out” but otherwise offered no 

evidence or explanation for what she perceived as missing. Appx. 16-17. One week later, 

Plaintiffs filed the motion for sanctions. 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions based on “Defendants continued and ongoing misconduct,” 

involving “rising hostilities ... [and] abuse.” Doc. 216 at ECF p. 5, ¶ 5. Plaintiffs assert broadly 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID 5764
4

that APFA has engaged in “Insurance Violations,” id., at ECF 5-7, did not comply with the 

Court’s Order of December 26, 2023, regarding document production, id., at ECF p. 8-12, ¶ 4-

12, and engaged in “Deposition Abuse,” id., at ECF p. 12-13, ¶¶ 13-16. For relief, Plaintiffs (in 

their Proposed Order) seek partial summary judgment in their favor “by default.” Plaintiffs also 

seek attorney’s fees “for the pursuit and filing of [Mr. Vargas’] motions to compel,” Doc. 216 ¶¶ 

24-25. Plaintiffs do not, however, have a summary judgment motion on file, and Mr. Vargas’ 

motion to compel (Doc. 139 in his case prior to consolidation) was denied. See Doc. 187 

(Order).

ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied. The claims of “deposition abuse” and delay have all 

been considered and soundly rejected. See Order Granting Defs.’ Mot. Sanctions, Doc. 219, at 4-

21. The claims of “insurance violations,” and supposed “ongoing hostilities” among the parties –

none of which have any basis in documented fact – are as immaterial as they are unsupported, 

and need not be addressed here. And the claims that the APFA Defendants in any way did not 

comply with the Court’s December 26 Order are without merit. The APFA Defendants produced 

the documents ordered by the Court and made appropriate redactions based on attorney-client 

privilege. Plaintiffs complain that two categories of documents concerning Nena Martin were not 

produced, but those categories were not the subject of the Court’s Order. And the responsive

documents from Ms. Hedrick’s emails were searched for and produced.

Defendants emphasize, as a threshold matter, that Plaintiffs made no effort whatsoever to 

confer regarding the issues of document production, redaction and privilege they now raise in the 

first, which is itself grounds to deny the motion with respect to discovery. Greinstein v. Granite 

Servs. Int'l, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-208-Z-BR, 2020 WL 10934898, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2020) 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID 5765
5

(denying motion for failing to properly confer; “[w]hen the court must resolve a dispute that the 

parties themselves could have resolved, it must needlessly expend resources that it could better 

utilize elsewhere”) (Appx. 23); Compass Bank v. Shamgochian, 287 F.R.D. 397, 400 (S.D. Tex. 

2012) (collecting cases; “Plaintiff’s single letter unilaterally identifying flaws in Defendant's 

discovery responses and setting an arbitrary response deadline for Defendant ... does not equate 

to a good faith conferral or attempt to confer.”). In any event, as we demonstrate below, 

Plaintiffs request for any relief involving the discovery responses is without merit.

A. The APFA Defendants Complied With the Court’s Order.

Plaintiffs seek sanctions based on Defendants’ alleged failure to produce three categories 

of documents: (a) documents that were allegedly previously provided to Ms. Martin in

connection with her APFA Article VII disciplinary hearings, (b) documents related to audits of 

Ms. Martin and another former officer, Marcy Dunaway; and (c) emails to or from Defendant 

Julie Hedrick. Doc. 216 at ECF 8-9. This effort is misguided: the identified categories of Martin 

documents had not been ordered to be produced; and Ms. Hedrick’s emails were thoroughly 

searched and responsive documents produced.

1. As noted above, the issue before the Court regarding Ms. Martin involved 

Plaintiffs requests for communications among various APFA representatives “discussing the 

Martin Article VII Arbitration,” or “discussing Nena Martin’s charges against Melissas ChineryBurns.” APFA searched for and produced documents responding to these requests. See Appx. 13

(Broderick Decl.) ¶¶ 3-4. These requests did not seek documents produced to Ms. Martin in 

response to a subpoena in her Article VII case, nor subsequent audits of Ms. Martin or Ms. 

Dunaway. The former category of documents may have been responsive to Ross Document 

Request 13, to which the APFA Defendants had objected, but Plaintiff never sought to compel 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5766
6

production of those responses, nor did the Court so order. The latter set of documents were not 

the subject of any discovery request, much less a Court order.2

2. With respect to the Order that APFA “redouble its effort” to find responsive

documents in Ms. Hedrick’s email, the APFA did exactly what the Court ordered. Under 

supervision of counsel, Ms. Hedrick’s email addresses were searched again to see if any 

responsive documents may not have been produced. A handful of emails were found, many of 

which were duplicates of emails already produced from other sources, and these were then 

provided to Plaintiffs. Appx. 14 (Broderick Decl.) ¶ 5. The APFA complied with the Court’s 

Order in this regard as well.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions based on the content of the APFA’s 

document production should be denied.

B. The APFA Defendants Appropriately Redacted Documents.

Plaintiffs claim that some of Defendants’ documents were “redacted without explanation 

[and] ... not listed on the privilege log, as far as may be determined.” Doc. 216 at ECF 9

(emphasis added). These claims are based on mistaken presumptions, again due to Plaintiffs’ 

failure to confer with Defendants’ counsel, and are belied by the record. 

2 Moreover, while the premise of Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel regarding Ms. 

Martin involved the theory that she was charged unfairly by the same APFA member who 

charged Plaintiffs, and thus arguably sought information which might shed light on the fairness 

of the charges against Plaintiffs, the motion for sanctions focuses on evidence regarding the 

financial practices of the current union administration – which has not been the subject of 

discovery, much less any motion practice or order. See Doc. 216 at ECF page 8, ¶ 5 (complaining 

that “No credit card statements, or receipts have been produced for ... the Hedrick 

Administration”).

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID 5767
7

Plaintiffs identify two pages, reproduced as their Appendix pages 22 and 23 (numbered 

APFA VII. 003523 and 003528 in APFA’s production, respectively), which they claim are 

improperly redacted and absent from the privilege log. Both claims are erroneous. 

Appendix page 22 (APFA VII.-003523) is listed in the privilege log as item No. 66. This 

redacted document is a February 27, 2023, email from National Secretary Joshua Black to the 

APFA National Officers and APFA in-house counsel Alyssa Urban and Charlette Broderick (née 

Matts). As a communication with counsel, the redacted document is subject to attorney client 

privilege. 

Appendix page 23 (APFA VII.-003528) is also listed in the privilege log, as item No. 69. 

This redacted document is an email from APFA in-house counsel Alyssa Urban to the APFA 

National Officers, sent on August 1, 2022, and which forwards two prior emails among APFA inhouse counsel Margot Nikitas and Alyssa Urban, APFA outside counsel Bill Osborne and 

Sanford Denison, and the National Officers, from February 28 and August 1, 2022, as well as an

unredacted email from Kit Gomez Alba to National Secretary Joshua Black from February 27, 

2022. Again, as a communication with counsel, this redacted document is also subject to attorney 

client privilege. 

Plaintiffs’ claims regarding redactions are mistaken. 

C. The APFA Defendants Claimed No Improper Privilege.

Plaintiffs next claim that “APFA lists communications between APFA and the Article VII 

Arbitrator as privileged communications” (Doc. 216 at ECF 11), that such communications 

should not be privileged, and that therefore Defendants are failing to produce responsive 

documents. Plaintiffs again misperceive the facts.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID 5768
8

The APFA Defendants have not asserted a privilege as to communications with Article 

VII Arbitrator Armendariz. While Plaintiffs assert that Defendants include such communications 

in the privilege log, they identify no specific entries and the log itself does not list Arbitrator 

Armendariz as the author or recipient of any document for which a privilege is asserted. 

Plaintiffs’ Appendix pages 5-14, which is the February 26, 2024, version of APFA’s 

privilege log, highlights entries listing “Article VII” as an author or recipient. Defendants infer 

that these are the privilege log entries which Plaintiffs contest. If so, Plaintiffs err in surmising 

that the designation “Article VII” refers to the Arbitrator. To the contrary, “Article VII” in the log 

refers to the email address “ArticleVII@apfa.org”, which is an email account maintained by the 

APFA National Secretary to handle correspondence concerning Article VII arbitrations. All 

privilege log entries marking “Article VII” emails as privileged also indicate as an author or 

recipient one or more of the following attorneys – Jeffrey Bartos, Margot Nikitas, Charlette 

Matts, and Bill Osborne. These documents were all properly withheld as protected by attorney 

client privilege.

Plaintiffs’ misreading of the production could have been remedied, and party and judicial 

resources conserved, had they conferred with counsel rather than sought judicial intervention in 

the first instance. The claim for sanctions should be rejected. 

D. The Depositions Were Properly Conducted.

Plaintiffs also seek sanctions arising out of the February depositions of Mr. Ross and Mr. 

Vargas. Doc. 216 at ECF 12-13. Their contentions in this regard were thoroughly examined and 

rejected in the Court’s Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. Doc. 219.3 Plaintiffs

3 The Court found that Plaintiffs’ counsel engaged in “combative and disruptive 

conduct” which “impeded, delayed, and frustrated” the depositions (id. at 18, 23), and which 

stood in contrast with the “restraint” of defense counsel. Id. at 19 n.16. The Court’s findings on 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID 5769
9

raise no issues not already resolved by that Order, and the claim for sanctions on this basis 

should be rejected.

CONCLUSION

The APFA Defendants respectfully submit that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions should be 

denied.

Dated: March 21 , 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

other specific issues included that the hotel conference room was an appropriate location (id. at 

11), that the number of APFA representatives present was reasonable (id. at 10-11), and that 

defense counsel properly conducted the questioning of Mr. Vargas. Id. at 21-22.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID 5770
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on March 21, 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 225 Filed 03/21/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID 5771