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-403-Y 

Judge Terry R. Means

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Now comes the Plaintiff, EUGENIO VARGAS (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Vargas”), by 

and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34, 37, and Local 

Rules 5.2 and 7.1 and files his Amended Motion to Compel Defendants ASSOCIATION OF 

PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS (hereinafter “APFA”), Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) Production of Documents and withdraw objections to 

Plaintiff’s requests for production and produce whatever documents may be in Defendants’

possession or subject to its control that are responsive to Plaintiff’s First Amended First Request 

for Production served upon Defendant in this cause and in support thereof would respectfully show 

as follows: 

II. FACTS

Plaintiff served Defendants with PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT FIRST 

AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIM 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 134 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 4096
2

PLAINTIFF on July 29, 2022. Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s First Amended First Request 

for Production, via email on August 26, 2022. 

Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production are attached hereto in

Plaintiff’s Appendix to its Amended Motion to Compel and are incorporated herein by this 

reference for all purposes. (See Appendix Pgs. 10-18). Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s Requests

for Production No.’s 1, 2, and 3. (See Appendix Pgs. 10-18). All of the requests by Plaintiff in the 

Requests for Production are necessary to enable Plaintiff to prepare for trial in this cause.

Defendants’ objections have no merit. Plaintiff is seeking an order from this Court ruling the

objections should be withdrawn and the Requests properly answered by Defendants.

In compliance with the Court’s Order issued on September 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel 

reached out and spoke to Defendant’s counsel through email and via telephone on September 12, 

2023; September 13, 2023, September 15, 2023, September 18, 2023, September 20, 2023, 

September 22, 2023, October 2, 2023, October 12, 2023, and October 15, 2023. Defendant’s 

counsel did produce documents on October 12, 2023 and October 13, 2023, however a substantial 

number of documents were withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege, and financial 

confidentiality and other objections that should have no bearing under the law. No privilege log 

was produced, and Defendant’s counsel maintained other meritless objections to disclosing 

financial information for a union who is required to disclose financial information per the Labor 

Management Reporting and Disclosure Act under 29 U.S.C. § 431. 

On October 19, 2023, opposing counsel emailed to concede the issue that attorney-client 

privilege did not apply in terms of the Wood, Stephens, O’Neil emails—then attached four

documents withheld for privilege—yet still redacted. Defendant’s counsel did indicate that he 

would get back to me next week, however seeing as he waited until the day before Plaintiff’s 

Counsel was ordered to amend this motion—Plaintiff’s counsel informed him he was out of time, 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 134 Filed 10/20/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 4097
3 

he would have to take his issues up with this court instead. Defendant’s counsel has continued 

using delay tactics and playing games such as this for the last several months, never turning over 

any meaningful discovery, never seeming to appear uncooperative, never answering questions he 

does not want to answer, but always answering only those questions he wants to answer, and 

delaying for as long as possible. This is complete waste of this court’s time, energy and 

resources—not to mention Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel’s time, energy and resources.1

Still, Defendants continue to withhold many relevant documents continue to which 

Plaintiff is entitled—namely almost no communication from Julie Hedrick. APFA failed to 

produce documents attached to original emails, failed to produce communications as requested, 

failed to adequately scrub the servers for responsive documents, or take any meaningful discovery 

measures to find, recover, format, and produce meaningful discovery in this case. 

Without the documents requested, Plaintiff will not be able to effectively prepare for trial. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays as follows:

1. That this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion and Compel Defendants to produce all 

responsive documents. 

2. That Defendants be ordered to withdraw their objections to Plaintiff’s First 

Amended First Request for Production and to produce all of the requested 

1

The Court should note the previous statements made by Defendants’ Counsel on record (Ross Dkt. No. 

83). Defendant’s counsel argues it cannot, and will not, settle the claims pending before this Court while its 

claims persist. APFA contends that it must pursue the Ross Administration. Defendants argue settlement of 

any kind would violate federal law breach of fiduciary duty and the governing union’s rules—even if settlement 

is in the union membership’s best interest. Consequently, this Court should consider the Ross Administration’s 

position. Plaintiff has no other option, but to exercise his rights to recover for Defendants’ misconduct—as well 

as the rest of the Ross Administration—for the sake of their families, their reputations, and their careers. The 

Court should also note that APFA continues to pursue Nena Martin and Marcie Dunaway by ordering additional 

financial audits of their expenses. This was announced at the end of August, 2023, despite these pending claims 

before this Court. Nena Martin previously won in Arbitration on these exact claims last fall. Recently, APFA 

Board of Directors voted to pass a resolution to obstruct Heidi Morgan’s ability, APFA Vice-President, to sign 

affidavits and submit evidence from these Arbitrations. To date, APFA has not audited any other administration 

except for the Ross Administration. To date, these disciplinary actions have been taken only against Vargas’ 

Union Representatives. Most notably, December is when new candidates, like Nena Martin and Heidi Morgan, 

will announce their intent to run for National Office in 2024.

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 134 Filed 10/20/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 4098
4 

documents in Defendants’ possession or subject to their control that are responsive 

to Plaintiff’s First Amended First Request for Production. 

3. Movant be awarded such other and further relief, legal or equitable, which Movant 

may show himself justly entitled to receive.

Respectfully submitted,

K.D. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC

 

 

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Texas Bar No. 24065906

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway

Plano, Texas 75024

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

For Service of Filings: 

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b) I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has conferred 

with Defendant in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised herein. Plaintiff’s counsel

conferred with Defendants’ counsel on via email on August 14, 2023, August 17, 2023, August 

18, 2023. A telephone call was held on August 23, 2023 wherein the concerns and objections 

were discuss, in particular Plaintiff offered to limit the time frame of the Requests for 

Production No. 1, 2 and 3 to overcome Defendants objections without success in appeasing 

him. Plaintiff’s further conferred with Defendants via email on August 25, 2023, August 26, 

2023, and received a response on August 30, 2023 stating documents would be produced on 

August 31, 2023. As of the date of filing this Amended Motion, Plaintiffs served extremely 

limited responses that were heavily redacted and only responsive to Request for Production 2, 

and no documents have been received from Woods, Stephens, and O’Neil. Counsel conferred 

on September 1, 2023 as to the relief requested in this instant Amended Motion and Defendants’ 

counsel has replied they are opposed to the Amended Motion. 

Additionally, in compliance with the Court’s order entered on September 8, 2023, 

Plaintiff’s Counsel conferred with Defendant’s counsel on September 12, 2023 via email, on a 

telephone call on September 15, 2023 I was informed Opposing counsel did not know if he 

represented Woods, Stephens O’Neil (despite declining to withdraw his objections prior to the 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 134 Filed 10/20/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4099
5 

original filing of this Amended Motion), so I emailed notice to Hal O’Neil, Bill Osborne, (prior 

counsel) and Sandford Denison (prior counsel) on September 18, 2023 and mailed certified 

mail a copy of the pleading to Hal O’Neil. Subsequently, Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed again on 

September 20, 2023 and September 22, 2023. On September 25, 2023, Opposing counsel 

confirmed his representation of Woods, Stephens and O’Neil, LLP. Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed 

Defendants’ Counsel on October 2, 2023, October 12, 2023 October 15, 2023. Defendants’ 

counsel served very limited and heavily redacted documents and opposes this Amended 

Motion. Plaintiff maintains that no attorney client privilege can be maintained between counsel 

for Defendant and Woods, Stephens, and O’Neil prior to the filing of this matter and therefore 

asks the court to compel discovery. 

As of October 19, 2023, Defendant’s counsel did send a final email with minimal 

documents—still redacted, just before Plaintiff’s deadline to amend this pleading, however all 

of Plaintiff’s original issues continue to persist. (See Appendix pp. 155-163). 

THIS, the 20th day of October 2023.

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips, Esq.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 20, 2023, a true and correct copy of the above was served on 

Defendants’ attorneys, via the e-filing manager. 

/S/ Kerri Phillips

Kerri Phillips

Jeffrey Bartos

Guerrieri, Bartos, & Roma, P.C. 

1900 M Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036

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

Email: jbartos@geclaw.com

Charlette Matts

In-House Counsel for APFA

1004 West Euless Blvd

Euless, TX 76040

Tel: (682) 301-8454 

Cmatts@apfa.org

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 134 Filed 10/20/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 4100
6 

James Sanford

4803 Gaston Avenue

Dallas, TX 75249-1020 

Tel: (214) 800-5111; Fax: (214) 838-

0001 

Email jim@gillespiesanford.com

Email: joe@gillespiesanford.com

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 134 Filed 10/20/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 4101