The Court agrees with Union Pacific that under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Winecup is prohibited from asking questions or offering evidence or argument about the plaintiff's consulting experts. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP - casetext.com It was not until May 13, 2020, that Winecup disclosed in its supplemental expert disclosure that it intended to call Opperman, Holt, and Quaglieri as non-retained experts. The Court finds that allowing Union Pacific to amend the pretrial order on this issue will not result in injustice to Winecup and any inconvenience to the Court is slight. 150. ECF No. ECF No. Id. 2018) (quoting 7 James Wm. Cal. Further, whether Winecup presents sufficient evidence during trial to support giving the jury an Act of God instruction must be determined at trial. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/28/2020 06:44 PM], (#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. As the parties have already agreed to prepare their exhibits electronically, juror binders are unnecessarily redundant. Accordingly, Union Pacific's ninth motion in limine (ECF No. Accordingly, Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine (ECF No. Cases involving other real property matters not classified elsewhere, (#8) Streamlined request [7] by Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. to extend time to file the brief is approved. Defendant Winecup Gamble, Inc.'s ("Winecup") time to file a response to Union Pacific's ("Union Pacific") Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB, 2020 WL Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. (ECF No. 5. Accordingly, the late disclosure was harmless, and Lindon will be permitted to testify on the subject. 175-1. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18, U.S. District Courts | Contract | The district court based its decision on the fact that the terms of the parties' agreement, as amended, were clear and unambiguous on the critical question of whether the amendment was intended to shift or modify the risk-of-loss scheme. Union Pacific does not argue that the considerations Godwin looked at, including tracks in service, crew variability, and trains per day, are not to be considered in reaching such a conclusion on rerouting costsits own expert Stephen Dolezal considered characteristics for available tracks, which included run time between the end points of damaged tracks, track speeds, expected train sizes, and siding and auxiliary track availability. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. "A statutory violation is negligence per se if the injured party belongs to the class of persons whom the statute was intended to protect, and the injury suffered is of the type the statute was intended to prevent." Winecup argues that this regulation does not "substantially subsume the subject matter of" culvert size, and therefore, it cannot preempt the state common law standard. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 149) is granted. Nonetheless, even if Mr. Worden deleted the emails immediately after receiving them, the facts show that he was still producing ESI regarding this case after the duty to preserve arose. 195), and rules on all now pending. Sprawling across the very heart of buckaroo country, the Winecup Gamble Ranch encompasses a checkerboarded landscape of 984,000 acres, more than half of which is owned by the public and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). And, necessarily, the regulation must apply to all dams, not just those in existence after March 15, 1951. With this expeditious timeframe, Defendant has shown that the ESI was deleted after the duty arose to preserve the ESI. 111 at 16. Because we find that the parties' agreement is ambiguous and because the district court does not appear to have considered this issue previously, we do not address Gordon Ranch's argument that the earnest money cannot be awarded to Winecup, because such an award would necessarily render the earnest money provisions of the parties' agreement an unenforceable penalty clause. The Secretary of Transportation is given broad discretion to "prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety . . 155. Union Pacific provides that it does not intend to proffer any evidence related to non-party Paul Fireman. 3:21-CV-00226 | 2021-05-14, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Id. 126. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. 158 at 2-3. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo). And courts are hesitant to appoint a neutral expert when parties have retained their own qualified experts. 152) is granted in part and denied in part. In that case, participating attorneys would appear in-person, and the Court would leave it to each party's counsel to determine which of its witnesses would appear by video or in-person. 122) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. 175-2. The amended agreement is certainly not susceptible only to the interpretation adopted by the district court, regarding whether the amendment sought to change or modify the detailed risk-of-loss scheme detailed in the terms of the parties' original agreement. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. SEND MQ: Yes. Winecup Gamble Ranch corporate office is located in #1 Winecup Rd, Montello, Nevada, 89830, United States and has 4 employees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. After reviewing this agreement and amendment, we disagree with the district court. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. Transcript due 09/21/2020. Continued monitoring of the seepage area is noted in both the 2012 and 2016 reports. 141-5 at 9-10, 12, 30-32; ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in an email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. Id. Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that its agents spoliated valuable electronically stored information (ESI). 149. He further provides that he has been working for Class 1 and shortline railroads since 2005, starting his own railroad engineering and construction observation company in 2013. After the sale fell through, both parties filed suit, arguing that they were entitled to Gordon Ranch's earnest money deposit pursuant to the terms of the parties' purchase and sale agreement, as amended by the parties in December 2016. Union Pacific's motion in limine to amend the Pretrial Order (ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's motion to seal (ECF No. Id. ECF Nos. 120-1 at 5. Upon remand, we instruct the Chief Judge of the District of Nevada to assign this case to a different judge, Full title:WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. On October 15, 2018, the parties exchanged initial disclosures of expert witnesses: the plaintiff disclosed three experts with reports, and five experts without reports, and defendant disclosed two experts with reports. Plaintiff conducted a deposition of Mr. Worden subpoenaing all of his documents (including ESI) regarding discussions of the sale of ranch and amendments, the damage to the property, the repairs of the property, breakage of dams, and insurance information. Godwin's opinion on reconstruction costs is admissible. Again, there can be no dispute that Godwin's opinion is relevant and advances a material aspect of Winecup's case and that the RS Means methodology for determining costs is standard in the industry. However, "[n]othing in NRS 41.141 prohibits a party defendant from attempting to establish that either no negligence occurred or that the entire responsibility for a plaintiff's injuries rests with nonparties[.]" See ECF No. The lawsuit would cover athletes who were training and competing between 2010 and 2020, and seeks compensation of $250,000 for punitive damages, as well as moral damages in the amount of $12,000 . C. Patrick Bates 801-560-4259 cpb@bateslandco.com. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. ECF No. 111) is DENIED. Briefing is not to exceed 15 pages of argument , excluding tables of contents and authorities and administrative notices. Evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." . 111 & 112. See ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's first motion in limine to exclude Daryoush Razavian's testimony related to mile post 670.03 (ECF No. 706; Gorton v. Todd, 793 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1178 (E.D. Union Pacific argues that Winecup should be precluded from arguing before the jury that any of Nevada's dam statutes and regulationsNevada Revised Statutes ("NRS") 535.005 et seq. Fifth, the ESI was deleted without the intent to deprive Defendant of evidence. ECF No. 403. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's second motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that NAC 535.240 applies to the 23 Mile and Dake dams (ECF No. Ins. It is uncontested that 23 Mile dam is classified as a low hazard dam, and Dake dam as a significant hazard dam. R. EVID. (ECF No. The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. 157-2 at 66; 157-28. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. ECF No. In Zubulake, the court held that it was insufficient for a party to send a litigation hold letter to an IT department without ensuring that "all relevant information (or at least sources of relevant information) is discovered," "that relevant information is retained on a continuing basis," and "that relevant nonprivileged material is produced to the opposing party." Lindon disputes both asserted errors. Union Pacific's twentieth motion in limine to permit Union Pacific's witnesses to testify by video (ECF No. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant Case No. 2016)) (emphasis provided by Snapp). Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. ECF No. These facts are sufficient for the Court to draw an inference that Mr. Worden acted intentionally. (ECF No. 80.) 1. Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent (ECF No. 141 at 20-21. Today, the trust and relationships built through ROGER have helped create a working group that is focused on one of the pilot ranches participating in the BLM's Outcome-Based Grazing Authorizations (OBGA) program taking place on the Winecup-Gamble Ranch outside of Wells, Nevada. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. The Court finds that this trial presents no extenuating circumstance or reason to deviate from this process, especially given that the parties are not in agreement as to any of the proposed instructions. The Court directs readers to Part III.B.2-3 below for a larger discussion on this issue, as it is related but not entirely on point to Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine. A 44:19-45:1.) 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. Winecup also argues that Razavian's opinion on the subject should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 because he does not rely on sufficient facts or data and does not use or apply reliable principles and methods to reach his opinion. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. However, each regulation was enacted under the authority of NRS 532.120, which confers upon the State Engineer the power to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper and orderly execution of its powers. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge. The Court notes that it is open to hearing any other mutually agreeable alternative to the options suggested by the Court as this case proceeds. FED. It's about 100 miles from Elko, Nev . To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." Union Pacific also requests the Court take judicial notice of seven exhibits. R. CIV. v. Reyes, Case No. 3. 128), and its related nineteenth motion in limine to preclude experts disclosed on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fifth and sixth motions in limine to Bar Two Opinions of Derek Godwin (ECF No. ECF No. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Winecup Ranch, LLC et al, Prime Healthcare Services - Reno, LLC v. Hometown Health Providers Insurance Company, Inc. et al, Elko Broadband Ltd. v. Haidermota BNR, Lawyers and Counsel with Offices in Islamadad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan et al. The Court notes that this repair does not show up in either the 2012 or 2016 inspection report which would indicate the repair was made sometime between 2003 and 2012. While Lindon may not be a meteorologist by degree, he is clearly qualified to conduct the meteorological calculations and consider those calculations in reaching his expert opinion regarding the dam failure and subsequent flooding. (ECF No. No other issues will be entertained without leave of the Court. Alternatively, even if the regulation did preempt the state common law standard, the federal standard would apply and not preclude the defense itself. Accordingly, the Court finds that section 213.33 does not preempt Winecup's affirmative defense. (ECF No. Union Pacific has twice amended its complaint (ECF Nos. Winecup Gamble Ranch: Employee Directory | ZoomInfo.com 131), and reserves any ruling on this issue for trial. ECF No. 151. Winecup Gamble Ranch has 1,500 acres of pivot-irrigated fields and another 500 acres under wheel and flood irrigation. Former artistic swimming athletes seek damages for alleged abuse - CBC IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's third motion in limine to exclude argument related to Union Pacific's claim for negligence per se (ECF No. Section 213.33 provides: "Each drainage or other water carrying facility under or immediately adjacent to the roadbed shall be maintained and kept free of obstruction, to accommodate expected water flow for the area concerned." 158 at 2. Winecup's second motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that NAC section 535.240 applies to the 23 Mile and Dake dams (ECF No. ECF No. Additionally, the Court finds that Union Pacific's request that evidence of weather and flood conditions in watersheds other than in the "relevant one," with no definition of "relevant," is overly broad and the Court cannot make a ruling on that basis. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP - Casetext 111, 112, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 175, 176 & 193), and 6 motions in limine filed by Winecup Gamble, Inc. ("Winecup") (ECF Nos. The Judges overseeing this case are Robert C. Jones and Valerie P. Cooke. [12050510] (BLS) [Entered: 03/23/2021 10:57 AM], Docket(#4) MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 03/31/2021, 12:00 p.m. PACIFIC Time. C 06-04435 CRB, 2007 WL 963422, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Id. However, there is also evidence in the record that DWR instructed Winecup to complete specific tasks that were not done: The 1996 inspection report for 23 Mile dam indicates that the "wing walls at the downstream invert should have the concrete repaired," and this repair was again noted in the 2003 report. 160-4 at 6. Pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes 42.005(4), "[e]vidence of the financial condition of the defendant is not admissible for the purpose of determining the amount of punitive damages to be assessed until the commencement of the subsequent proceeding to determine the amount of exemplary or punitive damages to be assessed." Before the court are a total of 27 motions in limine; 21 motions filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") (ECF Nos. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 3d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). Union Pacific argues that doing so would enable a smooth presentation of exhibits to the jury. See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C. Cir. Ins. And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! 154. Id. Shot over two years on the spring wagon. "Expert witnesses should not be appointed where they are not necessary or significantly useful for the trier of fact to comprehend a material issue in a case." ECF No. Paul Fireman's Nevada Ranch Lists for $50 Million - WSJ Union Pacific certified that it had met and conferred with Winecup prior to filing this motion in limine, as required by Local Rule LR II 16-3(a); however, Winecup does not oppose this request. . R. CIV. While Winecup clearly could not have disclosed any of these experts at the initial October 2018 disclosure date (as none had yet to be deposed), Winecup could have disclosed that it intended to call Holt and Quaglieri in its November 2018 rebuttal disclosure, and could have disclosed Opperman well before May 13, 2020. Co., 326 F. Supp. 126) for a blanket ruling is denied. 175-1. . Gamble Ranch - Straddling the Wyoming & Utah Border First, Winecup argues that a plain reading of the text of NAC 535.240 shows that the applicability of the statute is limited to approval for new construction, reconstruction, or alterations, but it does not apply to dams in existence before the statute went into effect that have not been modified or altered. On the one hand, if the spoliation prejudiced the moving party, then the Court may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice. Winecup concedes that the Nevada Department of Water Resources classified the 23 Mile dam as a low hazard dam and the Dake dam as a significant hazard dam. Cir. He has taken continuing education courses in hydro-meteorology, and has "operated the National Weather Service Station for Park City, Utah for the past 26 years, measuring and reporting temperatures, snowfall, snowpack and precipitation daily." In 1996, the inspection report provided that the spillway appeared undersized. at 2-3. However, the statements contained within the email are articulating what an NDOT manager told the Union Pacific employee. 141, 143, 149, 150, 151, 152). Id. As part of the agreement, Defendant deposited a million dollars of earnest money in escrow. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. The three owners of the province's five franchises filed the lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court on Feb. 14. "A corporation generally cannot present a theory of the facts that differs from that articulated by the designated Rule 30(b)(6) representative." However, since the Court held its first jury trial in September, the numbers of infected individuals in Washoe County has increased significantly, and led District Court Chief Judge Du to implement General Order 2020-03, postponing all in-person jury trials until further notice. The Court finds that because this case has not been set for trial, this amendment to the pretrial order will not inconvenience the Court and does not prejudice either party. Snapp v. United Transportation Union, 889 F.3d 1088, 1103 (9th Cir. Accordingly, Union Pacific's nineteenth motion in limine is granted. On July 12, 2019, following this additional investigation, Winecup submitted its Supplemental Third Disclosure, which included survey information, photographs taken during the site visit, an updated model, and Lindon's conclusion that water from the 23 Mile dam did not cause the washout of the tracks at mile post 670.03. 157-31; 157-32. ECF No. 132) is granted. Under the umbrella of ROGER, the amount of collaborative work . [12100962] [21-15415] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 05/04/2021 09:06 AM], (#3) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 03/16/2021. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(8), the deposition from an earlier action "may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties." Id. [12101491] (DLM) [Entered: 05/04/2021 12:13 PM], (#7) Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc.. New requested due date is 06/21/2021. And Union Pacific and Razavian have had this supplemental disclosure since July 12, 2019. 175), are DENIED without prejudice. The Offering Included All Owned Deeded Land, All Water Rights, Transfer of a Private-Use Year 'Round BLM Permit for 52,000 AUMs Plus All Machinery & Equipment. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's twelfth motion in limine without prejudice and reserves the issue for trial. Id. ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions are DENIED AS MOOT. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ECF Nos. 157-2 at 10-15, 26, 30, 52. at 44:19-45:1, 46:19-22). ///. Winecup provides that it only intends to have these experts testify to that which is contained within their respective depositions and reports. 1993) (finding that because the parties retained their own qualified experts, the appointment of a neutral expert was "not likely to enlighten or enhance the ability of the Court to determine the pending issue."). Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. 141-2 18), that is an argument best left for cross examination and goes toward the weight not the admissibility of Razavian's opinion. This District's courtrooms are fully equipped with an electronic exhibit display system that allows each juror to view exhibits on their own personal screen. A.) This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Diet For Nutcracker Syndrome, United Nations Airway Bill Receipt International Special Delivery, Tax Delinquent Property In Pine Bluff Arkansas, Rhode Island Blue Hen Vs Rooster, Articles W