Winecup Gamble Ranch Global Presence. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not perform reasonable steps to preserve the information. Id. Winecup only argues that Fireman's deposition should be excluded as irrelevant and fails to make any showing that it will be substantially injured if the testimony is permitted. Union Pacific now seeks to bar Winecup and Rogers from presenting testimony that contradicts his answers to these same questions from his deposition. 89 16, 32, 50; ECF No. Before the court are a total of 27 motions in limine; 21 motions filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") (ECF Nos. FED. It is clear to the Court that Fireman was, at least to some extent, an agent of Winecup, and Winecup makes no argument to the contrary. Union Pacific's ninth motion in limine to bar mention to the jury of the notion that Nevada's dam statutes and regulations do not apply to the Winecup dams due to their age (ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twentieth motion in limine to permit Union Pacific witnesses to testify by video (ECF No. Id. (ECF No. Even then, rulings on these motions are not binding on the court, and the court may change such rulings in response to developments at trial. Johnson v. Dunnahoe, Case No. 16. 111-7 43. 108.) However, Winecup argues that they should be permitted to ask questions about any expert or employee hired by the plaintiff that was not "in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial." The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. ECF No. 107 Ex. 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. The Court finds that multiple exhibit binders each with a few hundred exhibits is impractical and unnecessary given the electronics available in the courtroom. 175), are denied without prejudice. 112, 2:15-22.) Union Pacific's arguments to exclude Godwin's opinion go not to admissibility, but to the weight and are best left to cross-examination during trial; the exclusion is denied. This model is "industry standard used by the Army Corps of Engineers . In Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP, 2021 WL 2481861 (9 th Cir. "The decision of whether to allow the jury to take notes is left entirely to the discretion of the trial court." Id. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. Id. Gallo v. Union Pacific R.R. ECF No. 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. P. 37 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment). at 4. iii. Winecup opposes this request as unnecessary. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Court finds that section 2 of this statute cannot form the basis of a negligence per se claim and Winecup's motion is granted. Quebec authorized a class-action lawsuit against group RESPs. It may Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine requesting that the Court instruct the jury before trial about certain laws that apply to Nevada dam owners (ECF No. Previously, Joe was a Student at King Ranch and also held pos itions at Roaring Springs Ranch Club. ECF No. ECF No. FED. 111 & 112. 130) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court finds that the agents did intentionally spoliate ESI vital to the issues of this case, which resulted in prejudice that can only be cured through dispositive rulings in Defendant's favor. B. Godwin's opinion on rerouting is admissible. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. 107 Ex. 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." Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. P. 26(a)(2)(C). See order for instructions and details. A at 14.) 1:08-cv-000640-LJO-DLB PC, 2013 WL 396009, at *2 (E.D. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-16-2022. Alternatively, even if the regulation did preempt the state common law standard, the federal standard would apply and not preclude the defense itself. The American Landowner: James Rogers - The Land Report ECF No. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. 160. i. Godwin's a qualified expert in railroad rerouting, costs, and railroad construction and design. 143) is DENIED. (ECF No. 535.300 sets forth the requirement for new construction of dams, not existing dams; and (2) because there is ample evidence that the storm that preceded 23 Mile dam's failure, exceeded a 100-year flood event. The Court's "inquiry into admissibility is a flexible one," in which the Court acts only as a gatekeeper, not a factfinder. 91). 193. at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." Despite Mr. Worden's prominent role with Plaintiff and with this deal in particular, Mr. Worden has not produced any ESI from his devices to Defendant. 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB, 2020 WL Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts.[12043697]. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. 12. A reasonable jury could find punitive damages are warranted if it finds that Winecup acted with conscious disregard of the downstream property owners. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo). 20101. The Secretary of Transportation is given broad discretion to "prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety . Id. "A corporation generally cannot present a theory of the facts that differs from that articulated by the designated Rule 30(b)(6) representative." 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."). Shot over two years on the spring wagon. Godwin's opinion on reconstruction costs is admissible. 2018) (quoting 7 James Wm. The Court considers the overall statutory and regulatory scheme and finds that the hazard classifications assigned by the State Engineer must be considered within the context of NAC 535.240. 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. 34 Ex. 175-1. Winecup's second and third motions in limine also relates to the standard of care to be used in this negligence case. 128), and its related nineteenth motion in limine to preclude experts disclosed on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. It argues that alone is sufficient grounds for showing that it performed reasonable steps to preserve the ESIit is not. Third, Plaintiff took reasonable steps to prevent the deletions. . 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. Given these facts, a jury could reasonably find that a failure to complete safety measures as directed by the DWR over approximately 20 years constituted conscious disregard. ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. A, 47:2-6.) 2-4. 141 at 6. ECF No. However, as applied and in context, the terms of the parties' amended agreement are ambiguous on the point of whether the contract was intended to shift the risk-of-loss scheme. 120-1. "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." The Court finds that whether such evidence is relevant is best determined at trial. With this expeditious timeframe, Defendant has shown that the ESI was deleted after the duty arose to preserve the ESI. at 48:8-13), and that he told his IT department to preserve the relevant ESI (Id. Full title:WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. The Court notes Winecup raises such a specific argument in its second motion in liminewhether Winecup can argue that NAC 535.240 does not apply to its damswhich the Court addresses below. Terminating Sanctions Reversed After Oral Litigation Hold Goes Awry Union Pacific requests that the Court order the parties to try to agree on (or submit competing) preliminary jury instructions relating to the statutes and regulations that apply to dam owners in Nevada. The Court finds Lindon is a qualified expert in meteorology and hydrology, as it relates to his opinions in this specific case. Cal. ECF No. Id. 193) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. Whether an Act of God caused 23 Mile dam's failure and subsequent flooding and damage to Union Pacific's railroad tracks is an issue of fact for the jury. Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts.[11770017]. How beavers make the desert bloom - High Country News 157-24 at 3-4. Winecup's first motion in limine to exclude Union Pacific's expert Daryoush Razavian's testimony related to mile post 670.03 (ECF No. [11762326] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2020 02:44 PM]. 108 at 11. 401. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides that "[i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness . NAC 535.240 is the only place in Chapter 535 that explains, colloquially, that a significant hazard dam must withstand a 1000-year flood event and a low hazard dam must withstand a 100-year flood event. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to submit an amended pretrial order within 45 days of the filing of this Order. NRS 42.005(1). 130) is denied without prejudice. Winecup's late Supplemental Third Disclosure regarding Lindon's rebuttal opinion on the washout at mile post 670.03, while untimely, is harmless, and Lindon's opinions are admissible. Union Pacific moves this Court to permit its witnesses that must travel by plane or more than three hours by car to testify via videoconference. Ex. Finally, Union Pacific requests leave to serve Rule 36 requests to establish admissibility of certain evidence. A at 43:24-25), he also admits that the emails could have been deleted later by receiving a new computer or by failing to change his backup setting (Id. Contact. The Court will however leave open the ability for parties to prepare jury binders solely for evidence that has been admitted during trial for the jurors to take with them into the jury room for deliberations if the parties prefer that over the electronic exhibits. "The fact that the parties' experts have a divergence of opinion does not require the district court to appoint experts to aid in resolving such conflicts." Cases involving other real property matters not classified elsewhere, (#6) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/29/2020. at 45, 50. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), a party may not discover "by interrogatories or deposition . While it argues that Razavian's use of a topographical quadrangle map does not provide enough detail to map the flooding in the area (ECF No. The Winecup and Gamble Ranch was put back together after the split in 1957, according to ranch history. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. "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." 1. Winecup Gamble Ranch - No Longer Available - Bates Land Consortium 163. Under the provision, Plaintiff bore the risk of loss until closing, where, in the case of casualty loss before closing, Defendant had the option to take the property as-is with insurance proceeds or to reject the property and take back its earnest money. Id. [11770779] [20-16411] (Lundvall, Pat) [Entered: 07/29/2020 01:50 PM], Docket(#4) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/28/2020. See ECF No. Co., 752 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. Nor has Union Pacific pointed to anything in the record to support that the State Engineer has considered legal action against Winecup under this statute for a violation due to abandonment of the Dake. . Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP - UniCourt The Judges overseeing this case are Robert C. Jones and Valerie P. Cooke. at 432. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 3:12-cv-00344-RCJ-WGC, 2015 WL 260873, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2015) (emphasis in original). i. 37, 89), to which Winecup has answered (ECF No. 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. Furthermore, Winecup argues that "to the extent Union Pacific's testifying experts relied on information from a 'consulting' expert, that information would also be admissible," pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 705. . (ECF No. 176. Cnty. 161. R. CIV. 127. 13. 132) is granted. Accordingly, the late disclosure was harmless, and Lindon will be permitted to testify on the subject. Union Pacific requests the Court bar Winecup from asking questions or offering evidence or argument about "consulting experts," pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D). That is part of the adversarial processboth sides present their expert's opinions, challenging each other where they think the other erred, and then it is up to the jury to decide whom to believe. ECF Nos. Rather, "proof of a deviation from an administrative regulation is only evidence of negligence; not negligence per se," and likewise, "proof of compliance with such a regulation" is not proof of due care, but simply evidence of such care. 2019), reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice, see In re 3 Benvin, 791 F.3d 1096, 1104 (9th Cir. 44. Fla. 2018) ("[T]he issue of whether there was a force majeure or Act of God that caused the incident is an issue of fact, which cannot be decided on a motion to strike."). . at 840. 120-3. The Court agrees with Winecup. 108.) Union Pacific's arguments on exclusion go to the weight of Lindon's testimony, not its admissibility, and are best left to cross examination and testimony by its own expert. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC. V. GORDON RANCH LP, No. 20-16411 (9th Cir. 2021) Winecup presents no such exception that would apply. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Additionally, Union Pacific requests the Court appoint a neutral expert to be either a technical advisor to the Court or expert witness. ECF No. ECF No. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Ins. 125) is granted in part and denied in part. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. The State Engineer will assign all dams a hazard classification. Owners Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich had divided the ranch in 1945. B at 2. Public Records Policy. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion in limine to bar two opinions of Derek Godwin (ECF No. However, Union Pacific may qualify for punitive damages for its claims of trespass and nuisance. The offending language in the email states: A statement that is offered against an opposing party and "was made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed" is not hearsay. 2001) (citation omitted). Union Pacific owns railroad track that runs through 23 Western states, a portion of which runs east/west across the Utah/Nevada state line and through Elko County, Nevada. ECF No. Winecup opposes the motion arguing that Opperman is not a retained expert, and therefore, it did not violate Rule 26 by not submitting a written expert report to Union Pacific. As the ranch's manager, Rogers offered Winecup-Gamble as a test site for the researchers. Union Pacific seeks to exclude Lindon's criticisms of its hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, regarding soil saturation. 2001); United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. ECF No. [12077160] (AF) [Entered: 04/16/2021 11:36 AM], (#5) MEDIATION CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 04/14/2021, 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time (originally scheduled on 03/31/2021). Accordingly, Union Pacific's nineteenth motion in limine is granted. at 44:8-14). P. 26(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). ECF No. Rather, Union Pacific argues that its expert's rerouting analysis was more correct than Godwin's opinion based on these considerations.
Jeff Kuhner Wife,
Dumbledore Dental Care Dover,
Sauce Pizza And Wine Nutrition,
Articles W
