ECF No. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine. ECF No. ECF No. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 06/21/2021. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/28/2020 06:44 PM], (#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Worden is merely a consultant accountant who was employed at a separate firm. [11762326] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2020 02:44 PM], U.S. Courts Of Appeals | Property | 176) is granted. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. The Court finds that Winecup has had more than enough time to consider this opinion and consult with its own expert on the subject such that it has not been prejudiced by Union Pacific's failure to disclose the opinion in Razavian's expert report. Because Winecup's arguments go to the weight of Razavian's opinion on the subject, not admissibility of his opinions, the Court denies Winecup's first motion in limine (ECF No. The parties agree that Nevada law governs the interpretation of their contract. 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." These two actsmodification and abandonmentconstitute the "construction, reconstruction, or alterations" contemplated in NRS 535.010. 149) is granted. Union Pacific argues that good cause appears to permit videoconferencing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 131), and reserves any ruling on this issue for trial. (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Id. Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. The Court finds that this experience makes him qualified to offer opinions on rerouting, costs and repair, design, and construction of railroads, bridges, and culverts. ECF No. Given the nature of the lost ESI, the Court finds that it must give the harshest sanction of a case dispositive ruling. . 3. 149) is granted. 141 at 6. 13. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. SEND MQ: Yes. 111. 127) is denied without prejudice. [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). Winecup's first motion in limine to exclude Union Pacific's expert Daryoush Razavian's testimony related to mile post 670.03 (ECF No. Ranch Highlight: Winecup Gamble Ranch in Nevada facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial." OWNER BELIEVES THERE MAY BE MORE THAN 100,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER. Price v. Sinnott, 460 P.2d 837, 839-40 (Nev. 1969). See ECF No. "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." 157-24, 157-28. And there can be no dispute that Godwin's opinion is relevant and advances a material aspect of Winecup's case: Godwin's opinion goes directly to whether Union Pacific was contributorily negligent for the damaged tracks. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Union Pac. 3:19-CV-00700 | 2019-11-20. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993). In October 2016, the parties entered into a detailed seventeen-page agreement, where Plaintiff was to sell a ranch property in Northern Nevada to Defendant. 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. Id. Winecup's third motion in limine to exclude argument related to Union Pacific's claim for negligence per se (ECF No. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. . Thitchener, 192 P.3d at 255. (ECF No. unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." 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. 128), and its related nineteenth motion in limine to preclude experts disclosed on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. 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. 2019). at 46:19-22), or some combination of these factors. 176. 111-7 31-33. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP | D. Nevada | 03-17-2022 | www IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that Union Pacific is entitled to punitive damages (ECF No. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 07/21/2021. ECF No. James Rogers Email & Phone Number | ZoomInfo 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. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 permits district courts, in their discretion, to appoint a neutral expert. Cnty. . 131. Winecup Gamble, Inc v Gordon Ranch LP | 20-16411 - UniCourt Winecup motions the Court exclude the opinions and testimony of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, regarding the washout at mile post 670.030. C at 6.) C.) However, Mr. Worden did not produce any ESI from his devices and admits that the ESI was lost from his electronic devices. 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. 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. The firm also values strong cooperating relationships with reputable land brokers in the profession. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about consulting experts (ECF No. It also helps that the Winecup Gamble has so many pastures to choose from. 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. On the other hand, harsher sanctions are available if the moving party shows that the nonmoving party acted with the intent to deprive the moving party of the information's use in the litigation, then the Court may (1) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party, (2) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party, or (3) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment. 89 1. 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. Cattle ranch located in Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome be Winecup Gamble Ranch | Montello NV NRS 535.030, titled Inspection of dams by State Engineer; powers of State Engineer to protect life or property, provides: Section 2 provides that the owner is responsible for other maintenance that is necessary to safeguard life and property. A.) (Id. (ECF No. See ECF No. Specifically, Defendant requests that this Court dispositively rule in its favor for its claims in the case. Winecup opposes this request as unnecessary. 2. Winecup further provides that the model is generally accepted in this scientific community and has been the subject of publications. There is evidence within the record that in 2008 Winecup was considering breaching the Dake dam; the correspondence indicated that it was awaiting more information from the State Engineer and that an inspection of the dam occurred in February 2009. The language of the amendment does not specifically state that this result was desired or intended, and, in the absence of such a clear statement of the parties' intent, we find that the parties' agreement is ambiguous in this particular respect. (emphasis added) While defendant's purported compliance with FAA regulations and maintenance protocols is, , No. i. Winecup's contributory negligence defense is not preempted. Questions about what facts are most relevant or reliable . 125) is granted in part and denied in part. 171 at 4-5. 49 U.S.C. The State Engineer is also authorized to inspect all dams and order dam owners to make modifications and alterations necessary for safety, which presumably is based on the hazard classification of the dam. D.C. No. Union Pacific does not allege a claim for gross negligence, but simply makes a claim for negligence. 44. 2015) (per curiam). Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch - casetext.com ECF No. The Court agrees with Winecup: any ruling that Winecup is precluded from arguing that a specific statute applies in this case must be made on a statute-by-statute/ regulation-by-regulation basis. at 44:8-14). Such that there is virtually no chance of its being exceeded."). Second, Defendant has not established that the deletions occurred prior to a duty to preserve ESI. ECF No. Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. However, Winecup may argue that it is not negligent or that a non-party is solely responsible, and Winecup may proffer admissible evidence in support thereof. . ECF No. To reach his opinion, Godwin considered the drainage area and peak flows for hypothetical storm eventsnothing in the record disputes that this is an appropriate method for making such a determination. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice 30.25[3] (3d ed. This case has been set for trial a number of times; the most recent setting for August 2020 was vacated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. In Nevada, "[r]etroactivity is not favored," and courts generally interpret regulations to "only operate prospectively unless an intent to apply them retroactively is clearly manifested." If the jury finds in the affirmative, a subsequent proceeding will occur during which the parties will be permitted to present evidence of the financial condition of the defendant and the jury could award punitive damages. Because the agreement is ambiguous, we also vacate the denial of Winecup Gamble's motion for summary judgment. "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." 37, 89), to which Winecup has answered (ECF No. Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine to bar Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Derek Godwin's contributory negligence opinion (ECF No. Union Pacific has presented no evidence or rule to support the Court's exclusion of any and all evidence or testimony on the issue. Id. 89. The briefing schedule previously set by the court is amended as follows: appellant's opening brief is due May 21, 2021; appellee's answering brief is due June 21, 2021; appellant's optional reply brief is due within 21 days from the service date of the answering brief. 16. 193) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. It argues that alone is sufficient grounds for showing that it performed reasonable steps to preserve the ESIit is not. NRS 42.005(1). "); NAC 535.080 ("Probable maximum flood" means "a hypothetical flood whose magnitude is: 1. 152) is granted in part and denied in part. Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion in limine pertains to Godwin's second and third opinions and argues that Godwin is not only unqualified to render opinions on these issues, but has insufficient factual knowledge and lacks any methodology to reach these opinions. In the event of a dam failure, a significant hazard dam carries a "(1) reasonable probability of causing loss of life; or (2) high probability of causing extensive economic loss or disruption in a lifeline;" and a low hazard dam carries a "(1) Very low probability of causing a loss of human life; and (2) Reasonable probability of causing little, if any, economic loss or disruption in a lifeline." Accordingly, Union Pacific's motion (ECF No. These facts are sufficient for the Court to draw an inference that Mr. Worden acted intentionally. 2:21-CV-00183 | 2021-03-26, U.S. District Courts | Contract | See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. ii. This short-term action was again noted in the 2016 inspection report which would indicate that Winecup had failed to provide these plans for 20 years. 129) is denied without prejudice. In the 2012 inspection report, it is noted that the spillway should be cleared of all debris and vegetation, however, in 2016, the inspection report provides that the spillway has lost its design capacity due to vegetation growing and earthen materials sluffing from the hillside. Here, the material in the supplemental disclosure relates to Lindon's analysis after hearing Razavian's opinion from his February 2017 deposition. 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. 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. 107 Ex. Union Pacific seeks to exclude Lindon's criticisms of its hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, regarding soil saturation. Union Pacific attacks Lindon's meteorology testimony, arguing that Lindon's model used (1) an incorrect time period, and (2) the wrong weather station data. Id. 18-16463-CIV-SELTZER, 2018 WL 4693526, at *1 (S.D. Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/29/2020. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. While supplementation almost a year a half after the deposition is untimely, the Court finds that Union Pacific has had more than enough time to consider this opinion and consult with its own expert on the subject such that it has not not been prejudiced by this supplemental disclosure. 175-2. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. ON-SITE RAIL SPUR AND 2 LANDING STRIPS. 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." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twelfth motion in limine to Bar Evidence or Argument about (A) the Oroville Dam Spillway Failure, or (B) Weather or (C) Flood Conditions in Watersheds West of the Relevant One (ECF No. Prior to the flood, there were earthen embankments and culverts at the washout locations. at 4 (citing Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d 1032, 1037).) 1996), as amended (Jan. 15, 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "A motion in limine is used to preclude prejudicial or objectionable evidence before it is presented to the jury." 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. 3.) As of December 2015, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) provides the specificand onlybasis for sanctions for spoliation of ESI, which was substantially amended to accommodate advances in technology and provide uniformity among the circuits. They include Needle-and-Thread, Great Basin wild rye, Russian wild rye, Indian rice, crested wheat, bluebunch wheat, Sandberg blue, and bottlebrush squirrel tail. Accordingly, Union Pacific's nineteenth motion in limine is granted. ECF No. 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. at 43:14-25), upgrading to a new computer during this time (Id. ECF No. 3:20-CV-00029 | 2020-01-15, U.S. District Courts | Contract | The trend, however, did not spread to the rest of the 10 provinces. Union Pacific's twelfth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about (A) the Oroville Dam spillway failure, or (B) weather or (C) flood conditions in watersheds west of the relevant one (ECF No. Cir. Here, there can be no dispute that the parties are not the same and the subject matter is differentthis is a negligence action while Gordon Ranch was a contract dispute.
Is The Tea Party Organization More Centrist Or More Polarized?, Articles W