Id. Id. 141) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's second motion in limine to exclude hydrological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. Continued monitoring of the seepage area is noted in both the 2012 and 2016 reports. 112. 141-2 7-8. ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to submit an amended pretrial order within 45 days of the filing of this Order. 193) is granted in part and denied in part. Godwin declares that he has extensive experience in railroad construction and design, and specializes in "railroad engineering, railroad construction engineering, filed supervision, damage mitigation, working in hurricane, flood, and other emergency situations, and rebuilding railroads to restore service as quickly and efficiently as possible." See ECF No. Winecup and Gordon Ranch entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with an effective date of October 18, 2016 (the "Purchase Agreement") for sale of approximately 247,500 acres, together with other real and personal property rights, interests, and cattle, in Elko County, Nevada. Id. 149) is granted. 107 Ex. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's fifth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to an Emergency Action Plan for the Dake Dam (ECF No. Mediation Questionnaire. B at 2. Winecup provides that it only intends to have these experts testify to that which is contained within their respective depositions and reports. 55.) ECF No. In April 2018, the parties deposed Holt and Quaglieri, and in April 2019, the parties deposed Opperman. 133) is DENIED without prejudice. After reviewing this agreement and amendment, we disagree with the district court. 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. 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."). (ECF No. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part Union Pacific's twenty-first motion in limine to amend the pretrial order. Evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." (Id.) 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. & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. 141-5 at 9-10, 12, 30-32; ECF No. Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. See Shaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 201 F.Supp.3d 1222, 1264 (D. Nev. 2016) (the company's serious lack of practices, policies and procedures to deal with and explain the company's positions and actions supported the Court's punitive damage award). Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. v. Reyes, Case No. While a degree or certificate in a certain area is helpful to support expert qualification, a witness can be qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, [or] training," as well as education. Union Pacific may add these facts to the statement of contested issues of fact and Winecup will likewise be permitted to list the facts contested. 154-2 at 5. [12050510] (BLS) [Entered: 03/23/2021 10:57 AM], (#4) MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 03/31/2021, 12:00 p.m. PACIFIC Time. Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. 176) is GRANTED. In Winecup's sixth and final motion in limine, it motions the Court to exclude evidence and argument related to the financial condition of Winecup, Paul Fireman, or the sale of Winecup Gamble Ranch in 2019, as it is irrelevant and would be unfairly prejudicial. 176. FED. ECF No. The Court reiterates that the District Court has temporarily suspended all jury trials until further notice. ECF No. Given the nature of the lost ESI, the Court finds that it must give the harshest sanction of a case dispositive ruling. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. After Winecup became aware of these opinions, its own expert, Lindon, conducted an additional investigation to determine the cause of the washout, including an on-the-ground field inspection of the Loray Wash and a topographical survey of the area. LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible. 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]. Godwin testified that the RS Means methodology is the "industry standard" for estimating construction costs. 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]. Fourth, there was no prejudice to Defendant. Additionally, Union Pacific does not object to Winecup providing jurors with their own binders. Razavian opines that floodwater from 23 Mile dam split as it came downhill with some water heading toward the Dake dam while other water reached the tracks at mile post 670, causing a build-up of water that ultimately caused the washout of Union Pacific's tracks at mile post 670.03. ECF No. Union Pacific alleges that as a result of the dam's failure, water flowed downstream, in part, to the Dake Reservoir dam, and that the Dake then eroded and breached, causing flooding and ultimately washing out a significant portion of Union Pacific's railroad tracks. 2-4. 170. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. Fourth, Defendant has shown that Plaintiff acted with the intent to deprive Defendant of the information. (Id. winecup gamble inc. winecup gamble ranch people. at 48:8-13), and that he told his IT department to preserve the relevant ESI (Id. Additionally, because the Court is best positioned to rule on relevancy issues at trial when it can consider the evidence in context, the Court will reserve ruling on the relevancy of Fireman's testimony until that second proceeding as well. 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. Because the district court has now twice erroneously issued pretrial orders terminating the case, see Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, 747 F. App'x 632, 633 (9th Cir. 131) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court finds that both arguments go not to Lindon's methodology, but to the data imputed. 2018) (quoting 7 James Wm. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. Winecup argues that because the Dake dam did not fail or overtop, whether Winecup failed to submit an emergency action plan for the dam, as all significant hazard dam owners are required to do under NAC 535.320, is irrelevantthere can be no causal connection between Union Pacific's injury and Winecup's failure to submit the plan. It also helps that the Winecup Gamble has so many pastures to choose from. 7125918, at *24 (D. Nev. Dec. 4,, Full title:UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v, Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. are for the jury.") Bard, Inc., Case No. 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. In its second motion, though Union Pacific concedes that Lindon is qualified to opine on hydrology, it argues that his opinions should be excluded because his methodology and data were flawed. The parties agree that Nevada law governs the interpretation of their contract. At that time, the Court would expect participating attorneys to appear in-person, but it would again leave it to each party's counsel to determine which of its witnesses would appear by video or in-person. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's seventeenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from providing trial testimony that contradicts its Rule 30(b)(6) witness's deposition testimony (ECF No. 167. 123. Pyramid Techs., Inc. v. Hartford Cas. FED. 2001) (citation omitted). Phillips v. C.R. Therefore, the Court denies Winecup's motion to preclude any mention of this regulation. Cases involving other real property matters not classified elsewhere, (#6) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/29/2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's third motion in limine to facilitate efficient management of exhibits and testimony (ECF No. (Id.) While Plaintiff claims that it orally informed Mr. Worden to preserve ESI, this is woefully inadequate as discussed above, but evinces that Plaintiff and Mr. Worden knew they had a duty to preserve the ESI. 176) is granted. 160-3 at 44. Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. 141) is DENIED. 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. 123) is DENIED. Here, culverts and earthen embankments existed at the washed-out track locations. ECF No. winecup gamble ranches llc. 120-1 at 5. Id. Paul Fireman, Winecup Gamble, Inc. and Winecup Ranch, LLC: Case Number: 3:2017cv00477: Filed: August 10, 2017: Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada: Office: Reno Office: . By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourts General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, 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. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. The Court therefore denies Winecup's fifth motion in limine without prejudice and reserves ruling on such evidence until it can be adjudged in the context of trial. ECF Nos. 80.) ECF No. 3. ECF No. Therefore, the Court finds that only the drastic case dispositive sanctions are appropriate in this case. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). From a plain reading of this Rule, it is clear to the Court that a written expert report is only required if the expert is retained. 1986) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S., 640 F.2d 328, 334 (Ct. Cl. As part of its holding, the Ninth Circuit noted that that the Court may consider parol evidence to resolve ambiguities in contractual language under Nevada law. 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. 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. . See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C. Cir. With this expeditious timeframe, Defendant has shown that the ESI was deleted after the duty arose to preserve the ESI. A 44:19-45:1.) SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. See ECF No. 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. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's ninth motion in limine to bar mention to jury of notion that Nevada's dam statutes and regulations do not apply to the Winecup dams due to their age (ECF No. As the parties have already agreed to prepare their exhibits electronically, juror binders are unnecessarily redundant. Winecup Gamble Ranch Global Presence. The Court generally instructs the jury preliminarily on issues related to trial procedure, the judge's duties and role, and the jurors' role and responsibilities in a civil case. R.R. ECF No. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. 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. But Union Pacific does not point to any evidence in the record of "abandonment." While section 233.13 touches on drainage, it does not substantially subsume the subject matterthere is no specified standard for culvert size or what type of culvert should be used in this circumstance. A Test Site for How to Monitor Success. Under Nevada law, the question of "[w]hether or not a document is ambiguous is a question of law for the court." On or about February 8, 2017, the 23 Mile dam overtopped and breached in two locations. Here, neither party disputes that Opperman, Holt, or Quaglieri are not retained experts, and therefore, if Winecup intends for them to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705, Winecup was only required to disclose "(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence;" and "(ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." Union Pacific pleads in its second amended complaint that the following Nevada Administrative Codes impose a standard of conduct obligating Winecup to act in accordance: NAC 535.370, 535.040, 535.240, 535.320.
Custom Home Builders Winchester, Va,
Las Gaviotas, Fajardo Venta,
West Coast Eagles Financial Report 2019,
Is Simian Line Lucky,
Articles W