Additionally, Plaintiff has not produced any of Mr. Worden's accounting work papers, which is relevant to Defendant's case and covered by Defendant's subpoena. 122) is granted in part and denied in part. 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. Today, the provinces of Canada still uphold their own gambling laws, making it a little tricky to gamble online legally if you live in a province with a negative attitude towards gambling. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. When a moving party satisfies these three prerequisites, two kinds of sanctions are available, but each requires proof of an additional element. An Act of God "must be such a providential occurrence or extraordinary manifestation of the forces of nature that it could not reasonably have been foreseen, and the effect thereof avoided by the exercis[e] of reasonable prudence, diligence and care, or by the use of those means which the situation renders reasonable to employ." Campbell Industries v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 190. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo). 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." Winecup Gamble Ranch | Montello NV - Facebook 2001); United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. He has "significant experience with hydrometerorology, surface water hydrology, modeling, and dam safety hydrology." The Court relies on its above statements of law regarding its gatekeeper function in determining the admissibility of expert testimony and sees no reason to reiterate it here. Winecup opposes the motion arguing that the relevance and prejudicial impact of the evidence is best determined at trial, and that Union Pacific provides no argument why lay opinion that certain people were "sandbagging" requires an expert. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 07/21/2021. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP | D. Nevada | 03-17-2022 | www ECF Nos. Winecup Gamble Ranch: Employee Directory | ZoomInfo.com Tex. Joe Glascock Email & Phone Number - Winecup Gam.. | ZoomInfo Union Pacific concedes that Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. Ranch shifts focus to soil organic matter - Hay and Forage R. CIV. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Union Pacific's first motion in limine to exclude meteorological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. Previously, Joe was a Student at King Ranch and also held pos itions at Roaring Springs Ranch Club. Moreover. ECF No. See ECF No. (ECF No. ECF No. 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). P. 37 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment). While, Mr. Worden claimed that, "I could have deleted those emails right after the conversation," (ECF No. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. 157. (Id.) 127) is denied without prejudice. A, 45:18-46:13.) Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part Union Pacific's twenty-first motion in limine to amend the pretrial order. are for the jury.") 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. Lindon's opinion on the subject remained the same in this disclosure as it was in his prior report. 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. ECF No. ; ECF No. 157-31; 157-32. 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. . 89 32. If expert opinions are not disclosed, "the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence . See Sprint/United Mgmt. ECF No. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. 107 Ex. In the court application, the franchisees are . Winecup provides that it only intends to have these experts testify to that which is contained within their respective depositions and reports. 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. 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. 176) is GRANTED. (ECF No. Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and And Union Pacific and Razavian have had this supplemental disclosure since July 12, 2019. 143. 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." R.R. 141) is DENIED. 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. 107 Ex. C. Patrick Bates 801-560-4259 cpb@bateslandco.com. 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."). 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. However, the Advisory Committee Notes make clear that the 2015 amendment forecloses a court from imposing sanctions for spoliation of ESI under that basis. Union Pacific's first amended complaint no longer included defendant Winecup Ranch, LLC, and its second amended complaint no longer included Paul Fireman. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-01-2023. 108.) See Madrigal v Treasure Island Corp., Case No. 193) is granted in part and denied in part. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination." REVERSED, VACATED, and . 135) is denied in part and granted in part. Gordon Ranch LP v Winecup Gamble Inc | 3:17-CV-00157 | Court Records 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 the amount of damages Union Pacific should be permitted to recover if the jury reaches the issue. Terminating Sanctions Reversed After Oral Litigation Hold Goes Awry As a hydrologist, he regularly works with precipitation data, and is "familiar with analyzing and calculating precipitation numbers," receiving formal training on this topic in addition to his years of experience. 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. (Id. 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. See Part III.A.1.iii. Ranch Highlight: Winecup Gamble Ranch in Nevada They include Needle-and-Thread, Great Basin wild rye, Russian wild rye, Indian rice, crested wheat, bluebunch wheat, Sandberg blue, and bottlebrush squirrel tail. Mason v. Fakhimi, 865 P.2d 333, 335 (Nev. 1993) (citing Haromy v. Sawyer, 654 P.2d 1022, 1023 (Nev. 1982). The Ninth Circuit has held that the "[a]uthority to determine the victor in such a 'battle of expert witnesses' is properly reposed in the jury." Having reviewed Lindon's declaration detailing his 40-year work history in the field of hydrology, including work in hydrological assessments and modeling, dam inspections, and evaluations, the Court agrees that Lindon is qualified to opine on hydrology issues. 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. 160-3 at 44. 139) is denied. 166. Razavian's February 27, 2019 deposition (occurring approximately two years before trial) and Razavian's January 17, 2020 declaration (provided approximately one year before trial) provide his opinion regarding the mile post 670.03 washout in great detail. Ex. ECF No. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourts General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, 141-2 18), that is an argument best left for cross examination and goes toward the weight not the admissibility of Razavian's opinion. 2004); see Mizzoni v. Allison, 2018 WL 3203623 at*5 (D. Nev. 2018) (citing to Zubulake). 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. The provinces allowed casino games as well as horse tracks, and video lottery terminals. ), The original terms of the agreement contained a comprehensive risk-of-loss provision. 111-7 43. 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. Story continues below advertisement. The Court does not presently address the request for attorney's fees. Finally, as an adjunct professor in Civil Engineering at the University of Utah, Lindon taught a graduate level course that included water management and hydrometeorology. Id. For 25 years, Lindon worked at the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, Dam Safety Section, in part, creating "hydrological models to simulate hypothetical storms and floods and re-create actual events, such as rain on snowpack events, that resulted in flooding and dam failures." 141-2 7-8. 3d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal. 164. Union Pacific motions the Court to prohibit Winecup from offering any expert witnesses, including expert testimony from Luke Opperman, the Nevada Department of Water Resources engineer who inspected both the 23 Mile Dam and the Dake Dam before and after the incident, because he was not disclosed as an expert and Winecup failed to provide a written report as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A)-(B). Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. The Court heard selected oral argument on four of these motions on June 25, 2020 (ECF No. Extremely limited rainfall, roughly 7 inches annually, makes . Winecup Gamble, Inc v Gordon Ranch LP | 20-16411 - UniCourt Union Pacific's late disclosure regarding Razavian's opinion on the washout at mile post 670.03, while untimely, is harmless and Razavian's opinions on the subject are admissible. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 80 at 2. Id. 112 at 10-12. ECF No. 141 at 20-21. It is this Court's practice to allow jurors to take notes and given the complexity of this case, the number of exhibits, and the scientific expert testimony expected to be presented, the Court sees no reason to deviate from this practice. 107 Ex. ECF Nos. See order for instructions and details. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine to bar Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Derek Godwin's contributory negligence opinion (ECF No. 108 at 10. ECF No. Similarly, in its second motion in limine, Union Pacific motions the Court to exclude Winecup's expert, Matthew Lindon, from testifying on the same subject. 405, 406 (W.D. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. The Winecup-Gamble Ranch contains 247,000 acres of deeded land and permitted grazing access to roughly 750,000 additional acres of public and private land. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (noting that a court may wait to resolve the evidentiary issues at trial, where the evidence can be viewed in its "proper context"). The Court agrees with the Gallo Court's interpretation of the FRSA and the applicability of preemption in the negligence context. See ECF No. ECF No. Id. ECF No. 2. Id. 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. C.) However, Mr. Worden did not produce any ESI from his devices and admits that the ESI was lost from his electronic devices. FED. ECF No. Union Pacific further argues that Chapter 535 of the NAC specifies when certain regulations do not apply to dams in existence prior to March 15, 1951, which indicates that any regulation without that specific exclusion applies to all dams. 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. Alternatively, even if the regulation did preempt the state common law standard, the federal standard would apply and not preclude the defense itself. 2014) ("Even if data are imperfect, and more (or different) data might have resulted in a 'better' or more 'accurate' estimate in the absolute sense, it is not the district court's role under Daubert to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying an expert's testimony. Id. Margrave v. Dermody Prop., 878 P.2d 291, 293 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); see LK Comstock & Co. v. United Eng. Union Pacific argues that it had previously hired consulting experts early in the case who were eventually replaced by those now acting as testifying experts, which Winecup tried to learn about during discovery. Union Pacific does not allege a claim for gross negligence, but simply makes a claim for negligence. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge. 1980)). . ), The Court ruled in favor of Defendant as a matter of law finding that the contract was unambiguous in its favor. ii. (ECF No. 1996) ("By attempting to evaluate the credibility of opposing experts and the persuasiveness of competing scientific studies, the district court conflated the questions of the admissibility of expert testimony and the weight appropriately to be accorded such testimony by a fact finder."). 191 at 2, n.1. 126) for a blanket ruling is denied. Further, Union Pacific indicates that the parties have separately agreed to amend the pretrial order to add trial exhibits. The Court therefore finds that Union Pacific has failed to provide a statute upon which to argue negligence per se; Winecup's motion (ECF No. All foota. 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. Id. 150) is DENIED without prejudice. B, 22:14-21.) 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 .
Massage In Taksim Square Istanbul,
Motorcraft Oil Filter Cross Reference Chart Pdf,
Articles W