Federal Rule of Evidence 706 permits district courts, in their discretion, to appoint a neutral expert. 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. 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. In Union Pacific's second motion in limine, it further asserts that Lindon incorrectly opines that no floodwater from the 23 Mile dam failure reached mile post 670.03 when it was washed out. This is the subject of Winecup's first motion in limine; therefore, Union Pacific's arguments will be addressed below. ECF No. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. As the parties have already agreed to prepare their exhibits electronically, juror binders are unnecessarily redundant. 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]. ECF No. 5. Union Pacific's first motion in limine to exclude meteorological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. 6. Winecup argues that Lindon is qualified to opine on both meteorological and hydrological issues, and that Union Pacific's arguments do not go toward the admissibility of Lindon's opinions, but only the weight, and amount to nothing more than a "battle of the experts." 120-1 at 3. 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. 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 Winecup's fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that Union Pacific is entitled to punitive damages (ECF No. ECF No. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions. Union Pacific's motion in limine to amend the Pretrial Order (ECF No. Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. 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. [11785954] (BLS) [Entered: 08/12/2020 08:52 AM], Docket(#6) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/29/2020. 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." 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. iii. This model is "industry standard used by the Army Corps of Engineers . 141. 150. In its second motion in limine, Union Pacific argues that Lindon's opinions regarding the cause of the mile post 670.03 washout should be excluded because he "ignored considerable evidence" that Razavian relied upon for his own opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twenty-first motion in limine to amend the Pretrial Order (ECF No. We are so incredibly thankful that Patrick Bates and David Packer of Bates Land Consortium, Inc chose us to produce this mammoth of a marketing video. Second, Winecup addresses Nevada Revised Statute 535.030, which it claims also cannot provide the basis for Union Pacific's negligence per se claim. Here, culverts and earthen embankments existed at the washed-out track locations. Id. Second, Defendant has not established that the deletions occurred prior to a duty to preserve ESI. The Court assumes that the parties will follow these rules; therefore, it denies Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine without prejudice (ECF No. 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. Winecup Gamble Ranch corporate office is located in #1 Winecup Rd, Montello, Nevada, 89830, United States and has 4 employees. FED. 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. "Legal duties imposed on railroads by the common law fall within the scope of these broad phrases." Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology and meteorology. (internal quotations and citations omitted)). This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. 156. 135) is denied in part and granted in part. As the Court articulated above, Godwin is qualified to opine on such topics as railroad design and construction, based on his training and experience, which includes opining on the industry standard for culvert size in this context. 133) is denied without prejudice. 9.
Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP - UniCourt The Winecup and Gamble Ranch was put back together after the split in 1957, according to ranch history. And emails by a party's agent or employee, when a proper foundation is laid, that shows the statements were made within the scope of employment, may constitute opposing party statements. 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. 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. The Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA") was enacted "to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents." Co. v. Gen. Elec. Of Clark v. LB Props., Inc., 315 P.3d 294, 296 (Nev. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 107 Ex. 3:19-CV-00700 | 2019-11-20. . See Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 52 F. Supp. A, 47:2-6.) Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. ECF No. The ranch, in 2016, was for sale again. 21-15415 | 2021-03-09, U.S. District Courts | Property | We express no view regarding what attorneys' fees (if any) are reasonable in these circumstances, and leave that determination to the sound discretion of the district court. 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. in conjunction with its third motion in limine, Union Pacific motions this Court to pre-admit a number of exhibits (approximately 167) that would go in the requested juror binders.
Outcome-based Grazing at the Winecup-Gamble Ranch Accordingly, Plaintiff did not perform reasonable steps to preserve the information. Cnty. Cal. SEND MQ: Yes. While questions regarding estimations of the percentage overflow that came from 23 Mile dam verses from the floodwater in the Loray Wash due to the storm, and whether the Loray Wash had overtopped its banks without the addition of floodwater from 23 Mile dam go to the issue of causation, those are ultimately for the jury to decide and are different questions from whether Razavian offered an opinion that floodwater from 23 Mile dam caused the washout. ECF No. Winecup opposes, arguing that Union Pacific cites no authority or foundation for the Court on which to make such a ruling. . 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 108.) Co., 372 F.Supp.3d 470, 484 (W.D. (ECF No. 122) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Order. 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. 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. 107 Ex. ECF No. Continued monitoring of the seepage area is noted in both the 2012 and 2016 reports. Winecup opposes this request as unnecessary. 1. Additionally, in Mr. Fireman's deposition, he said that he spoke to Mr. Worden about the contract and amendment through personal meetings, telephone calls, text messages, and emails. Defendant aptly analogizes to a Southern District of New York case that predates the 2015 amendment, but which this District has relied on subsequent to the amendment. Second, Winecup argues that even if it does apply, it cannot have retroactive applicability. The Court finds that NAC 535.240 is not a "first-time" interpretive regulation. Union Pacific's eleventh motion in limine to bar Rule 702 opinions (A) generally, if not in expert reports, and (B) specifically, from Luke Opperman (ECF No. Some of the most important evidence for this inquiry would be the work papers of Plaintiff's accountant, Mr. Worden, who no longer has any ESI on his devices regarding this case. ECF No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///. Questions about what facts are most relevant or reliable . at 46:19-22), or some combination of these factors. 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." 15, 2021) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit reversed entry of terminating sanctions, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. 111-7 35-42. 112.) ECF No. The Largest that could be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrological conditions that are reasonably possible for the region in which the dam is located; and 2. 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." Zubulake, 229 F.R.D. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Because Union Pacific cannot rely on these administrative regulations to support negligence per se, the Court grants Winecup's motion as it relates to these and any other administrative regulation Union Pacific would consider proffering in support. ECF No. Specifically, Defendant requests that this Court dispositively rule in its favor for its claims in the case.
Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch - casetext.com Understanding the gambling laws of Canada - Mtltimes.ca 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. Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. 155-5. 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. "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." "Generally speaking, supplementation of an expert report is proper where it is based on new information obtained after the expert disclosure deadline and the supplemental report was served before the time for pretrial disclosures." 3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Other | [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. 405, 406 (W.D. 6. 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. 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]. At the time of this writing, the undersigned has presided over one criminal in-person jury trial since the COVID-19 lockdown orders went into effect in early March 2020, which included hearing from both witnesses in-person and via ZOOM video conferencing.