157-24 at 4. It is clear to the Court based on this argument that Union Pacific intends to offer the financial information as it relates to punitive damages. 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2020). Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 10/30/2020. The Court will not preclude Union Pacific from presenting evidence and argument that a reasonable dam owner would have followed this regulation and maintained all dams to withstand the particular flood event based on the assigned hazard classification of its dam, including the flood standard. Winecup's first motion in limine to exclude Union Pacific's expert Daryoush Razavian's testimony related to mile post 670.03 (ECF No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM], U.S. District Courts | Property | Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-01-2023. During the deposition of Winecup's designated Rule 30(b)(6) witness, James Rogers, he testified that he "did not know" the answers to several of Union Pacific's questions. See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C. Cir. A reasonable party would have foreseen litigation on the horizon as soon as the parties began exchanging communications expressing their competing interpretations of the contract and the amendment. 176. Since, the Courts finds intentionality the harsher sanctions of Fed. The Court finds that whether such evidence is relevant is best determined at trial. 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Jul. 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. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. 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. 2. 193) is granted in part and denied in part. Union Pacific has twice amended its complaint (ECF Nos. 191. Union Pacific's first motion in limine to exclude meteorological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. ECF No. (#6) Filed order MEDIATION (SMC): This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. 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." The Court reiterates that the District Court has temporarily suspended all jury trials until further notice. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. The determination of whether evidence is relevant to an action or issue is expansive and inclusive. NRS 42.001(1)-(4). Id. Extremely limited rainfall, roughly 7 inches annually, makes . It was first added to the regulatory schedule in 2003, along with the definitions in NAC 535.055, Inflow design flood, and NAC 535.080, probable maximum flood. 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]. The State Engineer will assign all dams a hazard classification. ECF No. ECF No. Id. Winecup does not oppose this request. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. Altogether, both ranches encompass one million acres257,000 are deeded, and the remainder is private leases. 127) is DENIED. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993). 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. A presumption that the lost information was unfavorable to Plaintiff or an adverse jury instruction would not sufficiently cure Defendant's prejudice. 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. ON-SITE RAIL SPUR AND 2 LANDING STRIPS. ECF No. These two actsmodification and abandonmentconstitute the "construction, reconstruction, or alterations" contemplated in NRS 535.010. Id. Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine to bar Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Derek Godwin's contributory negligence opinion (ECF No. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. Winecup opposes, arguing that (1) it has not admitted these facts and they are not "undisputed;" (2) the facts are irrelevant; (3) Worden is a third-party witness whose deposition testimony is not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(8); and (4) that Union Pacific's failure to conduct this discovery during this case precludes it from now using the information. Winecup motions the Court to exclude Union Pacific from arguing or presenting evidence that NAC 535.240 applies to the 23 Mile or Dake dams. 125) is granted in part and denied in part. Ins. See Sagebrush, Ltd. v. Carson City, 660 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Nev. 1983) ("Whether a legislative enactment provides a standard of conduct in the particular situation presented by the plaintiff is a question of statutory interpretation and construction for the court. j***@winecupgambleranch.com. 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. 139) is denied. 152) is granted in part and denied in part. The Investment Issue: Winecup Gamble Ranch - The Land Report 149. See Wyeth v. Rowatt, 244 P.3d 765, 775 (Nev. 2010). S.E.C. [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. And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's second motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that NAC 535.240 applies to the 23 Mile and Dake dams (ECF No. He declares that he has been "personally involved with rerouting for a Class 1 railroad approximately twelve times over the past six years." Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC - Casetext Specifically, Winecup argues that this administrative regulation only provides the design standard for new construction of dams, not a standard of care for existing dam owners, and even if it did set forth a standard of care, the regulation cannot be applied retroactively to Winecup's dams because both were constructed prior to March 15, 1951. ), Presently, Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that Mr. Worden and Mr. Fireman, acting as Plaintiff's agents, spoliated the ESI. ECF Nos. However, Plaintiff did nothing more than orally inform their chief negotiator and accountant to preserve the ESI, and Mr. Worden allowed his computer to be upgraded without backing up his information and did not suspend his company's aggressive deletion policy and backup settings to accommodate his duty to preserve evidence. Union Pacific does not argue that the considerations Godwin looked at, including tracks in service, crew variability, and trains per day, are not to be considered in reaching such a conclusion on rerouting costsits own expert Stephen Dolezal considered characteristics for available tracks, which included run time between the end points of damaged tracks, track speeds, expected train sizes, and siding and auxiliary track availability. Given this pandemic, the Court will allow witnesses to appear by ZOOM video conferencing. Again, there can be no dispute that Godwin's opinion is relevant and advances a material aspect of Winecup's case and that the RS Means methodology for determining costs is standard in the industry. A reasonable jury could find punitive damages are warranted if it finds that Winecup acted with conscious disregard of the downstream property owners. 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. 157. 143. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's sixth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to the financial condition of Winecup, Paul Fireman, and the sale of Winecup Gamble Ranch in 2019 (ECF No. (NRS 532.120, 535.010), provides: Union Pacific argues that these standards apply to both dams: it applies to 23 Mile dam because Winecup illegally, without proper approval, modified the outlet pipes in 1996 and was supposed to investigate the hydraulic adequacy of the dam with respect to flooding; and it applies to Dake dam because Winecup improperly abandoned the dam without applying for and having a decommissioning plan approved. i. ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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. 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. 9. 3:19-CV-00700 | 2019-11-20. Alternatively, even if the regulation did preempt the state common law standard, the federal standard would apply and not preclude the defense itself. The parties stipulated to extend rebuttal expert disclosures until November 19, 2018, at which time, Winecup disclosed two rebuttal witnesses. 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. 132) is granted. P. 37(e). iii. 3:17-CV-00163 | 2017-03-16, U.S. District Courts | Property | Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (FOURTH) 12.32 (2004). P. 37 Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment). 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.
Director Of Football Salary, Articles W