160-4 at 6. However, the Court agrees with Winecup that whether the email is admissible is a different question from whether evidence or argument regarding the preservation of the dam for pike is admissible. 126) for a blanket ruling is denied. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 05/07/2021. A presumption that the lost information was unfavorable to Plaintiff or an adverse jury instruction would not sufficiently cure Defendant's prejudice. 640 were here. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo). 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. 175-2. 706; Gorton v. Todd, 793 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1178 (E.D. ECF No. 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. Union Pacific argues that the Dake dam's inoperable outlet and failed embankment section near the spillway intensified the flood waters and contributed to the damage to Union Pacific's tracks, and had an emergency action plan been in place, these inadequacies would have been addressed. 131. The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. ), After remand, the parties reinitiated discovery. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. REVERSED, VACATED, and . 157-31; 157-32. Close to I-80. Union Pacific's arguments on exclusion go to the weight of Lindon's testimony, not its admissibility, and are best left to cross examination and testimony by its own expert. ECF No. At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. The parties stipulated to extend rebuttal expert disclosures until November 19, 2018, at which time, Winecup disclosed two rebuttal witnesses. Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. 175-1. Therefore, while the email itself is not hearsay, the at-issue statements contained within it are, and an applicable hearsay exception is needed for them to be admissible. 112) are denied. Here, the email communication between Union Pacific's employees appears to be within the scope of their employment. ECF No. Following the Nevada Supreme Court in Thitchener, as a matter of law, a plaintiff is not entitled to pursue punitive damages on negligence claims. 157-24 at 3-4. The Court finds that multiple exhibit binders each with a few hundred exhibits is impractical and unnecessary given the electronics available in the courtroom. SEND MQ: Yes. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's third motion in limine to facilitate efficient management of exhibits and testimony (ECF No. 149) is granted. at 813 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Specifically, the accountings of Plaintiff's ranch are pertinent to whether Plaintiff's interpretation of the contract amounts to an unenforceable penalty. 108 19. Owners Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich had divided the ranch in 1945. 129) is denied without prejudice. 176. Union Pacific's ninth motion in limine to bar mention to the jury of the notion that Nevada's dam statutes and regulations do not apply to the Winecup dams due to their age (ECF No. Lindon's criticism of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, are admissible. 111 at 16. (ECF No. 107, Ex. Winecup provides that it only intends to have these experts testify to that which is contained within their respective depositions and reports. 191 at 2, n.1. 131) is DENIED without prejudice. 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. Godwin testified at his deposition that he was familiar with what railroads need to consider when addressing rerouting, including which tracks were in service, crew variability, how many crews they have on standby, how many trains are running per day. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. Second, Winecup addresses Nevada Revised Statute 535.030, which it claims also cannot provide the basis for Union Pacific's negligence per se claim. This is a question of accuracy, not admissibility, and it is best left to the jury to consider the weight of this evidence. "A motion in limine is used to preclude prejudicial or objectionable evidence before it is presented to the jury." 2014) (quoting Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564). Here, culverts and earthen embankments existed at the washed-out track locations. [12043650] [21-15415] (Peterson, William) [Entered: 03/16/2021 05:14 PM], Docket(#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. 139. 20103(a). Additionally, the Court finds because the juror binders are unnecessary and impracticable, there is no need to pre-admit evidence for such binders. FED. Id. ECF No. While Union Pacific pleads that it "may rely on additional statutes and administrative codes that may become known to be applicable in the future," it does not list any Nevada Revised Statute that would provide the basis for its negligence per se claim. The subject property, commonly known as the Winecup Gamble Ranch ("the Property"), comprises approximately 247,500 deeded acres, rights to federal grazing permits covering approximately 558,080 acres, and Nevada state grazing rights covering approximately 142,800 acres. How beavers make the desert bloom - High Country News WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant Case No. Mediation Questionnaire. The electronic display system further allows the parties to show the electronic exhibit to the witness first, before it is published to the jurors, and the witness may make useful electronic marks on the exhibit, such as circling or pointing to relevant portions. 128), and its related nineteenth motion in limine to preclude experts disclosed on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. 112.) ECF No. According to ZoomInfo records, James Rogers's professional experience began in 2015. Though the Winecup Gamble does not cover 3 million acres anymore, it is still a large ranch operating on about 1,000,000 acres of the original ranch running Brangus and Angus cattle bred to Herefords. Winecup's expert Derek Godwin provided opinions on three topics: (1) pre-flood design structures at mileposts 670.03, 672.14, 677.32, and 679.28; (2) re-routing costs and the reasonableness of the routes and costs; and (3) reconstruction costs and the reasonableness of replacement structures. . See order for instructions and details. ECF No. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge. 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. 15, 2021) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit reversed entry of terminating sanctions, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. 108.) See ECF No. Sprawling across the very heart of buckaroo country, the Winecup Gamble Ranch encompasses a checkerboarded landscape of 984,000 acres, more than half of which is owned by the public and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Importantly, the parties dispute whether the February 2017 storm was greater or less than a 100-year storm eventUnion Pacific's expert concluded that the storm event did not exceed the 100-year event, while Winecup's expert, Lindon, concluded that it did. Union Pacific argues that good cause appears to permit videoconferencing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 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." ), Presently, Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that Mr. Worden and Mr. Fireman, acting as Plaintiff's agents, spoliated the ESI. The following definitions are relevant to making this determination: (1) oppression means "despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship with conscious disregard of the rights of the person"; (2) fraud means "intentional misrepresentation, deception or concealment of a material fact known to the person with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights or property or to otherwise injure another person"; (3) malice, express or implied, means "conduct which is intended to injure a person or despicable conduct which is engaged in with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others"; and (4) conscious disregard means "the knowledge of the probable and harmful consequences of a wrongful act and a willful and deliberative failure to act to avoid these consequences." ECF No. 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. Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent (ECF No. [12048869] (BLS) [Entered: 03/22/2021 11:05 AM], Docket(#3) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 03/16/2021. 12. Cir. 157-32 at 2. ECF No. Johnson v. Dunnahoe, Case No. Alamo Airways, Inc. v. Benum, 374 P.2d 684, 686 (Nev. 1962). In its first motion, Union Pacific argues that Lindon is not qualified to opine on meteorology because he does not hold a degree or certification in the field and his opinion should be excluded because he did not reliably apply accepted methodology to sufficient facts. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-16-2022. 126) is denied. Again, whether a technique is better or worse than another, or whether the expert made a computational error, should be left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence; it is not appropriate to exclude such expert testimony. (ECF No. In 1996, the inspection report provided that the spillway appeared undersized. The Court assumes that the parties will follow these rules; therefore, it denies Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine without prejudice (ECF No. ECF No. 161. H at 1 (Privilege Log noting that Mr. Worden sent an email with the Bates Number "REV00000041" summarized as "Email re response to Margaret Ludewig" dated March 6, 2017.). 163. Id. 3. Union Pacific argues that Winecup is barred from asserting an "Act of God" defense. Moreover. Though not addressed in Winecup's motion, Union Pacific argues that it also pleads violations of NRS 535.010 to support its negligence per se theory. Winecup's fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that Union Pacific is entitled to punitive damages (ECF No. Date of service: 07/29/2020. 112. . P. 37(e)(2) are available. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . FED. Id. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument about preserving the Dake dam for pike (ECF No. ECF Nos. 2. "Legal duties imposed on railroads by the common law fall within the scope of these broad phrases." 120. Id. 20; ECF No. James Rogers Email & Phone Number | ZoomInfo The American Landowner: James Rogers - The Land Report Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) provides: "a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705." If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. 128), and Union Pacific's related nineteenth motion in limine to preclude experts disclosed on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. Northeast corner of Nevada bordering Utah. 112 at 10-12. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. FED. See ECF No. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. are for the jury.") The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc.
Transdev Bswift Login Portal,
Music Note Addition Calculator,
Claudine Longet Ron Austin,
Jason Knauf Statement,
Articles W