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." FED. 213.33 preempts Winecup from arguing that Union Pacific was contributorily negligence for maintaining culverts not sufficiently large enough to withstand a 50-year storm. Winecup presents no such exception that would apply. Winecup Gamble Ranch Location PO Box 249, Montello, Nevada, 89830, United States Description Industry Agriculture General Agriculture Discover more about Winecup Gamble Ranch Recent News About Erica Beck Scoops Intent Scoops about Winecup Gamble Ranch 157-31; 157-32. 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. i. 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. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. 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. Finally, Union Pacific requests leave to serve Rule 36 requests to establish admissibility of certain evidence. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and OLGUIN, District Judge. ECF No. ECF No. Jan. 31, 2013). 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. The Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA") was enacted "to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents." at 48:8-13), and that he told his IT department to preserve the relevant ESI (Id. 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." Here, there can be no dispute that the parties are not the same and the subject matter is differentthis is a negligence action while Gordon Ranch was a contract dispute. If the parties determine that a jury trial is necessary, the Court would expect the 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. 157-2 at 66; 157-28. ECF No. ECF No. 2018) (holding that the 2015 amendment to Rule 37(e) "foreclose[d] reliance on inherent authority" for sanctioning spoliation of ESI) (quoting Fed. However, the Court also agrees with Winecup that if Union Pacific's testifying expert relied on information from a consulting expert, that information would be admissible under Rule 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Date of service: 07/28/2020. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. It also appears that the denial was not based on an assessment of the materials the parties had produced in connection with that motion, which materials may also be considered by the district court on remand. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's third motion in limine to facilitate efficient management of exhibits and testimony (ECF No. Price v. Sinnott, 460 P.2d 837, 839-40 (Nev. 1969). (Id.) 2. "When experts serve as testifying witnesses, the discovery rules generally require the materials reviewed or generated by them to be disclosed, regardless of whether the experts actually rely on those materials as a basis for their opinions." He declares that he has been "personally involved with rerouting for a Class 1 railroad approximately twelve times over the past six years." Only 7 inches of precipitation is received annually. Id. Winecup opposes the admittance of this contested evidence on relevancy and admissibility grounds arguing that whether these exhibits should be admitted should be determined within the context of trial. The Court will address each in turn. The Court finds that the legal issues and circumstances presented in this case are not so complex or exceptional that a neutral expert is needed to assist the trier of fact and, therefore, denies Union Pacific's motion to do so. at 3. Accordingly, Union Pacific's nineteenth motion in limine is granted. 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. 91). 167. R. EVID. 111) and its second motion in limine to exclude hydrological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. 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. A at 14.) 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.[11771335]. Nevertheless, Mr. Worden claims that he does not have the emails anymore as a result of a company policy to not preserve emails (Id. 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. However, the court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of" unfair prejudice. The amended order should include both the agreed amendments and those permitted by this Order. 107 Ex. 31). 2:19-CV-00520 | 2019-07-23, U.S. District Courts | Personal Injury | 1980)). 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. 128. The parties are reminded that the meet-and-confer is not perfunctory, and the parties should not seek Court intervention unless they have reached an impasse and have no other choice but to seek the Court's guidance. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18, U.S. District Courts | Contract | After the sale fell through, both parties filed suit, arguing that they were entitled to Gordon Ranch's earnest money deposit pursuant to the terms of the parties' purchase and sale agreement, as amended by the parties in December 2016. Union Pacific filed its original complaint on August 10, 2017, against Winecup Gamble, Winecup Ranch, LLC, and Paul Fireman. Third, some of the lost ESI is not attainable through additional discovery. Before deciding on how damages are to be calculated, the Court will permit Winecup the opportunity to respond to Union Pacific's reply; briefing is not to exceed 15 pages of argument, excluding tables of contents and authorities and administrative notices. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellant. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB, 2020 WL (Id.). 2-4. Lindon's criticism of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, are admissible. 21-15415 | 2021-03-09, U.S. District Courts | Property | . ECF No. (ECF No. Razavian declares that "[a]ccepted hydrological methodology requires a hydrologist to consider all of the above evidence in determining flow of flood water." Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. 139) is DENIED. See order for instructions and details. R. CIV. OWNER BELIEVES THERE MAY BE MORE THAN 100,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that district courts "should generally allow amendments of pretrial orders provided three criteria are met: (1) no substantial injury will be occasioned to the opposing party, (2) refusal to allow the amendment might result in injustice to the movant, and (3) the inconvenience to the court is slight." Id. Union Pacific argues that 49 C.F.R. 127) is DENIED. 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: . Public Records Policy. Winecup-Gamble Ranch for sale Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page] View previous thread:: View next thread Forums List-> Stock Talk: Message format . Mar. "The decision of whether to allow the jury to take notes is left entirely to the discretion of the trial court." 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. Lindon created a hydrological model that simulates the February 2017 flood using the Hydrologic Modeling System created by the Hydrologic Engineering Center within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (known as "HEC-HMS"). 111) is DENIED. R. EVID. Union Pacific cites an email from Bill Nisbet to James Rogers, in which he states: It is unclear whether the parties are referring to the Federal or State agency. 126) is denied. The Court finds that exclusion of Worden's deposition will not result in injustice to Union Pacificit is still permitted to present evidence of Winecup's financial situation through Fireman should this case reach the punitive damages phase. It argues that alone is sufficient grounds for showing that it performed reasonable steps to preserve the ESIit is not. ECF No. 2018) (quoting 7 James Wm. 117 Ex. ECF No. 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. 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. ///. 127. 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. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 06/07/2021. 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Jul. 107 Ex. (citing Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 744 n.3 (1996)). "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." Winecup does not oppose prohibiting asking questions or offering evidence or argument about the plaintiff's consulting experts, so long as "consulting expert" means "expert employed only for trial preparation." At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. 1. Union Pacific motions the Court to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument that the Fish & Game allegedly requested that the Dake dam be preserved for the pike they had put in it. This case has been set for trial a number of times; the most recent setting for August 2020 was vacated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the agreement, Defendant deposited a million dollars of earnest money in escrow. Winecup Gamble Ranch has 1,500 acres of pivot-irrigated fields and another 500 acres under wheel and flood irrigation. [12029509] (JBS) [Entered: 03/09/2021 01:23 PM], U.S. District Courts | Property | He claimed that Plaintiff orally instructed him to preserve his ESI, (Id. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. Winecup argues that this regulation does not "substantially subsume the subject matter of" culvert size, and therefore, it cannot preempt the state common law standard. . ECF No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about consulting experts (ECF No. 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. Accordingly, the Court finds that section 213.33 does not preempt Winecup's affirmative defense. 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. 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.[11771335]. 108) to add information learned in the depositions of Paul Fireman and Clay Worden in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP, 3:17-cv-00163, related to Winecup's financial situation. 111 & 112. 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. The Court finds that whether such evidence is relevant is best determined at trial. The firm also values strong cooperating relationships with reputable land brokers in the profession. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///. FED. 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." While these regulations do not provide the standard of care, evidence and argument related to NAC 532.240 may be presented to support a standard of care under the reasonable person standard. 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. Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. C.) However, Mr. Worden did not produce any ESI from his devices and admits that the ESI was lost from his electronic devices. 18. 2:21-CV-00183 | 2021-03-26, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Winecup's first motion in limine to exclude Union Pacific's expert Daryoush Razavian's testimony related to mile post 670.03 (ECF No. Plaintiff advocated for and successfully obtained a remand from the Ninth Circuit instructing this Court to comb through the parol evidence to determine the intent of the parties regarding the objective interpretation of the contractthe very information that its primary negotiator ought to possess. 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. Phillips v. C.R. ECF No. ECF No. Cnty. Transcript due 09/21/2020. Union Pacific's first motion in limine to exclude meteorological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. The parties are encouraged and permitted to file a stipulation requesting pre-admittance of any uncontested exhibits. The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . vigorous cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence, not exclusion, are the appropriate means of attacking whether Lindon used the "best" or "most accurate" data points, and therefore created an accurate model of the flood event. 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. See ECF No. Under the provision, Plaintiff bore the risk of loss until closing, where, in the case of casualty loss before closing, Defendant had the option to take the property as-is with insurance proceeds or to reject the property and take back its earnest money. 134) is DENIED without prejudice. Lindon and Razavian are both experts in their fields but have come to differing conclusions on soil saturation. at 4. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Here, the material in the supplemental disclosure relates to Lindon's analysis after hearing Razavian's opinion from his February 2017 deposition. The district court's attorneys' fees decision is moot and is vacated as well. The Court finds that both arguments go not to Lindon's methodology, but to the data imputed. 141 at 20-21. See Tennison v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 690 (9th Cir. Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology and meteorology. 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. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant. Accordingly, Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine (ECF No. 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. The parties timely responded. 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. Second, Winecup argues that even if it does apply, it cannot have retroactive applicability. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993). If the parties determine that a jury trial is necessary, the Court would likely not be able to set it before the middle of 2021 due to the backlog of criminal jury trials. 250,000 ACRES DEEDED LAND WITH GRAZING RIGHTS ON OVER 1,000,000 ACRES. SEND MQ: Yes. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch on CaseMine. Therefore, the Court finds that only the drastic case dispositive sanctions are appropriate in this case. Id. Why is this public record being published online? The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 112.) ECF Nos. 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.