winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), a party may not discover "by interrogatories or deposition . 160-2. . 163. 125. Union Pacific's third motion in limine to facilitate efficient management of exhibits and testimony (ECF No. The FRSA also includes an express preemption provision: "A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security until the Secretary of Transportation . Id. Campbell Industries v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 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." 157-24 at 3-4. Id. 3. 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 Before the court are a total of 27 motions in limine; 21 motions filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") (ECF Nos. 405, 406 (W.D. Cases involving other real property matters not classified elsewhere, (#8) Streamlined request [7] by Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. to extend time to file the brief is approved. Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. It also helps that the Winecup Gamble has so many pastures to choose from. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not perform reasonable steps to preserve the information. 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 further argues that Razavian fails to offer an opinion that floodwater from the 23 Mile dam caused the washout at mile post 670.03. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, Case No. Of Clark v. LB Props., Inc., 315 P.3d 294, 296 (Nev. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 152) is granted in part and denied in part. Winecup opposes the motion arguing that whether the storm that caused the dam's failure was a historic storm event is a question for the jury and therefore, Winecup should be permitted to offer evidence of the historic storm. (ECF No. See ECF No. The Court finds that Winecup has had more than enough time to consider this opinion and consult with its own expert on the subject such that it has not been prejudiced by Union Pacific's failure to disclose the opinion in Razavian's expert report. 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. 10. Despite Mr. Worden's prominent role with Plaintiff and with this deal in particular, Mr. Worden has not produced any ESI from his devices to Defendant. See NRS 535.030. 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. ECF No. 1. 126) for a blanket ruling is denied. Id. 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. Id. While supplementation almost a year a half after the deposition is untimely, the Court finds that Union Pacific has had more than enough time to consider this opinion and consult with its own expert on the subject such that it has not not been prejudiced by this supplemental disclosure. It's as wide and wild and complicated a landscape as there is in today's West. ECF No. With this expeditious timeframe, Defendant has shown that the ESI was deleted after the duty arose to preserve the ESI. Jun. 160-3 at 77. 3:12-cv-00344-RCJ-WGC, 2015 WL 260873, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2015) (emphasis in original). 702. Date of service: 07/29/2020. 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 only argues that Fireman's deposition should be excluded as irrelevant and fails to make any showing that it will be substantially injured if the testimony is permitted. While 23 Mile dam is classified as a low hazard dam, meaning it carries a "very low probability of causing a loss of human life;" and a "reasonable probability of causing little, if any, economic loss or disruption in a lifeline," that does not negate a dam owner's statutory mandate to perform "work necessary to maintenance and operation which will safeguard life and property." 165. 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). 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. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant. 1980)). 126) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. 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. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." 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. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part Union Pacific's twenty-first motion in limine to amend the pretrial order. Id. 125) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this Order. Id. "A corporation generally cannot present a theory of the facts that differs from that articulated by the designated Rule 30(b)(6) representative." 3d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal. Only 7 inches of precipitation is received annually. Union Pacific argues that Lindon is not a qualified expert in meteorology because he does not hold a degree or certificate in the field. A.) 158 at 2-3. 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 . Motions in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or to weigh evidence, and evidence should not be excluded prior to trial unless the "evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." "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." And, necessarily, the regulation must apply to all dams, not just those in existence after March 15, 1951. (ECF No. Id. Union Pacific's arguments in opposing Godwin's testimony are best left to cross-examination and presentation of opinion evidence by Union Pacific's own experts rather than exclusion. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#7) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. The Court agrees with the Gallo Court's interpretation of the FRSA and the applicability of preemption in the negligence context. 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. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/28/2020 06:44 PM], Docket(#3) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: By 08/11/2020, counsel to email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential. [12101491] (DLM) [Entered: 05/04/2021 12:13 PM], Docket(#7) Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc.. New requested due date is 06/21/2021. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. 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. Ins. 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. 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Jul. ECF No. The high desert of northeastern Nevada poses unique environmental challenges for producers growing forages. ECF No. 107 Ex. 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." He declares that he has been "personally involved with rerouting for a Class 1 railroad approximately twelve times over the past six years." 166. On July 12, 2019, following this additional investigation, Winecup submitted its Supplemental Third Disclosure, which included survey information, photographs taken during the site visit, an updated model, and Lindon's conclusion that water from the 23 Mile dam did not cause the washout of the tracks at mile post 670.03. R. EVID. Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about consulting experts (ECF No. 107 Ex. Union Pacific owns railroad track that runs through 23 Western states, a portion of which runs east/west across the Utah/Nevada state line and through Elko County, Nevada. 120-1 at 3. The Court generally instructs the jury preliminarily on issues related to trial procedure, the judge's duties and role, and the jurors' role and responsibilities in a civil case. Plaintiff had imposed an oral litigation hold that proved insufficient and a good deal of ESI went missing. at 432. ECF No. A at 43:24-25), he also admits that the emails could have been deleted later by receiving a new computer or by failing to change his backup setting (Id. Winecup's third motion in limine to exclude argument related to Union Pacific's claim for negligence per se (ECF No. 131) is DENIED without prejudice. (Id.) See General Order 2020-03. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 11/30/2020. ECF No. Additionally, Union Pacific does not object to Winecup providing jurors with their own binders. [21-15415] (AD) [Entered: 03/16/2021 06:44 PM], (#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. ECF No. (citation omitted). 130) is denied without prejudice. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. Alamo Airways, Inc. v. Benum, 374 P.2d 684, 686 (Nev. 1962). . Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 11/30/2020. Moreover, the Court finds that it would be illogical that a plaintiff would not be preempted from suing Union Pacific under a negligence theory for failure to maintain appropriate drainage, but that a defendant would not be able to assert an affirmative defense of contributory negligence for the same alleged failure. 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. ECF No. However, the Court is hopeful that the parties can agree upon the admissibility of exhibits as much as reasonably practicable. 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." Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Winecup Ranch, LLC et al, Elko Broadband Ltd. v. Haidermota BNR, Lawyers and Counsel with Offices in Islamadad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan et al, Vincent G. Dimaggio v. Jacqueline L. Stoever. Union Pacific's arguments against his qualifications go to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility, and are best left to vigorous cross-examination. The Court considers the overall statutory and regulatory scheme and finds that the hazard classifications assigned by the State Engineer must be considered within the context of NAC 535.240. 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. 4 (Letter between counsel noting a telephone conversation on February 21, 2017 between counsel discussing their legal positions).) 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 opposes. Winecup argues this would apply to all of Union Pacific's witnesses. Zubulake, 229 F.R.D. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. ///. ECF No. (ECF No. Winecup argues that Union Pacific should be precluded from offering evidence of negligence per se because it cannot be based on administrative regulations and the one statute that it believes Union Pacific pleads under this theory, NRS 535.030, also fails. 8, 2020). At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial." See ECF No. 18. Additionally, because the Court is best positioned to rule on relevancy issues at trial when it can consider the evidence in context, the Court will reserve ruling on the relevancy of Fireman's testimony until that second proceeding as well. See order for instructions and details. 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. The Court finds that this trial presents no extenuating circumstance or reason to deviate from this process, especially given that the parties are not in agreement as to any of the proposed instructions. Union Pacific argues that 49 C.F.R. 117 Ex. 176. 128), and its related nineteenth motion in limine to preclude experts disclosed on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. See Sprint/United Mgmt. 37, 89), to which Winecup has answered (ECF No. Public Records Policy. The parties are encouraged and permitted to file a stipulation requesting pre-admittance of any uncontested exhibits. 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. 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. . 13. at 3. ECF No. 111. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. 34 Ex. 7. Winecup further argues that neither a Daubert hearing nor a neutral expert are necessary. 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. ///. Accordingly, the Court enters such a sanction and closes the case. i. Winecup's contributory negligence defense is not preempted. 207 ) is extended . 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. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 06/21/2021. The Court assumes that the parties will follow these rules; therefore, it denies Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine without prejudice (ECF No. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions. Winecup Gamble Ranch is part of the Agriculture industry, and located in Nevada, United States. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94. Id. . 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. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. [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. Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-16-2022. 191 at 2, n.1. ECF No. 127) is denied without prejudice. i. Union Pacific argues that Winecup should be precluded from arguing before the jury that any of Nevada's dam statutes and regulationsNevada Revised Statutes ("NRS") 535.005 et seq. Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that its agents spoliated valuable electronically stored information (ESI). [12048869] (BLS) [Entered: 03/22/2021 11:05 AM], (#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. ECF No. 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. This regulation, titled Requirements for approval. While a degree or certificate in a certain area is helpful to support expert qualification, a witness can be qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, [or] training," as well as education. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. R. CIV. Further, while Winecup argues that Razavian's observations were "superficial," Winecup has given the Court no reason to discount Razavian's opinion that considering the "empirical data" he observed in the area of a flood is an unacceptable methodology for determining the flow of a flood. The Court agrees with Winecup. 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." 132) is granted. 111) and its second motion in limine to exclude hydrological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. 157-32 at 2. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. See NAC 535.140. 151. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. Email. winecup gamble ranch llc. (Id.) Co. v. Gen. Elec. ECF No. Id. 149) is granted. 160-4 at 6. 171 at 4-5. 168 at 2. 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. Prior to the flood, there were earthen embankments and culverts at the washout locations. 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. Winecup's fourth motion in limine requests the Court exclude Union Pacific's claim of punitive damages. 6. ECF No. "This general proposition should not be overstated, however, because it applies only where the purportedly conflicting evidence truly, and without good reason or explanation, is in conflict, i.e., where it cannot be deemed as clarifying or simply providing full context for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition." ECF No. 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."). 2016)) (emphasis provided by Snapp). 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. 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]. 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. 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. 132. 1996), as amended (Jan. 15, 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court finds that section 213.33 does not preempt Winecup's affirmative defense. 1986) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S., 640 F.2d 328, 334 (Ct. Cl. (ECF No. Finally, Union Pacific requests leave to serve Rule 36 requests to establish admissibility of certain evidence. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine. . Again, Winecup opposes, arguing that its supplemental disclosure was timely and sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C). Winecup's expert, Matthew Lindon, disagrees and opines that the washout was caused by water from the Loray Wash and that floodwater from the 23 Mile dam could not have caused that track washout because the timing evidence shows that water from 23 Mile dam could not have reached mile post 670.03 at the time it was washed out. 108 at 11. Likewise, Union Pacific's other arguments go to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility, and are best left to vigorous cross examination. Therefore, Union Pacific's fifth and sixth motions in limine are denied. Why is this public record being published online? Id. Winecup argues that Union Pacific should only be permitted to recover the cost of replacing the culverts and embankments rather than the bridge "upgrade," and that it does not intend to argue whether culverts or bridges should have been built. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourts General Disclaimer, Terms of Service,

Pros And Cons Of Pragmatism In Education, Welch Funeral Home Obits, Articles W