Defendant shall receive the return of its five million dollar earnest money with interest. First, the evidence shows that the ESI was deleted after a duty arose to preserve it. 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. See Francis v. MSC Cruises, S.A., Case No. 112) is DENIED. Prior to the flood, there were earthen embankments and culverts at the washout locations. 127) is DENIED. (ECF No. Plaintiff conducted a deposition of Mr. Worden subpoenaing all of his documents (including ESI) regarding discussions of the sale of ranch and amendments, the damage to the property, the repairs of the property, breakage of dams, and insurance information. Winecup opposes the motion, arguing that it is permitted to argue and offer evidence that they are either not negligent or that another party is completely negligent. Margrave v. Dermody Prop., 878 P.2d 291, 293 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); see LK Comstock & Co. v. United Eng. Understanding the gambling laws of Canada - Mtltimes.ca FED. 20; ECF No. 108.) Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. . See NAC 535.140. The district court based its decision on the fact that the terms of the parties' agreement, as amended, were clear and unambiguous on the critical question of whether the amendment was intended to shift or modify the risk-of-loss scheme. [12077160] (AF) [Entered: 04/16/2021 11:36 AM], Docket(#5) MEDIATION CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 04/14/2021, 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time (originally scheduled on 03/31/2021). The Court assumes that the parties will follow these rules; therefore, it denies Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine without prejudice (ECF No. 157-24, 157-28. In the 2012 inspection report, it is noted that the spillway should be cleared of all debris and vegetation, however, in 2016, the inspection report provides that the spillway has lost its design capacity due to vegetation growing and earthen materials sluffing from the hillside. ECF No. 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." La. A Test Site for How to Monitor Success. 175-1. Joe Glascock is a General Manager at Winecup Gamble Ranch based in Montello, Nevada. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. Id. R. CIV. winecup gamble inc. winecup gamble ranch people. (ECF No. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. 3:17-CV-00163-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Jul. [11769971] (BLS) [Entered: 07/28/2020 05:05 PM], Docket(#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. ECF No. 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. REVERSED, VACATED, and . 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, Defendant has not established that the deletions occurred prior to a duty to preserve ESI. See ECF Nos. 33 Ex. 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]. Email. 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. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. 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." However, it is not for the Court to conclude which expert is correct; that is for the jury to decide. A 44:19-45:1.) 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. SEND MQ: Yes. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. 34 Ex. 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. NRS 42.001(1)-(4). [21-15415] (AD) [Entered: 03/16/2021 06:44 PM], Docket(#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. After reviewing this agreement and amendment, we disagree with the district court. Zubulake, 229 F.R.D. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellant. Work Experience Gamble Ranch Manager Winecup Gamble Ranch 2015-2023 Board Memberships & Affiliations Board Member Western Landowners Alliance 2019-2021 Advisory Board Member Seventh Generation Institute 2019-2021 View James Rogers's full profile ECF No. Mediation Questionnaire. The Court agrees with this case and holds that the 2015 amendment did not lessen Plaintiff's burden. at 432. 124) is denied. Razavian testified that it was his opinion that the "destructive force" of the runoff associated with the "flood pulse" from the 23 Mile dam failure washed out the tracks. Finally, because Winecup has not "admitted" the facts as presented by Union Pacific, the Court will not permit Union Pacific to add the information to the "undisputed facts" section of the pretrial order. C.) However, Mr. Worden did not produce any ESI from his devices and admits that the ESI was lost from his electronic devices. ECF No. (citing Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 744 n.3 (1996)). Id. 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." 143) is denied. Id. In the alternative, Defendant further requests that the Court prevent Plaintiff from relying on any evidence or testimony from Mr. Worden or give the jury an instruction that the deleted evidence is adverse to Plaintiff's claims and defenses. Union Pacific rebuilt these areas with steel bridges instead of rebuilding the embankments and culverts. 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." ECF No. Next, Union Pacific argues that two of Godwin's opinion related to Winecup's contributory negligence defense should be excluded: (1) Godwin opines that based on his experience in railroad construction and design, that it is industry standard that railroads throughout the country use culverts large enough to handle flows associated with a 100-year storm; and (2) Godwin opines that the culverts in place before the flood were not large enough to withstand a 50-year storm. Lindon's criticism of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, are admissible. Union Pacific's third motion in limine to facilitate efficient management of exhibits and testimony (ECF No. A 43:2-7.) Reading the parties' agreement as a whole, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twenty-first motion in limine to amend the Pretrial Order (ECF No. 801(d)(2)(D). 141 at 20-21. The court's role is to "screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions, . 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 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. 1. 120-1 at 5. Accordingly, the Court grants Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine (ECF No. 89 22-24. [11785954] (BLS) [Entered: 08/12/2020 08:52 AM], (#5) Filed (ECF) Appellee Gordon Ranch LP Mediation Questionnaire. . Union Pacific requests the Court appoint a neutral expert to help the Court "understand" the scientific opinions of the parties' experts. I-80 and US93, Elko, NV, 89801 - Pasture/Ranch For Sale - LoopNet Read More . Here, the material in the supplemental disclosure relates to Lindon's analysis after hearing Razavian's opinion from his February 2017 deposition. The trend, however, did not spread to the rest of the 10 provinces. 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. Godwin calculated the cost of rebuilding the embankments using data from RS Means 2018 and adjusted the total to 2017 prices. Given this pandemic, the Court will allow witnesses to appear by ZOOM video conferencing. Winecup intends to introduce Godwin's opinion as evidence of what size culverts should be used based on the industry standard. Fla. 2018) ("[T]he issue of whether there was a force majeure or Act of God that caused the incident is an issue of fact, which cannot be decided on a motion to strike."). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 705, "[u]nless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinionand give the reasons for itwithout first testifying to the underlying facts or data. 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. Winecup Gamble Ranch Atmospherics - YouTube 30, 2007). 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. ECF No. Additionally, the Court finds that the potential risk for jurors to view exhibits out of order, to lose focus during testimony, or be unable to take notes, weighs against providing such binders. 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. However, that does not mean that section 2 would not be useful in proving duty and breach under the "reasonable man" standard: Union Pacific may present evidence that Winecup failed to act as a reasonable dam owner by failing to perform work necessary to safeguard life and property, as required by this statute. . He claimed that Plaintiff orally instructed him to preserve his ESI, (Id. Id. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. 139. Nor has Union Pacific pointed to anything in the record to support that the State Engineer has considered legal action against Winecup under this statute for a violation due to abandonment of the Dake. The State Engineer will assign all dams a hazard classification. LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. (emphasis added) While defendant's purported compliance with FAA regulations and maintenance protocols is, , No. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. Plaintiff admits that the sole action they took was to inform Mr. Worden to preserve relevant documents, who then relayed this message to his IT department at his accounting firm. Erica Beck - Winecup Gamble Ranch | ZoomInfo However, electronic exhibits are capable of display on equipment in the jury room. R.R. Lindon declared that he checked and calibrated the model ultimately determining with a "high degree of confidence that the model accurately reflects" the February 2017 flood event. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. Joe Glascock's Phone Number and Email Last Update. ), The original terms of the agreement contained a comprehensive risk-of-loss provision. 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 . This model is "industry standard used by the Army Corps of Engineers . Third, some of the lost ESI is not attainable through additional discovery. The Court finds that because this case has not been set for trial, this amendment to the pretrial order will not inconvenience the Court and does not prejudice either party. The Court's "inquiry into admissibility is a flexible one," in which the Court acts only as a gatekeeper, not a factfinder. On 03/13/2017 Gordon Ranch LP filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against Winecup Gamble Inc.This case was filed in U.S. District Courts, Nevada District. "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." ECF Nos. at 5. The Court heard selected oral argument on four of these motions on June 25, 2020 (ECF No. Judgment on the pleadings should not have been granted, because the ambiguity described above and the dispute over the parties' intent when they amended their agreement presents a disputed issue of material fact. Joe Glascock Email & Phone Number - Winecup Gam.. | ZoomInfo 120-2 at 5 ("HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS are probably the most extensively applied water-related modeling systems in the world. ECF No. 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. 3d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal. While it argues that Razavian's use of a topographical quadrangle map does not provide enough detail to map the flooding in the area (ECF No. 250,000 ACRES DEEDED LAND WITH GRAZING RIGHTS ON OVER 1,000,000 ACRES. 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." 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. Therefore, the Court finds that under Nevada state law, Winecup is not permitted to offer evidence that a non-party is comparatively negligent. Transcript due 09/21/2020. ECF No. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), a party may not discover "by interrogatories or deposition . 18. Union Pacific argues that 49 C.F.R. Godwin provides two opinions regarding rerouting costs: (1) "[a]ll train traffic should have been re-routed from (or near) Tecoma to (or near) Lucin on the No.2 track;" and (2) that other washouts, not attributable to Winecup, prevented trains from moving, and therefore, Winecup is not responsible for those rerouting costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's motion to seal (ECF No. See Madrigal v Treasure Island Corp., Case No. 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." (Id. And, neither Mr. Fireman nor Mr. Worden are able of producing these text messages. NAC 535.240 is the only place in Chapter 535 that explains, colloquially, that a significant hazard dam must withstand a 1000-year flood event and a low hazard dam must withstand a 100-year flood event. Fed. 88.) ECF No. 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." 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo). Winecup further argues that neither a Daubert hearing nor a neutral expert are necessary. 3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Property | See General Order 2020-03. While Union Pacific argues that these witnesses may not be qualified to offer opinion testimony, the Court reserves ruling on specific testimony for trial. A, 45:18-46:13.) Cases involving other real property matters not classified elsewhere, (#6) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/29/2020. 126) is denied. 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." ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge. By that time, it had over 9,000 cattle and a reputation as one of the great ranches of Nevada. Union Pacific argues that due to the complexity of the Oroville Dam failure, evidence and argument on the topic would result in a "mini trial," and as the weather and flooding occurred outside the relevant watershed, the evidence is irrelevant. iii. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . While section 233.13 touches on drainage, it does not substantially subsume the subject matterthere is no specified standard for culvert size or what type of culvert should be used in this circumstance. Continued monitoring of the seepage area is noted in both the 2012 and 2016 reports. Additionally, Union Pacific requests the Court appoint a neutral expert to be either a technical advisor to the Court or expert witness. Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. 403. 131), and reserves any ruling on this issue for trial. Id. Some are as large as 67,000 acres, adds Bates' associate David Packer. 2:19-CV-00414 | 2019-06-17, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Id. 193) is granted in part and denied in part. See ECF No. 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. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (noting that a court may wait to resolve the evidentiary issues at trial, where the evidence can be viewed in its "proper context"). If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Winecup opposes this request as unnecessary. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. The parties have submitted a total of 27 motions in limine. 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. 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. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 2016)) (emphasis provided by Snapp). ECF No. Union Pacific's eighth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent (ECF No. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination." 6. SEND MQ: Yes. See ECF No. Razavian's February 27, 2019 deposition (occurring approximately two years before trial) and Razavian's January 17, 2020 declaration (provided approximately one year before trial) provide his opinion regarding the mile post 670.03 washout in great detail. While this disclosure is technically untimely, it was harmless; therefore, the procedural failure does not provide a basis for exclusion under Rule 37. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit did not rule on whether Plaintiff's interpretation of the contract constituted a penalty clause. 141-2 6. See ECF Nos. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. According to ZoomInfo records, James Rogers's professional experience began in 2015. Godwin's opinion on rerouting is admissible. To succeed on this motion, the moving party must prove the following three elements: Defendant also moves for sanctions under the Court's inherent authority. 155. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice 30.25[3] (3d ed. 111 at 16-17. 122 at 3. 108 19. Aerial Imaging Productions At nearly 1 million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch in north eastern Nevada, is a crowning achievement for us. In 1996, DWR indicated that it appeared that new hydraulic controls were presented, and that plans and specifications for these plans needed to be submitted. That means, under Nevada law, punitive damages proceedings are bifurcated.
Land For Sale In Albion Heights, St Thomas,
Premium Show Pet Grooming Products,
Nightfall Penelope Douglas Spoilers,
Risk Management Maturity Level Checklist,
Articles W