This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. 152) is granted in part and denied in part. 120-1 at 3. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's first motion in limine to exclude Daryoush Razavian's testimony related to mile post 670.03 (ECF No. Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. Here, both parties have retained their own experts, and as discussed below, all are qualified. 157-32 at 2. Winecup owned and managed the Dake Reservoir dam (ID #NV00109, legal description 189DN40 E70 07D) and 23 Mile dam (ID #NV00110, legal description 189CN42 E67 15BA), both located on Thousand Springs Creek, in Elko County, Nevada. 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. Union Pacific's twelfth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about (A) the Oroville Dam spillway failure, or (B) weather or (C) flood conditions in watersheds west of the relevant one (ECF No. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. The Court will not conflate the question of admissibility with the weight to be given the testimony by considering the persuasiveness of competing scientific methods; those questions are for the fact finder. Winecup's fifth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to an Emergency Action Plan for the Dake dam (ECF No. 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." ECF No. (emphasis added) While defendant's purported compliance with FAA regulations and maintenance protocols is, , No. 139) is DENIED. Union Pacific argues that 49 C.F.R. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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. The State Engineer will assign all dams a hazard classification. 120-1 at 5. 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. 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. 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. [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. (ECF No. (ECF No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. . Winecup opposes this request as unnecessary. 124) is denied. We express no view regarding what attorneys' fees (if any) are reasonable in these circumstances, and leave that determination to the sound discretion of the district court. Section 213.33 "only regulates the maintenance of existing drainage;" the regulations "are otherwise silent on when additional drainage is required, what kind of drainage is appropriate, and how drainage should be installed." 122) is granted in part and denied in part. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 06/21/2021. Why is this public record being published online? Additionally, Plaintiff has not produced any of Mr. Worden's accounting work papers, which is relevant to Defendant's case and covered by Defendant's subpoena. 134) is denied without prejudice. In October 2016, the parties entered into a detailed seventeen-page agreement, where Plaintiff was to sell a ranch property in Northern Nevada to Defendant. 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. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. 107 Ex. Id. As a general matter, it does not instruct the jurors on substantive issues at that time. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. He claimed that Plaintiff orally instructed him to preserve his ESI, (Id. Winecup Gamble argues that Razavian did not offer an opinion on the cause of the washout at mile post 670.03 in his initial report, offering his opinion for the first time during his deposition. Further, evidence may be excluded when there is a significant danger that the jury might base its decision on emotion, or when non-party events would distract reasonable jurors from the real issues in a case. The Court relies on its above statements of law regarding its gatekeeper function in determining the admissibility of expert testimony and sees no reason to reiterate it here. The language of the amendment does not specifically state that this result was desired or intended, and, in the absence of such a clear statement of the parties' intent, we find that the parties' agreement is ambiguous in this particular respect. Razavian provides that his opinion on the mile post 670.03 washout is based on (1) his personal aerial observations and photographs taken of the area during a February 11, 2018 helicopter ride; (2) the lay of the vegetation in the area and damage to track embankments; (3) review of a topographic map of the area and the features of the land; (4) a photograph take by a news helicopter the day of the flood; (5) the presence of ice blocks on the tracks between mile post 669 at 670; and (6) an account in the Elko Daily from an NDOT Sheriff who noted that the water went around the Dake Reservoir. 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]. 17. Today, the trust and relationships built through ROGER have helped create a working group that is focused on one of the pilot ranches participating in the BLM's Outcome-Based Grazing Authorizations (OBGA) program taking place on the Winecup-Gamble Ranch outside of Wells, Nevada. Union Pacific cites several sections of the NRS and NAC that it argues plainly apply to the Winecup dams, and letters from the State Engineer which show that Winecup was aware that certain sections of these statutes and regulations applied to the dams. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. See ECF Nos. 125) is granted in part and denied in part. The Court notes Winecup raises such a specific argument in its second motion in liminewhether Winecup can argue that NAC 535.240 does not apply to its damswhich the Court addresses below. P. 32(a)(3) ("An adverse party may use for any purpose the deposition of a party or anyone who, when deposed, was the party's officer, director, managing agent, or designee under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)."). ECF No. No other issues will be entertained without leave of the Court. 135) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Banks ex rel Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 102 P.3d 52, 67 (Nev. 2004). at 5. Winecup Gamble Ranch has 1,500 acres of pivot-irrigated fields and another 500 acres under wheel and flood irrigation. Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine to bar Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Derek Godwin's contributory negligence opinion (ECF No. 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 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. B. 108 at 10. 127. The standard for calculating damages is an important and critical issue in this case, but it has not been fully or properly briefed by the parties: Winecup briefly noted the standard it believes is proper in its response to Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion, while Union Pacific took the opportunity to argue for its standard in a 13-page reply, without any further response from Winecup. 1986) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S., 640 F.2d 328, 334 (Ct. Cl. 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. "Legal duties imposed on railroads by the common law fall within the scope of these broad phrases." In April 2018, the parties deposed Holt and Quaglieri, and in April 2019, the parties deposed Opperman. Gamble Ranch - Straddling the Wyoming & Utah Border 1,130 Deeded Acres Tucked Into Butch Cassidy Country Sold Overview & Featured Qualities Previously Offered at $4,300,000 Now Available at $3,850,000 Close to High Uinta Mountain Wilderness Remarkable 3,800 SF Lodge Fine Set of Cattle-Handling Facilities Two Additional Homes for Manager & Guests Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. ECF No. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. ///. Price v. Sinnott, 460 P.2d 837, 839-40 (Nev. 1969). 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. 20103(a). 3:17-CV-00157 | 2017-03-13, U.S. District Courts | Labor | 2:08-CV-01243-PMP-GWF, 2008 WL 11389168, at *5 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2008) ("Because punitive damages are not available for negligence claims, Plaintiffs are not entitled to pursue punitive damages for the negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent misrepresentation claims."). See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. Joe Glascock's Phone Number and Email Last Update. winecup gamble inc. winecup gamble ranch people. 131) is DENIED without prejudice. R. Civ. Union Pacific's combined fifth and sixth motion in limine pertains to Godwin's second and third opinions and argues that Godwin is not only unqualified to render opinions on these issues, but has insufficient factual knowledge and lacks any methodology to reach these opinions. The parties stipulated to extend rebuttal expert disclosures until November 19, 2018, at which time, Winecup disclosed two rebuttal witnesses.
Is Desiry From Marrying Millions An Actress,
Northeastern University Hooding Ceremony 2021,
15523188eca66178e985a4183 Luxury Blooms Floral Design Kennewick Wa,
What Church Do The Ball Brothers Attend,
Articles W