winecup gamble ranch lawsuit

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Union Pacific's first motion in limine to exclude meteorological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. Northeast corner of Nevada bordering Utah. Newberry v. Cty. As discussed above, Razavian's opinion the subject was first disclosed during his February 2017 deposition. While the Court expects in-person jury trials to resume in early 2021, the parties should consider the constraints of holding a civil jury trial during the COVID-19 pandemic as they proceed with the litigation of this matter and in determining whether a bench trial via ZOOM video conferencing is a feasible option. "); NAC 535.080 ("Probable maximum flood" means "a hypothetical flood whose magnitude is: 1. ECF No. 141-2 6. "Legal duties imposed on railroads by the common law fall within the scope of these broad phrases." C at 6.) The trend, however, did not spread to the rest of the 10 provinces. Mediation Questionnaire. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. Jan. 31, 2013). ), Plaintiff argues against sanctions asserting the following defenses: First, the deletions did not amount to any deprivation of evidence to Defendant claiming that it has produced all of the material, non-privileged ESI through other sources in spite of the deletions. Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 98 P.3d 678, 680 (Nev. 2004). Cal. 8. Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Worden is merely a consultant accountant who was employed at a separate firm. Plaintiff declined to repair the property. They include Needle-and-Thread, Great Basin wild rye, Russian wild rye, Indian rice, crested wheat, bluebunch wheat, Sandberg blue, and bottlebrush squirrel tail. . ECF No. 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. Rather, Union Pacific argues that its expert's rerouting analysis was more correct than Godwin's opinion based on these considerations. Union Pacific requests the Court bar Winecup from admitting a portion of an email from a Union Pacific employee that contains the profane reference, "Sandbagging S.O.B's," arguing that if the email is admitted, the offending language should be redacted because it is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and inadmissible opinion evidence. 111) and its second motion in limine to exclude hydrological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. Given this pandemic, the Court will allow witnesses to appear by ZOOM video conferencing. 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. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. Alamo Airways, Inc. v. Benum, 374 P.2d 684, 686 (Nev. 1962). 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." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. Union Pacific argues that Lindon is not a qualified expert in meteorology because he does not hold a degree or certificate in the field. 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. 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. 3:17-cv-00163-RCJ-VPC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of NevadaRobert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 17, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN and N.R. 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. 702. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. 163. 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. Winecup motions the Court exclude the opinions and testimony of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, regarding the washout at mile post 670.030. "A corporation generally cannot present a theory of the facts that differs from that articulated by the designated Rule 30(b)(6) representative." 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. 157-32 at 2. 126. /// /// ///. 2018) (quoting 7 James Wm. He is "active in the science of meteorology, working constantly with meteorologists at the Division of Water Resources and Salt Lake City National Weather Service office to develop products and methods for calculations." 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." Union Pacific has presented no evidence or rule to support the Court's exclusion of any and all evidence or testimony on the issue. 157-24 at 3-4. Accordingly, Union Pacific has made a threshold showing which could support punitive damages; Winecup's fourth motion in limine is denied without prejudice. However, since the Court held its first jury trial in September, the numbers of infected individuals in Washoe County has increased significantly, and led District Court Chief Judge Du to implement General Order 2020-03, postponing all in-person jury trials until further notice. The district court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus denying the motion for summary judgment without considering the merits of that motion; it also found that neither party was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. 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. Winecup may motion the Court to reconsider this determination based on the evidence presented at trial. 3/13/2023 7:21 PM. ECF No. ECF No. Cnty. At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. ii. 13. FED. 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. ECF No. i. "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Defendant shall receive the return of its five million dollar earnest money with interest. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#1) DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. 130) is denied without prejudice. ECF 111 at 3. Nonetheless, even if Mr. Worden deleted the emails immediately after receiving them, the facts show that he was still producing ESI regarding this case after the duty to preserve arose. ECF No. Union Pacific motions the Court to exclude both Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Godwin's expert opinions that relate to this defense. While Plaintiff claims that it orally informed Mr. Worden to preserve ESI, this is woefully inadequate as discussed above, but evinces that Plaintiff and Mr. Worden knew they had a duty to preserve the ESI. 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. 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. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Winecup Ranch, LLC et al, Prime Healthcare Services - Reno, LLC v. Hometown Health Providers Insurance Company, Inc. et al, Elko Broadband Ltd. v. Haidermota BNR, Lawyers and Counsel with Offices in Islamadad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan et al. Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. C 06-04435 CRB, 2007 WL 963422, at *1 (N.D. Cal. R. Civ. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint and enters judgment in favor of Defendant on its counterclaim. 175-2. 176) is granted. 2019). 5. (emphasis added) While defendant's purported compliance with FAA regulations and maintenance protocols is, , No. Id. The offending language in the email states: A statement that is offered against an opposing party and "was made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed" is not hearsay. 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. Second, Winecup argues that even if it does apply, it cannot have retroactive applicability. (ECF No. Lindon used "data from the U.S. Geological Survey stream gages and Nation Weather Service stations to help form the model and calibrate the results." 111-7 31-33. 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. The briefing schedule previously set by the court is amended as follows: appellant's opening brief is due May 21, 2021; appellee's answering brief is due June 21, 2021; appellant's optional reply brief is due within 21 days from the service date of the answering brief. 107 Ex. P. 26(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). 126) is denied. Id. 2001); United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. 157-2 at 66; 157-28. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant Case No. All foota. 44. 158 at 2. 141) is denied. ), Presently, Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that Mr. Worden and Mr. Fireman, acting as Plaintiff's agents, spoliated the ESI. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, Case No. 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. Winecup did not undertake a program for investigation of the hydraulic adequacy of 23 Mile dam with respect to flood and seeping under a full hydraulic head, admittedly a safety concern, as noted in the 2003 inspection report under long term actions (3 years). Id. Razavian's expert report concludes the following regarding the cause of track washouts: Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that an expert must provide "a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them." 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. ECF No. 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. Id. This provision does not fix a standard legal duty; it is much too broad and leaves open to interpretation what work is necessary for dam owners to maintain and operate their dams safely. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. 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. Additionally, the Court finds because the juror binders are unnecessary and impracticable, there is no need to pre-admit evidence for such binders. (ECF No. 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. Given the nature of the lost ESI, the Court finds that it must give the harshest sanction of a case dispositive ruling. The Ranch owns extraordinary water rights for 2,500 acres of productive irrigated crop land and 8,750 acres of strong irrigated and sub-irrigated pasture plus . 139-4 at 4. Winecup opposes. 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." If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. And while "[i]n some cases, it may be cost-effective for counsel simply to provide jurors with individual binders containing indexed copies of selected exhibits central to the presentation at trial," electronic display systems that show everyone in the courtroom the exhibit simultaneously likewise "significantly assist jury involvement and comprehension and expediate trial." ECF No. Evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." After Winecup became aware of these opinions, its own expert, Lindon, conducted an additional investigation to determine the cause of the washout, including an on-the-ground field inspection of the Loray Wash and a topographical survey of the area. 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. NRS 42.005(1). Plaintiff relied on the amendment to say that the earnest money was not refundable for casualty losses. Id. 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.

Aluminized Alloy Steel Vs Stainless Steel Dryer Drum, Articles W