Winecup Gamble Ranch is part of the Agriculture industry, and located in Nevada, United States. The Court will however leave open the ability for parties to prepare jury binders solely for evidence that has been admitted during trial for the jurors to take with them into the jury room for deliberations if the parties prefer that over the electronic exhibits. 3. Id. [12050510] (BLS) [Entered: 03/23/2021 10:57 AM], Docket(#4) MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 03/31/2021, 12:00 p.m. PACIFIC Time. (ECF No. Winecup concedes that an accepted methodology includes using topographical survey data to determine if it is possible for water to escape one drainage and enter another. [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. 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. [21-15415] (AD) [Entered: 03/16/2021 06:44 PM], Docket(#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 120. 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. Date of service: 07/29/2020. 120-1 at 5. Winecup's late Supplemental Third Disclosure regarding Lindon's rebuttal opinion on the washout at mile post 670.03, while untimely, is harmless, and Lindon's opinions are admissible. 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. And such communications took place shortly after the flood on February 21, 2017. Applying this test, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden. In Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP, 2021 WL 2481861 (9 th Cir. 176) is GRANTED. See Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 52 F. Supp. 14. As the ranch's manager, Rogers offered Winecup-Gamble as a test site for the researchers. 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. This District's courtrooms are fully equipped with an electronic exhibit display system that allows each juror to view exhibits on their own personal screen. 165. j***@winecupgambleranch.com. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. Lindon and Razavian are both experts in their fields but have come to differing conclusions on soil saturation. 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. The Court will address each argument in turn. 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. ECF No. ECF No. Union Pacific does not provide the actual language of a proposed instruction, but simply lists the statutes and regulations upon which it proposes the parties craft preliminary instructions. 135) is denied in part and granted in part. REVERSED, VACATED, and . Union Pacific argues that because Winecup was required under Nevada law to maintain the 23 Mile dam to withstand a 100-year flood event and the Dake dam to withstand a 1000-year flood event, the failure of the dams and the subsequent flooding could not be considered "abnormal" or free from "human assistance or influence" such that Winecup could prove the prima facia elements of the defense. ; ECF No. It's as wide and wild and complicated a landscape as there is in today's West. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Ranch on CaseMine. The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. In its first motion, Union Pacific argues that Lindon is not qualified to opine on meteorology because he does not hold a degree or certification in the field and his opinion should be excluded because he did not reliably apply accepted methodology to sufficient facts. 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. Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument about preserving the Dake dam for pike (ECF No. Winecup's second and third motions in limine also relates to the standard of care to be used in this negligence case. 1980)). Further, Union Pacific indicates that the parties have separately agreed to amend the pretrial order to add trial exhibits. 2:19-CV-00520 | 2019-07-23, U.S. District Courts | Personal Injury | 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. 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)."). Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony, providing: To determine the reliability of the principles and methods used, the court looks to: (1) whether a theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; (4) whether there are standards controlling the technique's operation; and (5) whether the theory or technique has general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. Winecup opposes, arguing that Union Pacific cites no authority or foundation for the Court on which to make such a ruling. R. CIV. See Part III.A.1.iii. However, Mr. Worden performed most of the negotiations for Plaintiff in reaching the agreement and amendment generating numerous emails and text messages with Mr. Fireman and others that allegedly no longer exist as well as other lost ESI. "A corporation generally cannot present a theory of the facts that differs from that articulated by the designated Rule 30(b)(6) representative." Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. See FED. (emphasis added) While defendant's purported compliance with FAA regulations and maintenance protocols is, , No. 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. 20101. However, each regulation was enacted under the authority of NRS 532.120, which confers upon the State Engineer the power to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper and orderly execution of its powers. Winecup's fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that Union Pacific is entitled to punitive damages (ECF No. Union Pacific's motion in limine to amend the Pretrial Order (ECF No. Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology and meteorology. 8, 2020). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's eighteenth motion in limine to bar Winecup from offering evidence or argument about preserving the Dake dam for pike (ECF No. Johnson v. Dunnahoe, Case 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. Id. 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. 89 1. Mason v. Fakhimi, 865 P.2d 333, 335 (Nev. 1993) (citing Haromy v. Sawyer, 654 P.2d 1022, 1023 (Nev. 1982). 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. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Union Pacific argues that good cause appears to permit videoconferencing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 18-16463-CIV-SELTZER, 2018 WL 4693526, at *1 (S.D. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. 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. Upon remand, we instruct the Chief Judge of the District of Nevada to assign this case to a different judge, Full title:WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. winecup gamble ranches llc. He further provides that he has been working for Class 1 and shortline railroads since 2005, starting his own railroad engineering and construction observation company in 2013. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge ORDER Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that its agents spoliated valuable electronically stored information (ESI). ECF No. 2:21-CV-00183 | 2021-03-26, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. The clause would be an enforceable liquidated damages provision if the amount was a good faith effort to estimate the actual damages, but an unenforceable penalty if the amount is disproportionate to the actual damages sustained. The high desert of northeastern Nevada poses unique environmental challenges for producers growing forages. ON-SITE RAIL SPUR AND 2 LANDING STRIPS. 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. 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. 7. iv. ECF No. The American Landowner: James Rogers - The Land Report 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. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. ii. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fourth motion in limine to pre-admit exhibits for use in juror binders (ECF No. Erica Beck - Winecup Gamble Ranch | ZoomInfo 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." Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a witness may be qualified as an expert based on his or her knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Union Pacific does not argue that this modeling program is improper or not the industry standard model. La. 15, 2021) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit reversed entry of terminating sanctions, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. ECF No. However, as applied and in context, the terms of the parties' amended agreement are ambiguous on the point of whether the contract was intended to shift the risk-of-loss scheme. Further, whether Winecup presents sufficient evidence during trial to support giving the jury an Act of God instruction must be determined at trial. 120-3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about consulting experts (ECF No. [12101491] (DLM) [Entered: 05/04/2021 12:13 PM], (#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. 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. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 11/30/2020. While Lindon may not be a meteorologist by degree, he is clearly qualified to conduct the meteorological calculations and consider those calculations in reaching his expert opinion regarding the dam failure and subsequent flooding. See Land Baron Ivs., Inc. v. Bonnie Springs Family LP, 356 P.3d 511, 522 (Nev. 2015) (affirming an award of punitive damages for a nuisance counterclaim); Parkinson v. Winniman, 344 P.2d 677, 678 (Nev. 1959) (holding that an award of exemplary damages was proper upon proof of intentional trespass). Winecup Gamble Ranch Atmospherics - YouTube at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Mahan & Rowsey, Inc., 786 F.2d 1004, 1007 (10th Cir. . at 5. ECF No. 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to submit an amended pretrial order within 45 days of the filing of this Order. 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. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 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. 5. 139) is denied. However, the Advisory Committee Notes make clear that the 2015 amendment forecloses a court from imposing sanctions for spoliation of ESI under that basis. Id. The proponent of preemption must establish that the regulations more than "touch upon" or "relate to" the subject matter"pre-emption will lie only if the federal regulations substantially subsume the subject matter of the relevant state law." i. Winecup's contributory negligence defense is not preempted. 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. ECF No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 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. At this junction, Union Pacific should have witnesses that can testify to the authenticity and admissibility of the at-issue exhibits; reopening discovery so that Union Pacific can serve Rule 36 requests is therefore, unnecessary. Id. 149) is granted. For 25 years, Lindon worked at the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, Dam Safety Section, in part, creating "hydrological models to simulate hypothetical storms and floods and re-create actual events, such as rain on snowpack events, that resulted in flooding and dam failures." 168 at 2. 125) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this Order. Second, Defendant has not established that the deletions occurred prior to a duty to preserve ESI. 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. The Court therefore finds that Union Pacific has failed to provide a statute upon which to argue negligence per se; Winecup's motion (ECF No. ECF No. 156. Bard, Inc., Case No. 37, 89), to which Winecup has answered (ECF No. 1. 175), are DENIED without prejudice. 127) is DENIED. Owners Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich had divided the ranch in 1945. Winecup further provides that the model is generally accepted in this scientific community and has been the subject of publications. 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: . Godwin calculated the cost of rebuilding the embankments using data from RS Means 2018 and adjusted the total to 2017 prices. Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 05/07/2021. "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." Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-01-2023. 154. 154-2 at 5. Specifically, Defendant requests that this Court dispositively rule in its favor for its claims in the case. /// ///. Godwin declares that he has extensive experience in railroad construction and design, and specializes in "railroad engineering, railroad construction engineering, filed supervision, damage mitigation, working in hurricane, flood, and other emergency situations, and rebuilding railroads to restore service as quickly and efficiently as possible." They include Needle-and-Thread, Great Basin wild rye, Russian wild rye, Indian rice, crested wheat, bluebunch wheat, Sandberg blue, and bottlebrush squirrel tail. 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. 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. See ECF No. Gallo v. Union Pacific R.R. Additionally, Union Pacific does not object to Winecup providing jurors with their own binders. Union Pacific's arguments on exclusion go to the weight of Lindon's testimony, not its admissibility, and are best left to cross examination and testimony by its own expert. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384-87 (2008). NRS 42.005(1). Cnty. eDiscovery Assistant at 46:19-22), or some combination of these factors. (ECF No. 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." Some of the most important evidence for this inquiry would be the work papers of Plaintiff's accountant, Mr. Worden, who no longer has any ESI on his devices regarding this case. The most relevant evidence for these determinations would again be Mr. Worden's lost ESI. 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. (internal quotations and citations omitted)). 122 at 3. Here, the material in the supplemental disclosure relates to Lindon's analysis after hearing Razavian's opinion from his February 2017 deposition. Here, both parties have retained their own experts, and as discussed below, all are qualified. /// ///, ii. 3d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal. H at 1 (Privilege Log noting that Mr. Worden sent an email with the Bates Number "REV00000041" summarized as "Email re response to Margaret Ludewig" dated March 6, 2017.). 131. 157-31; 157-32. Id. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services. Union Pacific certified that it had met and conferred with Winecup prior to filing this motion in limine, as required by Local Rule LR II 16-3(a); however, Winecup does not oppose this request. 3:17-CV-00163 | 2017-03-16, U.S. District Courts | Property | 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. 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. 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 . Plaintiff relied on the amendment to say that the earnest money was not refundable for casualty losses. FED. Union Pacific has twice amended its complaint (ECF Nos. ECF No. It is this Court's practice to allow jurors to take notes and given the complexity of this case, the number of exhibits, and the scientific expert testimony expected to be presented, the Court sees no reason to deviate from this practice. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. opening brief due 06/21/2021. winecup gamble inc. winecup gamble ranch people. See Hal Roach Studios Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. Mediation Questionnaire. Union Pacific argues that doing so would enable a smooth presentation of exhibits to the jury. Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine to bar Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Derek Godwin's contributory negligence opinion (ECF No. 1986) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S., 640 F.2d 328, 334 (Ct. Cl. Winecup presents no such exception that would apply. wine cup ranch llc. ///. On the other hand, harsher sanctions are available if the moving party shows that the nonmoving party acted with the intent to deprive the moving party of the information's use in the litigation, then the Court may (1) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party, (2) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party, or (3) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment. Ind. 12. Accordingly, the Court enters such a sanction and closes the case. Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. Margrave v. Dermody Prop., 878 P.2d 291, 293 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); see LK Comstock & Co. v. United Eng. See Madrigal v Treasure Island Corp., Case No. 2018) (quoting 7 James Wm. ECF No. See ECF No. (ECF No. 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. However, it is not for the Court to conclude which expert is correct; that is for the jury to decide. However, "if a regulation is a first-time interpretive regulation, application to preexisting issues may be permissible."
Wreck On Hwy 49 Nc Today,
Ricardo's Restaurant Closing,
Articles W
