winecup gamble ranch lawsuit
The amended order should include both the agreed amendments and those permitted by this Order. 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. Until that secondary proceeding, Union Pacific is precluded from introducing evidence related to Winecup's financial situation or the sale of the Winecup ranch; Winecup's sixth motion is granted in part and denied in part. NRS 535.030, titled Inspection of dams by State Engineer; powers of State Engineer to protect life or property, provides: Section 2 provides that the owner is responsible for other maintenance that is necessary to safeguard life and property. Haystax: Posted 10/3/2016 21:32 (#5562551) Subject: Winecup-Gamble Ranch for sale: DV, NV: Thought you guys might like to see what one of the best ranches in the world looks . Accordingly, the Court enters such a sanction and closes the case. (citation omitted). 128), and its related nineteenth motion in limine to preclude experts disclosed on May 13, 2020 (ECF No. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384-87 (2008). 250,000 ACRES DEEDED LAND WITH GRAZING RIGHTS ON OVER 1,000,000 ACRES. 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. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004). at 44:19-45:1, 46:19-22). However, there is also evidence in the record that DWR instructed Winecup to complete specific tasks that were not done: The 1996 inspection report for 23 Mile dam indicates that the "wing walls at the downstream invert should have the concrete repaired," and this repair was again noted in the 2003 report. The facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties and are restated here only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues. ECF No. Defendant Winecup Gamble, Inc.'s ("Winecup") time to file a response to Union Pacific's ("Union Pacific") Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 3:17-CV-00157 | 2017-03-13, U.S. District Courts | Labor | Id. 112.) ECF No. [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 will address each in turn. Id. 2014) (quoting Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564). 401. The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. And courts are hesitant to appoint a neutral expert when parties have retained their own qualified experts. Union Pacific requests the Court bar Winecup from admitting a paragraph of an email from a Union Pacific employee discussing traffic incidents with a Nevada Department of Transportation employee. 141-2 6. ECF No. 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. ECF No. Here, neither party disputes that Opperman, Holt, or Quaglieri are not retained experts, and therefore, if Winecup intends for them to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705, Winecup was only required to disclose "(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence;" and "(ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." "A motion in limine is used to preclude prejudicial or objectionable evidence before it is presented to the jury." The Court therefore denies Winecup's fifth motion in limine without prejudice and reserves ruling on such evidence until it can be adjudged in the context of trial. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice 30.25[3] (3d ed. These facts are sufficient for the Court to draw an inference that Mr. Worden acted intentionally. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fifteenth motion in limine to bar one paragraph in an email referencing contract truck driver incidents (ECF No. Given this pandemic, the Court will allow witnesses to appear by ZOOM video conferencing. Here, both parties have retained their own experts, and as discussed below, all are qualified. Winecup Gamble Ranch has 1,500 acres of pivot-irrigated fields and another 500 acres under wheel and flood irrigation. Id. 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. See ECF No. 112. Union Pacific now seeks to bar Winecup and Rogers from presenting testimony that contradicts his answers to these same questions from his deposition. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. 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. 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." Previously, Joe was a Student at King Ranch and also held pos itions at Roaring Springs Ranch Club. ECF No. Whether an Act of God caused 23 Mile dam's failure and subsequent flooding and damage to Union Pacific's railroad tracks is an issue of fact for the jury. . It's about 100 miles from Elko, Nev . 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. Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. 1. 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. (NRS 532.120, 535.010), provides: Union Pacific argues that these standards apply to both dams: it applies to 23 Mile dam because Winecup illegally, without proper approval, modified the outlet pipes in 1996 and was supposed to investigate the hydraulic adequacy of the dam with respect to flooding; and it applies to Dake dam because Winecup improperly abandoned the dam without applying for and having a decommissioning plan approved. However, it is not for the Court to conclude which expert is correct; that is for the jury to decide. ECF No. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. Conversely, Clay Worden was never an employee of Winecup, and testified in Gordon Ranch in his individual capacity, not as a corporate witness or agent of Winecup. The Court agrees with the Gallo Court's interpretation of the FRSA and the applicability of preemption in the negligence context. Union Pacific's ninth motion in limine to bar mention to the jury of the notion that Nevada's dam statutes and regulations do not apply to the Winecup dams due to their age (ECF No. (ECF No. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. [11769971] (BLS) [Entered: 07/28/2020 05:05 PM], (#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 157-31; 157-32. ECF No. v. Reyes, Case No. [11785954] (BLS) [Entered: 08/12/2020 08:52 AM], Docket(#6) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/29/2020. Winecup opposes this motion arguing that Ninth Circuit precedent permits a 30(b)(6) deponent that answered "I don't know" to supplement, contextualize, and even contradict such statements at trial, and that a 30(b)(6) deponent who answers "I don't know" to questions outside the scope of the 30(b)(6) notice is not penalized. The Court finds that whether the proffered evidence is relevant or if it would be unfairly prejudicial is best determined at trial when it can be adjudged in context. 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. Ins. 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. The Court reiterates that the District Court has temporarily suspended all jury trials until further notice. 111, 112, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 175, 176 & 193), and 6 motions in limine filed by Winecup Gamble, Inc. ("Winecup") (ECF Nos. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94. Finally, one place to get all the court documents we need. Similarly, in its second motion in limine, Union Pacific motions the Court to exclude Winecup's expert, Matthew Lindon, from testifying on the same subject. 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." The Court's "inquiry into admissibility is a flexible one," in which the Court acts only as a gatekeeper, not a factfinder. "); NAC 535.080 ("Probable maximum flood" means "a hypothetical flood whose magnitude is: 1. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. Aerial Imaging Productions At nearly 1 million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch in north eastern Nevada, is a crowning achievement for us. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. 125) is granted in part and denied in part. The Court agrees with Union Pacific that under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Winecup is prohibited from asking questions or offering evidence or argument about the plaintiff's consulting experts. Thitchener, 192 P.3d at 255. 111) is DENIED. The Court agrees with Winecup. Id. 149) is GRANTED. 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. CV-12-1524-PHX-SRB (LOA), 2013 WL 2422691, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2013) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Winecup objects to the presentation of exhibit binders arguing that doing so would require the court to rule on the admissibility of all contested exhibits prior to trial, and that given the number of exhibits, juror binders are "impractical, burdensome, and awkward." salem high school athletic director, espn fantasy accidentally dropped player,