winecup gamble ranch lawsuit
R. Civ. .." Id. ECF No. 3/13/2023 7:21 PM. And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! at 813 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 44. 134) is denied without prejudice. Id. Winecup does not dispute that some of Nevada's dam statutes and regulations apply to its 23 Mile and Dake dams; however, it argues that a blanket ruling that it can't argue that any of these regulations or statutes do not apply is overbroad and contrary to a plain reading of many of the sections. 2004); see Mizzoni v. Allison, 2018 WL 3203623 at*5 (D. Nev. 2018) (citing to Zubulake). Union Pacific concedes that Lindon is a qualified expert in hydrology. The Court reiterates that is open to presiding over a bench trial via ZOOM video conferencing if the parties are amendable to such a solution. 403. Having reviewed Lindon's declaration detailing his 40-year work history in the field of hydrology, including work in hydrological assessments and modeling, dam inspections, and evaluations, the Court agrees that Lindon is qualified to opine on hydrology issues. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's twelfth motion in limine without prejudice and reserves the issue for trial. Winecup's sixth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument related to the financial condition of Winecup, Paul Fireman, and the sale of Winecup Gamble Ranch in 2019 (ECF No. OWNER BELIEVES THERE MAY BE MORE THAN 100,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER. 34 Ex. Godwin opines that had Union Pacific rebuilt the earthen embankments and culverts, the cost of the track repair would have been substantially less than "upgrading" to steel bridgesonly $4.28 million as opposed to the $18.5 million claimed by Union Pacific. Second, Defendant has shown that Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the ESI after the duty arose to preserve it. Id. at 4. CV-12-1524-PHX-SRB (LOA), 2013 WL 2422691, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2013) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Transcript due 09/21/2020. 3. Lindon and Razavian are both experts in their fields but have come to differing conclusions on soil saturation. In Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP, 2021 WL 2481861 (9 th Cir. (ECF No. 142) is GRANTED, as exhibits 10 and 11 contain information Union Pacific has marked "Confidential" under the Court's April 17, 2018 protective order and the request to seal is unopposed by Winecup. ECF Nos. 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. ), After remand, the parties reinitiated discovery. 112) are denied. Sprawling across the very heart of buckaroo country, the Winecup Gamble Ranch encompasses a checkerboarded landscape of 984,000 acres, more than half of which is owned by the public and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Paul Fireman was Winecup's sole shareholder and was initially a named party in the suit. 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. 422 (S.D.N.Y. ECF No. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. /// /// ///. 122 at 3. Jan. 31, 2013). Id. 88.) 1990). R. Civ. 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. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Court finds that section 2 of this statute cannot form the basis of a negligence per se claim and Winecup's motion is granted. Additionally, Union Pacific requests the Court appoint a neutral expert to be either a technical advisor to the Court or expert witness. Union Pacific motions the Court to exclude Winecup's expert, Matthew Lindon, from providing opinions on meteorological and hydrological issues. . The Court directs readers to Part III.B.2-3 below for a larger discussion on this issue, as it is related but not entirely on point to Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine. Plaintiff advocated for and successfully obtained a remand from the Ninth Circuit instructing this Court to comb through the parol evidence to determine the intent of the parties regarding the objective interpretation of the contractthe very information that its primary negotiator ought to possess. Id. Id. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. 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. 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. ECF No. Cal. 141) is denied. NRS 42.001(1)-(4). 125) is granted in part and denied in part. 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. See ECF No. Union Pacific now seeks to bar Winecup and Rogers from presenting testimony that contradicts his answers to these same questions from his deposition. Union Pacific requests that Winecup be barred from offering evidence or argument that a non-party is comparatively negligent, arguing that, under Nevada law, such evidence is irrelevant. 2019). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's sixteenth motion in limine to bar two words in an email with profane reference (ECF No. (ECF No. 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. A, 45:18-46:13.) 122) is granted in part and denied in part. 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. 141 at 6. 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]. 195), and rules on all now pending. Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff alleging that its agents spoliated valuable electronically stored information (ESI). SEND MQ: Yes. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that district courts "should generally allow amendments of pretrial orders provided three criteria are met: (1) no substantial injury will be occasioned to the opposing party, (2) refusal to allow the amendment might result in injustice to the movant, and (3) the inconvenience to the court is slight." 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 Offering Included All Owned Deeded Land, All Water Rights, Transfer of a Private-Use Year 'Round BLM Permit for 52,000 AUMs Plus All Machinery & Equipment. 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 . The duty to preserve commenced at least by this date. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourts General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, 191 at 2, n.1. Transcript due 09/21/2020. ), The original terms of the agreement contained a comprehensive risk-of-loss provision. UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. 2001) (citation omitted). 7. The three owners of the province's five franchises filed the lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court on Feb. 14. 1996), as amended (Jan. 15, 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Alamo Airways, Inc. v. Benum, 374 P.2d 684, 686 (Nev. 1962). 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. 89 32. Additionally, the Court finds because the juror binders are unnecessary and impracticable, there is no need to pre-admit evidence for such binders. 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. ECF No. Second, as to the infiltration data, disagreements over data imputes are again best left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Mahan & Rowsey, Inc., 786 F.2d 1004, 1007 (10th Cir. C. Patrick Bates 801-560-4259 [email protected]. winecup gamble ranch. 127) is DENIED. [12048869] (BLS) [Entered: 03/22/2021 11:05 AM], Docket(#3) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 03/16/2021. Previously, Joe was a Student at King Ranch and also held pos itions at Roaring Springs Ranch Club. (ECF No. 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. 151) is denied without prejudice. ECF No. at 44:19-45:1), inappropriate backup settings (Id. Union Pacific argues that good cause appears to permit videoconferencing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine to bar Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Derek Godwin's contributory negligence opinion (ECF No. 160-6 2. ECF No. Further, whether Winecup presents sufficient evidence during trial to support giving the jury an Act of God instruction must be determined at trial. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. GORDON RANCH, LP, a Texas limited partnership, Defendant Case 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." "Expert witnesses should not be appointed where they are not necessary or significantly useful for the trier of fact to comprehend a material issue in a case." Research the case of Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, from the D. Nevada, 03-01-2023. 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. i. Winecup's contributory negligence defense is not preempted. 126) is DENIED. 36 Ex. Under Nevada law, a "jury may not apportion fault to non-parties, and evidence or argumentation directed to showing non-parties' comparative fault is therefore inadmissible." (Id. Union Pacific has presented no evidence or rule to support the Court's exclusion of any and all evidence or testimony on the issue. 157-2 at 10-15, 26, 30, 52. Co., Case No. 120-1 at 5. ECF No. 706; Gorton v. Todd, 793 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1178 (E.D. 3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Property | 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's late disclosure regarding Razavian's opinion on the washout at mile post 670.03, while untimely, is harmless and Razavian's opinions on the subject are admissible. The district court's attorneys' fees decision is moot and is vacated as well. Union Pacific argues that it had previously hired consulting experts early in the case who were eventually replaced by those now acting as testifying experts, which Winecup tried to learn about during discovery. 1985). Specifically, Union Pacific requests that it be permitted to amend its witness list to include Fireman and Worden to testify via their respective depositions from Gordon Ranch, and add the information to the undisputed fact section of the Order. Winecup Gamble Ranch has 1,500 acres of pivot-irrigated fields and another 500 acres under wheel and flood irrigation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384-87 (2008). Second, Defendant has not established that the deletions occurred prior to a duty to preserve ESI. (Id.). ECF No. While Winecup clearly could not have disclosed any of these experts at the initial October 2018 disclosure date (as none had yet to be deposed), Winecup could have disclosed that it intended to call Holt and Quaglieri in its November 2018 rebuttal disclosure, and could have disclosed Opperman well before May 13, 2020. 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. Union Pacific's thirteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument related to an "Act of God" defense (ECF No. The court's role is to "screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions, . 120-2 at 5 ("HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS are probably the most extensively applied water-related modeling systems in the world. ECF No. However, pursuant to Nevada law, no information related to the financials of the defendant is permitted prior to the jury making a determination that punitive damages are warranted. ///. Judgment was entered accordingly. The Court notes that this repair does not show up in either the 2012 or 2016 inspection report which would indicate the repair was made sometime between 2003 and 2012. Winecup intends to introduce Godwin's opinion as evidence of what size culverts should be used based on the industry standard. 175), are DENIED without prejudice. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 07/21/2021. They include Needle-and-Thread, Great Basin wild rye, Russian wild rye, Indian rice, crested wheat, bluebunch wheat, Sandberg blue, and bottlebrush squirrel tail. 160-2. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. (internal quotations and citations omitted)). See Part III.A.1.iii. 1. . See Daubert, 509 U.S at 596 ("Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence."). 2001); United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 556 (9th Cir. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to submit an amended pretrial order within 45 days of the filing of this Order. The firm also values strong cooperating relationships with reputable land brokers in the profession. "The decision of whether to allow the jury to take notes is left entirely to the discretion of the trial court." 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." Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. The Court agrees with Winecup. It was first added to the regulatory schedule in 2003, along with the definitions in NAC 535.055, Inflow design flood, and NAC 535.080, probable maximum flood. Second, Winecup addresses Nevada Revised Statute 535.030, which it claims also cannot provide the basis for Union Pacific's negligence per se claim. 127). To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Id. Finally, as an adjunct professor in Civil Engineering at the University of Utah, Lindon taught a graduate level course that included water management and hydrometeorology. B at 23:14-21.) He has "significant experience with hydrometerorology, surface water hydrology, modeling, and dam safety hydrology." (See, e.g., ECF No. at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." Only 7 inches of precipitation is received annually. (ECF No. Transcript ordered by 08/21/2020. The most relevant evidence for these determinations would again be Mr. Worden's lost ESI. However, the Court also agrees with Winecup that if Union Pacific's testifying expert relied on information from a consulting expert, that information would be admissible under Rule 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 127. The Court recognizes that "[i]t is time-consuming when counsel circulate exhibits among the jurors, and it disrupts the examination of witnesses, except where the physical qualities of an object are themselves relevant." 162. Phillips v. C.R. [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. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, Case No. The Court will not appoint a neutral expert. Bates Land Consortium has closed 640 transactions - encompassing nearly 2,600,000 acres of deeded land - approaching $2.70 billion in total value. 89 16, 32, 50; ECF No. 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Winecup Gamble Ranch is part of the Agriculture industry, and located in Nevada, United States. Questions about what facts are most relevant or reliable . Since, the Courts finds intentionality the harsher sanctions of Fed. 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. While questions regarding estimations of the percentage overflow that came from 23 Mile dam verses from the floodwater in the Loray Wash due to the storm, and whether the Loray Wash had overtopped its banks without the addition of floodwater from 23 Mile dam go to the issue of causation, those are ultimately for the jury to decide and are different questions from whether Razavian offered an opinion that floodwater from 23 Mile dam caused the washout. Id. And courts are hesitant to appoint a neutral expert when parties have retained their own qualified experts. iii. 17. And emails by a party's agent or employee, when a proper foundation is laid, that shows the statements were made within the scope of employment, may constitute opposing party statements. All foota. 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.[11771335]. 5. Ins. 150) is DENIED without prejudice. R. EVID. (ECF No. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's requested exclusion. 141, 143, 149, 150, 151, 152). . No other issues will be entertained without leave of the Court. Union Pacific has twice amended its complaint (ECF Nos. See order for instructions and details. 1. 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. ECF No. 111-7 (Union Pacific's hydrology expert declared that the HEC-HMS is an acceptable method to calculate runoff). The Court finds that allowing Union Pacific to amend the pretrial order on this issue will not result in injustice to Winecup and any inconvenience to the Court is slight. 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. Union Pacific's twentieth motion in limine to permit Union Pacific's witnesses to testify by video (ECF No. At that time, the Court would expect participating attorneys to appear in-person, but it would again leave it to each party's counsel to determine which of its witnesses would appear by video or in-person. 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. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 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). Federal Rule of Evidence 706 permits district courts, in their discretion, to appoint a neutral expert. ECF No. 2. 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. 2019), reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice, see In re 3 Benvin, 791 F.3d 1096, 1104 (9th Cir. Public Records Policy. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. 131. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. winecup gamble ranch llc. 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. 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. ECF No. Northeast corner of Nevada bordering Utah. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 07/21/2021. 108 at 11. C at 6.) However, they do not currently have these texts messages, and Mr. Fireman admitted that no one had searched his phone to attempt to preserve the text messages. 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. It is clear to the Court based on this argument that Union Pacific intends to offer the financial information as it relates to punitive damages. 20106(a)(2). And the best part of all, documents in their CrowdSourced Library are FREE! 157-2 at 66; 157-28. See ECF No. It argues that alone is sufficient grounds for showing that it performed reasonable steps to preserve the ESIit is not. Lindon's expert testimony is admissible. 152) is granted in part and denied in part. As the parties have already agreed to prepare their exhibits electronically, juror binders are unnecessarily redundant. . 3d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal. 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. 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. These two actsmodification and abandonmentconstitute the "construction, reconstruction, or alterations" contemplated in NRS 535.010. 2014) ("Even if data are imperfect, and more (or different) data might have resulted in a 'better' or more 'accurate' estimate in the absolute sense, it is not the district court's role under Daubert to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying an expert's testimony. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twenty-first motion in limine to amend the Pretrial Order (ECF No. The lawsuit would cover athletes who were training and competing between 2010 and 2020, and seeks compensation of $250,000 for punitive damages, as well as moral damages in the amount of $12,000 . In Zubulake, the court held that it was insufficient for a party to send a litigation hold letter to an IT department without ensuring that "all relevant information (or at least sources of relevant information) is discovered," "that relevant information is retained on a continuing basis," and "that relevant nonprivileged material is produced to the opposing party."
