Erica Beck - Winecup Gamble Ranch | ZoomInfo Once a prevailing party has been determined, that party should be allowed to request or move for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, as such an award is available to the prevailing party under the plain terms of the agreement. ECF No. ECF No. 139. 166. ECF No. unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless." WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. FED. 111-7 43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall close this case. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's tenth motion in limine (ECF No. [11769734] [20-16411] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 07/28/2020 03:34 PM], Docket(#7) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. 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. 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. at 44:8-14). 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. 1. Therefore, the Court finds that under Nevada state law, Winecup is not permitted to offer evidence that a non-party is comparatively negligent. at 46:19-22), or some combination of these factors. See ECF No. The Court agrees with the Gallo Court's interpretation of the FRSA and the applicability of preemption in the negligence context. Appellee Gordon Ranch LP answering brief due 07/21/2021. 6. Id. Case No. Union Pacific's fourteenth motion in limine to bar evidence or argument about consulting experts (ECF No. Winecup may submit a response to Union Pacific's reply regarding the standard to be used for damages, within 14 days of the filing of this Order. 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. ECF No. Moreover. . This model is "industry standard used by the Army Corps of Engineers . 1996) ("By attempting to evaluate the credibility of opposing experts and the persuasiveness of competing scientific studies, the district court conflated the questions of the admissibility of expert testimony and the weight appropriately to be accorded such testimony by a fact finder."). 7. and Nevada Administrative Code ("NAC") 535.010 et seq.do not apply to the Winecup dams. 160. i. Godwin's a qualified expert in railroad rerouting, costs, and railroad construction and design. ECF No. 143. 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. Lindon and Razavian are both experts in their fields but have come to differing conclusions on soil saturation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's second motion in limine to exclude hydrological opinions of Matthew Lindon and to appoint a neutral expert (ECF No. Winecup Gamble Ranch. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. Accordingly, the late disclosure was harmless, and Lindon will be permitted to testify on the subject. Additionally, Union Pacific requests the Court appoint a neutral expert to be either a technical advisor to the Court or expert witness. Winecup's second and third motions in limine also relates to the standard of care to be used in this negligence case. Id. See order for instructions and details. 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. Based on these classifications, Union Pacific argues that pursuant to NAC 535.240, Winecup was required to "construct, operate, and maintain," the 23 Mile dam to withstand a 100-year flood event, and the Dake dam to withstand a 1000-year flood event. See Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C. Cir. 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. This short-term action was again noted in the 2016 inspection report which would indicate that Winecup had failed to provide these plans for 20 years. winecup gamble ranch. 108 19. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's ninth motion in limine to bar mention to jury of notion that Nevada's dam statutes and regulations do not apply to the Winecup dams due to their age (ECF No. Union Pacific further argues that evidence of Winecup's financial condition is "to allow the jury to fully evaluate the decades of neglect, to see it was not due to financial straits but was fully calculated and intentional with an eye to profits." 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. 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. The Court agrees with Winecup: any ruling that Winecup is precluded from arguing that a specific statute applies in this case must be made on a statute-by-statute/ regulation-by-regulation basis. 1. If the jury finds in the affirmative, a subsequent proceeding will occur during which the parties will be permitted to present evidence of the financial condition of the defendant and the jury could award punitive damages. The Court took numerous safety precautions in the courtroom to ensure that all participants, attorneys, witnesses, and the Court staff, were protected, which included installing plexiglass partitions and implementing sanitization protocols. 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 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. As part of its holding, the Ninth Circuit noted that that the Court may consider parol evidence to resolve ambiguities in contractual language under Nevada law. And, neither Mr. Fireman nor Mr. Worden are able of producing these text messages. In its second motion in limine, Union Pacific argues that Lindon's opinions regarding the cause of the mile post 670.03 washout should be excluded because he "ignored considerable evidence" that Razavian relied upon for his own opinion. ECF No. 157-24 at 4. R. Civ. at 44:19-45:1), inappropriate backup settings (Id.