This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. at 3. However, the Court is hopeful that the parties can agree upon the admissibility of exhibits as much as reasonably practicable. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine. 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. 107 Ex. Winecup presents no such exception that would apply. ECF No. 3:19-CV-00700 | 2019-11-20. Additionally, the Court finds because the juror binders are unnecessary and impracticable, there is no need to pre-admit evidence for such binders. Union Pacific argues that the Dake dam's inoperable outlet and failed embankment section near the spillway intensified the flood waters and contributed to the damage to Union Pacific's tracks, and had an emergency action plan been in place, these inadequacies would have been addressed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fifth and sixth motions in limine to Bar Two Opinions of Derek Godwin (ECF No. See ECF No. Cal. 4. Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and 91). FED. La. Price v. Sinnott, 460 P.2d 837, 839-40 (Nev. 1969). Because we find that the parties' agreement is ambiguous and because the district court does not appear to have considered this issue previously, we do not address Gordon Ranch's argument that the earnest money cannot be awarded to Winecup, because such an award would necessarily render the earnest money provisions of the parties' agreement an unenforceable penalty clause. There can be no dispute that Godwin's opinion is relevant and advances a material aspect of Winecup's case: Godwin's opinion goes directly to the amount of damages Union Pacific should be permitted to recover if the jury reaches the issue. Judgment was entered accordingly. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/28/2020 06:44 PM], Docket(#3) MEDIATION ORDER FILED: By 08/11/2020, counsel to email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. R. CIV. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. Winecup Gamble Ranch Atmospherics - YouTube 111 & 112. 141 at 6. The amended order should include both the agreed amendments and those permitted by this Order. The Court finds that this trial presents no extenuating circumstance or reason to deviate from this process, especially given that the parties are not in agreement as to any of the proposed instructions. at 48:8-13), and that he told his IT department to preserve the relevant ESI (Id. Accordingly, Union Pacific's third motion in limine (ECF No. The Court has fully reviewed the record and considered the parties' oral argument; for the reasons below, the Court grants in part and denies in part these motions. Union Pacific seeks to exclude Lindon's criticisms of its hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, regarding soil saturation. 120-1. FED. Gamble Ranch - Straddling the Wyoming & Utah Border 157. Godwin's curriculum vitae provides that he has a degree in civil engineering with a concentration in "structures," and holds professional membership in the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, and the Regional Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers Association. ECF No. 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. 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." ///. 120-1 at 5. Winecup provides that it only intends to have these experts testify to that which is contained within their respective depositions and reports. (internal quotations and citations omitted)). 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. SEND MQ: Yes. The Court relies on its above statements of law regarding its gatekeeper function in determining the admissibility of expert testimony and sees no reason to reiterate it here. 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. 135) is denied in part and granted in part. For clarity, the Court address the parties' competing motions for exclusion together here. 141-5 at 9-10, 12, 30-32; ECF No. Finally, Union Pacific requests leave to serve Rule 36 requests to establish admissibility of certain evidence. 129) is DENIED without prejudice. Again, whether a technique is better or worse than another, or whether the expert made a computational error, should be left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence; it is not appropriate to exclude such expert testimony. Id. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. 2:19-CV-00520 | 2019-07-23, U.S. District Courts | Personal Injury | 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." 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. . 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. He has taken continuing education courses in hydro-meteorology, and has "operated the National Weather Service Station for Park City, Utah for the past 26 years, measuring and reporting temperatures, snowfall, snowpack and precipitation daily." SEND MQ: Yes. 156. This case has been set for trial a number of times; the most recent setting for August 2020 was vacated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 152) is granted in part and denied in part. FED. United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1403 (9th Cir. Union Pacific argues that doing so would enable a smooth presentation of exhibits to the jury. Under the umbrella of ROGER, the amount of collaborative work . j***@winecupgambleranch.com. 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. 107 Ex. 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. ECF No. "); Shamnoski v. PG Energy, 579 Pa. 652, 671 (Pa. 2004) (reasoning that for a negligence per se holding, "the statute at issue would have to be so specific as to leave little question that a person or entity found in violation of it deviated from a reasonable standard of care." C.) However, Mr. Worden did not produce any ESI from his devices and admits that the ESI was lost from his electronic devices. Altogether, both ranches encompass one million acres257,000 are deeded, and the remainder is private leases. 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." Likewise, Union Pacific's other arguments go to the weight of his testimony, not admissibility, and are best left to vigorous cross examination. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, Case No. 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. The record supports that Winecup had policies and procedures for monitoring and inspecting the dams, including the water level, inflow, and operational controls. Winecup Gamble, Inc v Gordon Ranch LP | 20-16411 - UniCourt 132) is GRANTED. of San Bernardino, 750 F. App'x 534, 537 (9th Cir. 157-31; 157-32. "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." Union Pacific's seventh motion in limine to bar Winecup's contributory negligence defense and Derek Godwin's contributory negligence opinion (ECF No. ECF No. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18, U.S. District Courts | Contract | 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.[12043697]. SEND MQ: Yes. 15, 2021) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit reversed entry of terminating sanctions, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. 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. 125) is granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. A.) 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. Godwin further testified that he had reviewed Union Pacific's rerouting costs and crew costs as provided, and the number of trains per day. Godwin testified at his deposition that he was familiar with what railroads need to consider when addressing rerouting, including which tracks were in service, crew variability, how many crews they have on standby, how many trains are running per day. & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. 120-3. 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. See FED. ECF No. 132) is granted. Motions in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or to weigh evidence, and evidence should not be excluded prior to trial unless the "evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. See NAC 535.055 ("Inflow design flood" means "a hypothetical flood of a given magnitude that is used to determine the design of a dam and its related hydraulic features.
Will Chicken Feathers Grow Back After Attack,
Common Modal Annuitization Payout Options,
Articles W