3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Property | 143) is denied. Winecup's expert Derek Godwin provided opinions on three topics: (1) pre-flood design structures at mileposts 670.03, 672.14, 677.32, and 679.28; (2) re-routing costs and the reasonableness of the routes and costs; and (3) reconstruction costs and the reasonableness of replacement structures. See ECF No. 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." to simulate and re-create hydrologic process of watershed systems." 120-3. Fla. 2018) ("[T]he issue of whether there was a force majeure or Act of God that caused the incident is an issue of fact, which cannot be decided on a motion to strike."). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit did not rule on whether Plaintiff's interpretation of the contract constituted a penalty clause. The Court will address each in turn. 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. 34 Ex. 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. In October 2016, the parties entered into a detailed seventeen-page agreement, where Plaintiff was to sell a ranch property in Northern Nevada to Defendant. (Id. 3:20-CV-00293 | 2020-05-18. ECF No. 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. That is part of the adversarial processboth sides present their expert's opinions, challenging each other where they think the other erred, and then it is up to the jury to decide whom to believe. Date of service: 07/29/2020. Union Pacific does not argue that this modeling program is improper or not the industry standard model. Again, the Court agrees with Winecup: the Court cannot make a ruling on whether judicial notice is proper without sufficient information. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/29/2020 06:44 PM], Docket(#5) Filed (ECF) Appellee Gordon Ranch LP Mediation Questionnaire. 3:17-CV-00163 | 2017-03-16, U.S. District Courts | Property | 108 19. (Id.) James Rogers Email & Phone Number | ZoomInfo [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. . The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's twentieth motion in limine to permit Union Pacific witnesses to testify by video (ECF No. 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. 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. The provinces allowed casino games as well as horse tracks, and video lottery terminals. 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. The amended agreement is certainly not susceptible only to the interpretation adopted by the district court, regarding whether the amendment sought to change or modify the detailed risk-of-loss scheme detailed in the terms of the parties' original agreement. And such communications took place shortly after the flood on February 21, 2017. 176) is GRANTED. 195), and rules on all now pending. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Pacific's fifth and sixth motions in limine to Bar Two Opinions of Derek Godwin (ECF No. On October 15, 2018, the parties exchanged initial disclosures of expert witnesses: the plaintiff disclosed three experts with reports, and five experts without reports, and defendant disclosed two experts with reports. Godwin's opinions on pre-flood design structures are admissible. After reviewing this agreement and amendment, we disagree with the district court. 2000). Mediation Questionnaire. at 5. 111 at 16-17. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. 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. ECF No. See ECF No. ECF No. See Madrigal v Treasure Island Corp., Case No. Bates Land Consortium has closed 640 transactions - encompassing nearly 2,600,000 acres of deeded land - approaching $2.70 billion in total value. However, "[n]othing in NRS 41.141 prohibits a party defendant from attempting to establish that either no negligence occurred or that the entire responsibility for a plaintiff's injuries rests with nonparties[.]" 155-5. Winecup did not undertake a program for investigation of the hydraulic adequacy of 23 Mile dam with respect to flood and seeping under a full hydraulic head, admittedly a safety concern, as noted in the 2003 inspection report under long term actions (3 years). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that default judgment is entered in favor of Defendant's Counterclaim of Declaratory Relief (ECF No. Gallo v. Union Pacific R.R. Plaintiff had imposed an oral litigation hold that proved insufficient and a good deal of ESI went missing. Lindon's criticism of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, are admissible. 143. 126) is denied. winecup gamble ranches llc. 14. 120-1. 2001) (citation omitted). Id. The Court has "broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial," which includes "the power to exclude or admit expert testimony, and to exclude testimony of witnesses whose use at trial is in bad faith or would unfairly prejudice an opposing party." 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." 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."). [12100962] [21-15415] (Jordan, David) [Entered: 05/04/2021 09:06 AM], Docket(#6) Filed order MEDIATION (SMC): This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program.