Slendytubbies 3 Sandbox Apk Android, 757 Field Hockey, Articles W

. 405, 406 (W.D. 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. [20-16411] (AD) [Entered: 07/29/2020 06:44 PM], (#4) The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/28/2020. 127) is denied without prejudice. Lindon's criticism of Union Pacific's hydrology expert, Daryoush Razavian, are admissible. 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. Little pre-trial motion practice has occurred in this case other than the 27 pending motions in limine. ECF No. 168 at 2. Transcript due 09/21/2020. 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. Here, there can be no dispute that the parties are not the same and the subject matter is differentthis is a negligence action while Gordon Ranch was a contract dispute. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Thitchener, 192 P.3d 243, 252-53 (Nev 2008) (citing Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 5 P.3d 1043, 1052 (2000)). How beavers make the desert bloom - High Country News 3:17-CV-00477 | 2017-08-10, U.S. District Courts | Property | 120-1 at 5. 107 Ex. [11762326] (JBS) [Entered: 07/22/2020 02:44 PM], U.S. Courts Of Appeals | Property | 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. Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP - UniCourt Thitchener, 192 P.3d at 255. During the initial proceeding, the jury will decide whether Winecup acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides that "[i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness . ; ECF No. Ins. 36 Ex. 141-2 6. Prior to the flood, there were earthen embankments and culverts at the washout locations. 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. H at 1 (Privilege Log noting that Mr. Worden sent an email with the Bates Number "REV00000041" summarized as "Email re response to Margaret Ludewig" dated March 6, 2017.). In April 2018, the parties deposed Holt and Quaglieri, and in April 2019, the parties deposed Opperman. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and OLGUIN, District Judge. Additionally, Union Pacific does not object to Winecup providing jurors with their own binders. 157-32 at 2. Further, whether Winecup presents sufficient evidence during trial to support giving the jury an Act of God instruction must be determined at trial. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/16/2021. 160-4 at 6. Winecup opposes, arguing that (1) it has not admitted these facts and they are not "undisputed;" (2) the facts are irrelevant; (3) Worden is a third-party witness whose deposition testimony is not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(8); and (4) that Union Pacific's failure to conduct this discovery during this case precludes it from now using the information. "Generally speaking, supplementation of an expert report is proper where it is based on new information obtained after the expert disclosure deadline and the supplemental report was served before the time for pretrial disclosures." ECF No. not exclude opinions merely because they are impeachable." 130) is denied without prejudice. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. As the ranch's manager, Rogers offered Winecup-Gamble as a test site for the researchers. ECF No. ECF No. During this period, Defendant claims to have discovered that Plaintiff's agent, Mr. Clay Worden, and its owner, Mr. Paul Fireman, deleted ESI pertinent to the factual issues of this case. Date of service: 07/29/2020. 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. 127. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. 175), are DENIED without prejudice. 139) is DENIED. [11769971] (BLS) [Entered: 07/28/2020 05:05 PM], Docket(#2) Filed (ECF) Appellant Winecup Gamble, Inc. 149) is granted. Accordingly, Union Pacific's third motion in limine (ECF No. 31). 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." Ind. Margrave v. Dermody Prop., 878 P.2d 291, 293 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); see LK Comstock & Co. v. United Eng. (ECF No. 18-16463-CIV-SELTZER, 2018 WL 4693526, at *1 (S.D. Second, as to the infiltration data, disagreements over data imputes are again best left to cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence. eDiscovery Assistant