Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Winecup Ranch, LLC et al

Filing 187

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Union Pacific's ECF No. 137 Motion for a Hearing Schedule and Evidentiary Daubert Hearing; granting in part and denying in part Winecup Gamble's ECF No. 180 Motion for Oral Argument Hearing; directing the parties to seek leave of the Court before filing any additional motions in limine. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/17/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Case 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB Document 187 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10

***
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB
a Delaware corporation,
ORDER
Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13
14
15

WINECUP RANCH, LLC, an Idaho Limited
Liability Company; and WINECUP
GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation; and
PAUL FIREMAN, an individual,
Defendants,

16
17

On June 8, 2020, the court granted Union Pacific Railroad Company’s (“Union Pacific”)

18

motion for leave to file two replies to three of its motions in limine. ECF No. 177. In part, this was

19

granted because Winecup Ranch, LLC, Winecup Gamble, Inc., and Paul Fireman (collectively

20

“Winecup Gamble”) did not oppose the motion. On June 12, 2020, Winecup Gamble filed a reply

21

to its first motion in limine. ECF No. 182. This was inadvertently filed, as replies to motions in

22

limine without leave of the court are not permitted, and Winecup Gamble subsequently motioned

23

to withdraw its reply on June 15, 2020. ECF No. 184. Accordingly, on the same day, Winecup

24

Gamble filed its motion for leave to file a reply to its first motion in limine. ECF No. 183.

25

Union Pacific indicated that it would not oppose a request by Winecup Gamble to file a

26

reply (see ECF No. 174 at 3); therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Winecup Gamble’s motion for

27

leave to file a reply to its first motion in limine (ECF No. 183) and its motion to withdraw its reply

28

(ECF No. 184) are DENIED as moot, and the court will consider its reply as filed (ECF No. 182).
1

Case 3:17-cv-00477-LRH-CLB Document 187 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 2

The court has reviewed the pending motions in limine and for Daubert hearings and hereby

1
2

approves oral argument upon the following at the upcoming June 25, 2020 hearing:

3

•

Union Pacific’s Fifth and Sixth Motion in Limine (ECF No. 139)

4

•

Union Pacific’s Seventh Motion in Limine (ECF No. 124)

5

•

Winecup Gamble’s First Motion in Limine (ECF No. 141)

6

•

No oral argument shall be permitted on motions not listed above, and the court finds that

7

an evidentiary hearing is not required at this time.

8

Accordingly, Union Pacific’s motion for a hearing schedule and evidentiary Daubert hearing (ECF

9

No. 137) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Winecup Gamble’s motion for oral

10

argument hearing (ECF No. 180) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court approves

11

the parties’ request that this hearing be held via ZOOM video conferencing, and Courtroom

12

Deputy, Katie Ogden, will provide the parties with instructions.

13
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to seek leave of the court before filing
any additional motions in limine.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED this 17th day of June, 2020.

18

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2