Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Winecup Gamble, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 5, 2018

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., a Nevada corporation; and PAUL FIREMAN, an individual, Defendants.

          PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER Michael R. Kealy, Bar No. 971 Ashley C. Nikkei, Bar No. 12838 Attorneys for Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company

          SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P. William E. Peterson, Bar No. 1525 Ryan Stodtmeister, Bar No. 14281 - and -David J. Jordan, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Michael R. Menssen, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Stoel Rives, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Winecup Gamble, Inc., and for Defendant Paul Fireman

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

          VALERIE P. COOKE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ("Plaintiff'), Defendant WINECUP GAMBLE, INC. ("Winecup"), and Defendant PAUL FIREMAN (collectively, "Defendants") hereby submit the following Joint Case Management Report ahead of the case management conference scheduled for July 9, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

         The following discovery has been performed to Dated:

         1. Defendant Fireman served Plaintiff with his First Set of Discovery Requests, consisting of interrogatories and requests for production of documents on December 18, 2017.

         2. Plaintiff provided responses to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents on January 29, 2018.

         3. Due to objections to many of the requests for production of documents, the parties held a telephonic meet and confer on February 2, 2018.

         4. Plaintiff made an initial production of 72 documents (bates range UP-004880 through UP-006265) in response to the requests for production of documents on April 13, 2018, none of which were email correspondence.

         5. On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff served Defendant Winecup Gamble, Inc. with its first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The responses were submitted on April 12, 2018. A first set of documents were produced on Friday, May 11, 2018, a second set of responses, consisting of videos, on Tuesday, May 15, 2018, and a final set on July 3, 2018.

         6. Defendants took the 30(b)(6) deposition of the the Nevada Division of Water Resources on April 18, 2018. The Nevada Division of Water Resources disclosed documents to Defendants prior to that deposition, but did not provide the documents to Plaintiff until the deposition began. Plaintiff has since received those documents, but objected to the late disclosure because it hindered Union Pacific's ability to depose the witnesses since the nature of the testimony stressed the content and specifics of many of the documents.

         7. The parties held a telephone conference on May 9, 2018, and discussed a number of outstanding discovery issues, including the status of Defendants' initial disclosures and document responses to Plaintiffs request for production of documents, clarification of Plaintiff s supplemental disclosure and amended interrogatories, and potential future site visits.

         8. The parties met again telephonically on May 31, 2018 concerning search terms, expert disclosures, and production of documents. Winecup Gamble raised the concern that the issue of search terms was being raised for the first time five and a half months after the request for production was served and that the delay of the document production was prejudicial to Winecup Gamble. Union Pacific stated that it thought the issue of search terms had been raised earlier and was seeking to correct the oversight. Union Pacific stated it was attempting to respond in a diligent fashion, but the amount of documents to review is voluminous. Union Pacific stated that it had narrowed its list of custodians to thirteen individuals and developed a list of proposed search terms and date ranges, and estimated at that time that it would take until the end of June to produce documents.

         9. On June 4, 2018, the parties attended a monthly case management conference with the Honorable Magistrate Judge Cooke and discussed the status of discovery; upon the parties' request, the Court agreed to extend discovery deadlines by ninety days. The Court also discussed the transition of the case between magistrate judges in the wake of Magistrate Judge Cooke's retirement, and the parties and Court agreed to set monthly case management conferences through the end of the year. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.