IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
LANDRY & FOY BUILDERS, INC.,)
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. CV 157690
)
KRISTIN DYER, ERIC LECHNER, )
AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, )
INCLUSIVE, )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________)
DEPOSITION OF GREG FOY
VOLUME II
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Time: 11:10 A.M.
Location: Hartsell & Olivieri
621-A Water Street
Santa Cruz, California
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Plaintiff:
BURTON, VOLKMANN & SCHMAL, LLP
BY: ANNA DiBENEDETTO,
Attorney at Law
133 Mission Street, Suite 102
Santa Cruz, California 95060
(831) 425-5023
For the Defendants:
REDENBACHER & BROWN
BY: GARY REDENBACHER,
Attorney at Law
1414 Soquel Avenue, Suite 212
Santa Cruz, California 95060
(831) 439-8821
Reported By:
RINDON HEINZ, CSR No. 7891
Hartsell & Olivieri
621-A Water Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 423-5911
(831) 423-7189 (Fax)
ALSO PRESENT: Bob Landry,
Eric Lechner
I N D E X
EXAMINATIONS: PAGE:
By Mr. Redenbacher 70
EXHIBITS: PAGE:
Deposition Exhibit 22 82
(Three pages of
photocopied photographs)
Deposition Exhibit 23 85
(Three original
photographs)
Deposition Exhibit 24 112
(Page of photocopied
photographs)
Deposition Exhibit 25 114
(E-mail to Kristin Dyer
from Greg Foy, dated
September 26, 2008)
Deposition Exhibit 26 116
(Landry & Foy Builders
proposal, dated 4/3/07)
Deposition Exhibit 27 125
(Hand-drawn window
styles)
Deposition Exhibit 28 126
(Original photograph)
(Continued next page)
EXHIBITS: PAGE:
Deposition Exhibit 29 129
(Original photograph)
Deposition Exhibit 30 142
(Original photograph)
GREG FOY,
being duly sworn by the Certified Shorthand Reporter
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, testified as follows:
CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. REDENBACHER
Q. Mr. Foy, you recall that you are under oath
here?
A. Yes.
Q. That continues day to day.
A. Okay.
Q. First thing I'd like to do is revisit our
foundation.
Remember, we talked about there was a couple
of choices of foundations --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- as you best remembered it?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, you thought that you
had heard from Kristin who had heard from Hugh Zike
that you had a choice of doing either the pad-and-pier
foundation for the perimeter foundation. Is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any discussions in the office as
to which foundations should be used?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. Were -- do you know if there's any
evaluations on the site as to which would be a better
foundation to use?
A. No.
Q. All you got was some sort of a discussion
with Kristin about using the pier-and-pad one?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you remember anything else about that
conversation?
A. I was looking through the e-mails last night
and there was one from Kristin that said Hugh indicated
that it was either/or. That was what I remember about
the discussion.
Q. And was that e-mail about what, September,
October --
A. That was during the -- the estimating
process.
Q. So that would have been some time before
August?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there any -- did you -- had you done a
site evaluation? You said you had done one presite
inspection; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But at that point, as I recall, you testified
that you hadn't done any investigation of the
foundation at that presite visit.
A. No.
MR. REDENBACHER: Okay. Let's go next in
line.
THE REPORTER: 22.
(Exhibit identified: Deposition 22.)
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Thanks.
MR. REDENBACHER: I'll represent to you these
are photos we got from your CD.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. REDENBACHER: Q. And do you
recognize any of these photographs?
A. That's their house.
Q. And I'm trying to find the number.
If we look at Photo No. 133, if you can find
that.
A. Yes.
Q. Are you able to determine from that
photograph where that is on the -- let me help you out.
Go to photograph 123.
Does that help you in determining where
No. 133 is?
A. I can't really tell where that is on the
house.
Q. Okay. I'll just represent to you that this
is the back wall of the house.
And do you know what kind of foundation that
is that we're looking at in 123?
A. What's the back wall? According to the
plans?
Q. The rear of the property, so it would be --
the front porch is here (indicating), the back wall
would be -- and we're looking at Exhibit 4, page A --
is that -- "1? -- A-1, the very front, and pointing to
the wall between the deck and the kitchen
pantry/laundry area.
A. So what's the question?
Q. Do you recognize what kind of foundation this
is on the back wall?
A. Concrete.
Q. Do you know what -- would you agree that it's
usually called a pier foundation?
A. That is a pier where that 4-by-4 bears down.
Q. And then also on No. 123?
A. Yes, that's a pier.
Q. We see at least two piers in No. 123; and if
you look carefully, there's a third one. I'll
represent to you that third one off in the distance is
the one that -- 133.
Can you agree with that, or is it just not
clear to you?
A. It could be.
Q. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is,
there's just -- there's nothing but piers across the
back wall. Is that correct?
A. It appears so.
Q. If we go to Exhibit 4, page A-4 or A-5 --
A-4. If you look at the first floor framing plan on
the back deck, would you agree that we have braced wall
line all the way across the back line?
No. 2, No. 2 (indicating).
A. Yes.
Q. If we again look at these photographs,
No. 123 and No. 134, this was before any construction
had begun on the piers and the pads. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm curious, had you had any thoughts on how
you would secure the braced wall line with the
pier-and-pad foundation, rather than a perimeter
foundation on that back wall?
A. Do I have any thoughts?
Q. Yes.
A. It appears that there was no foundation
there.
Q. So nothing to tie the brace line in with?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. And this is the hard question: Why proceed
with the pier-and-pad foundation if it was an either/or
situation when the pier-and-pad foundation obviously
couldn't work?
A. We didn't proceed with the pier-and-pad
foundation.
MR. REDENBACHER: I think those three will do
it. Why don't we mark these as a set as the next in
line.
(Exhibit identified: Deposition 23.)
MR. REDENBACHER: I'm handing you now some
photographs.
If we look at Exhibit No. 23, can you see
what is underneath the house? Obviously, there's
formwork for what appears to be a stem wall --
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
MR. REDENBACHER: -- but there's --
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. REDENBACHER: -- but also the first floor
deck is being held up by what appears to be a series of
piers and posts.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And if we look at another photograph in this
series of three photographs, we see a number of piers
and excavations for piers and posts being installed.
A. Yes.
Q. And then the third picture shows what appears
to be newly poured concrete with a pier being set in it
inside the foundation.
A. Okay.
Q. So with those three photographs, I'm not sure
I'm understanding your answer when you said that you
didn't proceed with the pier-and-post foundation.
A. We had to hold the deck up while we poured
the perimeter foundation there, for one thing.
Q. Why would do you it with permanent piers and
posts rather than temporary shoring?
A. Because the floor joists were overspanned, so
we figured we'll just put these piers in there, too, to
decrease the span of the floor joists.
Q. Did you get a change order for that?
A. Um, a change order from who?
Q. From the -- well, I suppose from the city.
I'm just curious about why permanent work was
necessary.
So are you saying that you didn't excavate or
do any of the work for the pier-and-pad foundation at
all?
A. I don't recall, but I know that we put piers
in, and we put -- we had to hold the deck up --
Q. Uh-huh.
A. -- so we figured, let's not do it twice;
let's do it once.
Q. Why would you need -- we're looking at
Exhibit -- is it 23 again? -- a photo that shows a
large excavation for what appears to be a pad.
If it was only going to be temporary to hold
the decking up temporarily, why would you need to
excavate?
A. I'm not sure what that hole is for.
Q. Let's go back to this photo with the newly
poured concrete and the pier.
Why is there any -- why is there the
necessity to actually excavate and pour a pad for a
pier when it's just going to be temporary?
A. I believe we left 'em in there. I don't
think they were temporary.
Q. But according to the engineer, the perimeter
foundation was sufficient to support the floor. Is
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think you told me that there was an
existing grade beam down the middle of the
foundation --
A. Yes.
Q. -- so I'm having difficulty understanding
whether this was all work that wasn't necessary.
I guess what I'm having a hard time
understanding is, why do permanent work if something is
just going to be temporary, so it seems to me, a lot of
extra work?
A. I seem to recall talking to Charles about it,
and since we were going to have to support the floor
system while we tore out the old stem wall foundation
that was insufficient, and since the plans had called
for these pier blocks in between midspan, that -- and
this floor system was pretty weak, so we -- let's put
these piers in, it will decrease the deflection in the
floor, the floor won't be as bouncy, because it will
have additional midspan support, and since we have to
support the floor anyway while we're doing this
foundation work, we are just killing two birds with one
stone there.
Q. Did you give a credit -- or would there --
wouldn't there be a credit for not having to do the
large piers and pads?
MS. DiBENEDETTO: I don't -- I think --
objection. The question is somewhat vague and
ambiguous and may misstate prior testimony.
I don't think he said that they didn't need
to do it. I think he said why they did it.
MR. REDENBACHER: Okay.
Q. So is that true that you did both
foundations?
A. I don't think we did.
Q. But you --
A. Those -- these are pier blocks.
Q. Correct.
A. These are not pier blocks (indicating).
Q. Right. And I guess that's my question.
I wasn't sure if Anna was saying that you did
do 'em -- you did do 'em because you thought it would
help or you didn't do 'em.
A. I don't think we did these pier -- these pads
(indicating), bearing pads on the exterior perimeter
foundation.
Q. Okay. So you managed to avoid doing these
large bearing pads?
A. I think there we did a bearing pad -- I think
these bearing pads remained because those are under
posts supporting -- I think those are supporting beams
in the second-floor system.
Q. So to the best of your recollection, you just
didn't pour four bearing pads?
A. That's my recollection.
Q. But you did all the other piers and posts?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Okay.
A. We did what was necessary to support the
deck.
Q. So it was your understanding that when Hugh
Zike said you could do either/or, he meant not really
either/or, he meant you still had to do all these piers
and pads that are supporting the first-floor joists,
the only ones you could go without were these four that
are in the perimeter of the foundation?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Have you any idea how much was estimated for
the cost of the foundation before it was determined
you'd go to a perimeter foundation?
A. I don't know how much the estimate was for
the foundation right now.
Q. Okay. Do you recall when you got the -- do
you have any kind of a schedule of when you broke
ground when you are doing the foundation? That would
be reflected in your time sheets; correct?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Is it -- do you have any kind of Pert chart
or Gant chart that illustrates the tasks being
performed?
A. I don't have any.
Q. I didn't see any offhand.
A. Okay. We use a dry erase board at the shop
that we use with the schedules for jobs.
Q. So if I can make sure I've clarified, as far
as you know, the entire foundation was built, with the
exception of these four large pads that are in the
perimeter foundation; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that decision was made even though Hugh
Zike said you can choose either/or?
A. The decision was made after we began
construction.
Q. I'm sorry, what -- what kind of construction
had you already done? Were you halfway in? I mean,
what stage were you at when the decision had been made?
A. Um, it was fairly soon after we began
construction.
Q. Was it after demolition --
A. Yes.
Q. -- I assume?
And the first floor walls were still
standing, just stripped from the outside?
A. I believe, yes.
Q. Had you begun any excavation under the house
before this was discovered?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Excuse me, I need to get something.
Is there anything else you can recall about
the foundation in conversations with Charles Campbell?
A. No.
Q. Any conversations that you had with
Mr. Landry?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any conversations at all with
Mr. Landry regarding the foundation?
A. Yes.
Q. What were those about the foundation?
A. What?
Q. Yes, what about the foundation?
A. I don't recall exactly what we said; but I
remember, yes, we did have conversations about the
foundation.
Q. Can you remember generally what they were
about?
A. About the need to replace the existing
perimeter foundation.
Q. Did either of you contact the engineer about
that?
A. I don't remember who contacted the engineer.
Q. Did you ask for clarification?
A. From?
Q. The engineer, or, I guess, you guys were
looking to Hugh Zike, although he was the architect.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Who works with an engineer
or for an engineer.
MR. REDENBACHER: Right.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Streeter Group.
MR. REDENBACHER: But it would have to be
signed off by a P.E.
THE WITNESS: I don't really remember exactly
who said what and how it came about.
BY MR. REDENBACHER: Q. Was Mr. Landry --
he wasn't the project manager on this particular
project?
A. No.
Q. To what degree was he involved?
A. He's generally aware of what happens at all
the jobs --
Q. What --
A. -- since we have meetings at the -- at the
company about all the jobs.
Q. But he wasn't directly involved in this
particular project?
A. Not -- not specifically.
Q. Do you remember what tasks, if any, he did
perform on this job?
A. I think he communicated occasionally with the
owners, and he was at the weekly meetings with the
foreman from this job to discuss the issues pertaining
to this job, and he was present during discussions
between Andy Spring and I concerning this job.
Q. As the project manager, were you generally
the decision maker or was Mr. Landry?
A. No, I was the decision maker.
Q. Can you recall any decisions that Mr. Landry
made, though?
A. No.
Q. Do you know who actually did the work of
putting the pads and the piers in, the ones that are
there right now?
A. Charles Campbell and the other crew that were
at that job site.
Q. Okay. And are you familiar, did they
actually excavate for each of these pads?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. I'm curious about the two central pads.
Do you remember any conversations with anyone
regarding those two central pads that are in the middle
of the foundation?
A. Well, I do remember having conversations
about this. Let's see.
There's a big beam on page A-4, the second
floor framing plan.
Q. Cross-section C?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you saying that you wanted to put in
those two pads to support that beam that was going
across?
A. It appears that that pad would be in order to
support that beam.
Q. Does that mean that you only put in one pad
or did you put in the two since they are perpendicular
to the beam?
A. There were some other beams in the ceiling
that look like they might land down on that other pad.
Q. I see that there are a number of existing
footings underneath the house if we look at Exhibit 23,
right here, we can see there's a number of other
existing footings and piers underneath the house.
Do you recall why you didn't consider those
interior footings adequate to support just the first
floor deck?
A. No.
Q. Did you remove those interior footings and
posts?
A. I don't remember.
Q. It's like a pony wall under there, isn't it,
but it isn't sheathed?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's see if we can see on the floor plan if
they have any existing -- where the existing footings
underneath are.
If we look on page A-1, it really doesn't
say.
Do you know of anywhere where existing
footings and cripple or pony walls are supporting the
floor?
A. Look on the foundation plan.
Q. Okay. It's not perfectly clear.
A. I think this dotted line down the center --
Q. Okay.
A. -- perhaps --
Q. The dotted line --
A. -- refers to that grade beam.
Q. -- on page A-5.
And it looks like there's another dotted line
that comes across that is between the two proposed pads
in the middle. And then you have another dotted line
at the back -- not quite at the back foundation.
Do you recall any of those underneath the
house?
MS. DiBENEDETTO: I'm sorry, recall?
MR. REDENBACHER: Any of these footings.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay.
MR. REDENBACHER: We see the footing in the
photograph --
THE WITNESS: Yes, there were some footings.
MR. REDENBACHER: -- on photo -- or
Exhibit 23.
Q. And aren't these footings just going to
support the weight of the floor and perhaps a wall
above?
A. In some places, yes.
Q. None of 'em are really meant to be bearing.
All the weight is supposed to go on to the foundation
itself, which is shown in the foundation plan, would be
the post -- or the pads and the piers. Is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And this house was approximately 22- or
23-feet wide?
A. Yes.
Q. So with a beam running down the middle, the
largest span for a joist would be somewhere around
11 feet; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it your experience that joists, even
relatively small joists -- 2-by-6 -- can span around
11 feet, depending upon the species?
A. Yes.
Q. With that in mind, I'm still curious about
all of the piers and pads needed to be put into place.
A. Well, a lot of the floor joists were pretty
weak. It's an old house. You can span 12 feet with a
2-by-6, but it's going to be pretty springy.
Q. Were any alternatives suggested like
sistering or strong backing or anything like that?
A. I don't remember suggesting anything.
Q. Would you agree with me that excavating
underneath a house is time consuming and difficult?
A. It was a pretty good crawl space; it wasn't
too tight on this particular house, but yeah, it's
difficult.
Q. Wouldn't it have been easier to have just
either sistered the joists or strong-backed them or
something else, where you wouldn't have to be digging
under a house?
A. I can't really say without, you know,
figuring it -- it out.
Q. Okay. I wanted to go back to any
conversations you might have had with anyone regarding
the braced wall panels.
We talked about it already, that on the one
hand the plans said you do it one side, or the plans
said you do it on both sides, but somebody -- you think
it was Hugh Zike, is that correct?" -- said you should
do it on both sides, the braced wall panels?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you recall any other conversations you
had, say, with Mr. Landry about that?
A. Not particularly.
Q. No.
A. I remember having conversations, but I don't
remember exactly what we talked about.
Q. Any other thoughts about ways to make sure
that you do it just on one side of the wall rather than
two?
A. We had intended to do it on one side
originally.
Q. Let's -- actually, if you refer to -- back to
Exhibit 22, we can see that's a -- I tried to take the
dimensions of the studs there.
A. Which photo?
Q. 125 and 126.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Probably the best one is 127. It appears to
show that that stud falls right on the three-inch mark.
Is that what appears to you?
A. No.
Q. You are going to say it's less, I'm sure.
A. I'm going to say it's two-and-a-half inches.
Q. Okay.
A. And look at 126 and 125, that looks like
two-and-a-half inches.
Q. We'll have to agree to disagree there.
Would you agree --
A. To me that's clearly two-and-a-half inches on
125.
Q. Yeah, it's not a good angle; I would agree
with you about that.
So you can't really tell, although I believe
it's closer to three, we'll just let it go.
Can you tell, just from looking at that -- of
course you didn't measure the width of the studs;
right?
A. No, I don't see any photos showing a tape
measure measuring the width of the studs.
Q. 127. Okay. So we can't really determine
cross-sectional area of the studs by these; but as far
as you know, you never discussed, um, the ability of
these studs to bear the weight of the second story?
A. I think we did discuss it.
Q. Okay. Actually, a lot of the weight was
going to be borne by the 4-by-4 posts for the panels?
A. Probably, yeah.
Q. Okay.
MR. LECHNER: Here's the picture. I'll pass
it over in just a second.
MR. REDENBACHER: It's two and
three-quarters.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: If we're going to get it on
the record, then we'll need to get a copy of it, the
photograph.
MR. LECHNER: You gave us this.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Let's get a number.
MR. LECHNER: It's 127, the three digit
number 126, 127.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: 126.
MR. LECHNER: 126.
THE WITNESS: That's this one, I think.
MR. LECHNER: You see the tape measure on
that one?
MS. DiBENEDETTO: No, it's this one, just
closer.
BY MR. REDENBACHER: Q. So can you recall
any further conversations, um, once you found the studs
were whatever measurement they were?
A. (Witness shaking head.)
Q. Why was it that you decided to tear off --
tear it down completely?
A. No.
Q. No thoughts about that.
No conversations with Mr. Landry about it?
A. I don't recall particularly.
Q. How about Charles Campbell?
A. I don't recall any specific conversation.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Landry talked with
Mr. Campbell about it?
A. I don't.
Q. Was Mr. Landry on site very often?
A. Not very often.
Q. Anything else at all that you can recall
about that decision to tear down the walls?
A. No.
Q. I'm curious, did you ever do any RFIs to
either the architect or the engineer regarding either
the foundation or redoing the walls?
A. No, we -- we just phoned or e-mailed.
Q. I didn't see any e-mails from Landry and Foy
to the architect or the engineer.
Do you recall any?
A. Well, I think, um, since -- I think we
referred that to Kristin, because they were the ones
that were paying the architect and the engineer --
Q. Uh-huh.
A. -- so the chain of command was, we'd kind of
ask Kristin to contact the architects and engineers;
and at one point, the architect told us not to call
him.
Q. Not to call him?
A. Yeah.
Q. Why was that?
A. I don't know why.
Q. Don't you have to have approval from the
engineer before you make structural changes?
A. The architect told us not to talk -- not to
contact him.
Q. When you say "the architect," you are talking
about Hugh Zike?
A. Winston Whitaker.
Q. Oh, Winston Whitaker.
A. Yeah.
Q. Didn't he just quit the job?
A. I don't know.
Q. But afterwards, were you -- weren't you
utilizing -- or not "you" necessarily, but wasn't the
project utilizing Hugh Zike of Streeter Group as the
architect?
A. I believe so.
Q. And I guess that's what -- that's my
question:
Did you have any conversations, any RFIs, any
e-mails going back and forth between yourself and
this -- you know, Brad Streeter, the engineer, or Hugh
Zike, the architect?
A. I had phone conversations with Hugh; I know
Andy had phone conversations with Hugh, and I believe
Charles had phone conversations with Hugh, also met
with Hugh at the job site.
Q. And where --
A. And I think I met with Hugh at the job site
one time.
Q. Did --
A. And we -- but we didn't do RFIs. You know,
we had formal RFIs and there were a couple of e-mails
that Kristin forwarded to us that were from Hugh --
Q. Okay.
A. -- or from the Streeter Group.
Q. Do you know if you had gotten actual approval
from the engineer to move forward with this the way the
foundation eventually was built?
A. I can't remember what specifically we got, as
far as instructions on how to proceed.
Q. Do you know if anybody else received those
instructions, the office received it, Mr. Landry,
anybody?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now, did you have much in the way of
communications, written communications with Eric and
Kristin?
A. I would get carbon copied on a lot of the
e-mails.
Q. Would you send much in the way of e-mails?
A. Occasionally.
Q. When I looked through the e-mails, I only
found a handful, and by "a handful," after September,
four or five.
Does that sound right?
A. I think that I have more e-mails that I
didn't produce.
MR. REDENBACHER: Would you be able to
produce those, Anna?
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Yeah.
Those would be e-mails that you didn't get to
me?
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay.
THE WITNESS: But not very many.
BY MR. REDENBACHER: Q. Do you know where
these e-mails are residing, what computer?
A. They are in mine.
Q. Is it your office computer?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a server that is a central
repository for e-mails, or is it --
A. I'm not sure.
Q. You are not sure if it's resident on your
computer or on a central server?
A. Right.
Q. Do you have a central server? Let me back
up.
Do you know what a central server is?
A. Our computers are networked at work, so
that's as far as I know -- I mean, that's all I know.
Q. So you don't know whether it's what's called
a "pier to pier"?
A. I don't know, right.
Q. Okay. Can you tell me about how you go about
finding employees?
A. Um, first thing we do is ask our existing
employees, if they know anyone that could be available;
and after that, we would put an ad in the paper asking
for resumes.
Q. And when people apply, do you put them
through -- how do you go about determining, you know,
whether you want to hire them or not?
A. Oh, we interview them, look at their resume,
um, hire them on a trial basis --
Q. When you say --
A. -- see how it works out.
Q. When you say "a trial basis," how -- what
does that mean?
A. Well, we -- it's at-will employment, I think
it's called; so they are not contracted to -- to work
for any duration of time. So, you know, in
construction, there's quite a bit of turnover --
Q. Uh-huh.
A. -- so...
Q. Do you supervise your people out in the
field? Do you personally supervise them?
A. Yes.
Q. So how long do you actually sit there and
supervise them, a new employee out in the field?
A. I just observe, when I'm there, how they
manage themselves.
Q. Okay. So you don't actually sit there and
work with them for a day or two; it's just as you go
around the project, you observe?
A. I work with them occasionally.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: I belatedly object, it's
overbroad.
BY MR. REDENBACHER: Q. Do you do any kind
of skills testing before you hire?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the names of the carpenters and
helpers that worked on this job here?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you give me those names and phone
numbers?
A. I don't know their phone numbers off the top
of my head, but there was Charles Campbell.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. Um, Pete Killborn, Matt Eversole, Brandon, I
can't remember his last name right now. Rudy worked
there, um, I think, um -- what was that guy's name? --
there was a couple other guys that don't work for us
anymore that were there occasionally, and I think Lou
Tweddle put in some hours there toward the end. That's
all I can remember right now.
Q. Which of those were -- would be considered
journeyman carpenters?
A. Pete Killborn -- oh, Dave DiRienzo worked
there, too.
Q. So which of those would you consider
journeyman, just Pete Killborn?
A. Pete, Matt and Dave.
Q. What would -- is Charles Campbell considered
a journeyman?
A. Yes, Charles was the foreman on the job.
Q. Yeah, he was also the foreman, okay.
How does -- how do you determine whether
someone has achieved a journeyman level of skill?
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Lacks foundation as to the
definition of journeyman if we can establish that
first.
THE WITNESS: Um, I don't really go by the
"journeyman" definition.
BY MR. REDENBACHER: Q. What definition do
you use, or how do you determine their skill level?
A. I determine -- I -- I -- we use apprentice
carpenter and foreman as skill levels.
Q. Do you have any laborers?
A. Yes, that -- those are the apprentices.
Q. So you charge for a laborer at the same rate
as you do for an apprentice?
A. Yes.
Q. And on this particular job, you were charging
$43 an hour?
A. I think so.
Q. Do you know what you would actually pay your
laborers?
A. They get $18 an hour.
Q. There were some other names on here. Do you
recognize them: Claudio Castorena?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he laborer/apprentice?
A. He's an apprentice.
Q. Apprentice.
And you would just lump them all together.
You don't distinguish between an apprentice and a
laborer?
A. No.
Q. Would an apprentice actually do carpentry?
A. Yes.
Q. So all of these could do carpentry?
A. Yes.
Q. Jeff Bellucci?
A. Yes.
Q. Gavin Riordan?
A. He's a carpenter.
Q. He would be a more established carpenter than
journeyman?
A. Yes.
Q. Mark Tegenkap?
A. He might have been a painter.
Q. How about Rick Armicotto?
A. Laborer.
Q. And Tim Kennedy?
A. He's a painter.
Q. Okay. Now, were you generally one that was
in charge of ordering materials for the project?
A. No.
Q. Who was in charge of that?
A. Charles.
Q. Was that a duty that you bestowed on him or
was it foisted on him?
A. Oh, that's a normal job for the foreman.
Q. The foreman generally?
A. That's a normal tack for the foreman to
perform.
Q. Did you ever tell him that you would be
ordering materials?
A. Occasionally I do order materials, yes.
Q. Who usually does the take-offs?
A. Andy Spring. He does the take-offs for the
estimating.
Q. Does he do the take-offs in the field?
A. No.
Q. Who would usually do the take-offs in the
field?
A. The foreman.
MR. REDENBACHER: I'm going to add as next in
line here, No. 24.
(Exhibit identified: Deposition 24.)
BY MR. REDENBACHER: Q. Looking at
Exhibit No. 24, do you recognize any of these photos?
A. Yeah.
Q. What are -- what look to be trim frames?
A. What are they?
Q. All right. I guess a better question is:
Where did they come from?
A. That is window trim. I believe it's from the
bedrooms.
Q. From the bedrooms.
Are they pieces of trim that you pulled off
that you were going to reuse, what was it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, by chance, do these trim frames for
the Lechners?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that the style that they were looking
to have put throughout the house? Is that why you
saved that?
A. We saved it because we were going to put them
back up, yes.
Q. And I see here that there appears to be a
particular style of trim around the doors as well on
Exhibit 24.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the style that was throughout the
house?
A. Yes.
Q. So this was the style that you were going to
duplicate throughout the house?
A. Yes.
MR. REDENBACHER: I'm going to have marked
next in line here.
(Exhibit identified: Deposition 25.)
MR. REDENBACHER: I think this is one of the
communications you mentioned about Hugh Zike, I assume,
is who you were referring to in this Exhibit --
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
MR. REDENBACHER: -- 25.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. REDENBACHER: Q. Can you remember
any more about that conversation you had with Hugh
where he said that three-quarter inch on one side does
not meet code requirements?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Did it put up any red flags for you when you
got that conversation with Hugh Zike?
A. Red flags?
Q. Anything that said: now, wait a minute. I
know that sheer panel walls braced walls can handle one
side, anything like that?
A. No.
Q. No other conversation that you recall with
anyone regarding this?
A. I don't recall any specific conversations.
Q. You see the little message down below in
parentheses?
A. Yes.
Q. "Why were any of the shear walls designed to
require materials on both sides since maintaining the
finish on one side of the wall was one of the original
design criteria?"
That was Kristin's question to you; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you were just answering, Well,
that's the way Hugh wants it?
A. Well, I answered Winston intended to save the
interior finishes.
Q. I see.
A. I mean, obviously, that's why Winston just
wanted to put plywood on the outside, three-quarter
inch plywood.
Q. Yeah, of course.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but did
you ever go to the plans and say, well, the plans say
we can do it on one side and call Hugh and say, Why are
you telling me this? The plans say I can do it on one
side.
A. I didn't argue the point with Hugh. I know
that.
Q. Okay.
A. I -- I -- I was surprised as well.
MR. REDENBACHER: Okay. Let's to this No. 26
here.
(Exh