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 MARK D. CORLEY
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Time: 5:13 P.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
Greg Foy
Eric Lechner
I N D E X
EXAMINATIONS: PAGE:
By Mr. Redenbacher 4
EXHIBITS: PAGE:
Deposition Exhibit 1 5
(Notice of Taking Deposition)
Deposition Exhibit 2 8
(Defendants' Disclosure of
Expert Witness information)
Deposition Exhibit 3 9
(Curriculum Vitae)
Deposition Exhibit 4 29
(Working File of
Mark D. Corley)
Deposition Exhibit 5 87
(Excerpt from California
Building Code)
MARK D. CORLEY,
being duly sworn by the Certified Shorthand Reporter
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MS. DiBENEDETTO
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Corley.
A. Good afternoon, Anna.
Q. We've met before, and my name is Anna
DiBenedetto, and as you know, I represent Landry and
Foy in this matter.
I'm going to try to dispense with the
admonitions, because I believe you've been deposed
before; correct?
A. I have not.
Q. Never been deposed before?
A. Never been deposed.
Q. Okays. Well, let me go through them --
really?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So let me go through them briefly.
You understand you are under oath?
A. Correct.
Q. You understand that we're going to be putting
together a transcript; you'll get an opportunity to
review that, and that if you make any substantive
changes to your testimony, that I could comment on that
at arbitration and it could affect your credibility.
Do you understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So I stress that only because it's
important that you give me your best estimate as to
things you may have, you know, a slight recollection
of. If you don't know something, you can certainly say
that and try to put forth your best testimony today so
you don't have to make any changes.
A. All right.
Q. Okay. Any reason why you can't proceed
today? Taking any medications that affect your ability
to recall events, anything like that?
A. None.
Q. Okay. Get my computer up because I have my
questions on here.
I'm going to go ahead and mark as Exhibit A
or 1 -- let's mark it as 1 -- the Notice of Deposition;
and I want you to mostly take a quick look at the
request for records at the back.
(Exhibit identified: Deposition 1.)
THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah, I've already got a
copy of this.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. And I notice that
you brought some documents with you.
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. So is what you
brought with you today completely responsive to the
request for records that's in this notice of
deposition?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. So items 1 through 4 have been
complied with with what you've brought today; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Could I take a look at your
documents --
A. Yes, you may.
Q. -- and look at them real quickly?
A. You may.
Q. Thank you.
Okay. Anything else?
A. Just a copy of the plans that I was given.
Q. Plans, is that the permit --
A. Permit set.
Q. Permit set. Okay. Great.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Let's go off just for a
minute, then, and let me copy -- I don't know other
than the photo CD there's not much. We'll just make a
photocopy and we'll go through it.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. Let's go off the
record.
(Recess taken.)
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Back on the record.
Q. So while the court reporter's office is
making copies of the rest of your job file, can you
identify for me what's on this photo CD?
A. That is a photo CD that was given to me by
Eric.
Q. Okay. Are there any photographs on this CD
that you yourself took?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. And, in fact, the copies of prints you are
making right now are from that CD.
Q. Okay.
A. Then I took those pictures and added the
verbiage to it that you see on my photographs.
Q. Okay. So the photographs that I'm making
copies of that I have hard copies, the only thing that
you did was just add verbiage?
A. Modified the information. I put the
information on the pictures.
Q. Okay. So you don't have any photographs
you've taken yourself?
A. Correct.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. And, Gary, can I
confirm with you that this is the disk of photographs
that was produced?
MR. REDENBACHER: I didn't give it to Mark,
so I wouldn't be able to tell you.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. At the very end,
I'll go through and kind of look through what's on it.
MR. REDENBACHER: Fine.
THE WITNESS: Sure.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. I'm going to mark as
the next exhibit, so Exhibit 2.
(Exhibit identified: Deposition 2.)
MS. DiBENEDETTO: This is the expert witness
disclosure.
Q. And have you seen that before, Mr. Corley?
A. No. And you might want to revise this,
because it's no longer G.W. Davis, Inc.
Q. Okay. We can go through that and we don't
need to revise it --
A. Okay.
Q. -- but let me ask you, if you'd turn to the
last page, the second page where you can see Gary
Redenbacher's declaration, just read through No. 7, you
know, basically that section.
A. All right.
Q. Okay. And look at No. 8.
Is that, generally speaking, what you
understand your assignment to be in this case,
testifying regarding the sufficiency of the plans,
workmanship at the project --
A. (Witness nodding head.)
Q. -- standards of care, the value of the work
performed, and management and administration of the
project?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Generally speaking, are there any
other categories where you'll be offering an opinion in
this case?
A. No, that -- that pretty much covers it all.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. And let's next mark
your CV or resume as Exhibit C.
(Exhibit identified: Deposition C.)
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. And I'd just ask
that you take a quick look at that and tell me if
that's up to date.
A. You are asking me or Gary?
Q. You.
A. Oh, yes, it is.
Q. This is your resume; correct?
A. Yeah, you handed it to Gary.
Q. I gave you -- you should have a copy, too.
A. Oh, okay, the exhibit.
Q. Let's go through this quickly.
You say that G.W. Davis is no longer in
business?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And -- so what is the -- are you
operating under just Mark D. Corley or --
A. Yes. Currently, yes.
Q. What contractors licenses do you hold?
A. I currently hold a B.
Q. Okay. And did you, prior to a certain time,
hold that license for G.W. Davis, Inc.?
A. It was a separate license. It was a license
for the corporation. It was an A and a B license.
Q. Okay.
A. So while I was the president, RMO and CEO of
G.W. Davis, my individual license was -- was -- what's
the word I want to say?
MR. REDENBACHER: Inactive?
THE WITNESS: Inactive.
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. Okay. And when did
you stop doing business with that company, with
G.W. Davis?
A. 2006.
Q. And you simultaneously put your own
individual license into active status?
A. As soon as I made the -- got rid of the
corporation license, I reactivated my individual
license.
Q. Okay. So going through this -- education
section is up to date; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then the construction section of the
resume is up to date, other than in 2006 you started
operating as a sole proprietor?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
A. Which is on the second page.
Q. Okay.
A. Or third page.
Q. Third page.
So the 732261 license number is your
individual license number?
A. Correct.
Q. Were you able to transfer G.W. Davis' license
to you or no?
A. Didn't want to.
Q. Okay.
A. It was a nice low number, though.
Q. Yeah.
And the projects that are listed on pages 1
and 2 --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- were all of those done with G.W. Davis?
A. Correct.
Q. And since no longer working with G.W. Davis,
have you done any projects -- additional projects on
your own?
A. No.
Q. Okay. On the last page, the construction
litigation --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- is this a complete list of the
construction litigation that you've been involved
with -- either with G.W. Davis or on your own?
A. As an individual. Never was involved with it
under G.W. Davis.
Q. Okay. So all of these construction
litigation references are from 2006 forward?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Going with the first one, "Green
versus Maring," did that go to litigation?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. What county was that action pending
in?
A. I don't recall, either.
Q. Oh, okay.
Do you recall what year you were involved
with that?
A. That was the very first one in 2006.
Q. Okay. Who were you representing in that?
A. I'd actually have -- can I ask Gary that
question?
Q. Yeah, I don't mind.
MR. REDENBACHER: The Marings, M-A-R-I-N-G-S.
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. And you were
working with Gary Redenbacher?
A. Correct.
Q. And the Marings were they homeowner,
contractor?
A. This is the homeowner with the deck issue in
Ben Lomand, I recall.
Q. And you were representing the homeowners?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And Green was a contractor?
A. I believe so.
Q. Okay. And you don't know how that resolved?
A. I believe they settled.
Q. Okay. But you didn't have to provide any
deposition testimony in that case?
A. Nope. I showed up and waited around and they
called me off.
Q. Okay. Um, what was the deck issue involved
in that "Green versus Maring" case?
A. I believe it had to do with replacement of
dryrot, a certain portion of the deck, but the
contractor replaced more than what he was instructed to
do, and then asked for additional compensation.
Q. And so was the issue in that case, pretty
much having to do with costs only?
A. Correct.
Q. There was no defect issues, so to speak?
A. No. They were there to correct deficiencies
in the structure due to rot, and then apparently,
corrected more than what was required to do.
Q. Okay. What was -- what was your role, as far
as -- what was your assignment in that case?
A. Provide a value of the materials that were
replaced under the original scope.
Q. Okay. And then the next case, "Codiga versus
Menasha Group."
A. Uh-huh.
Q. It says it's ongoing.
Are you working with Gary on that case?
A. Correct.
Q. And who are you representing in that case?
A. Codiga.
Q. And Codiga is the contractor?
A. Codiga is the property owner.
Q. Okay.
A. The suit was against the tenant.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. The suit was against the tenant.
Q. Tell me a little bit about the nature of that
matter.
A. That -- on that particular case, Menasha was
a tenant in Codiga's building that Codiga alleged that
during their use and operation of the facility that
they caused certain -- certain areas to rust and
require repairs due to Menasha being a tenant.
Q. Is this a commercial building --
A. Commercial building in Salinas.
Q. Okay. With "Green versus Maring," that was a
residential property; right?
A. That was a residence, right.
Q. Single family residence --
A. Yes.
THE REPORTER: Hold on. You're going to have
to slow down and not --
THE WITNESS: One at a time?
THE REPORTER: Yes, something she didn't tell
you earlier.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: I forgot to mention this,
and it's really important for me, because I talk like a
Chatty Cathy Doll, so I will try to slow down.
You'll need to slow down.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: We both need to and not
talk over each other, or he will hate us at the end of
this deposition. Okay?
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: And mostly I admonishing
myself in that regard.
Okay. Let's backtrack.
Q. "Green versus Maring" was single family
residence?
A. Correct.
Q. "Codiga versus Menasha" is a commercial
office building?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
A. Commercial warehouse and warehouse building.
Q. Okay. And it's ongoing?
MR. REDENBACHER: It's now resolved.
THE WITNESS: It's resolved.
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. Was litigation
commenced in that case?
A. I don't know.
Q. And did you have to provide any testimony in
any regard in that case?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And what was your assignment in that
case?
A. To perform a site visit with all the parties
involved and to determine what was damaged by the
tenant and the values to make the repairs.
Q. Okay. The next matter is "Brusato versus
Gay," and it says it's resolved.
A. (Witness nodding head.)
Q. Did you work with Gary on that one?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Did you work -- on all of these that
we're going to go through, were you working with Gary
Redenbacher on those?
A. All but the one, that is "Phillips versus
Allgrove," and "Siemsen versus Network Alliance" or
Siemsen, I guess.
Q. Okay. We'll go through those. Phillips, I
don't think, is on here.
A. Okay.
Q. So tell me a little bit about "Brusato versus
Gay." What's the nature of that?
A. "Brusato versus Gay," the contractor was
hired to make a renovation and a remodel to an existing
structure, and there were various cost overruns that
the owner had issues with. So I was called upon to
look at the issues, provide values for the issues so
they could resolve the matter.
Q. And you were representing the homeowner?
A. Property owner. It's not a residence. It's
a commercial building in Monterey.
Q. Okay. Again, is that a professional
building?
A. Correct.
Q. And "Male versus Cypress Construction," um,
again, that's with Gary; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And who do you represent in that matter -- or
who did you represent?
A. Cypress.
Q. Okay. And tell me about that case?
A. Residential house, Santa Cruz, Delaveaga,
that contractor was hired to do a remodel; and again,
there were issues with cost overruns and quality of the
work.
Q. And did you have to provide any deposition or
arbitration testimony in that?
A. I've never provided deposition testimony on
anything --
Q. That's right.
A. -- other than today.
Q. Okay. And you don't know how that resolved?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. And you don't know whether that
started with a lawsuit being filed?
A. Can I ask Gary?
Q. Yeah.
A. Okay.
MR. REDENBACHER: It resolved short of
litigation.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Oh, okay.
Q. Who did you work for on the "Siemsen versus
Network Alliance" case?
A. That, I believe, was Siemsen.
Q. Okay. And --
A. That was a single family residence in Scotts
Valley that the homeowner alleged that there were
various issues with the residence that were not
disclosed upon purchase of property.
Q. Was there an attorney involved that hired
you?
A. Yes, Andy Adler out of Walnut Creek.
Q. And he was representing the homeowner?
A. I believe so.
Q. Okay. And what was your assignment in that
case?
A. To take a look at the various issues on the
residence and provide my opinion on whether they had
any merit.
Q. Do you know how that case resolved?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. So that was pretty much only a breach
of disclosure case?
A. I believe so.
Q. Okay. And the next matter is "Skinner versus
Howland." Tell me about that case.
A. That was a residential remodel in Rio Del Mar
that were moisture condition issues with the bamboo
floor, so we were called in to investigate the issues
with the moisture and provide our opinion on what would
be required to remedy the situation.
Q. And you came in on behalf of the homeowner?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And that case again was with Gary?
A. Correct.
Q. And it says "ongoing."
Do you know the status at this point?
A. I don't know if it's --
MR. REDENBACHER: Ongoing.
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. Okay. And then
"Bunnell versus Gangloff," tell me a little bit about
that one.
A. I'm drawing a blank. I'm sorry.
Q. "Bunnell versus Gangloff," slash, "Broadway"
and it says "ongoing."
Do you know if you have done any work on
that?
A. I have, and I'm trying to recall what it was.
Q. Do you recall that being something that you
are affiliated with Gary on?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
MR. REDENBACHER: Do you want me to jog his
memory?
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Yeah, might at as well.
THE WITNESS: I'm drawing a blank.
MR. REDENBACHER: Homeowner in Soquel having
problems with the flooring too close to the wall,
expanded and popped, and also several other defects
alleged, like the staircase.
THE WITNESS: Oh, oh, oh, yes. Yes.
Broadway. We worked for Broadway on that one, the
homeowner, where there were issues regarding the
quality of the work against the general contractor.
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. So you are
representing Broadway, the homeowner; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it's single family residence?
A. Single family residence in Soquel.
Q. And do you have any independent recollection
of what you've done so far on that?
A. We did a site visit, provided our evaluation
of the issues that the homeowner had with the work that
was performed by the contractor, and that was the last
of it.
Q. And the contractor was Bunnell --
A. Yes, I believe.
Q. -- the plaintiff in the matter?
A. The homeowners -- that was throwing me, is
that the homeowners had two last names.
Q. Okay. And then the next one, "Seaside versus
Bustichi Construction," who do you represent in that
one?
A. That was actually a subcontractor for
Bustichi, Della Mora Plumbing.
Q. And that was your client in that?
A. It was Gary's.
Q. Okay. And what was your -- what was -- it
says "ongoing," so what was your assignment in that
case?
A. The only work I performed on that project was
to go to a site visit with all the parties involved and
review what issues they were litigating with.
Q. And your issues again are just solely related
to plumbing issues; correct?
A. It was actually mechanical issues; it wasn't
plumbing. It was the air handling units in a
dehumidifier for the pool.
Q. And a B license is sufficient to offer
opinions in that regard, just out of curiosity?
A. You know, honestly I don't know.
Q. Okay. The next one is "Robert Mahrer,
General Contractor, versus Bruno," and it says that
that's ongoing.
A. Correct.
Q. Is that a case involving Mr. Redenbacher?
A. Correct.
Q. And tell me about that.
A. Gary's the attorney for the defendant, I
believe.
MR. REDENBACHER: No, for the general
contractor.
THE WITNESS: Okay. For the general
contractor.
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. And what is your
assignment in that matter?
A. My assignment in that matter is to again
evaluate the issues that are alleged to be defective by
the homeowner, provide my opinion whether they are or
not defective, and if so, provide a value to correct
the deficiencies.
Q. Do you recall what work you've done so far on
that one?
A. Two site visits --
Q. Okay.
A. -- and some destructive testing.
Q. Okay.
A. Or investigation, I should say.
Q. And you've done that destructive
investigation yourself?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. When you do destructive investigation,
do you do the repairs as well?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. But that's the only one that I've done to
this point.
Q. And then you talked about the Phillips
matter, and that's not on your resume.
What is --
A. "Phillips versus Allgrove," it's not on
there?
Q. No. So it's "Phillips versus Allgrove"?
A. Correct.
Q. You've got a copy right in front of me,
unless I'm missing a page.
A. No. No, it should be, unless I forgot to
bring a page.
It's a property line issue in Ben Lomond --
Q. Okay.
A. -- so my scope of work on that was to
evaluate the issues that are encroaching upon the
plaintiff's property and provide a value to remove such
encroachments off of the plaintiff's property back to
the defendant's property line, to his side.
Q. So you are giving a cost estimate to remove
whatever is encroaching?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And you represent Phillips or
Allgrove?
A. Phillips.
Q. And they are both property owners; correct?
A. Correct, neighbors.
Q. And what attorney hired in you that matter?
A. Sarah Clarenbach.
Q. And that's still ongoing?
A. Correct.
Q. And are there any other construction
litigation or arbitration matters that are not listed
that we haven't discussed?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Okay. And all of these cases commenced in
2006 and have been going --
A. To the present.
Q. -- forward?
A. (Witness nodding head.)
Q. Now, just briefly, um, going back to the list
of projects, just go through for me, if you wouldn't
mind --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- and identify the projects that involve
residential construction or remodel.
A. Residential construction or remodel, the
first one on the list would be Arista Lane homes,
second page, second from the top, those were 38 single
family residences that I constructed back in '94.
Merrill Road Apartments was an 11-unit
apartment complex that I built in Soquel.
Lincoln Square Apartments was an 11-unit
apartment complex I built in Watsonville.
Q. I'm sorry, how many units?
A. I believe it was eleven.
Q. Okay.
A. Vista Verde Townhomes, last page, 2001, was a
78-unit complex that I built in Watsonville.
Monarch Disabled Housing, 2003, was a remodel
of three existing single family residences in Santa
Cruz.
And that's it regarding residential work.
(Bob Landry exits proceedings.)
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. All right. Is
there any additional residential work for projects that
you would consider relevant to the testimony you are
going do give in this case that's not listed on your
resume?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. There are -- there are various remodels that
we did for -- for old customers.
There's a custom home that I framed and built
myself as an apprentice carpenter in '98; and then
through the years, there were various houses we'd go
and do remodels, but it's not something we specialized
in.
Q. Okay. And all of that work was done through
G.W. Davis?
A. Correct.
Q. What about not just residential,
specifically, other projects that aren't listed on your
resume, that you think are relevant to form the basis
for any opinions that you are going to give in this
case?
A. That should summarize it all.
Q. Okay.
A. And, in fact, if I may say so, regardless of
whether it's residential, commercial, industrial, it
really doesn't have any relevance as far as this
particular project.
Q. Okay. Let me...
MR. REDENBACHER: Did she give me back the
originals?
MR. LANDRY: I did. I put them back in
there.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: I think what we're going to
do is mark your original file, just the color
photographs, we can copy the color photographs for the
record -- for the transcript and we're going to mark
your entire file, since it's not that voluminous, as
the next exhibit in order, okay.
(Exhibit identified: Deposition 4.)
MS. DiBENEDETTO: If you don't mind, let
me -- I'll give you -- the original is No. 4, and then
mark -- I think what I'll do, Mr. Corley, is ask you to
read into the record what your file contains.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay.
THE WITNESS: What happened to the -- the
beginning of it, the beginning --
MS. DiBENEDETTO: You know what, they
probably --
MR. LANDRY: I might not have put it in there
the way you had it. I'm sorry.
THE WITNESS: That's all right. Let's see
what we have.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: This was on your plans
sheet, notes and opinions were on the left side of the
folder.
THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. Here we go.
MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay.
THE WITNESS: The first leaf of my file
contains my -- what I have titled as my "plan sheet,
notes and opinions."
Second leaf contains a manila folder with a
Photo CD that was provided to me by Eric Lechner.
MR. LECHNER: (Nodding head.)
THE WITNESS: Third leaf contains four
photographs that I had printed from the CD with
information imprinted on the pictures by myself.
And then the fourth leaf contains various
letters and time sheets that I had made copies of from
the file.
BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. Okay. And when you
say "from the file," from which file?
A. From the file that was in Gary Redenbacher's
office.
Q. Okay. So to prepare for this case, did you
go up to Mr. Redenbacher's office and go through the
files?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
A. And go to the site visit that you attended.
Q. Okay. Have you ever taught any
construction-type courses?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. Have not.
Q. Ever authored any construction-related
publications?
A. No.
Q. And does the list of projects on your
resume -- we talked about the ones that you've worked
on with Mr. Redenbacher -- are those all the projects
you've worked on with Gary as a construction
consultant?
A. With Gary?
Q. Yes.
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And including the ones that you've
testified to that weren't on your resume, those are all
of the construction -- all of the projects that you've
worked on as a construction consultant; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And when were you retained for this
case?
A. That's a good question. The exact date?
Q. Yeah, approximately.
A. Four, five months ago maybe.
Q. Okay. And that was the first time you became
involved in this matter?
A. In this matter?
Q. Yeah.
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So tell me -- let's go through the
chronology.
How did that start? Gary called you --
A. Gary called me --
Q. -- and asked --
A. Gary called me --
Q. Okay.
A. -- asked me if I was available to be an
expert, come up, review the issues between the
homeowners and the contractors, go to the site, review
all the documents, provide my opinions on what I
foresee are the issues in this case.
Q. Okay. What else do you recall -- that was
the first time you talked to Gary about the case?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And what --
A. And then I went up to his office and reviewed
all the files, and then went to the site visit that you
attended and received a photo CD from Eric, and here we
are.
Q. Okay. During that first conversation with
Gary, it sounds like it was on the phone, Gary called
you and said, I've got a project, are you interested in
becoming involved in that?
A. Yeah. Are you able to come up to the office,
take a look at the file, and then at some point, if
needed, provide deposition on -- on this case.
Q. Okay. During that first conversation with
Gary, what did he tell you about the case?
A. That there is an issue between -- between the
homeowner and the general contractors regarding extras,
cost overruns, and to go up and take a look at them,
compare what are considered to be change orders by the
general versus what was on the plans, review the
contract, review the original bid, see what was in the
project, what was not in the project, what should be
included as the original scope of work, items such as
that.
Q. Okay. And then you went up to Gary's office
and went through his files?
A. Correct.
Q. And how much time did you spend doing that?
A. Approximately four to five hours.
Q. Okay. And did you talk with Gary when you
went up there to look at the files?
A. I reviewed it briefly with him when I was
done.
Q. Okay. Just tell me, what do you recall about
that conversation when you were reviewing what you had
looked at during that meeting?
A. My recollection of that meeting was that in
reviewing the plans and the contracts, in looking at
the extras that were requested by the general, I
provided Gary my opinions on what should be an extra
what should not be an extra, what were on the plans,
what were instructed on the specifications to do prior
to providing a bid, what should have been included in
the original scope of work, based on the plans and
specifications.
Q. Okay. During that first phone
conversation -- or when you went up to Gary's office
and went and looked at the job file --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- did he tell you what your assignment would
be in this case?
A. He told me to review the case and look at --
here are the issues that they are having -- that the
homeowners are having with the contractors, take a look
at these specific issues and see whether they have any
merit --
Q. Okay.
A. -- and then provide my opinion as to whether
I think they are -- they have merit or not.
Q. And I think you very quickly talked about the
issues, but just tell me again what the issues were
that he wanted you to offer opinions on?
A. There were issues with the foundation,
there's issues with the first floor framing, issues
with the first floor cripple walls, issues with the
front porch, and issues with the cost to mill and
install the exterior trim.
Q. Any others?
A. No.
Q. So he said that the issues that he needed you
to offer an opinion on were issues related to the
foundation?
A. Foundation.
Q. Issues related to first floor framing?
A. Framing.
Q. Issues related to first floor cripple walls?
A. Cripple walls.
Q. Issues related to the front porch?
A. Yes.
Q. And issues concerning milling and
installation of exterior trim.
A. Demolition first floor walls, sheer panels.
Q. Okay. So you are adding demo first floor
walls and then sheer panels?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. The first conversation you had with
Gary, how long approximately did that take?
A. A few minutes.
Q. Okay. And then you spent about four to five
hours up at his office going through records?
A. Correct, reviewing the plans, looking at the
original quotes, various e-mails.
Q. Okay. And then the next work that you did on
this case was what?
A. The site visit.
Q. Where I was there as well?
A. Correct.
Q. And how much did you spend at the site that
day?
A. Two hours.
Q. Okay. Did you have any conversations with
Gary about the case during that time on that day?
A. At the site?
Q. Uh-huh.
A. Oh, I'm sure I did.
Q. Do you recall the sum and substance of any of
those conversations?
A. Just looking at the -- looking at the work
that was performed, and, you know, having to go back
and compare that to what was on the plans. And I must
add that the work was done very well, very nice
workmanship.
Q. Had you been out to the house before that?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Going back to conversations, who else
have you talked to about this case besides Gary?
A. Eric at the site.
Q. Was that the first time you talked with Eric
about the case?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
A. That's where I first met Eric.
Q. Okay.
A. That's it.
Q. You ever talk to Ms. Dyer about the case?
A. About the case, no, no.
Q. Okay.
A. Just met her and met the children.
Q. When did you first meet them?
A. I believe it was also at the end of the site
visit.
Q. On that same day?
A. Yeah, after you left.
Q. Okay. And did you have any conversations
with Kristin Dyer about the case, the issues, anything?
A. No, not really. No, it was just a cursory
meeting. It was just, Hi, how are you; nice children.
Q. Okay.
A. (Witness shrugging shoulders.)
Q. What about with Eric, do you recall what you
discussed with him about the case when you first met
him at that first site visit?
A. Nothing, other than just doing a cursory site
review, walking through the place. He was explaining a
few issues of what rooms were here, and what -- what
were extras that he had received from the generals and
just kind of walked around and looked at the -- the
workmanship.
Q. Did he make any comments to you while you
were walking around about workmanship?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And then again, with Kristin
afterwards, you didn't talk about workmanship quality,
plans, anything that's related to this dispute?
A. No.
Q. Okay. What do you recall about what Eric
explained were the issues when you were walking around
the site with him that day?
A. Well, it was actually -- probably most of the
questions I was asking when I rolled out the plans in
the back of my truck regarding, okay, well, here was
this foundation, why was the porch removed?
Essentially just general broad questions on how it got
from point A to point B.
Q. Okay. And then what about extras? What do
you recall the conversation being concerning extras?