IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
       IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
 Â
 Â
  LANDRY & FOY BUILDERS, INC.,)
  A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,  )
                )
        Plaintiff,   )
                )
     vs.         )  No. CV 157690
                )
  KRISTIN DYER, ERIC LECHNER, )
  AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25,   )
  INCLUSIVE,         )
                )
        Defendants.  )
 _____________________________)
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
        DEPOSITION OF MARK D. CORLEY
            VOLUME II
 Â
 Â
     Date:    Friday, May 9, 2008
 Â
     Time:    10:00 A.M.
 Â
     Location:  Hartsell & Olivieri
           621-A Water Street
           Santa Cruz, California
 Â
          A P P E A R A N C E S
 Â
      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
 Â
 Â
      For the Defendants:
 Â
      REDENBACHER & BROWN
      BY: GARY REDENBACHER,
        Attorney at Law
      1414 Soquel Avenue, Suite 212
      Santa Cruz, California 95060
      (831) 439-8821
 Â
      Reported By:
      RINDON HEINZ, CSR No. 7891
      Hartsell & Olivieri
      621-A Water Street
      Santa Cruz, CA 95060
      (831) 423-5911
      (831) 423-7189 (Fax)
 Â
 Â
      ALSO PRESENT: Eric Lechner
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
             I N D E X
  CONTINUED EXAMINATION:            PAGE:
 Â
   By Ms. DiBenedetto             163
 Â
 Â
  EXHIBITS:                   PAGE:
 Â
   Deposition Exhibit 6            206
     (Further documents used
     to formulate opinions)
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
          MARK D. CORLEY,
 Â
 being duly sworn by the Certified Shorthand Reporter
 to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
 the truth, testified as follows:
 Â
     CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MS. DiBENEDETTO
 Â
    Q.  Good morning, Mr. Corley.
    A.  Good morning.
    Q.  You understand you are under oath again, and
 I don't need to give you the admonitions or anything
 like that; correct?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay. Gary Redenbacher sent me an e-mail on
 April 30th indicating that you have some additional
 testimony that you are offering pertaining to value and
 cost of construction; correct?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay. And let's start with the date that we
 last took your deposition, which was April 15th.
      What happened that led to this additional
 testimony or these additional opinions coming about?
    A.  Gary had asked me to provide a cost analysis
 of the work that had been done by Landry and Foy on the
 residence, so I went back and I went through the files,
 looked at all the charges that were charged to Eric and
 Kristin, and then did an evaluation on each one of
 those items to provide a total cost of the project in
 my opinion.
    Q.  Okay. Do you have the documentation that you
 used to do your analysis with you?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Okay. Can I see that?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  Also, would you like to see my file and
 everything else I've added to it since I've gone back
 through the documents?
    Q.  Yes.
    A.  Okay.
    Q.  That would be great.
    A.  So here.
    Q.  Maybe we should start with that.
      I have your original deposition exhibits with
 me.
      Do you --
    A.  This is my file that you guys made copies of
 and then I picked up about a week later and then added
 some documents to it, which is right here, some
 spreadsheets that were provided by Eric and some
 analysis of what transpired on the job from Eric, and
 then all the invoices from Landry and Foy.
    Q.  Okay. Are these additional documents that
 are part of your file documents that you looked at
 prior to your last deposition?
    A.  No, these are not documents that I had prior
 to the last deposition. These are what I have
 discovered and/or been presented with since.
    Q.  Do you know why you weren't asked to provide
 opinions about value and cost prior to your last
 deposition?
    A.  No, I don't think we had crossed that bridge
 yet, as far as me being asked to provide an evaluation
 of the total cost of the project.
    Q.  Okay. So we'll go ahead and just mark, I
 guess, as the next exhibit in order, which would be
 Exhibit 6, the additional documents that make up your
 job file?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  And also this folder here, which are just
 additional copies that were made of Landry and Foy's
 documents.
    Q.  Okay.
   A.  Different time sheets that are all from the
 Landry and Foy file.
    Q.  So we'll just mark that collectively as
 Exhibit 6.
    A.  Okay.
    Q.  All right. So the first set of documents --
    A.  That's a spreadsheet that was provided from
 Eric where he had gone through the Landry and Foy
 documents and time slips, and just put it in
 chronological order.
    Q.  So did you have -- did you talk with Eric
 about who prepared this -- did Eric prepare this, Eric
 Lechner?
    A.  Yes, I believe so.
    Q.  Okay. Did you spend some time reviewing this
 with him?
    A.  Actually, no, I did not, because once I went
 back to review the file in Gary's office, I went and
 found a copy of all the monthly invoices from Landry
 and Foy. So these are the invoices that I used to base
 my analysis on.
    Q.  Okay. Are you basing any opinions on the
 spreadsheet that Eric prepared?
    A.  No.
    Q.  Okay. The notes?
      MR. LECHNER: That document --
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Let's go off the record for
 a minute.
      (Discussion held off the record.)
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Back on the record.
      I'm sorry, Eric, you would you mind restating
 that so we have it on the record?
      MR. LECHNER: Sure.
      The spreadsheet that Mark is referring to was
 something that I had created specifically as a -- you
 know, for my own cost analysis, where I had gone
 through all of the Landry and Foy invoices and just
 transcribed the information so that I had an electronic
 copy of all of the billing records, and that's what I
 had given to Mark.
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay.
      MR. LECHNER: That's the one thing that I
 thought would be easier to do, was find things like the
 number of hours spent on -- otherwise all the
 information is exactly what's on the Landry and Foy
 invoices.
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. Thank you.
    Q.  And, Mark, you say that even though you've
 taken a look at this spreadsheet that Eric prepared,
 you are not going to be using this to base any of your
 opinions concerning cost or value on; correct?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  I base the value or particular items that I
 was looking for on the Landry and Foy invoices, not
 Eric's spreadsheet.
    Q.  Okay. Did Eric's spreadsheet aide you in any
 way?
    A.  Initially, yes, because I had not reviewed
 the Landry and Foy invoices. So I started looking at
 that to -- I think if you look on maybe the first or
 second page, I was trying to determine at one point
 when the first foundation work had occurred and the
 secondary foundation work had occurred; but going back
 and looking through Gary's file, I was able to
 determine it from Landry and Foy's information and not
 Eric's. Eric's information is essentially just this
 synopsis of the Landry and Foy invoices.
    Q.  Okay. And there are just a few handwritten
 notations on here in pencil. Is that your writing?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Just so I know for my own clarification,
 there's a round arrow next to -- still invoice No. 1 --
 first page of this spreadsheet, Category 197, on 7 --
 excuse me, September 18th, 2006, Charles Campbell.
      Do you recall what brought that to your
 attention or when you marked that?
    A.  That was the same date that I had found in
 the file in Gary's office that leads me to believe that
 was the first day of work on the job.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  That was the first day of construction.
    Q.  Then again, third page, it references
 Invoice 2, there are just a few notes. It looks like
 it says "concrete pour" --
    A.  Right.
    Q.  -- next to an October 2nd entry?
    A.  And that's what I was looking for to
 determine when the first concrete pour had occurred,
 and based on that documentation it looks as though it
 happened on October 2nd.
    Q.  Why were you looking for that?
    A.  Because I wanted to find out when that
 concrete pour had taken place, versus when the letter
 from Hugh Zikes had occurred telling Landry and Foy
 which foundation to, in fact, perform on the project.
    Q.  What did you determine, based on your review
 of that information?
    A.  That the pour that occurred on October 2nd
 was the -- what I'll refer to as the interior
 foundation pour, not the perimeter foundation pour. So
 also in trying to extrapolate the costs involved for
 the perimeter foundation from Landry and Foy, the
 October 2nd date tells me that all foundation work
 subsequent to that date would have been for the
 perimeter foundation --
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  -- and not the interior foundation.
    Q.  And --
    A.  I was trying to establish when they began
 work on the foundation work, when the interior
 foundation had commenced and stopped, and then when the
 perimeter foundation started.
    Q.  Okay. And then on that same page, you've got
 a few items checked, two checkmarks next to two
 October 3rd entries for Charles Campbell, layout labor,
 foundation excavation labor.
      Are you looking for the same information?
    A.  Exactly. So the -- subsequent to the
 October 2nd date, you could see where they started
 laying out for the perimeter foundation, et cetera,
 et cetera.
    Q.  Okay. Again, there's another entry marked
 10/3/06, demolition labor.
      Why did you check that one?
   A.  That's when -- I wanted to see when they
 started to perform the work on demolishing the existing
 perimeter foundation.
    Q.  Okay. And again, those dates are relevant
 because why?
    A.  I did not have any information from the
 Landry and Foy invoices that told me when a particular
 task started and stopped in relation to the foundation
 work.
    Q.  You couldn't --
    A.  All they provided was a lump-sum charge for
 the exterior perimeter foundation, and I was trying to
 determine when, based on -- based on their records,
 when a particular portion of the project started and
 stopped, and then another one started and stopped.
    Q.  But I think we've clarified that Eric --
 Mr. Lechner's spreadsheet is based on the Landry and
 Foy invoices; right?
    A.  That's correct.
    Q.  And the dates that he has on this
 spreadsheet, if you will, all came from the invoices?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  So this is just in more chronological fashion
 to make your job easier; correct?
    A.  Yes.
   Q.  Okay. So then, as far as when a particular
 task began and ended, if it's contained in this
 spreadsheet, then it should be in the invoicing?
    A.  That's correct.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  But I believe, as I stated earlier, I had not
 reviewed all of these invoices (indicating) prior to
 receiving Eric's spreadsheet.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  That was the first information that I had,
 and then once I went back to review the file, I went
 and made copies of all these and then went through
 Landry and Foy's invoices.
    Q.  Okay. Did you go through all of Landry and
 Foy's invoices?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Okay. So you didn't base what invoices you
 pulled from Gary's office on the information contained
 in Eric's spreadsheet?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Did --
    A.  And, really, for the reason I didn't want to
 have any errors in extrapolation. You know, if you are
 trying to copy something, you may miss something, so I
 figured I'd go straight to the source.
   Q.  And, um, you didn't look at invoices prior to
 your last deposition; correct?
    A.  I did, but I did not analyze them.
    Q.  Okay. And had you been asked to provide
 opinions on value or costs prior to your last
 deposition?
    A.  No.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  The only value that I was providing opinions
 on at the last deposition was value of actual work that
 had taken place, whether it had any value in the
 overall project, for instance, the interior foundation.
 I think, if you recall --
    Q.  I do.
    A.  -- that was something that --
    Q.  Right.
    A.  -- I stated.
    Q.  You've state those opinions?
    A.  Yeah.
    Q.  You talked about exterior --
    A.  Yeah, but I had not cranked out all the
 numbers.
    Q.  Okay. We both have to slow down. We're both
 doing the interjecting again, so --
      MR. REDENBACHER: You're talking over one
 another.
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Talking over each other,
 yeah.
      MR. REDENBACHER: We do it all the time.
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. The next new
 document looks like it's kind of a list, starts out
 with a statement, "We're working on the list of
 changes."
    Q.  Is that something that someone gave to you?
    A.  Yes, that was provided to me from Eric.
    Q.  Okay. Do you know who prepared this?
    A.  I assume it was prepared by Eric.
    Q.  Okay.
      MR. REDENBACHER: It isn't something that is
 to me, is it, Anna?
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: No.
      MR. REDENBACHER: Okay. Yeah, it doesn't
 look like it's to me.
      BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. Do you know why
 Eric was providing you with this document.
    A.  I -- I believe I had asked Eric if he had any
 explanations and/or a list of items that they had
 specifically requested to be added to the project.
      So in response, he provided me with a
 synopsis of his opinion of what had transpired during
 the project of things that were either added or deleted
 from the original scope of work.
    Q.  Okay. Did you -- is this something you asked
 him to do recently?
    A.  No.
    Q.  Was this prior to your earlier deposition?
    A.  I believe this document existed prior to my
 earlier deposition, but I had not been provided it.
    Q.  Okay. But as far as you know, this is
 responsive to a request for that information?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Okay. Now, are you basing any opinions that
 you are going to offer today on this document?
    A.  The one opinion regarding the charges on the
 plumbing, yes.
    Q.  Okay. We'll go back to that. Let's just
 finish going through these.
    A.  We're all lefties.
      MR. REDENBACHER: Yeah.
      MR. LECHNER: I'm the righty.
      BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. Okay. So I'm just
 looking at this e-mail responding to some questions
 that you had --
    A.  And that was generated by questions that I
 had regarding a document from Landry and Foy listing a
 number of extras to the project.
    Q.  Okay. And that's the document that's
 referenced in the e-mail, dated January 12th, 2007?
    A.  I believe so. And I could verify it here in
 my...
      January 12th, 2007 --
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  -- correct.
    Q.  Okay. Do you have a copy of that document
 with you?
    A.  Yes. In fact, I have more documentation to
 provide you. It's essentially my cost analysis.
    Q.  Oh, okay. So we'll add that to Exhibit 6,
 too, then.
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Great.
    A.  So what I planned on doing was giving you one
 and Gary one to go through so we can all look at it.
    Q.  Maybe we can take like a five-minute break to
 go through that one or something.
    A.  Sure.
    Q.  Okay. Then next, there is some information
 that's provided in a table format.
    A.  That was also provided by Eric with his
 recollection of the changes to the project and his
 opinion on why there were changes and whether he had
 asked for them, or...
    Q.  Is this something that contains information
 that you asked him to provide?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Okay. And the opinions that you are offering
 today, are you going to be basing any of those on this
 information?
    A.  Again, probably just the plumber.
    Q.  Okay. The categories -- there's a date,
 change, cause, notes.
      Did you ask him to provide it in that format?
    A.  No.
    Q.  Okay. And then it's blank, other than one
 entry on the first page where the change says, "change
 window sizes and window schedule to match existing
 windows," and the "cost impact" column that says, "no
 cost impact," the rest of that -- the rest of those
 columns are left blank.
    A.  (Witness nodding head.)
    Q.  Is that information you were going to
 provide? Do you know -- do you know why those are
 blank?
    A.  No, I do not.
    Q.  Okay.
      MR. LECHNER: Do you want me to speak to my
 documents?
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: You know what, Eric, it's
 all right. We can go off the record and talk about
 them.
      MR. REDENBACHER: It's not your depo.
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Yeah.
      MR. LECHNER: Okay.
      BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. Okay. And whatever
 invoices you copied of Landry and Foy's, um, are the
 only invoices that you are going to base any opinions
 regarding value or cost on; correct?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  And I believe I copied all invoices that
 exist.
    Q.  Okay. Um, since your last deposition, how
 much additional time have you spent getting ready for
 today?
    A.  Approximately 10 to 12 hours.
    Q.  Okay. Have you been back to the site again?
    A.  No.
    Q.  And then there's an envelope that says
 "Landry and Foy time sheets," and these are all
 documents you brought from Gary's office?
   A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay. Looks to be time sheets --
    A.  Some various invoices from Landry and Foy. I
 believe the document in your left hand there is one
 provided by your expert.
    Q.  Okay. Then last, you've got this document
 entitled "Scope of work and associated costs completed
 by Landry and Foy Builders, Inc."
      Is -- this entire document is something you
 prepared?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay. And the first three pages looks to be
 your summary, so to speak?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  And then there are attachments, the first
 attachment to that three-page summary, says,
 "Attachment A." You know, you identified it as
 "Attachment A," I mean I recognize that's a Landry and
 Foy document, little cost spreadsheet as of 4/13/07, I
 guess my question is:
      Are all of the documents on which you based
 any opinions or analysis contained in this first
 three-page summary included in this folder?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Okay. Um, the first -- your summary at the
 last page gives a subtotal, overhead and profit,
 20 percent, and a total of 201,540.
      So is that your opinion of the value of the
 work provided to date at the project by Landry and Foy?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay. Did you use any estimating software or
 bidding software to prepare this?
    A.  No.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  Can you follow it okay?
    Q.  Yeah.
    A.  Okay.
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Do you want to go off the
 record so I can look at it, or are you fine staying on
 the record?
      THE REPORTER: I'm okay. Thank you.
      BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. Okay. So the
 hourly rate of $49, how did you come up with that?
      I mean, you say in your Attachment C, "Hourly
 rate $49 used as an average of the $55 and $43 per hour
 charged by Landry and Foy.
      What was wrong with their rates?
    A.  Those are their rates.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  So, for instance, if I'm taking two men off
 their crew, Charles Campbell was being charged at $69
 an hour.
    Q.  Uh-huh.
    A.  Their lead carpenter was being charged $55 an
 hour.
    Q.  Uh-huh.
    A.  And their -- let's say their average
 carpenter was being charged -- what did I have, $43 per
 hour?
    Q.  $43.
    A.  So if I'm taking a two-man crew that did not
 necessitate Charles' expertise or supervisorial-type
 position, I took their $55-an-hour man and their
 $43-an-hour man and just averaged it out so I could
 have an average of the man hours.
    Q.  Okay. In any of these particular line items
 where you are giving an opinion on value -- and when I
 say "line item," as to any particular item of work --
 are you allotting any time for talking with the
 homeowners, e-mailing the homeowners, responding to
 phone calls, e-mails, things like that?
    A.  What I did on those particular instances is I
 took the values charged by Landry and Foy and took them
 at verbatim and added them to the value list.
      If you look on their breakdown, you'll see
 the charges for supervision, job meetings, et cetera.
 I assumed that they charged those by the hour, looking
 at the time sheets, and that they added it up
 correctly.
      And I have no issues with that. If they --
 if they say that Charles Campbell had 60 hours of job
 meetings, and they charged $4,000 for that line item,
 that's exactly what I took as the value.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  You can see from my list there, I believe the
 first items are numbers 10 through 25, which are the
 numbers used by Landry and Foy for those ID tasks.
    Q.  Right. So you followed their task codes?
    A.  Just to try and keep everything simple, I
 followed their task codes and just went right down
 their list --
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  -- and as you can see in my Attachment C, if
 I did have an issue with one of the items and I -- if I
 did, in fact, adjust it, I provided an explanation as
 to why I did.
    Q.  Okay. So on this Code Item 1710 having to do
 with plumbing -- I'm on the last page of
 Attachment C -- it says, "All additional plumbing
 charges are a result of errors and the removal of the
 first floor walls which was not to occur, therefore,
 the value of the plumbing rough-in complete is
 70 percent of the original value, which is 4,970."
      So the 70 percent figure is your estimate?
    A.  The 70 percent figure is my estimate based on
 the original plumbing quote.
    Q.  Okay. And you are talking about -- you're
 saying that the interior first floor cripple walls did
 not need to be removed?
    A.  No, I'm not.
    Q.  Is that what you are saying?
    A.  No, the first floor structural walls.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  The cripple walls exist below the first
 floor.
    Q.  Right.
    A.  So my --
    Q.  Which walls are you talking about?
    A.  The first floor walls.
    Q.  Okay. So studs?
    A.  Yeah.
    Q.  Okay. And the next document, that looks like
 it was prepared by you, which was an attachment to one
 of these summaries is this May 7th, '08, estimate for
 garage foundation and slab?
   A.  Correct. That's a takeoff I did on the
 garage slab and foundation, based upon the plans so I
 could provide a value of that foundation and slab for
 the garage.
    Q.  And the photographs, are these photographs
 that were on the disk of photographs that the
 homeowners provided?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Okay. So, in essence, the main opinion that
 you have today -- and correct me if I'm wrong --
    A.  Sure.
    Q.  -- is that the value of work provided to date
 by Landry and Foy is $201,540; correct?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  And the rest of the documentation just
 basically supports that number; correct?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  I tried to format it so if a stranger looked
 at it, they could follow it without any prior knowledge
 in trying to figure out where I'm going.
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. Let's go off just
 for a minute.
      (Discussion held off the record.)
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Let's go back on.
   Q.  So would you -- let's look at your -- looking
 at the -- basically the main summary that provides the
 value of 201,540.
      Okay. So looking at the first entry Items 10
 to 25 --
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  -- if you reference Attachment A, you
 actually increased that number?
    A.  Correct. Because if you look at Landry and
 Foy's document where the middle column reads "cost to
 date" --
    Q.  Uh-huh.
    A.  -- that is the value that I took. So if you
 take those five items, it will add up to $5,021.
    Q.  I see.
    A.  Yeah.
    Q.  I was looking at that 4,297 as the bottom
 line.
    A.  Uh-huh.
    Q.  Okay. So you don't have an issue with that,
 then?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  See, the cost to date column that's in the
 middle is what Landry and Foy used to determine what
 they allege has been costed out on the project --
    Q.  Right.
    A.  -- to this point.
    Q.  And you don't have an issue with that --
    A.  With --
    Q.  As to value, you don't have --
    A.  -- Items 10 through 25, correct.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  Yeah. And that's why when you asked me about
 the additional meetings and supervision, if it took
 place, it took place.
    Q.  Okay. So looking at Item No. 110, temporary
 facilities, you adjusted that down to just -- you
 adjusted that to the original bid price number which
 was 720?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  And then if you go to my Attachment C --
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  -- you'll see my explanation as to why I did
 that.
    Q.  All right. And again, with respect to the
 porch itself -- we talked about this in your first
 deposition -- you are basing what was to ultimately
 happen with that porch on the plans only?
   A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  And as you can see by Landry and Foy's
 document, they had also -- in basing their original
 bid, had not planned on removing the porch; otherwise,
 they would have known that they would have had to need
 what they call a "power outhouse" instead of using the
 power that was on the structure.
      If you look at the photos on the CD, you can
 see where the electrical panel was essentially attached
 to the side of the porch, and that's what the
 electrical panel provided for, this -- for the project
 was the temporary power; but once the porch was removed
 they had no source of power.
    Q.  All right. I'm not going to go through all
 of them. I'll go through just a few just to make sure
 I understand.
    A.  May I ask a question regarding one of them?
    Q.  Sure.
    A.  If you look at Attachment E, which was
 subcontractor bid provided by V's Demolition --
    Q.  Uh-huh.
    A.  -- who I don't have the subcontracts, but
 I am assuming they were a subcontractor of Landry and
 Foy's --
   Q.  Uh-huh.
    A.  -- at the bottom of their quote, it reads,
 "V's tearoff, Incorporated, does not handle or dispose
 of any asbestos materials removal and certification
 must be handled prior to our crews beginning work on
 the project."
    Q.  What are you looking at?
    A.  Attachment E.
    Q.  I don't see that.
    A.  Page prior to that. There are two pages to
 Attachment E.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  Right there --
    Q.  Got it.
    A.  -- at the bottom.
    Q.  And why is that relevant?
    A.  Well, because I did not find on any of Landry
 and Foy's documents, even the document that allowed
 them to get to the 5,000 -- or $592,000, I don't see
 any documentation for any hazardous materials surveys
 or any hazardous materials abatement prior to the
 demolition.
    Q.  Do you know whether there was hazardous
 material out there?
    A.  No, I do not.
   Q.  Is that an issue? I mean, that's a whole new
 opinion that has nothing to do with cost or value?
    A.  Yeah, that's when I went and looked at V's
 Demolition and looked at the bottom, that's what piqued
 my interest, as far as, wait a minute, this was a house
 that was built in the '20s, very possibly could have
 had lead paint, could have had asbestos roofing, could
 have had asbestos in the Drywall mud. I don't know
 this. And that's why I'm asking if any of these
 documents exist stating that they did not exist and/or
 it was abated.
    Q.  As I sit here today, I don't know, and I'm
 not having my deposition taken.
      But let me clarify with you, that just caught
 your attention -- you don't have any basis for any
 opinion that there's anything --
    A.  (Witness shaking head.)
    Q.  -- that Landry and Foy did that was wrong
 with respect to handling or disposing of any hazardous
 materials; correct?
    A.  That's correct.
    Q.  And as you sit here today, no one has told
 you that there are hazardous materials or were
 hazardous materials out there; correct?
    A.  That's correct.
   Q.  And the homeowners weren't living there
 during any of the construction; correct?
    A.  That's correct.
    Q.  All right. So are you -- are you contending
 that any of the work that Landry and Foy did posed a
 danger to anyone or to anything based on hazardous
 materials?
    A.  If there were hazardous materials present, it
 could have presented a problem, but I don't know; I'm
 speculating.
    Q.  Okay. Are you going to be doing further
 research in that area?
    A.  I will be looking -- if you have further
 documents to provide to Gary -- if, in the
 subcontracts, there happens to be any information
 providing any further information on potentially
 hazardous materials, I'll be -- I will take a look at
 it.
    Q.  All right. Because my understanding is you
 are offering opinions on cost and value only, not
 quality of construction.
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  And you are sticking with your guns on that;
 right?
    A.  Well, that is why I asked if I could ask
 this.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  It's when I went back and read the quote that
 I didn't find in the file, that caught my eye.
    Q.  Okay. I'll look to see if there's another
 subcontract, but this would be -- would present a huge
 issue that we would have to bring up with the judge --
    A.  Okay.
    Q.  -- as to your testimony in arbitration;
 because my understanding is you are coming in to talk
 about cost and value --
    A.  Right.
    Q.  -- and I'm entitled to know, definitively
 after today, the nature of your testimony.
    A.  Okay.
    Q.  And I think Gary would agree, so I know where
 you are coming from.
    A.  Sure.
    Q.  I mean, I don't intend to take any more
 depositions at the cost of Landry and Foy.
    A.  Okay.
    Q.  Okay.
      MR. REDENBACHER: Okay. And he has not been
 asked to do an evaluation of the hazardous materials;
 but, obviously it piqued his interest.
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay. And I understand why
 it would.
      THE WITNESS: Well, and it -- I just
 demolished a trailer here about six months ago, and I
 had to go through the entire process of getting the
 hazardous materials surveyed, the abatement, the
 clearance, the Monterey Bay Pollution Control District
 permit, and everything else that happens on a
 demolition project.
      BY MS. DiBENEDETTO: Q. Okay. So it caught
 your eye because of something totally unrelated to the
 project that's at issue with this case; correct?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  And also when I would provide a cost analysis
 of a project and/or if I was bidding a project it would
 have been a line item cost which I did not see in
 Landry and Foy's line item cost.
    Q.  What would have been --
    A.  The hazardous materials survey and/or
 abatement.
    Q.  You do that every project?
    A.  Yes, I would do it on a project if there was
 demolition involved. Yes.
    Q.  And you think to not do so would fall below
 the standard of care for a general contractor?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  On any project whatsoever?
    A.  Yes.
      MR. REDENBACHER: Pre-1978.
      THE WITNESS: For instance, this trailer that
 I managed and had demolished six months prior, the
 trailer was built in 1975 and a layman wouldn't
 think --
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay.
      THE WITNESS: -- that -- I did not think that
 there were hazardous materials in there; but to obtain
 the demolition permit, we had to go through the process
 to get it surveyed and abated --
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: Okay.
      THE WITNESS: -- and, in fact, we found that.
 So it's just a question that I...
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: That's fine. I just want
 to understand, you know, it's -- it's -- again, I want
 to clarify that you are not going to be offering
 opinions about quality of work --
      THE WITNESS: (Nodding head.)
      MS. DiBENEDETTO: -- or any -- even more
 specifically, any opinions about quality of work as it
 relates to hazardous materials on this job.
   Q.  Correct?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Because I'll reserve the right to move to
 strike any of that testimony at arbitration if it comes
 out.
    A.  I've spoken my piece.
    Q.  Okay. All right. So let's look at numbers
 excuse me, 610 and 620.
    A.  Uh-huh.
    Q.  Okay. So line item 610 -- or Code 610, has
 do with rough lumber, slash, rough hardware; and 620
 has to do with rough carpentry.
    A.  (Witness nodding head.)
    Q.  Okay. So from 610 and 620 you've deducted
 the value of the garage?
    A.  Right, that was deleted from the scope of
 work --
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  -- and then added back in the value of the
 cripple walls, in my opinion, and then the knee braces,
 the reframe the windows, and the master bath shelf are
 numbers that were provided by Landry and Foy.
    Q.  And you added -- with respect to the cripple
 walls, you added that back in? Looking at
 Attachment C, it says, "Add the following approved
 extras: cripple walls, labor," and then it goes in to
 material and hardware approved extra.
      Are you referencing an approved change order?
    A.  No, I'm not.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  I'm approving it. I feel it was justified
 and it had value to the project.
    Q.  And you are talking about as it's built?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  As the cripple walls were double-sided?
    A.  No. Remember the cripple walls are the
 little walls.
    Q.  Oh, the cripple walls, okay -- okay.
    A.  In fact --
    Q.  I was thinking of the brace panels.
    A.  These are the cripple walls here (indicating)
 below the first floor --
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  -- little guys coming off the foundation.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  Those are just color pictures of what you
 have there in your hand.
    Q.  Okay. Can I get color copies of these?
    A.  You can have those, if you wish.
    Q.  Okay.
   A.  I think I printed them on the wrong side of
 the page, but...
    Q.  Okay. That would be great.
    A.  And again, those are from the photos provided
 by Eric.
    Q.  But I've got the black-and-white copies so if
 you don't mind --
    A.  No problem.
    Q.  -- just giving us the color copies.
    A.  Free of charge.
    Q.  Okay. And then your opinions as to value,
 um, are based basically -- correct me if I'm wrong --
 on your experience?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay. Did you consult with anybody else,
 other than Mr. Redenbacher, about value to arrive at
 your opinion?
    A.  I did not consult with Mr. Redenbacher about
 my values.
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  I would -- I asked him about contracts and
 further documentation --
    Q.  All right.
    A.  -- but as far as me providing a value for a
 particular line item, that's -- that's from me.
   Q.  Okay. And you didn't consult with anybody
 else, any other colleagues, other contractors --
    A.  No.
    Q.  -- in arriving at this value of $201,540;
 correct?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  And in the summary, it has only been
 adjusted, it if says "adjusted" in the summary;
 correct?
    A.  Correct, if it doesn't read "adjusted"
 adjacent to it, that's the value that was charged by
 Landry and Foy.
    Q.  And you don't have an issue with that?
    A.  Correct.
    Q.  Okay. Now, with respect to rain proofing,
 which is Item 705, you've given it a value of zero.
      What information do you have about the
 hardwood floors?
    A.  The information I have regarding the hardwood
 floors is that they were damaged by the rain, the
 existing hardwood floors.
    Q.  And these were the floors that were up in the
 second story?
    A.  No, the second story didn't exist during the
 rain --
   Q.  Okay.
    A.  -- proofing.
    Q.  We're talking first floor --
    A.  First floor existing hardwood floors.
    Q.  Do you know what rain proofing was
 implemented?
    A.  No, I do not.
    Q.  Okay. Do you recall seeing any -- well,
 strike that.
    A.  I do recall seeing the paint on the plywood
 subfloors that exist at this point, which I believe was
 part of their painting line item where they tried to
 protect the plywood subfloors during the winter.
    Q.  And that was up on the second floor, wasn't
 it?
    A.  Yes.
    Q.  Okay. And 980, that was just -- was that
 just an error, mathematical error?
      No. 980 refers to interior paint. And you
 say, "The labor and material charges for paint on the
 invoice provided by Landry and Foy totaled 2,218, not
 2,582."
    A.  That's what I found --
    Q.  Okay.
    A.  -- correct.
   Q.  So with respect to plumbing Line Item 1710,
 you've knocked that down quite a bit. The original bid
 price was 7,100.
    A.  And then the next column reads what they
 charged.
    Q.  The cost to date, per Landry and Foy, is
 8,242, and you've knocked it down to 4,970 --
    A.  Which is 70 percent of the original line
 item.
    Q.  And referencing that entry, looking at your
 Attachment C, which says, "All additional plumbing
 charges are a result of errors in the removal of the
 first floor walls, which was not to occur," that's
 because, in your opinion, the plans don't call for
 removal of those walls; correct?
    A.  That's correct.
    Q.  Okay. When you went back again to look at
 Gary's records at his office after the first
 deposition --
    A.  (Witness nodding head.)
Â