Preview
1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024)
tjones(^archemorris.com
2 Gregory K. Federico (Bar No. 242184)
gfederico(garchemorris.com
3 ARCHER NORRIS
A Professional Law Corporation
4 301 University Avenue, Suite 110
Sacramento, Califomia 95825-5537
5 Telephone: 916.646.2480
Facsimile: 916.646.5696
6
Attomeys for Defendants and Cross-Defendants
7 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually, and
dba CA CONSTRUCTION
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11
RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450
12 ABBOTT,
DECLARATION OF GREG FEDERICO IN
13 Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RICHARD
KIRK RUYBALID, individually, and dba
14 CA CONSTRUCTION REQUEST FOR
EVIDENCE CODE § 402 HEARING
15 RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.. REGARDING FOUNDATION FOR THE
OPINIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-
16 Defendants. . RETAINED EXPERT BRYAN C. HILL,
P.E.
17
Trial: January 18, 2011
18 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 11
19
Action Filed: September 24, 2007
20
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
21
22 I, the undersigned, hereby declare as follows:
23 1. At all times relevant hereto, I have been an attomey licensed to practice law in the
24 State ofCalifomia and am an associate with the law firm of Archer Norris, counsel of record for
25 defendants herein. As such, I am personally familiar with the file in this matter and the
26 documents contained therein in our office.
27 2. The document attached hereto as Exhibit-A is a tme and correct excerpt ofthe
28 deposition testimony of Plaintiffs' expert Bryan C. Hill, P.E., given December 21, 2010, in this
N1C341/1080151-1
DECLARATION OF GREGORY K FEDERICOiN'SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARING AS TO PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT HILL
1 matter and as maintained by our offices in this matter.
2 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifomia the foregoing is
3 tme and correct and made upon personal knowledge.
4 Executed this 1i\ day of January, 2011 at Sacramento, CA.
6 Gregory K. Federico, Esq.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N1C341/1080151-1 2
DECLARATION OF GREGORY K FEDERICO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 402 HEARING AS TO PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT HILL
EXHIBIT A
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
oOo
RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE
ABBOTT,
Piaintiffs,
vs. Case No. 07AS04450
RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.,
and SERVICES,
Defendants.
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
DEPOSITION OF BRYAN C. HILL, P.E.
Sacramento, California
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
REPORTED BY:
RENEE M. BENCICH
CSR No. 11946, RPR
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
2 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
3 oOo
4 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE
ABBOTT,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
vs. Case No. 07AS04450
7
RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.,
8 and SERVICES,
9 Defendants.
10
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
11
12
13
14
15 Deposition of BRYAN C. HILL, P.E,, taken on
16 behalf of the Defendants, at Archer Norris, 301
17 University Avenue, Suite 110, Sacramento, California,
18 beginning at 2:03 p.m. and ending at 5:27 p.m., on
19 Tuesday, December 21, 2010, before Renee M. Bencich,
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter, License No. 11946.
21
22
23
24
25
U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
1 APPEARANCES
2 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
3 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHANIE J. FINELLI
BY: STEPHANIE J. FINELLI, ESQ.
4 1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95814
5 (916) 443-2144
sfinelli700@yahoo.com
6
7 FOR THE DEFENDANT RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND DBA CA CONSTRUCTION:
8
ARCHER NORRIS
9 BY: GREG K. FEDERICO, ESQ.
301 University Avenue, Suite 110
10 Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 646-2480
11 gfederico@archernorris.com
12
FOR THE DEFENDANT R4C0RP:
13
WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN, LLP
14 BY: RICHARD W. FREEMAN, JR., ESQ.
1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700
15 Concord, CA 94520
(925) 356-8200
16 rfreeman@wshblaw.com
17
FOR THE DEPONENT, BRYAN C. HILL, P.E.:
18
FORAN GLENNON PALANDECH PONZI & RUDLOFF, PC
19 BY: G. EDWARD RUDLOFF, JR., ESQ.
JENNIFER N. WAHLGREN, ESQ.
20 2000 Powell Street, Suite 900
Emeryville, CA 94608
21 (510) 740-1500
erudloff@fgppr.com
22 jwahlgren@fgppr.com
23
24 ALSO PRESENT: Florentine Abbott, Plaintiff
25
U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
10
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Okay. And that office — can you give me the
3 address of that office?
4 A. I can. The other state is Mississippi. 4205
5 Cincinnati Avenue, Suite 100, Rocklin, California 95765.
6 Q. Okay. And what is your position at EFI Global?
7 A. Civil engineer.
8 Q. At EFI what are your :)ob duties? That's
9 probably a hard question to answer.
10 A. I go out and do inspections, from those
11 inspections write reports. Marketing, business
12 development. I currently hold a corporate officer
13 position for the State of California.
14 Q. Okay. Are you one of the owners of the
15 company?
16 A. No, I am not.
17 Q. Okay.
18 (Knocking at the door.)
19 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Someone else is here for
20 you.
21 MR. FEDERICO: We'll need one more chair.
22 THE COURT REPORTER: Are we off the record?
23 MR. FEDERICO: Yeah, go off the record.
24 (Off the record.)
25 MR. FEDERICO: We'll go back on the record.
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
24
1 - A. To my knowledge, yes.
2 Q. When you were dealing with Ms. Worrell on this
3 assignment, where was she based out of?
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. Okay. The report that you issued has a
6 Lexington, Kentucky, address. And so do you know one
7 way or the other whether Ms. Worrell is based out of
that Lexington, Kentucky, office or The Hartford office
9 that's located here in Sacramento?
10 A. I can't say for sure.
11 Q. Okay. When you were contacted by Ms. Worrell,
12 what was the nature of your assignment?
13 A. To look at cracks in the concrete, to look at
14 cracks in the interior and exterior of the building.
15 And also in the assignment was the garage floor
16 elevation in regards to where it should be and the
17 steepness of the driveway, those things — last two
18 things were taken back out of the assignment upon a
19 phone call to Ms. Worrell. Meaning the final elevation
20 of the garage and the driveway were not going to be part
21 of the inspection.
f
22 Q. Okay. So your initial assignment included an
23 issue associated with the relative elevation of the
24 garage floor as it relates to the house?
25 A. My initial inspection requirements are listed
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
26
1 garage floor, was — that was taken back out of your
2 assignment?
3 A. As It relates to?
4 Q. The house, the remaining portions of the house.
5 A. As an engineer, if I see cracks, I will do an
elevation survey to determine information that I can
then glean an opinion from.
Q. Uh-huh.
9 A. So a floor elevation of the garage m my
10 opinion was necessary to find out what was going on.
11 The elevation of the floor, garage floor relative to the
12 house, be it higher or lower than where the plans said
13 it should be, I believe may have been beyond the scope
14 of work of the assignment.
15 Q. Okay. And then what about the relative
16 elevation of either the house or the garage floor with
17 respect to the finished elevation of the cul-de-sac on
18 the street outside of the house, was that outside of th;e
19 scope?
20 A. That was not part of the scope of my work.
21 Q. Okay. And then when you say relative -- you're
22 using the terms "floor," "elevation." I noticed m the
23 report that, you know, we're going to get to eventually
24 there was a floor survey done. Are those terms one and
25 the same, in your mind?
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
28
1 -was documents shared at the time I was at the
2 inspection. Those documents may have also been made
3 smaller and sent to me at a later date. I cannot recall
4 whether she had them on site at that time and gave them
5 to me or provided them to me in an e-mail or through
6 Linda Worrell to me.
7 Q. Okay. You just — you got some documents at
some point in time, you just don't know the manner in
9 which you received them?
10 A. Some were on site, some may have come by
11 e-mail, but that is correct.
12 Q. Okay. And from your standpoint have you
13 completed all the work on this matter?
14 A. Up and to this deposition, yes. If addltional
15 information becomes available, the case may open up
16 again.
17 Q. And what do you mean by that? Are there
18 different scenarios that you're envisioning when you say
19 that?
20 A. I suggested in the report to do a soil sample
21 or a core sample through the garage to check for
22 compaction. If those numbers came back, the case could
s
23 open up again. With new information surfacing, I retain
24 the — retain the right m my report to alter or add to
25 my opinions and conclusions.
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
29 11
- 1 Q. And as you sit here today do you know whether ^
2 any of that, the testing that you suggested in the 1
3 report, was performed?
4 A. I do not.
5 Q. Okay. And independent of any documents that
6 either Linda Worrell or the homeowner might have i
7 provided you, did you consult any other sources m
8 reaching your opinions m the report?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Okay. And what are those?
11 A. The Caterpillar, I looked that up online to see
12 exactly what product was used for the said compression
13 of the aggregate m the garage. I discussed with a
14 local contractor compression.
15 Q. Anything else, any other sources?
16 A. Typically I will read and update myself on each
17 report to g a m a thorough understanding or attempt a
18 thorough understanding given the boundaries of finances
19 that the job allows to g a m knowledge about each
20 particular job so that when I write my report I feel
21 more confident that I've done some research on each j
22 topic.
23 Q. Okay. j
24 A. And when — you asked for any other sources, j
25 the ANSI/TPIl.
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
35
1 testimony or do you have a different fee?
2 A. I believe so. Our rate sheet was sent to you
3 m February of this year.
4 Q. Your assignment came from The Hartford in
5 relation to an insurance property claim, correct?
6 A. I believe so.
7 Q. Okay. And do you know what the disposition of
that claim was?
9 A. Could you explain —
10 MR. RUDLOFF: Its final resolution.
11 MR. FEDERICO: Q. Correct.
12 MR. RUDLOFF: Do you understand what he's
13 asking you?
14 MR. FEDERICO: Q. Need me to re-ask it?
15 A. I would like "disposition" explained.
16 Q. Sure. So you have a homeowners property claim,
17 insurance property claim, you're retained by — as I
18 understand the process you're retained by the insurance
19 company to perform an investigation/inspection and
20 render a report and some opinions, correct?
21 A. (Witness nods head.)
22 MR. RUDLOFF: You have to answer out loud.
23 THE WITNESS: Correct.
24 MR. FEDERICO: Q. That's another admonition I
25 didn't go over. The court reporter cannot take down
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. HiU, P.E.
37
1 (Whereupon,. Defendants' Exhibit B
2 was marked for identification.)
3 MR. FEDERICO: I only have one.
4 MR. RUDLOFF: Yeah, go ahead.
5 THE WITNESS: Share that one?
6 MR. RUDLOFF: I'm fine. I'll look over your
7 shoulder.
MR. FEDERICO: Q. I want you to take a second
9 and just peruse through that report. I want to make
10 sure that we've got the correct report.
11 A. It appears we do.
12 Q. Okay. Good. I've handed you what's been
13 marked as Exhibit B. It's a copy of the EFI Global
14 report prepared by Bryan Hill for the insured,
15 Florentine Abbott. The report is dated April 18th,
16 2009.
17 I want you to turn to the second page of the
18 report, please. And at the top it says "The Hartford
19 Insurance Company assigned EFI Global the task of
20 inspecting the cracks in the garage foundation and side
21 wall of the residence and to provide an origin and cause
22 of the damage."
23 And so that accurately reflects your tasks on
24 this particular 30b, correct?
25 A. That IS the general wording of the scope of
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
44
1 were amended at any point in time?
2 A. I don't recall.
3 Q. Okay. And you say the engineering, you were
4 shown some engineering to the home. Did the — and
5 those are attached to your report, correct?
6 A. The only engineering attached to my report is
7 the truss component engineering. And if the
Construction Testing & Engineering report is considered
9 engineering, it is not stamped. It is a report by a
10 certified individual, but I do not see an engmeering
11 stamp on it.
12 There was also a letter regarding the jack
13 trusses and the truss connection that I was provided
14 that is stamped, and that is considered engineering.
15 Q. Okay. Were you provided a copy of the
16 structural calculations for the home?
17 A. If I was it would be in the material that you
18 have.
19 Q. Okay. Do you remember reviewing any of the
20 structural calculations pertaining to foundation?
21 A. That is typically beyond the scope of the
22 assignment unless it's requested.
23 Q. Is that something — when you say beyond the
24 scope, IS that more of a geotechnical issue?
25 A. That depends. If it's m regards to soils.
U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
46
1 -. report marked as Exhibit- B your photographs?
2 A. Let me check.
3 Q. Sure.
4 A. It appears all the photographs are my
5 photographs.
6 Q. And at any point m time while domg your
7 investigation or preparing a report or after did you
review any of the contracts for the contractors who
9 performed work on this project?
10 A. Beyond Construction Testing & Engineering, I
11 don't believe so.
12 Q. Okay. Were you notified of any information
13 pertaining to the scopes of work of the various
14 contractors that worked on this project?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Not to my knowledge.
18 Q. At any point in time in your investigation and
19 the report writing and after were you ever advised that
20 Ms. Abbott was the owner/builder for the home?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. And my understanding was she had a contractor,
24 a general contractor, and I specified that m the report
25 that she chose to pay the subs, but that did not lead me
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
47
1 to believe that she played the role of a general
2 contractor. It was my understanding that was so that
3 the subs got paid and she did not have a lien placed
4 against her property.
5 Q. Okay. And then it kind of brings me to my next
6 question. In the interview section of your report going
7 from page 2 on to page 3 there's several references to
8 "contractor," that term. And is that referring to one
9 single person or multiple contractors, if you can
10 recall?
11 MR. RUDLOFF: Why don't you point out which
12 ones you're speaking of, looking at.
13 MR. FEDERICO: Sure.
14 Q. Looking at the last sentence on page 2, "She
15 remembers the contractor excavating away the original
16 slope and placing the fill material uncompacted into the
17 area below the post pier construction and below the
18 garage.
19 That reference to contractor, do you know who
20 that refers to?
21 A. That would be the contractor that provided the
22 tractor work or soils work, and I do not know who that
23 individual was. Unless it's stated in the construction
— /
24 engineering report.
25 Q. Or — or whether any soils work was ever done
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
50
1 -• and said that the compaction was --
2 A. Yeah. I don't recall. I mean, that — the
3 contractor or one of the individuals where she stated
4 the contractor who constructed the home had confirmed
5 the placement of the uncompacted fill below her home,
6 she — she pomted out that there was an individual that
7 came back and stated that it was not compacted.
Q. And did she give you a name of that person?
9 A. I don't believe so.
10 Q. Okay. So with respect to this compaction or
11 the lack of compaction, whatever it may be, these —
12 those are based on statements that Ms. Abbott told you;
1
13 is that correct?
14 A. I have not tested the soil.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. I —
17 Q. So that's a yes?
18 A. Those are based on her statements and I believe
19 are also solidified by what I saw.
20 Q. In some of your observations?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. So with respect to these two statements,
23 and I'm just talking about excavating the original slope
24 away, and on page 3 that the contractor who constructed
25 the home had confirmed the placement of the uncompacted
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
51
1 fill below her home, you don't have any independent
2 knowledge other than what Ms. Abbott has told you to
3 verify those statements, correct?
4 MS. FINELLI: I thmk that misstates his
5 testimony. I thmk he just said that it was solidified
6 by what he saw.
7 THE WITNESS: I did a floor-level survey of the
garage that really points to uncompacted soils.
9 MR. FEDERICO: Q. Okay.
10 A. And that's why in my report I — I stated that
11 a soil analysis should be completed.
12 Q. Okay. So I guess I'll just clarify — the
13 question maybe needs to be clarified.
14 In terms of the contractor excavating away the
15 original slope and somebody confirming the placement of
16 uncompacted fill, those statements are just based on
17 what Ms. Abbott told you; is that correct?
18 A. The statements m the mterview —
19 Q. Right.
20 A. — are based on what she told me.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. The observations and discussion lead me to the
23 conclusions that I — that I came to as a result of
24 measurements, observations, portion of the interview
25 process, but more along the lines of my physical
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
67
1 move and an exterior wall that does move, the trusses
2 will pop off of that other exterior wall, dependent on
3 the interior bearing.
4 Q. Uh-huh. And based on your investigation did
5 you see any — any of those bearings that would weigh on
6 this problem?
7 A. If the movement of the garage slab is
8 indicative of the movement of the foundation, the
9 trusses would follow.
10 Q. And did you do anything to mvestigate whether
11 the foundations, either the house foundation or the
12 garage foundation, is moving?
13 A. I did a floor-level survey at the garage slab
14 and I observed cracking in the stem wall of the
15 foundation.
16 Q. And those are indicative of movement?
17 A. Cracks will always occur in concrete. Concrete
18 shrinks, it cracks. The cracks that I saw, the radial
19 cracks around the man door, the cracks across the span
20 north to south — or south to north of the garage
21 indicated to me that the — there was a possibility that
22 the slab was undergoing movement. And that's when I
23 made a decision to do a floor-level survey of the garage
24 to come to some conclusion whether or not it was. And
25 It really appeared that it was to me, given the
U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
68
1 floor-level survey.
2 Q. And now let's assume if — well, strike that.
3 You didn't look at any earlier floor surveys
4 that might have been done, correct?
5 A. No, I did not.
6 Q. And so you don't know whether earlier floor
7 surveys would have revealed the same floor conditions
that you found when you did your floor survey, correct?
9 A. Could you restate your question?
10 Q. Sure. You don't know whether the floor
11 survey — strike that.
12 I had asked if you had looked at any earlier
13 floor surveys and you said no, correct?
14 A. That IS correct.
15 Q. Okay. And so you don't know whether the
16 conditions present on the floor survey that you
1"^ conducted would have been the same of an earlier floor
18 survey, correct?
19 A. That I do not know.
20 Q. Okay. And likewise, if we went out there and
21 did a floor survey now, we don't know whether the
22 conditions would be the same at either the time you did
— . : /
23 it or, you know, if one was done in the past, correct?
24 A. That is correct. The floor survey that you
25 would do today may exactly match mine, it may show
U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
69
1 further-drop in the east end of the garage floor.-
2 Q. Okay. And outside of a floor survey, based on
3 what we've just been talking about that we don't know
4 whether conditions have changed or not, what are some
, — — — - — 1
5 other ways that we can figure out whether the slab is
• — — — '
6 moving?
A. You could core drill the slab and take a sample
below the slab. You could take a sample, say, 30 inches
9 off the side of the building and see how far you are
10 able to drill before you hit native soil. You know, how
11 far through that fill until you actually hit native
12 soil. And you can do samplmg of that core.
13 Another survey of the garage slab might not be
14 a bad idea, go back in and look and see do we have any
15 additional cracking that has gone on since the
16 inspection in 2009 — April 9th, was it, 2009? That
17 would probably be a good recommendation to say here --
18 here's an initial survey done a year and a half ago, two
19 years ago, here's a new survey, do we see any movement.
20 Q. Right. And you don't know whether or not any
21 of that has occurred, correct?
22 A. I do not.
23 Q. And the core — I want to go back to the core
24 sample that you talked about. Now, where would you take
25 the core, from what area of the garage would you focus
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
71
1 -.t-- compacted the gravel, I don't have anything that says
2 they compacted the fill.
3 Q. Uh-huh. But you have to assume — you have to
4 make an assumption there that that cut was moved along
5 that — the lot, correct?
6 A. I don't have to assume anything. That cut
7 could have been taken away from the property and new
8 soils brought in.
9 Q. Right. But the fact that the cut was made was
10 told to you by the homeowner, right?
11 A. And It also is visible that a cut was made
12 because there's a large retaining wall from what was the
13 native grade of the lot.
14 Q. Right. So I guess the better question is when
15 that cut was made, you don't know specifically what
16 happened to that dirt. It could have been placed under
17 the house, it could have been placed in front of the
18 house, in the back of the house, you just don't know.
19 right?
20 A. I don't know what happened to that actual dirt.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. The fill that was placed below the house — and
23 when I say fill, there is a lot of grassy debris beyond
24 the garage east, northeast of the house, a berm of
25 grassy debris. Which is typical. They'll scrape the
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Bryan C. Hill, P.E.
1 Q. Right. Is that what the three-quarter-inch
2 aggregate is, is 95 percent self-compacting?
3 A. The soils below typically — well, that's the
4 range that we want to be, you know, plus or minus.
5 That's where we want to be when we start constructing
6 structures, unless the geotech says I want a higher
7 level of compaction or something.
8 Q. And you had stated earlier that — that you can
9 use a — based on the Construction Testing & Engineering
10 report you think that the 247 Cat loader compacted some
11 but not all of the aggregate in the garage; is that
12 correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And in terms of the corners, that's
15 where the difficulty would lie if you were trying to use
16 the Cat loader based on its size, correct?
17 A. If you look at the radius of the Cat loader
18 track and the placement of the stem wall already in
19 place, I don't believe you could get into the corners
20 where we saw cracking near the man door of the garage
21 properly with that particular piece of equipment.
22 Q. Okay. And that's when additional equipment
23 would be required, either — would a hand tamper work?
24 A. If it was done m lifts and it was vibrated
25 down and had a -- a steel-plate hand tamper, something
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
916-248-5608
Preview
1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024) tjones(^archemorris.com 2 Gregory K. Federico (Bar No. 242184) gfederico(garchemorris.com 3 ARCHER NORRIS A Professional Law Corporation 4 301 University Avenue, Suite 110 Sacramento, Califomia 95825-5537 5 Telephone: 916.646.2480 Facsimile: 916.646.5696 6 Attomeys for Defendants and Cross-Defendants 7 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually, and dba CA CONSTRUCTION 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 11 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450 12 ABBOTT, DECLARATION OF GREG FEDERICO IN 13 Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually, and dba 14 CA CONSTRUCTION REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE § 402 HEARING 15 RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.. REGARDING FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S NON- 16 Defendants. . RETAINED EXPERT BRYAN C. HILL, P.E. 17 Trial: January 18, 2011 18 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 11 19 Action Filed: September 24, 2007 20 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 21 22 I, the undersigned, hereby declare as follows: 23 1. At all times relevant hereto, I have been an attomey licensed to practice law in the 24 State ofCalifomia and am an associate with the law firm of Archer Norris, counsel of record for 25 defendants herein. As such, I am personally familiar with the file in this matter and the 26 documents contained therein in our office. 27 2. The document attached hereto as Exhibit-A is a tme and correct excerpt ofthe 28 deposition testimony of Plaintiffs' expert Bryan C. Hill, P.E., given December 21, 2010, in this N1C341/1080151-1 DECLARATION OF GREGORY K FEDERICOiN'SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 402 HEARING AS TO PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT HILL 1 matter and as maintained by our offices in this matter. 2 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifomia the foregoing is 3 tme and correct and made upon personal knowledge. 4 Executed this 1i\ day of January, 2011 at Sacramento, CA. 6 Gregory K. Federico, Esq. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 N1C341/1080151-1 2 DECLARATION OF GREGORY K FEDERICO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 402 HEARING AS TO PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT HILL EXHIBIT A Bryan C. Hill, P.E. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO oOo RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE ABBOTT, Piaintiffs, vs. Case No. 07AS04450 RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al., and SERVICES, Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. DEPOSITION OF BRYAN C. HILL, P.E. Sacramento, California Tuesday, December 21, 2010 REPORTED BY: RENEE M. BENCICH CSR No. 11946, RPR U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 3 oOo 4 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE ABBOTT, 5 Plaintiffs, 6 vs. Case No. 07AS04450 7 RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al., 8 and SERVICES, 9 Defendants. 10 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 11 12 13 14 15 Deposition of BRYAN C. HILL, P.E,, taken on 16 behalf of the Defendants, at Archer Norris, 301 17 University Avenue, Suite 110, Sacramento, California, 18 beginning at 2:03 p.m. and ending at 5:27 p.m., on 19 Tuesday, December 21, 2010, before Renee M. Bencich, 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter, License No. 11946. 21 22 23 24 25 U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHANIE J. FINELLI BY: STEPHANIE J. FINELLI, ESQ. 4 1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95814 5 (916) 443-2144 sfinelli700@yahoo.com 6 7 FOR THE DEFENDANT RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DBA CA CONSTRUCTION: 8 ARCHER NORRIS 9 BY: GREG K. FEDERICO, ESQ. 301 University Avenue, Suite 110 10 Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 646-2480 11 gfederico@archernorris.com 12 FOR THE DEFENDANT R4C0RP: 13 WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN, LLP 14 BY: RICHARD W. FREEMAN, JR., ESQ. 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700 15 Concord, CA 94520 (925) 356-8200 16 rfreeman@wshblaw.com 17 FOR THE DEPONENT, BRYAN C. HILL, P.E.: 18 FORAN GLENNON PALANDECH PONZI & RUDLOFF, PC 19 BY: G. EDWARD RUDLOFF, JR., ESQ. JENNIFER N. WAHLGREN, ESQ. 20 2000 Powell Street, Suite 900 Emeryville, CA 94608 21 (510) 740-1500 erudloff@fgppr.com 22 jwahlgren@fgppr.com 23 24 ALSO PRESENT: Florentine Abbott, Plaintiff 25 U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 10 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Okay. And that office — can you give me the 3 address of that office? 4 A. I can. The other state is Mississippi. 4205 5 Cincinnati Avenue, Suite 100, Rocklin, California 95765. 6 Q. Okay. And what is your position at EFI Global? 7 A. Civil engineer. 8 Q. At EFI what are your :)ob duties? That's 9 probably a hard question to answer. 10 A. I go out and do inspections, from those 11 inspections write reports. Marketing, business 12 development. I currently hold a corporate officer 13 position for the State of California. 14 Q. Okay. Are you one of the owners of the 15 company? 16 A. No, I am not. 17 Q. Okay. 18 (Knocking at the door.) 19 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Someone else is here for 20 you. 21 MR. FEDERICO: We'll need one more chair. 22 THE COURT REPORTER: Are we off the record? 23 MR. FEDERICO: Yeah, go off the record. 24 (Off the record.) 25 MR. FEDERICO: We'll go back on the record. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 24 1 - A. To my knowledge, yes. 2 Q. When you were dealing with Ms. Worrell on this 3 assignment, where was she based out of? 4 A. I don't know. 5 Q. Okay. The report that you issued has a 6 Lexington, Kentucky, address. And so do you know one 7 way or the other whether Ms. Worrell is based out of that Lexington, Kentucky, office or The Hartford office 9 that's located here in Sacramento? 10 A. I can't say for sure. 11 Q. Okay. When you were contacted by Ms. Worrell, 12 what was the nature of your assignment? 13 A. To look at cracks in the concrete, to look at 14 cracks in the interior and exterior of the building. 15 And also in the assignment was the garage floor 16 elevation in regards to where it should be and the 17 steepness of the driveway, those things — last two 18 things were taken back out of the assignment upon a 19 phone call to Ms. Worrell. Meaning the final elevation 20 of the garage and the driveway were not going to be part 21 of the inspection. f 22 Q. Okay. So your initial assignment included an 23 issue associated with the relative elevation of the 24 garage floor as it relates to the house? 25 A. My initial inspection requirements are listed U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 26 1 garage floor, was — that was taken back out of your 2 assignment? 3 A. As It relates to? 4 Q. The house, the remaining portions of the house. 5 A. As an engineer, if I see cracks, I will do an elevation survey to determine information that I can then glean an opinion from. Q. Uh-huh. 9 A. So a floor elevation of the garage m my 10 opinion was necessary to find out what was going on. 11 The elevation of the floor, garage floor relative to the 12 house, be it higher or lower than where the plans said 13 it should be, I believe may have been beyond the scope 14 of work of the assignment. 15 Q. Okay. And then what about the relative 16 elevation of either the house or the garage floor with 17 respect to the finished elevation of the cul-de-sac on 18 the street outside of the house, was that outside of th;e 19 scope? 20 A. That was not part of the scope of my work. 21 Q. Okay. And then when you say relative -- you're 22 using the terms "floor," "elevation." I noticed m the 23 report that, you know, we're going to get to eventually 24 there was a floor survey done. Are those terms one and 25 the same, in your mind? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 28 1 -was documents shared at the time I was at the 2 inspection. Those documents may have also been made 3 smaller and sent to me at a later date. I cannot recall 4 whether she had them on site at that time and gave them 5 to me or provided them to me in an e-mail or through 6 Linda Worrell to me. 7 Q. Okay. You just — you got some documents at some point in time, you just don't know the manner in 9 which you received them? 10 A. Some were on site, some may have come by 11 e-mail, but that is correct. 12 Q. Okay. And from your standpoint have you 13 completed all the work on this matter? 14 A. Up and to this deposition, yes. If addltional 15 information becomes available, the case may open up 16 again. 17 Q. And what do you mean by that? Are there 18 different scenarios that you're envisioning when you say 19 that? 20 A. I suggested in the report to do a soil sample 21 or a core sample through the garage to check for 22 compaction. If those numbers came back, the case could s 23 open up again. With new information surfacing, I retain 24 the — retain the right m my report to alter or add to 25 my opinions and conclusions. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 29 11 - 1 Q. And as you sit here today do you know whether ^ 2 any of that, the testing that you suggested in the 1 3 report, was performed? 4 A. I do not. 5 Q. Okay. And independent of any documents that 6 either Linda Worrell or the homeowner might have i 7 provided you, did you consult any other sources m 8 reaching your opinions m the report? 9 A. I did. 10 Q. Okay. And what are those? 11 A. The Caterpillar, I looked that up online to see 12 exactly what product was used for the said compression 13 of the aggregate m the garage. I discussed with a 14 local contractor compression. 15 Q. Anything else, any other sources? 16 A. Typically I will read and update myself on each 17 report to g a m a thorough understanding or attempt a 18 thorough understanding given the boundaries of finances 19 that the job allows to g a m knowledge about each 20 particular job so that when I write my report I feel 21 more confident that I've done some research on each j 22 topic. 23 Q. Okay. j 24 A. And when — you asked for any other sources, j 25 the ANSI/TPIl. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 35 1 testimony or do you have a different fee? 2 A. I believe so. Our rate sheet was sent to you 3 m February of this year. 4 Q. Your assignment came from The Hartford in 5 relation to an insurance property claim, correct? 6 A. I believe so. 7 Q. Okay. And do you know what the disposition of that claim was? 9 A. Could you explain — 10 MR. RUDLOFF: Its final resolution. 11 MR. FEDERICO: Q. Correct. 12 MR. RUDLOFF: Do you understand what he's 13 asking you? 14 MR. FEDERICO: Q. Need me to re-ask it? 15 A. I would like "disposition" explained. 16 Q. Sure. So you have a homeowners property claim, 17 insurance property claim, you're retained by — as I 18 understand the process you're retained by the insurance 19 company to perform an investigation/inspection and 20 render a report and some opinions, correct? 21 A. (Witness nods head.) 22 MR. RUDLOFF: You have to answer out loud. 23 THE WITNESS: Correct. 24 MR. FEDERICO: Q. That's another admonition I 25 didn't go over. The court reporter cannot take down U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. HiU, P.E. 37 1 (Whereupon,. Defendants' Exhibit B 2 was marked for identification.) 3 MR. FEDERICO: I only have one. 4 MR. RUDLOFF: Yeah, go ahead. 5 THE WITNESS: Share that one? 6 MR. RUDLOFF: I'm fine. I'll look over your 7 shoulder. MR. FEDERICO: Q. I want you to take a second 9 and just peruse through that report. I want to make 10 sure that we've got the correct report. 11 A. It appears we do. 12 Q. Okay. Good. I've handed you what's been 13 marked as Exhibit B. It's a copy of the EFI Global 14 report prepared by Bryan Hill for the insured, 15 Florentine Abbott. The report is dated April 18th, 16 2009. 17 I want you to turn to the second page of the 18 report, please. And at the top it says "The Hartford 19 Insurance Company assigned EFI Global the task of 20 inspecting the cracks in the garage foundation and side 21 wall of the residence and to provide an origin and cause 22 of the damage." 23 And so that accurately reflects your tasks on 24 this particular 30b, correct? 25 A. That IS the general wording of the scope of U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 44 1 were amended at any point in time? 2 A. I don't recall. 3 Q. Okay. And you say the engineering, you were 4 shown some engineering to the home. Did the — and 5 those are attached to your report, correct? 6 A. The only engineering attached to my report is 7 the truss component engineering. And if the Construction Testing & Engineering report is considered 9 engineering, it is not stamped. It is a report by a 10 certified individual, but I do not see an engmeering 11 stamp on it. 12 There was also a letter regarding the jack 13 trusses and the truss connection that I was provided 14 that is stamped, and that is considered engineering. 15 Q. Okay. Were you provided a copy of the 16 structural calculations for the home? 17 A. If I was it would be in the material that you 18 have. 19 Q. Okay. Do you remember reviewing any of the 20 structural calculations pertaining to foundation? 21 A. That is typically beyond the scope of the 22 assignment unless it's requested. 23 Q. Is that something — when you say beyond the 24 scope, IS that more of a geotechnical issue? 25 A. That depends. If it's m regards to soils. U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 46 1 -. report marked as Exhibit- B your photographs? 2 A. Let me check. 3 Q. Sure. 4 A. It appears all the photographs are my 5 photographs. 6 Q. And at any point m time while domg your 7 investigation or preparing a report or after did you review any of the contracts for the contractors who 9 performed work on this project? 10 A. Beyond Construction Testing & Engineering, I 11 don't believe so. 12 Q. Okay. Were you notified of any information 13 pertaining to the scopes of work of the various 14 contractors that worked on this project? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. Not to my knowledge. 18 Q. At any point in time in your investigation and 19 the report writing and after were you ever advised that 20 Ms. Abbott was the owner/builder for the home? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. And my understanding was she had a contractor, 24 a general contractor, and I specified that m the report 25 that she chose to pay the subs, but that did not lead me U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 47 1 to believe that she played the role of a general 2 contractor. It was my understanding that was so that 3 the subs got paid and she did not have a lien placed 4 against her property. 5 Q. Okay. And then it kind of brings me to my next 6 question. In the interview section of your report going 7 from page 2 on to page 3 there's several references to 8 "contractor," that term. And is that referring to one 9 single person or multiple contractors, if you can 10 recall? 11 MR. RUDLOFF: Why don't you point out which 12 ones you're speaking of, looking at. 13 MR. FEDERICO: Sure. 14 Q. Looking at the last sentence on page 2, "She 15 remembers the contractor excavating away the original 16 slope and placing the fill material uncompacted into the 17 area below the post pier construction and below the 18 garage. 19 That reference to contractor, do you know who 20 that refers to? 21 A. That would be the contractor that provided the 22 tractor work or soils work, and I do not know who that 23 individual was. Unless it's stated in the construction — / 24 engineering report. 25 Q. Or — or whether any soils work was ever done U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 50 1 -• and said that the compaction was -- 2 A. Yeah. I don't recall. I mean, that — the 3 contractor or one of the individuals where she stated 4 the contractor who constructed the home had confirmed 5 the placement of the uncompacted fill below her home, 6 she — she pomted out that there was an individual that 7 came back and stated that it was not compacted. Q. And did she give you a name of that person? 9 A. I don't believe so. 10 Q. Okay. So with respect to this compaction or 11 the lack of compaction, whatever it may be, these — 12 those are based on statements that Ms. Abbott told you; 1 13 is that correct? 14 A. I have not tested the soil. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. I — 17 Q. So that's a yes? 18 A. Those are based on her statements and I believe 19 are also solidified by what I saw. 20 Q. In some of your observations? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. So with respect to these two statements, 23 and I'm just talking about excavating the original slope 24 away, and on page 3 that the contractor who constructed 25 the home had confirmed the placement of the uncompacted U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 51 1 fill below her home, you don't have any independent 2 knowledge other than what Ms. Abbott has told you to 3 verify those statements, correct? 4 MS. FINELLI: I thmk that misstates his 5 testimony. I thmk he just said that it was solidified 6 by what he saw. 7 THE WITNESS: I did a floor-level survey of the garage that really points to uncompacted soils. 9 MR. FEDERICO: Q. Okay. 10 A. And that's why in my report I — I stated that 11 a soil analysis should be completed. 12 Q. Okay. So I guess I'll just clarify — the 13 question maybe needs to be clarified. 14 In terms of the contractor excavating away the 15 original slope and somebody confirming the placement of 16 uncompacted fill, those statements are just based on 17 what Ms. Abbott told you; is that correct? 18 A. The statements m the mterview — 19 Q. Right. 20 A. — are based on what she told me. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. The observations and discussion lead me to the 23 conclusions that I — that I came to as a result of 24 measurements, observations, portion of the interview 25 process, but more along the lines of my physical U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 67 1 move and an exterior wall that does move, the trusses 2 will pop off of that other exterior wall, dependent on 3 the interior bearing. 4 Q. Uh-huh. And based on your investigation did 5 you see any — any of those bearings that would weigh on 6 this problem? 7 A. If the movement of the garage slab is 8 indicative of the movement of the foundation, the 9 trusses would follow. 10 Q. And did you do anything to mvestigate whether 11 the foundations, either the house foundation or the 12 garage foundation, is moving? 13 A. I did a floor-level survey at the garage slab 14 and I observed cracking in the stem wall of the 15 foundation. 16 Q. And those are indicative of movement? 17 A. Cracks will always occur in concrete. Concrete 18 shrinks, it cracks. The cracks that I saw, the radial 19 cracks around the man door, the cracks across the span 20 north to south — or south to north of the garage 21 indicated to me that the — there was a possibility that 22 the slab was undergoing movement. And that's when I 23 made a decision to do a floor-level survey of the garage 24 to come to some conclusion whether or not it was. And 25 It really appeared that it was to me, given the U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 68 1 floor-level survey. 2 Q. And now let's assume if — well, strike that. 3 You didn't look at any earlier floor surveys 4 that might have been done, correct? 5 A. No, I did not. 6 Q. And so you don't know whether earlier floor 7 surveys would have revealed the same floor conditions that you found when you did your floor survey, correct? 9 A. Could you restate your question? 10 Q. Sure. You don't know whether the floor 11 survey — strike that. 12 I had asked if you had looked at any earlier 13 floor surveys and you said no, correct? 14 A. That IS correct. 15 Q. Okay. And so you don't know whether the 16 conditions present on the floor survey that you 1"^ conducted would have been the same of an earlier floor 18 survey, correct? 19 A. That I do not know. 20 Q. Okay. And likewise, if we went out there and 21 did a floor survey now, we don't know whether the 22 conditions would be the same at either the time you did — . : / 23 it or, you know, if one was done in the past, correct? 24 A. That is correct. The floor survey that you 25 would do today may exactly match mine, it may show U.S. L E G A L SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 69 1 further-drop in the east end of the garage floor.- 2 Q. Okay. And outside of a floor survey, based on 3 what we've just been talking about that we don't know 4 whether conditions have changed or not, what are some , — — — - — 1 5 other ways that we can figure out whether the slab is • — — — ' 6 moving? A. You could core drill the slab and take a sample below the slab. You could take a sample, say, 30 inches 9 off the side of the building and see how far you are 10 able to drill before you hit native soil. You know, how 11 far through that fill until you actually hit native 12 soil. And you can do samplmg of that core. 13 Another survey of the garage slab might not be 14 a bad idea, go back in and look and see do we have any 15 additional cracking that has gone on since the 16 inspection in 2009 — April 9th, was it, 2009? That 17 would probably be a good recommendation to say here -- 18 here's an initial survey done a year and a half ago, two 19 years ago, here's a new survey, do we see any movement. 20 Q. Right. And you don't know whether or not any 21 of that has occurred, correct? 22 A. I do not. 23 Q. And the core — I want to go back to the core 24 sample that you talked about. Now, where would you take 25 the core, from what area of the garage would you focus U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 71 1 -.t-- compacted the gravel, I don't have anything that says 2 they compacted the fill. 3 Q. Uh-huh. But you have to assume — you have to 4 make an assumption there that that cut was moved along 5 that — the lot, correct? 6 A. I don't have to assume anything. That cut 7 could have been taken away from the property and new 8 soils brought in. 9 Q. Right. But the fact that the cut was made was 10 told to you by the homeowner, right? 11 A. And It also is visible that a cut was made 12 because there's a large retaining wall from what was the 13 native grade of the lot. 14 Q. Right. So I guess the better question is when 15 that cut was made, you don't know specifically what 16 happened to that dirt. It could have been placed under 17 the house, it could have been placed in front of the 18 house, in the back of the house, you just don't know. 19 right? 20 A. I don't know what happened to that actual dirt. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. The fill that was placed below the house — and 23 when I say fill, there is a lot of grassy debris beyond 24 the garage east, northeast of the house, a berm of 25 grassy debris. Which is typical. They'll scrape the U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608 Bryan C. Hill, P.E. 1 Q. Right. Is that what the three-quarter-inch 2 aggregate is, is 95 percent self-compacting? 3 A. The soils below typically — well, that's the 4 range that we want to be, you know, plus or minus. 5 That's where we want to be when we start constructing 6 structures, unless the geotech says I want a higher 7 level of compaction or something. 8 Q. And you had stated earlier that — that you can 9 use a — based on the Construction Testing & Engineering 10 report you think that the 247 Cat loader compacted some 11 but not all of the aggregate in the garage; is that 12 correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. And in terms of the corners, that's 15 where the difficulty would lie if you were trying to use 16 the Cat loader based on its size, correct? 17 A. If you look at the radius of the Cat loader 18 track and the placement of the stem wall already in 19 place, I don't believe you could get into the corners 20 where we saw cracking near the man door of the garage 21 properly with that particular piece of equipment. 22 Q. Okay. And that's when additional equipment 23 would be required, either — would a hand tamper work? 24 A. If it was done m lifts and it was vibrated 25 down and had a -- a steel-plate hand tamper, something U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 916-248-5608