Free Pretrial Order - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 304-7

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 1 of 8

6. Leprino Foods Company' Witness List s

A.

Non-expert and non-retained expert Witnesses 1. Jim Leprino Majority Shareholder Leprino Foods Company

The general substance of Mr. Leprino' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. His role in the company. b. The nature of the business. c. His knowledge of the business. d. The need for the Lemoore West facility (product demand). e. Mr. Leprino' oversight of the Project, including his s knowledge of Big-D mismanagement, prompting a trip to Salt Lake City to demand that Big-D cure the problem. f. Big-D' response to demands they cure their deficiencies. s 2. Scott Savage (non-retained expert) EAB Project Architect

The general substance of Mr. Savage' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. His role on the project. b. Sequence of design. c. The nature of the design effort. d. The distinction between schematic, design development and contract documents. e. Big-D Breach 1. Failure to timely complete. 2. Failure to properly manage. 3. Failure to properly schedule. 4. Demand for payment of money that was not a cost of the work. f. Big-D failure to meet schedule. 1. Date of subst. completion by BDC. Define. 2. Cause of delay. g. Panel book issue. h.. Failure to provide sufficient cement workers. i. CIP wall delays delayed construction of tilt walls. j LFC did not hinder BDC. 1. EAB design transmittals. 2. EAB provided the design without Big-D objection.

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 304-7

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 2 of 8

k.

l.

3. The project was completed using EAB design. 4. EAB efforts to work with BDC. Big-D=s role in coordinating completion of design. 1. Assemble bid packages. 2. Response to questions. 3. Time of response. LFC did not abandon project shown in DD 1. DD drawings compare to as built. 2. Project changes were all anticipated.

3.

Jeff Jorgensen (video) Big-D Project Estimator

The general substance of Mr. Jorgensen' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. See excerpts of deposition generally b. The as-built footprint was the same as the DD footprint. c. The effort and final product of the preliminary estimate. d. The accuracy of the preliminary estimate. e. The project constructed was the same project as planned. f. Selection of UMM (provisional). 4. Joel Krein (non-retained expert) LFC Regional Vice President in charge of Project

The general substance of Mr. Krein' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Background of retaining Big-D. b. Contract and Big-D duties in contract. c. Big-D Breach. 1. Failure to timely complete. 2. Breach of obligation to conform subcontracts. 3. Breach of obligation to manage subcontractors. 4. Breach of choice of forum. 5. Breach of duty of good faith. 6. Failure to have f/t project mgr.-Kenton Wall. 7. Failure to adequately schedule. d. LFC Performed Its Obligations Under the Contract 1. LFC does not owe increased GC. 2. Failure to timely complete caused by Big-D. 3. LFC does not owe indemnity for UMM claim. 4. Big-D=s role in coordinating completion of designLFC did not breach by failing to timely

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 304-7

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 3 of 8

design. e. f. damaged. 2. Nature and extent of damages. 3. Cause of damages. LFC right to withhold funds. 5. LFC did not abandon project shown in DD. Big-D/BDC Alter Ego Damages by Big-D breach. 1. But for Big-D breach, LFC would not have been

g. 5.

Bruce Gantenbein Big-D Mechanical Superintendent.

The general substance of Mr. Gantenbein' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Job Problems with UMM b. Added cost due to need for UMM supervision. c. UMM overstate CE=s d. Reject CE=s and problems with UMM. . e. Issue with AHU=s. f. Reasons why UMM is not entitled to recover for the socalled extra work. 6. John Ellis UMM Lead estimator.

The general substance of Mr. Ellis'testimony will include, but not necessarily be limited to: a. Ignore instructions to bidders re pipe. Why? b. Cost of ignoring instructions. c. Purposely bid low to get job. 7. Kenton Wall Big-D First Project Mgr..

The general substance of Mr. Wall' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Prepare project schedule and provided on 11/14/00 after working on since 8/00. Offer all schedules. It was schedule referred to in agreement. Show legend and Acontract.@ b. Breached full time project manager obligation. 8. Rick Williams

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 304-7

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 4 of 8

Big-D Second Project Mgr.. The general substance of Mr. William' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Problems with UMM. 1. Quality of work. 2. CE process. 3. Intent to file claim. 9. Steve McCormick (non-retained expert) Mike Haywood LFC Construction Contract Manager Project controller, respectively

The general substance of Mr. McCormick and Mr Haywood ' s testimony will include, but not necessarily be limited to: a. Accounting records show as built project is same as planned DD. b. LFC relied on Big-D PCO' as representative of all costs of s work. c. The method of project accounting and cost control. d. Analyze cause of Big-D PCO 1390, alleged increase general conditions? e. UMM job costs. f. UMM CE history. g. LFC right to withhold funds. Contract. h. Big-D conduct regarding how the contract was to be performed before the dispute. 10. Rich Fitterer (non-retained expert) SJO Project engineer

The general substance of Mr. Fitterer' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Wet side piping issues. b.. Rev. 9. c. Rev. 10. d. Nature of changes. e. Pipe loading. f. Dry side issues 1. UMM failure to timely order AHU=s 2. UMM failure to timely do controls work. 3. UMM CE=s re design changes. 4. UMM failures.

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 304-7

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 5 of 8

5.

Response to UMM claim and REA.

11.

Gerald Daily (non-retained expert) SJO Assistant to Project engineer

The general substance of Mr. Daily' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. UMM and Frick caused the delay associated with the AHU. b. Response to UMM REA allegations re design issues. 12. Jack Towle LFC Project Director

The general substance of Mr. Towle' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Background and experience. b. Role on LW. c. Reporting on project. d. Early understanding of project. d. Big-D subcontractors that failed to adequately perform. e. Big-D failure to adequately schedule and drive schedule f. Project delay caused by Big-D mis-management. g. Project delay caused by Big-D subcontractors. h. Project delay caused by Big-D failure to coordinate. i. Project delay not caused by LFC designers. j. AFE approval process and schedule. k. How identify critical AFE issues. l. LFC ability to start up earlier if Big-D had not breached the contract. 13. Bob Delong LFC Senior Vice President, Retired

The general substance of Mr. Delong' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Background and experience. b. Role on LW. c. Reporting on project. d. LFC ability to start up earlier if Big-D had not breached the contract.

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 304-7

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 6 of 8

14.

Steve Pearce LFC Tech Services

The general substance of Mr. Pearce' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Background and experience. b. Role on LW. c. Reporting on project. d. LFC ability to start up earlier if Big-D had not breached the contract. 15. Robert Garcia, PE (non-retained expert) LFC Tech Services

The general substance of Mr. Garcia' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Background and experience. b. Role on LW. c. Reporting on project. d. LFC ability to start up earlier if Big-D had not breached the contract. e. The legal and technical ability to treat waste water earlier if the project was timely completed. f. Mr. Garcia is anticipated to rebut the opinions of SGI. 16. Dan Tramm NPP

The general substance of Mr. Tramm' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: a. Background and experience. b. Role on LW. c. Reporting on project. d. LFC ability to start up earlier if Big-D had not breached the contract. 17. David Evans (video)

The general substance of Mr. Evans'testimony will include, but not necessarily be limited to: See deposition excerpts. 18. Kerry Arnold (video)

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 304-7

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 7 of 8

The general substance of Mr. Arnold' testimony will include, but not s necessarily be limited to: See deposition excerpts. A. 1. Expert Witnesses Robert Groves Navigant Consulting One Market Street Spear Street Tower, Suite 1200 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 356-7100

It is expected that if Mr. Groves is called to testify, his testimony will be consistent with the Report dated January 12, 2006, his rebuttal report, his deposition and back-up documents. Mr. Groves is anticipated to rebut the opinions of Phil Gudgel and Mark Berry. 2. David Hall Navigant Consulting One Market Street Spear Street Tower, Suite 1200 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 356-7100

It is expected that if Mr. Hall is called to testify, his testimony will be consistent with the Report dated December 23, 2005. 3. Mike Reidy Leprino Foods Company 1830 W. 38th Avenue Denver, Colorado80211 Telephone: (303) 480-2600 Mike Reidy is a Leprino Foods Company Senior Vice President and employee, and will offer opinion and non-retained expert witness testimony regarding Leprino=s damages caused by Big-D=s delay in completing the project. Mr. Reidy is anticipated to rebut the opinions of Big-D and UMM' experts. s

4.

Doug Jay

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 304-7

Filed 03/30/2006

Page 8 of 8

Leprino Foods Company 1830 W. 38th Avenue Denver, Colorado80211 Telephone: (303) 480-2600 Doug Jay is a Leprino Foods Company employee, and will offer opinion and nonretained expert witness testimony regarding Leprino=s damages caused by Big-D=s breaches of contract. Mr. Jay is anticipated to rebut the opinions of Big-D and UMM' s experts. 5. Ed Josiah Greyhawk

Will lay foundation for demonstrative exhibit.