Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GIVIS Document 137-2 Filed 05/O3/2006 Page 1 013
EXHIBIT A

I*IHY—U2-2UU6>é"sE 1&4>=43&vPUO@ BE?-®R/I§EhIF\§{>eument 137-2 FHXFN@d 6€?O§}$506é60 Page 2 of 3 P- U3
Donald M. Dtwkin Contracting, Inc. v. City of Newark et al.
C.A. No. G4--163 GMS
Acknowledgment of Deponent
_ Deposition of Carol S. I-Iouek, March 28, 2006
I, Carol S. Houck, do hereby certify that I have read the foregoing pages 311-495
and that the same is a correct trartscription of the answers given by me to the questions
therein propouoded, except for ‘he corrections or changes in the form or substance noted ‘
in jre attached Errata S c t. ‘
eo U
Carol S. . o c *
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,$2,M¢— day of 2006.
My commission expires on .c7.;·s"L1-g{c?§’ .
3 - ’ ¥" ‘··" ·~·~··’ —--—»»~»~—»~»»·-
Q H°¤?·¤’ -"°*i§ ’ " t

"¢;,;· »]‘*—S.;%~»—·‘Q_T`
I

H9Y‘U2““2U@aF§@E1@643cQ/I0`0$é§Y@&@1EM0Bgcument 137-2 Fméipgtd 0g;}‘2)33§@)CYé60 Page 3 of 3 P' Q2
Carol S. Houck
Errata Sheet to Deposition taken Tuesday, March 28, 2006
• I refer to deposition pages 353 through pages 408
Q Once again during my deposition there were repeated references to various
exhibits, out of crder and with, I believe, the intent to confuse. I have now
had the opportunity to review the deposition and further clarify that it is
my belief that the letter of November 2} , 2003 Qixhibit 20) served to:
·· Provide notice of Default and tewuination to both the Surety
(Bond) and Duricin (Contract). One must note that Durkin was
provided a letter the dey before {November 20, 2003 - Exhibit 21)
that stated “ In closing you have given us no other option then to
proceed with netification to your suxety of your being in defauit of
our contmet? The letter of November 21, 2003 therefore was sent
to both Durkirx andthe Surety providing eppropmxte sevewday
notice of iefauit amd TQB1'I'I'ki1'1&Â¥`i()11.
·· In addition it is important te note that thc letter of February 3, 2004-
(Exhibit 2.2) not only provides aclditioaa! notice but also references
the letter of November 21, 2003 that again references that notice
was provided in accordance with the bond and construction
· contract. ‘ _
o Regarding my review of my deposition of1\/{such 28, 2006, I refer to page -
353, line 23 through page 354, line 9 tmc! suggest the following to be my
m1de1·st:—mdi11g amd corrections:
• The November 21, 2003 letter is not the only notice te the Surety
and to Dxrlcin of default end termination. Given the letter of
November 20, 2003 and all subsequent letters and meetings, and
' my convezrsetions with both Durkin and the Surety representatives
during these months, the letter of November 2.1, 2003 was clearly a
notice of default and termination. It clearly points to the
provisions of the ecnwact related to this topic es well es the
provisions of the perfermzmce bend. It also requests the required
‘ meeting with the bond company further 1'}0¥i1lg that we were aware
of and following the notice requ.i1·cu1ents.
` ·· Furthe;r, my reply on Eine 9 is incorrect if it suggests that the
November 21, 2003 ietter was not the sevcmday notice letter. My
reply, "I dem": believe so." would refiect my understanding that the
November 21, 2003 letter was not the only effort made by Newark
to put bot; Durkin and the Surety on notice. I beiieve that the
November 21, 2003 letter was cnc ofthe sevexeday notices as were
the February 3 and February 4, 2004 letters.
2

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 137-2

Filed 05/03/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 137-2

Filed 05/03/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 137-2

Filed 05/03/2006

Page 3 of 3