EXHIBIT 1

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 1 of 34
Preserved Objections Previous Rulings New Objections Rulings

12:20 - 15:19 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 5:33

12:20 Q. And take us back to the beginning.

12:21 A. Yes, sir. Maybe two and a half years

12:22 starting in 2000 at Lackland Air Force Base in

12:23 San Antonio, from there to University of Cincinnati

12:24 for about three years, and then from there

12:25 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base at the Air Force

13:01 Research Laboratory from maybe 2006 to 2009, and from

13:02 there to Tinker Airforce Base, 2009 to 2011, and from

13:03 there, 2011 to current position, Navy-Marine Corps

13:04 Public Health Center.

13:05 Q. So 2011 to present?

13:06 A. Yes, sir.

13:07 Q. Okay. And when did you shift from military

13:08 service to civilian service to the military?

13:09 A. 2011.

13:10 Q. And that was the point when you shifted

13:11 from Air Force service to the Navy?

13:12 A. Yes, sir.

13:13 Q. Okay. And if we could, sir, I'd just like

13:14 to run through, if you will, your MOS or what your --

13:15 what your functions were with the Air Force during

13:16 your military service, taking us back to 2000.

13:17 A. Okay. So always an audiologist for MOS. I

13:18 believe that's -- actually I pre'd at the MOS, but

13:19 audiology, audiologist, clinical audiologist at

13:20 Lackland, a student at University of Cincinnati,

13:21 audiologist at the Air Force Research Lab, and

13:22 audiologist at Tinker Airforce Base.

13:23 Q. In your capacity with the Navy today what's

13:24 your -- you don't have an MOS, but what is your role

13:25 or function today?

14:01 A. It is a supervisory position, and, let's

14:02 see, the title is supervisory audiologist. You know,

14:03 that covers a lot of things. I oversee a CAL lab, a

14:04 lot of hearing conservation stuff. I sit on just, you

14:05 know, several different aspects of that job, but, for

14:06 the most part, super -- supervision.

14:07 Q. Okay. And in your early years, from 2000,

14:08 before you went to the University of Cincinnati, where

14:09 were you stationed again?

14:10 A. Lackland Air Force Base.

14:11 Q. Okay. And that was -- that was in a

14:12 clinical audiology capacity?

14:13 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

14:14 Q. And what degrees did you hold at that point

14:15 in time?

14:16 A. At that point I had a bachelor's in, I

Designations

Page 1 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 2 of 34
14:17 believe, science, I guess, in communication disorders

14:18 from Bowling Green State University, and a master's

14:19 degree from -- in audiology, a master's in

14:20 communication disorders from LSU Health Science Center

14:21 in New Orleans.

14:22 Q. Okay. And then you went to the University

14:23 of Cincinnati for three years, and what degree did you

14:24 pursue there?

14:25 A. That was the doctor -- AuD, doctorate of

15:01 audiology.

15:02 Q. Okay. And is that the highest professional

15:03 level degree you currently hold?

15:04 A. Yes, sir.

15:05 Q. Okay. So from 2002 to 2005 you were in

15:06 school. After that you went to Wright-Patterson Air

15:07 Force Base from 2006 to 2009. I think you told us in

15:08 an audiology capacity, but was that a clinical role or

15:09 was it a research role?

15:10 A. No, that was more of a research role.

15:11 Q. Okay. And then when you went to Tinker

15:12 Airforce Base from 2009 to 2011, what was your role or

15:13 capacity there?

15:14 A. Hearing Conservation Program for Tinker

15:15 Airforce Base.

15:16 Q. And is that the first time you had

15:17 responsibility for the Hearing Conservation Program at

15:18 any base?

15:19 A. Yes.

137:19 - 138:15 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:55

137:19 Q. Let me -- let me reask it. So as we -- as

137:20 I heard your testimony today, you talked a little bit

137:21 about the Air Force, you talked some about the Navy,

137:22 you talked some about the Marines, and I'm just sort

137:23 of trying to figure out what branch of the military

137:24 you were in when you joined and did that change over

137:25 time.

138:01 A. No. It was Air Force from 2000 to 2011,

138:02 and then I got out of the Air Force to take the

138:03 civilian job with the Navy and Marine Corps.

138:04 Q. So during the period of time from 2000 to

138:05 2011 while you were active duty military, that was all

138:06 Air Force?

138:07 A. Yes, sir.

138:08 Q. And then in 2011 did you retire?

138:09 A. I did not retire. I separated from the Air

138:10 Force to take the civilian job.

138:11 Q. And that civilian job was with the Navy?

Page 2 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 3 of 34
138:12 A. Yes, sir.

138:13 Q. And then you've been in that position up

138:14 until today?

138:15 A. Yes, sir.

138:22 - 139:07 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:37

138:22 Q. During your time either with the Air Force Re: [138:22 to 139:07] Re: [138:22 to 139:07]

138:23 or in your civilian role with the Navy, did you have Pltf Obj Leading, Colloquy, OVERRULED

138:24 interaction with the other branches as part of your Compound, Argumentative, 403,

138:25 audiology work? Vague

139:01 A. Yes.

139:02 Q. For example, for the Army, I think it would

139:03 be -- they call it USA CHPPM, and they have certain

139:04 responsibility for hearing and hearing protection.

139:05 Would you have interacted with the USA CHPPM

139:06 organization within the military from time to time?

139:07 A. I would say from time to time.

143:13 - 143:15 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:11

143:13 Q. Now is it fair to say that at the time you Re: [143:13 to 143:15] Re: [143:13 to 143:15] Re: [143:13 to 143:15] OVERRULED

143:14 joined the military both tinnitus and hearing loss Pltf Obj 602, 611, 702, Touhy, OVERRULED Pltf Obj Foundation, 802, 403,

143:15 were common problems for military personnel? MIL G1, MIL G2 Baker MIL 1

143:18 - 143:21 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:09

143:18 A. Yes. Yes, there were problems. Re: [143:18 to 143:21] Re: [143:18 to 143:21] Re: [143:18 to 143:21] OVERRULED

143:19 Q. And did those problems continue through the Pltf Obj 602, 611, 702, Touhy, OVERRULED Pltf Obj Foundation, 802, 403,

143:20 time you were active military while you were in the MIL G1, MIL G2 Baker MIL 1

143:21 Air Force?

143:23 - 144:02 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:14

143:23 A. Yes. Re: [143:23 to 144:02] Re: [143:23 to 144:02] Re: [143:23 to 144:02] OVERRULED

143:24 Q. And then even at the time you left the Pltf Obj 602, 611, 702, Touhy, OVERRULED Pltf Obj Foundation, 802, 403,

143:25 military and in your position today, is it fair to say MIL G1, MIL G2 Baker MIL 1

144:01 that tinnitus and hearing loss continue to be a

144:02 problem suffered by military personnel?

144:04 - 144:04 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:01

144:04 A. Yes. Re: [144:04 to 144:04] Re: [144:04 to 144:04] Re: [144:04 to 144:04] OVERRULED

Pltf Obj 602, 611, 702, Touhy, DEFER RULING Pltf Obj Foundation, 802, 403,

MIL G1, MIL G2 Baker MIL 1

145:18 - 147:04 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:51

145:18 Q. Now if we could, you were shown the DoD, Re: [145:18 to 147:04] Re: [145:18 to 147:04] Re: [145:18 to 147:04] SUSTAINED

145:19 Department of Defense regulations. Well, let me just Pltf Obj Incomplete DEFER RULING Pltf Obj Foundation, 802, 403,

145:20 ask this. Do you recall being shown the Department of

Designation, Touhy, Hearsay, Baker MIL 2

145:21 Defense regulations? 403, MIL G1, MIL G2

145:22 A. Yes.

145:23 Q. I'm going to show you a different set.

145:24 Will, if you would go to tab 2 and mark that as

145:25 an exhibit, please.

Page 3 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 4 of 34
146:01 (Exhibit 13 marked for

146:02 identification: DoD Instruction re

146:03 Hearing Conservation Program)

146:04 Q. We had a little conversation about the

146:05 dates of these DoD Instructions. If you'll look in

146:06 the right corner of Exhibit 2, first of all, is there

146:07 a date for this particular instruction?

146:08 A. Yes.

146:09 Q. And what is that date?

146:10 A. April 22nd, 1996.

146:11 Q. I don't know if you recall, but when you

146:12 looked at this version of the DoD instruction that the

146:13 plaintiff showed you, it made reference to the 1996

146:14 date as being the predecessor instruction from the

146:15 DoD, correct?

146:16 A. Yes. Yeah, from what I recall. It was --

146:17 was the version 2004? Canceled the 1996? Is that

146:18 right?

146:19 Q. Right, I think that's correct. We can pull

146:20 it back up and look at the dates, but my primary

146:21 question is the that predecessor to the one you looked

146:22 at earlier was referenced as being 1996, correct?

146:23 A. Okay. Yes.

146:24 Q. Now, if you would, if you'll turn to

146:25 section 6.1, which is on page 3 of the document -- and

147:01 we'll pull it up on the screen. Anytime you'd like to

147:02 see the full document, feel free to pull it down, or I

147:03 can give you the tab number and we can dig it out.

147:04 You just let me know.

147:11 - 147:19 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:29

147:11 Q. So I'm showing you what's been marked as Re: [147:11 to 147:19] Re: [147:11 to 147:19] Re: [147:11 to 147:19] SUSTAINED

147:12 Exhibit 13 -- and, Will, if you'll go back to the Pltf Obj 602, Foundation, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj foundation

147:13 front page -- is Exhibit 13 the Department of Defense Leading, Touhy, MIL G1, MIL G2

147:14 Instruction dated April 22, 1996? Re: [147:11 to 147:19]

147:15 A. Yes. Pltf Obj 802, 403, Baker MIL 2

147:16 Q. And are these the instructions that were

147:17 given to the various branches of the military to set

147:18 out what should be part of a Hearing Conservation

147:19 Program with each individual branch?

147:22 - 147:25 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:12

147:22 A. Yeah, I mean, as far as I know. I mean, Re: [147:22 to 147:25] Re: [147:22 to 147:25] Re: [147:22 to 147:25] SUSTAINED

147:23 there was a DoD in place when I came in. What, you Pltf Obj 602, Foundation, 403, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj 802

147:24 know, what happened before then, you know, I don't Leading, Touhy, MIL G1, MIL G2

147:25 know. Re: [147:22 to 147:25]

Pltf Obj Foundation, 403

148:15 - 148:19 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:12

148:15 Q. Well, my question is simply did the Re: [148:15 to 148:19] Re: [148:15 to 148:19] Re: [148:15 to 148:19] OVERRULED

Page 4 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 5 of 34
148:16 Department of Defense issued instructions relative to Pltf Obj 602, Foundation, 403, OVERRULED Pltf Obj Touhy scope

148:17 hearing protection programs that were being utilized Leading, Touhy, MIL G1, MIL G2

148:18 in the military, correct?

148:19 A. Yes.

149:06 - 149:10 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:26

149:06 Q. If you'll go now to page 3 and look at Re: [149:06 to 149:10] Re: [149:06 to 149:10] Re: [149:06 to 149:10] OVERRULED

149:07 section 6.1. Is it fair to say that section 6.1 Pltf Obj Leading, 403, Touhy, OVERRULED Pltf Obj Touhy, Leading, 403,

149:08 indicates that a written plan shall be put in place hearsay, MIL G1, MIL G2 Baker MIL 2

149:09 for a Comprehensive Hearing Conservation Program?

149:10 A. Yes, it says that.

149:22 - 149:24 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:07

149:22 Q. Right. But over the course of your time at Re: [149:22 to 149:24] Re: [149:22 to 149:24] Re: [149:22 to 149:24] OVERRULED

149:23 the Air Force, have you learned that the Air Force has Pltf Obj Leading, 402, 403, OVERRULED Pltf Obj Touhy, 403, leading

149:24 a Comprehensive Hearing Conservation Program? Touhy, MIL G1, MIL G2

150:02 - 150:21 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:19

150:02 A. Yes. Re: [150:02 to 150:21] Re: [150:02 to 150:21] Re: [150:02 to 150:06] OVERRULED

150:03 Q. And now that you're in the civilian Navy Pltf Obj Leading, 402, 403, OVERRULED Pltf Obj Touhy, 403, leading

150:04 position, have you learned that the Navy has a Touhy, MIL G1, MIL G2

150:05 Comprehensive Hearing Conservation Program? Re: [150:07 to 150:21]

150:06 A. Yes. Pltf Obj Leading, 403, 802,

150:07 Q. If you'll turn over to section 6.62, which Baker MIL 2

150:08 is on page 7 of Exhibit 13, one of the requirements of

150:09 these instructions is that a personal hearing

150:10 protector be issued to all personnel who work in

150:11 hazardous noise areas, correct?

150:12 A. Yes.

150:13 Q. And then if we flip over to page 8, and we

150:14 look at section 6.6.7, do the instructions require

150:15 that for preformed earplugs that they be fitted and

150:16 issued only under the supervision of personnel who

150:17 have been specifically trained to fit earplugs?

150:18 A. Yes, it does say that.

150:19 Q. And a preformed earplug would include the

150:20 Combat Arms dual-ended plug that we've been talking

150:21 about today, correct?

150:23 - 152:02 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:39

150:23 A. Yes. Re: [150:23 to 152:02] Re: [150:23 to 152:02] Re: [150:23 to 151:05] OVERRULED

150:24 Q. And then if you look at section 6.6.9, not Pltf Obj Leading, 402, 403, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 802

150:25 only must the preformed plugs like the Combat Arms be

602, Touhy, vague, MIL G1, MIL

151:01 fit, medically trained personnel must examine the fit G2 Re: [150:23 to 152:02]

151:02 and condition of preformed and custom earplugs at Pltf Obj Leading, 403,

151:03 least annually, correct? That's what the instructions foundation, touhy, Baker MIL 2

151:04 say.

151:05 A. Yes. Re: [151:06 to 151:12]

151:06 Q. And then is it then your experience, I'll Pltf Obj 802

Page 5 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 6 of 34
151:07 ask you first about just your experience, that if a

151:08 soldier or a military personnel, for whatever reason a Re: [151:19 to 152:02] SUSTAINED

151:09 particular plug did not work for them, did not seal, Pltf Obj 802

151:10 that they had the right to get a different kind of

151:11 plug?

151:12 A. Yes.

151:13 Q. And in fact one of those options included

151:14 custom-made plugs, correct?

151:15 A. At some point it did, yes. I don't know

151:16 that specific -- in this specific instruction, but it

151:17 does, you know, one of the instructions goes on to

151:18 mention custom plugs.

151:19 Q. Right. If you look at 6.6.8, it says that

151:20 personnel may use custom earplugs only if they cannot

151:21 be properly fitted with approved hearing protectors or

151:22 if a custom device is required for special

151:23 circumstances, right?

151:24 A. Yes, it does say that.

151:25 Q. And all of this is consistent with your

152:01 understanding of how the military Hearing Conservation

152:02 Program functioned, correct?

152:05 - 152:15 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:48

152:05 A. Yes. Re: [152:05 to 152:15] Re: [152:05 to 152:15]

152:06 Q. Now you were asked some of these questions, Pltf Obj Leading, 402, 403, SUSTAINED

152:07 but I just want to follow up a little bit. You had no 602, Touhy, vague, foundation,

152:08 personal involvement in the design and the development

misstates, MIL G3, MIL G1, MIL

152:09 of the Combat Arms earplug, correct? G2

152:10 A. No. I did not work for 3M or whoever

152:11 designed that earplug. I did not have anything to do

152:12 with the design or development of that.

152:13 Q. Do you know what role the military played

152:14 in the design and the development of the Combat Arms

152:15 dual-ended plug?

152:18 - 152:21 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:13

152:18 A. No, I did not. Re: [152:18 to 152:21] Re: [152:18 to 152:21] Re: [152:19 to 152:25] SUSTAINED

152:19 Q. Do you know whether or not the military Pltf Obj Leading, 402, 403, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj Leading, Touhy,

152:20 participated in testing of various components of the 602, Touhy, vague, foundation, Foundation, 403, 802, Baker

152:21 plug before this issue to military personnel? misstates, MIL G3 MIL 2

152:23 - 152:25 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:09

152:23 A. I'm aware that -- I believe that happened, Re: [152:23 to 152:25] Re: [152:23 to 152:25] Re: [152:19 to 152:25] SUSTAINED

152:24 but to what degree or to what extent, I don't know Pltf Obj Leading, 402, 403, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj Leading, Touhy,

152:25 that. 602, Touhy, vague, foundation, Foundation, 403, 802, Baker

misstates, MIL G3 MIL 2

Page 6 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 7 of 34
153:11 - 154:04 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:45

153:11 Q. Right. During the time that you were at Re: [153:11 to 154:04] Re: [153:11 to 154:04] Re: [153:11 to 154:04] OVERRULED

153:12 Wright-Patterson, did the -- did you have the Pltf Obj Vague, 403 OVERRULED Pltf Obj leading, Baker MIL 16

153:13 capability of testing and evaluating hearing

153:14 protection devices? Re: [153:11 to 154:04]

153:15 A. Testing, yeah, I mean, if you're talking Pltf Obj 403

153:16 about attenuation, yeah, to some degree, yes. Yeah, I

153:17 mean, sometimes --

153:18 Q. So you had a lab where you could perform

153:19 REAT testing that we talked about earlier, right?

153:20 A. Yeah, that's correct, yes.

153:21 Q. You had the equipment to do the

153:22 localization testing that we talked about earlier,

153:23 right?

153:24 A. Yes.

153:25 Q. The impulse noise testing, you didn't have

154:01 the capability to do it, but you utilized the ISL

154:02 facilities in France, and you personally went there to

154:03 coordinate those activities, correct?

154:04 A. Yes.

154:05 - 154:09 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:14

154:05 Q. Do you know whether other military branches

154:06 or even other facilities within the Air Force had the

154:07 capability of testing and evaluating hearing

154:08 protection devices?

154:09 A. No.

154:24 - 155:04 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:21

154:24 Q. And do you know, other than the WHISPr

154:25 testing that you conducted on the Combat Arms

155:01 dual-ended plug, do you know what other additional

155:02 testing was done on that plug either before or after

155:03 you conducted your work?

155:04 A. Not that I can recall, no.

155:20 - 157:18 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:19

155:20 The REAT testing is not something that's done Re: [155:20 to 157:18] Re: [155:20 to 157:18] Re: [155:20 to 155:25] SUSTAINED

155:21 out in the field. It's something that's done in a Pltf Obj 602, 403, 702, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj Leading; 702

155:22 quiet room where the test subject is listening to Leading, Touhy

155:23 sounds and indicating when they can and cannot hear a

Re: [156:01 to 156:08] SUSTAINED

155:24 particular frequency. Pltf Obj Leading, foundation,

155:25 A. Yes, sir. 403, touhy

156:01 Q. And the Air Force Research Lab had the

156:02 equipment and the setup to conduct that kind of REAT Re: [156:19 to 157:03] SUSTAINED

156:03 testing. Pltf Obj Leading

156:04 A. Yes, sir.

156:05 Q. Now is it fair to say that the ANSI Re: [157:04 to 157:08] SUSTAINED

156:06 standards have different kinds of tests that you can Pltf Obj Leading, foundation,

Page 7 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 8 of 34
156:07 perform in that setting? 702, 802

156:08 A. Yes, sir.

156:09 Q. And I know this is not your area of Re: [157:09 to 157:18] SUSTAINED

156:10 expertise, but have you heard the phrase "experimenter

Pltf Obj Leading, foundation,

156:11 fit" where an experimenter physically puts the plug touhy, 702

156:12 into the test subject's ear?

156:13 A. Yes, sir.

156:14 Q. Did you know that that is the kind of test

156:15 that the EPA requires for NRR labeling?

156:16 A. I did not know that, but I know there's a

156:17 difference, you know, between -- between -- I know

156:18 there's a couple different ways to fit the plug.

156:19 Q. But experimenter fit when doing REAT

156:20 testing is different than the kind of testing that you

156:21 did in the WHISPr test, correct?

156:22 A. Yes, sir.

156:23 Q. So for the WHISPr test, you would not have

156:24 physically put the plug in the subject's ear or your

156:25 technicians would not have physically put the plug in

157:01 the ear, but they would have trained them on how to

157:02 fit the plug and let them do it themselves, correct?

157:03 A. In this particular study, yes, sir.

157:04 Q. And then there's actually a third way to do

157:05 it, and that's where you don't tell the test subject

157:06 anything; you just hand them the plug, and the

157:07 packaging, and you let them fit the plug on their own.

157:08 A. Okay. Yes, sir.

157:09 Q. And is it fair to say that the test -- all

157:10 else being equal, you, as a research audiologist, you

157:11 would expect to get different results depending on the

157:12 kind of testing that you use, right?

157:13 A. Yes, sir.

157:14 Q. So if you use the experimenter fit, you're

157:15 really getting the very best fit and you would expect

157:16 to get the very best results that the plug could get

157:17 you, right?

157:18 A. Yes, sir.

157:21 - 158:01 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:21

157:21 Q. And then if you used the method that you Re: [157:21 to 158:01] Re: [157:21 to 158:01] Re: [157:21 to 158:01] SUSTAINED

157:22 used, okay, the give them the instructions and train Pltf Obj 602, 403, 702, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj Leading, foundation,

157:23 them, that would be a little less -- you would expect Leading, Touhy 702

157:24 less than experimenter fit but better than just

157:25 handing them the plugs and instructions, right?

158:01 A. Yes, sir.

158:12 - 158:24 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:39

158:12 So Plaintiff's Exhibit 9, this is the WHISPr Re: [158:12 to 158:24] Re: [158:12 to 158:24] Re: [158:12 to 158:24] OVERRULED

158:13 Study that we talked about earlier today, correct? Pltf Obj Hearsay, Leading OVERRULED Pltf Obj Leading

Page 8 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 9 of 34
158:14 A. Yes, sir.

158:15 Q. And this is a study that was done by the

158:16 Air Force Research Laboratory, 711th Human Performance

158:17 Wing, Warfighter Interface Division, Battlespace

158:18 Acoustics Branch, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,

158:19 correct?

158:20 A. Yes, sir.

158:21 Q. Now is it fair to say that a number of

158:22 different kinds of hearing protection devices were

158:23 evaluated?

158:24 A. Yes, sir.

161:02 - 161:19 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:41

161:02 Q. Right. So the report was generated to Re: [161:02 to 161:19] Re: [161:02 to 161:19] Re: [161:02 to 161:19] OVERRULED

161:03 accurately reflect the test results that you had Pltf Obj 602, Foundation, OVERRULED Pltf Obj Leading

161:04 achieved, right? Hearsay, MIL G1, MIL G2

161:05 A. Yes. Re: [161:02 to 161:11] OVERRULED

161:06 Q. It was prepared, you think, on behalf of Pltf Obj 802; Baker MIL 16;

161:07 the Marine Corps who had funded the project and the 611

161:08 report was intended to be delivered to them so that

161:09 they would understand what your evaluations had shown,

Re: [161:16 to 161:19] OVERRULED

161:10 right? Pltf Obj Foundation

161:11 A. Yes.

161:12 Q. And the report was created in the ordinary

161:13 course of your group's work in military research,

161:14 right?

161:15 A. Yes.

161:16 Q. And this particular copy would have been

161:17 maintained in the ordinary course of military

161:18 business, correct?

161:19 A. Yes, as far as I know.

162:24 - 164:16 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:54

162:24 Q. So there was an introduction and background Re: [162:24 to 164:16] Re: [162:24 to 164:16] Re: [162:24 to 164:16] OVERRULED

162:25 section that was provided and utilized in this report Pltf Obj 402, 403, 602, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading

163:01 that you generated, correct? misstates, hearsay, MIL G3,

163:02 A. Yes. MIL G4, MIL G5, MIL G6 Re: [163:09 to 163:12] OVERRULED

163:03 Q. And if we look at the very first paragraph, Pltf Obj 802, foundation,

163:04 your report explains that "military ground operations Baker MIL 16

163:05 provide an environment with significant challenges,

163:06 necessitating a balance between operational Re: [163:13 to 163:21] OVERRULED

163:07 effectiveness and personnel safety," right? Pltf Obj 802, 403, Baker MIL

163:08 A. Yes. 16, 702

163:09 Q. Right. So the idea is, you know, our

163:10 soldiers have got to be able to do their job, but at Re: [163:22 to 164:10] OVERRULED

163:11 the same time we want to try to protect them, right? Pltf Obj 802, 702, foundation,

163:12 A. That's right. Baker MIL 16

163:13 Q. And then the next section says, "the goal

163:14 of effectively protecting the hearing of personnel Re: [164:11 to 164:16] OVERRULED

Page 9 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 10 of 34
163:15 employing small arms in tactical environments has been

Pltf Obj 802, Baker MIL 16,

163:16 viewed as very difficult," right? 602, 403

163:17 A. Yes, it does say that.

163:18 Q. And that's the -- under the Background

163:19 section that leads into your testing and your

163:20 reporting, correct?

163:21 A. Yes.

163:22 Q. Now if you go to the second paragraph, it

163:23 says:

163:24 "The legacy solution has been for

163:25 ground operators to sacrifice their

164:01 hearing by not wearing hearing

164:02 protection in an attempt to better

164:03 monitor the soundscape and the

164:04 communication systems. In both

164:05 training and combat environments this

164:06 has had a predictable effect on the

164:07 hearing sensitivity of exposed

164:08 personnel."

164:09 Did I read that correctly?

164:10 A. It does say that, yes.

164:11 Q. Right. And what that's saying is, the

164:12 solution that the soldiers were taking when they had

164:13 to choose between this being able to hear or protect

164:14 their hearing in a combat or training session was to

164:15 not wear the hearing protection device, right?

164:16 A. That's right.

164:21 - 165:11 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:57

164:21 Q. Now if you go down a little bit more, if Re: [164:21 to 165:11] Re: [164:21 to 165:11] Re: [164:21 to 165:11] SUSTAINED

164:22 you'll go to the last full paragraph you note that Pltf Obj 402, 403, 602, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj 802, 702, 403, 602,

164:23 "several military laboratories in the United States misstates, hearsay, MIL G3, foundation, Baker MIL 16

164:24 and Europe, working with industry, have endeavored to

MIL G4, MIL G5, MIL G6

164:25 develop tactical headset technologies which protect

165:01 the hearing of mounted and dismounted personnel from

165:02 weapons and blast noise while promoting ambient

165:03 soundscape listening and voice communications."

165:04 Did I read that correctly?

165:05 A. Yes.

165:06 Q. So you're saying that the U.S. military's

165:07 laboratories working with others have been trying to

165:08 get some kind of technology that lets a soldier hear

165:09 some of the ambient sound but still protects them when

165:10 there's an impulse noise.

165:11 A. Yes.

165:12 - 166:03 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:09

Page 10 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 11 of 34
165:12 Q. Right? Do you know what specific

165:13 United States military laboratories were working on

165:14 developing this technology?

165:15 A. No, and, you know, as I read that, you

165:16 know, the, you know, there's probably only, I mean,

165:17 only -- several may not be the right word -- there's

165:18 probably only a handful -- I don't even know what they

165:19 would be -- of military laboratories.

165:20 Obviously the one we're talking about is Air

165:21 Force Research Lab. Obviously there's -- there's the

165:22 Army Research Lab, but, you know, again, at that, you

165:23 know, looking back at that time, you know, I don't --

165:24 I don't know that, you know, I think maybe it was

165:25 topics of discussion and stuff like that. I'm not

166:01 sure to the point that they were, you know, I don't

166:02 know, evaluating or trying to develop tactical

166:03 headsets and that kind of stuff.

167:17 - 167:25 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:34

167:17 Q. Okay. And you don't have anything that you

167:18 recall, data or backup, that you remember that

167:19 supported the statements that were made in the report.

167:20 A. You know, again, sounds like a lot -- I

167:21 don't remember exactly -- again, at that time I was, I

167:22 mean, a junior researcher, I guess, you know, from the

167:23 research standpoint of it, and then knowing, you know,

167:24 how these things were coordinated and which labs were

167:25 doing what, yeah, I don't know that.

168:03 - 168:14 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:47

168:03 Q. And then you note that the first of these Re: [168:03 to 168:14] Re: [168:03 to 168:14] Re: [168:03 to 168:14] OVERRULED

168:04 devices were simple passive nonlinear earplugs. And Pltf Obj vague OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading

168:05 that would be a device like the Combat Arms dual-ended

168:06 plug, correct?

168:07 A. Yes, sir.

168:08 Q. And, in fact, your report notes that some

168:09 of these earplugs were double-ended, correct?

168:10 A. Some of these earplugs were double-ended in

168:11 providing similar ... so it says the Combat Arms

168:12 earplugs provided some attenuation ... they were also

168:13 double ended, providing the nonlinear impulse

168:14 protection ... yeah, it does say that, yes.

170:11 - 170:14 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:39

170:11 Q. All right. Let's move over to the Testing,

Page 11 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 12 of 34
170:12 and if you'll turn over to 3.0, section 3.0.

170:13 Will, it's on page 5. You need to go earlier

170:14 in the document. It's section 3.0 at the very top.

170:18 - 171:16 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:04

170:18 Q. So we talked about this a little bit Re: [170:18 to 171:16] OVERRULED

170:19 earlier. Do you recall that, Dr. Hobbs? Pltf Obj 611 leading;

170:20 A. Yes.

170:21 Q. And this section of the report deals with

170:22 the REAT passive attenuation, correct?

170:23 A. Yes.

170:24 Q. And just so we're clear, this is where the

170:25 subject puts the earplug in their ear and then testing

171:01 is done to see when they're able to hear noises, at

171:02 what level they're able to hear noises, correct?

171:03 A. Yes.

171:04 Q. And then it's compared to when they're able

171:05 to hear noises with no protection in their ears,

171:06 right?

171:07 A. Yes.

171:08 Q. And then that -- you come up with a number,

171:09 and those are the numbers that represent the amount of

171:10 protection that the plug is providing under the

171:11 particular setting that you're using.

171:12 A. Yes.

171:13 Q. In your case for this particular testing,

171:14 we're talking about this particular method that's not

171:15 experimenter fit, but the method where the subject

171:16 actually puts the earplug in their own ear, right?

171:18 - 173:09 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:14

171:18 A. Yeah, from what I recall, that's the method Re: [171:18 to 173:09] Re: [171:18 to 173:09] Re: [171:18 to 172:01] OVERRULED

171:19 we used. Pltf Obj 602, 402, 403, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading; 403

171:20 Q. And you were asked some questions about leading, vague, argumentative,

171:21 whether the flange was rolled back, and it's your misstates facts Re: [172:19 to 173:09] OVERRULED

171:22 recollection, at least as we sit here today, that you Pltf Obj 611 leading, 602

171:23 don't recall giving any instruction nor your

171:24 technicians giving instruction to roll back the flange Re: [173:04 to 173:09] OVERRULED

171:25 of the dual-ended plug when it was tested, correct? Pltf Obj 602, foundation, 802,

172:01 A. That's correct. I did not recall that. Baker MIL 16

172:02 Q. Now if we look over at the next page, you

172:03 have a chart that gives the results, right?

172:04 A. Yes, sir.

172:05 Q. And if we look at the first -- there was a

172:06 lot of comparison going on about the numbers, but if

172:07 we look at the first in-the-ear devices, there are

172:08 four of those, what kind of devices are those?

172:09 A. Those are, you know, for, I mean, I

172:10 consider them active devices.

172:11 Q. When we say "active," that means it's got

Page 12 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 13 of 34
172:12 some kind of electronic and you have to turn it on?

172:13 A. Yes, sir.

172:14 Q. And do you know whether any of those

172:15 devices were around in 2000?

172:16 A. From what I know, if there was any of them,

172:17 they would have been the CEPS, but I don't know that

172:18 that was around at that time.

172:19 Q. This was sort of later developed technology

172:20 when compared to something like the dual-ended Combat

172:21 Arms plug, correct?

172:22 A. Yes, sir.

172:23 Q. And in terms of -- and you may not know

172:24 this -- but in terms of cost, are these electronic

172:25 devices that you turn on and off, are they more

173:01 expensive than these passive devices that were also

173:02 included in the testing?

173:03 A. Yes, sir.

173:04 Q. And is it fair to say that these electronic

173:05 on-and-off devices, you know, they are not the kind of

173:06 thing that are sitting in a bucket at a firing range

173:07 where a soldier comes by and picks them up and there's

173:08 just an unlimited quantity of them to use.

173:09 A. That's correct, sir.

173:10 - 173:18 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:22

173:10 Q. Are these the kind of devices that are

173:11 handed out to infantrymen when they are deployed in

173:12 combat?

173:13 A. I don't know the answer to that. I don't

173:14 know what's given out.

173:15 Q. All right.

173:16 A. But, you know, I don't think, you know,

173:17 again, I don't know what the infantry or Army or, you

173:18 know, what anyone else is doing, so ...

174:01 - 174:12 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:23

174:01 Q. So the first group is something that goes Re: [174:01 to 174:12] Re: [174:01 to 174:12] Re: [174:01 to 174:12] OVERRULED

174:02 in the ear, electronic, turn it on and off. The Pltf Obj 402, 403, foundation, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 Leading

174:03 second group is electronic, but it goes over the ear vague, Touhy

174:04 like a muff. Re: [174:10 to 174:12] OVERRULED

174:05 A. Yes, sir. Pltf Obj 602, 802

174:06 Q. And then in the last group is this passive

174:07 group, which includes the Combat Arms earplug,

174:08 correct?

174:09 A. Yes, sir.

174:10 Q. And that obviously is the least expensive

174:11 of the group, true?

Page 13 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 14 of 34
174:12 A. Yes, sir.

174:21 - 175:04 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:30

174:21 Q. You have these separated into different Re: [174:21 to 175:04] Re: [174:21 to 175:04] Re: [174:21 to 174:25] OVERRULED

174:22 categories is because they're different kinds of Pltf Obj 402, 403, foundation, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 602, foundation,

174:23 devices that do different things, right? vague, Touhy, misstates, 702, Baker MIL 16

174:24 A. Yeah, there's -- yeah, I mean, they do MIL G7

174:25 different things, yes, sir. Re: [175:01 to 175:04] OVERRULED

175:01 Q. Yeah, like you wouldn't expect a passive, Pltf Obj Lay opinion on

175:02 inexpensive, nonlinear plug to have the same kind of efficacy; leading; 403

175:03 performance as an expensive in-the-ear electronic

175:04 plug.

175:07 - 175:19 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:43

175:07 A. Yeah, I agree in general with what you're Re: [175:07 to 175:19] Re: [175:07 to 175:19] Re: [175:07 to 175:19] OVERRULED

175:08 saying. I see what you're saying. I agree with that. Pltf Obj 402, 403, foundation, OVERRULED Pltf Obj Lay opinion on

175:09 I mean, the only thing, as an audiologist, I mean, vague, Touhy, misstates, 702, efficacy; leading; 403

175:10 what's right and wrong, you know, better or worse, you

MIL G7

175:11 know, can depend on the environment. And, you know,

175:12 we certainly run into situations where you can

175:13 overprotect somebody, you know, and sometimes, you

175:14 know --

175:15 So I guess, you know, performance-wise, you

175:16 know, I guess it kind of just depends on the

175:17 environment, but there's no doubt that the active

175:18 stuff you turn on and off, you know, provides some --

175:19 some different capabilities.

176:17 - 177:16 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:31

176:17 Q. And, in fact, what you're testing, your Re: [176:17 to 177:16] Re: [176:17 to 177:16]

176:18 REAT testing indicated, at least as to the Combat Arms Pltf Obj 403, vague, Touhy, OVERRULED

176:19 green end, it in fact did provide attenuation, 21, misstates, 702, MIL G7,

176:20 when you looked at it under one standard deviation, hearsay

176:21 and 15 under a two standard deviation, correct?

176:22 A. Yes, sir, that's -- yes, sir.

176:23 Q. And the yellow end had significantly less

176:24 attenuation than that, right?

176:25 A. Yes, sir.

177:01 Q. And that's what you would expect based on

177:02 what you know about the plug that, if you're trying to

177:03 allow lower-level sounds in and you're protecting only

177:04 against the loud impulse sounds, correct?

177:05 A. Yes, sir. I mean, essentially, yes, that's

177:06 the idea. Again, I mean, again, it would all be

177:07 relative, you know, relative to the noise that you're

177:08 exposed to.

177:09 Q. And then if you'll turn over to the

Page 14 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 15 of 34
177:10 Discussion page, which is page 19 of the report,

177:11 section 3.3, in that first sentence, your team reports

177:12 that "continuous noise protection of all devices

177:13 tested was reasonable and should provide a safe

177:14 exposure level for the average user in many noise

177:15 environments up to 105 dBs," correct?

177:16 A. Yes, sir.

178:13 - 178:25 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:37

178:13 Q. And if we look at paragraph 1, the second Re: [178:13 to 178:25] Re: [178:13 to 178:25]

178:14 sentence indicates that Table 1 -- and that's the Pltf Obj leading, heasay, MIL OVERRULED

178:15 table that we looked at earlier, right? G7, 403, 602, 702

178:16 A. Yes, sir.

178:17 Q. "Table 1 illustrates that the Combat Arms

178:18 Earplug green (intended for continuous noise

178:19 protection) provides very good attenuation." Did I

178:20 read that first part of the sentence correctly?

178:21 A. Yes, sir.

178:22 Q. And that was a conclusion that was reached

178:23 by you and your other researchers based on the data,

178:24 correct?

178:25 A. Yes, sir.

179:06 - 179:14 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:26

179:06 Q. You didn't have a manufacturer of any of Re: [179:06 to 179:14] Re: [179:06 to 179:14] Re: [179:06 to 179:14] OVERRULED

179:07 these earplugs telling you what protocols to use, how Pltf Obj Vague, colloquy, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 403, Baker MIL 16

179:08 to conduct the testing, right? compound, 403, MIL G4

179:09 A. No, sir.

179:10 Q. You didn't ask for any internal

179:11 information, any internal documents, any internal

179:12 testing. In fact, you wanted this to be unbiased

179:13 based on your independent testing of the product,

179:14 correct?

179:16 - 179:16 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:01

179:16 A. Yes, sir. Re: [179:16 to 179:16] Re: [179:16 to 179:16]

Pltf Obj Vague, colloquy, OVERRULED

compound, 403, MIL G4

179:19 - 181:15 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 3:35

179:19 Q. And, in fact, the words that you and your Re: [179:19 to 181:15] Re: [179:19 to 181:15] Re: [179:19 to 180:10] OVERRULED

179:20 group chose to use was that the green end provided Pltf Obj 402, 403, leading, OVERRULED except with Pltf Obj 702 lay opinion on

179:21 very good attenuation and is readily distinguished hearsay, compound, vague, respect to the phrase efficacy; 403

179:22 from the Combat Arms Earplug yellow intended for Touhy, misstates, 702, MIL G1, "independent, unbiased" at

179:23 impulse noise, correct? MIL G2, MIL G7 [181:14-181:15], which must be Re: [180:11 to 180:16] OVERRULED

179:24 A. Yes, sir. And I write that there -- and to removed Pltf Obj 702, lay opinion on

179:25 go back, again, you know, very good attenuation -- efficacy, 802

180:01 good attenuation, as I've come, you know, you know,

180:02 to, you know, kind of expand my thoughts, you know, Re: [180:17 to 181:12] OVERRULED

180:03 good attenuation is the attenuation that you need. Pltf Obj 702, lay opinion on

180:04 And so, you know, the words "very good," you efficacy, 802, Baker MIL 16,

180:05 know, could be kind of relative, but, I mean, adequate leading

Page 15 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 16 of 34
180:06 attenuation, adequate attenuation for the -- for what

180:07 you would expect from that earplug, you know, I think

180:08 it's maybe a better word, but, you know, again,

180:09 it's -- as I kind of mature through this stuff, very

180:10 good is what you need.

180:11 Q. And then you say -- let me back up again.

180:12 So whether you say that it's very good attenuation and

180:13 whether you say it's adequate, you certainly, you and

180:14 your group, certainly commented that the plug was

180:15 providing attenuation at a level you would expect.

180:16 A. Yes, sir.

180:17 Q. And then you comment on the difference

180:18 between the higher attenuation on the green end and

180:19 the lower attenuation on the yellow end, right?

180:20 A. Yes, sir.

180:21 Q. And what you say is that "this allows for

180:22 the desirable difference in performance

180:23 characteristics provided by this Combat Arms earplug,

180:24 in that the green side provides continuous noise

180:25 protection. While in a tactical situation the user

181:01 inserts the yellow side and is better able to maintain

181:02 situational awareness but still realize protection

181:03 from impulse noise," right?

181:04 A. Yes, sir.

181:05 Q. So just so I'll understand this, you're

181:06 saying like you had more protection on the green end,

181:07 less protection on the yellow end, and that's sort of

181:08 indicative of how the plug is supposed to work. The

181:09 green end protects you from continuous noise, the

181:10 yellow end lets you hear ambient sounds better, but

181:11 still protects from impulse noises, correct?

181:12 A. Yes, sir.

181:13 Q. And those were the conclusions that you and

181:14 your group reached after performing this independent,

181:15 unbiased testing, correct?

181:17 - 182:16 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:44

181:17 A. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Re: [181:17 to 182:16] Re: [181:17 to 182:16] Re: [181:18 to 182:16] OVERRULED

181:18 Q. So now let's go to, if we could the next Pltf Obj 402, 403, leading, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading

181:19 section, which is the "Airblast Overpressure hearsay, compound, vague,

181:20 Measurements for Attenuation," section 4.0. Touhy, misstates, 702, MIL G1, Re: [182:13 to 182:16] OVERRULED

181:21 Just so I sort of have an understanding of MIL G2, MIL G7 Pltf Obj Baker MIL 16

181:22 this, when we talk about airblast overpressure, we're

181:23 talking about an explosion, correct?

181:24 A. Yes, sir.

181:25 Q. You weren't trying in the testing to create

182:01 like this massive amount of decibel levels to imitate

182:02 what an explosion or an IED or something of that

182:03 nature would cause.

Page 16 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 17 of 34
182:04 A. Yes, sir.

182:05 Q. You would have attempted to generate

182:06 something at 165 decibels and something at 195

182:07 decibels, correct?

182:08 A. Yes, sir.

182:09 Q. And then you would have tested on these

182:10 three manikins pressure without a plug and pressure

182:11 with a plug, right?

182:12 A. Yes, sir.

182:13 Q. And the idea was to see what these various

182:14 devices -- what kind of protection they could give in

182:15 that unusual high-decibel situation, right?

182:16 A. Yes, sir.

182:24 - 183:08 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:30

182:24 So are there situations where the military Re: [182:24 to 183:08] Re: [182:24 to 183:08] Re: [183:05 to 183:08] OVERRULED

182:25 requires what's called dual protection? Pltf Obj Incomplete OVERRULED Pltf Obj MIL 2, 602, 802,

183:01 A. Yes, sir. Designation leading

183:02 Q. And what is dual protection?

183:03 A. Usually a earplug and then an earmuff over

183:04 that plug.

183:05 Q. And if you have a 195-decibel explosion,

183:06 would you -- would the military requirements say you

183:07 should have dual protection for that type of noise

183:08 level?

183:23 - 184:05 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:21

183:23 Q. Right. And that was the point I was trying Re: [183:23 to 184:05] Re: [183:23 to 184:05] Re: [183:23 to 184:05]

183:24 to make and not doing a very good job of it, is that Pltf Obj Compound, Colloquy, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading; Baker

183:25 you were just seeing how much attenuation these Vague, Leading MIL 16

184:01 devices might be able to provide in the unusual

184:02 setting of 195 decibels. You weren't trying to see if

184:03 these plugs would be appropriate if you knew you were

184:04 going to be exposed to that kind of decibel level

184:05 noise, correct?

184:07 - 184:13 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:23

184:07 A. Yes. Yes. Yes, sir. Re: [184:07 to 184:13] Re: [184:07 to 184:13]

184:08 Q. So just -- so we understand what you did, Pltf Obj Compound, Colloquy, OVERRULED

184:09 you had these three manikins -- and, if we turn over Vague, Leading

184:10 to the next page, Will -- we can see the photograph

184:11 that we looked at earlier. These would have been the

184:12 three manikins, correct?

184:13 A. Yes, sir.

184:18 - 186:11 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:19

184:18 Q. Yeah. So there were some questions earlier Re: [184:18 to 186:11] Re: [184:18 to 186:11] Re: [185:06 to 186:11] OVERRULED

184:19 about testing with other devices for both the REAT Pltf Obj 403, 602, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading

184:20 test and this blast test. When you tested the Combat leading, hearsay, compound,

184:21 Arms plug, it was only the Combat Arms earplug. You MIL G1, MIL G2, MIL G7 Re: [186:08 to 186:11] OVERRULED

SUSTAINED. Form objection 

made at depo.

Page 17 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 18 of 34
184:22 did not have it combined with something else. Pltf Obj misstates

184:23 A. Not -- so you're saying was there a headset

184:24 over the top of it? Re: [186:08 to 186:11] OVERRULED

184:25 Q. Right. Pltf Obj 602; lay opinion on

185:01 A. No, not for this particular test. Did we efficacy

185:02 run some of that just on the side, or did we -- did we

185:03 try that maybe? I don't recall that. But, you know,

185:04 for the purposes of this report, this stuff was run by

185:05 itself.

185:06 Q. I just mean, when I look at these results,

185:07 that's the attenuation provided by the dual-ended plug

185:08 alone.

185:09 A. The dual-ended plug, yes.

185:10 Q. Okay. And then if we go to the next page,

185:11 Will, this is showing the actual demonstration of the

185:12 blast that's creating the pressure that's being

185:13 tested, correct?

185:14 A. Yes, sir.

185:15 Q. And if we look over at 4.2, the Results

185:16 section, you have 100 blasts with 13 devices

185:17 generating pressures at 165 dB and 195 dB, and then

185:18 you're measuring the protection provided by each

185:19 device, right?

185:20 A. Yes, sir.

185:21 Q. And then on the next page you actually have

185:22 a table that shows the protection that these devices

185:23 are rendering in this overblast test that you

185:24 conducted, correct?

185:25 A. Yes, sir.

186:01 Q. And, again, you have them broken out the

186:02 same way. This in-the-ear, the earmuffs that are both

186:03 electronic, and then you have these passive devices

186:04 that you don't turn off in a different category, but

186:05 all of them are measured and then compared here,

186:06 correct?

186:07 A. Yes, sir.

186:08 Q. And like if you look, for example, at the

186:09 195 dB for the Combat Arms green end, it attenuates at

186:10 36.3, correct?

186:11 A. Yes, insertion loss, yes.

186:16 - 187:01 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:31

186:16 Q. So let me ask it again. Starting with, I'm Re: [186:16 to 187:01] Re: [186:16 to 187:01] Re: [186:16 to 187:01] OVERRULED

186:17 going to say the earmuffs that go over your ear Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading

186:18 because that's what I understand. If we look at the leading, hearsay, MIL G7

186:19 earmuffs over-the-ear electronic devices, the green Re: [186:16 to 187:14] OVERRULED

186:20 end of the Combat Arms plug did better than all of Pltf Obj 402, 403

186:21 those.

186:22 A. Yes, sir.

Page 18 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 19 of 34
186:23 Q. Right? And if we look at the in-the-ear

186:24 devices, those scores are, at least as to two of them,

186:25 pretty close, right?

187:01 A. Yes, sir.

187:03 - 187:05 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:12

187:03 Q. Fair to say that the green end of this plug Re: [187:03 to 187:05] Re: [187:03 to 187:05] Re: [186:16 to 187:14] Duplicate

187:04 in this overblast test compares pretty favorably to Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj 402, 403

187:05 even the in-the-ear electronic devices, right? leading, vague, MIL G7

Re: [187:03 to 187:05]

Pltf Obj 611 leading; lay

opinion on efficacy

187:08 - 187:14 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:22

187:08 A. Yeah, I mean, it compares to them, I mean, Re: [187:08 to 187:14] Re: [187:08 to 187:14] Re: [186:16 to 187:14] Duplicate

187:09 if you're just looking at the numbers, I mean, it Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj 402, 403

187:10 would, you know, it would be below the in-the-ear, you

leading, vague, hearsay, MIL

187:11 know, active headsets. G7 Re: [187:08 to 187:14] SUSTAINED

187:12 Q. For example, if we look at the first one, Pltf Obj 402, 403

187:13 it's below by less than 2 decibels, right?

187:14 A. Yes, sir.

187:23 - 188:03 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:14

187:23 Q. In any event, we have a passive, not a Re: [187:23 to 188:03] Re: [187:23 to 188:03] Re: [187:23 to 188:03] SUSTAINED

187:24 electronic device, completely performing better than Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj 611 leading; lay

187:25 the earmuffs, and at least approaching within some leading, vague, hearsay, MIL opinion; 402, 403

188:01 number of decibels of the in-the-ear electronic G7

188:02 devices, right?

188:03 A. Yes, sir.

190:08 - 191:08 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:05

190:08 If you're looking at the green end, the green Re: [190:08 to 191:08] Re: [190:08 to 191:08] Re: [190:08 to 191:08] SUSTAINED

190:09 end of a plug at 195 decibels performed better than Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj 611 leading; 402,

190:10 all of the earmuff electronic devices that you tested; leading, vague, hearsay, MIL 403; lay opinion on CAEv2

190:11 is that correct? G7

190:12 A. Yes, sir.

190:13 Q. And the green end of the plug at 195 had an

190:14 attenuation of 36.3; is that correct?

190:15 A. Yes, sir.

190:16 Q. And if we look at, for example, the

190:17 in-the-ear, the first one you tested, it had an

190:18 attenuation of 37.5, correct?

190:19 A. Yes.

190:20 Q. And that, again, is an electronic device

190:21 that you turn on and off, not a passive device like

190:22 the dual-ended one, correct?

190:23 A. That's right.

190:24 Q. And then if we look at the green end at 165

190:25 decibels, the green end, again, beat all the earmuff

191:01 products that you tested, right?

SUSTAINED. Form objection 

made at depo.

Page 19 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 20 of 34
191:02 A. Yes, sir.

191:03 Q. Even though they were all electronic,

191:04 right?

191:05 A. Yes, sir.

191:06 Q. And actually did better than one of the

191:07 in-the-ear electronic devices that you tested,

191:08 correct?

191:10 - 191:18 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:24

191:10 A. Yes, sir. Re: [191:10 to 191:18] Re: [191:10 to 191:18] Re: [191:10 to 191:18] SUSTAINED

191:11 Q. And then the yellow, if we go to the Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj Leading, lay opinion,

191:12 yellow, at 195 it provided protection of 32.4 leading, vague, hearsay, MIL 402, 403

191:13 decibels, correct? G7

191:14 A. Yes, sir.

191:15 Q. And the yellow end of the dual-ended plug

191:16 did better than all of the earmuff electronic devices

191:17 that you tested, correct?

191:18 A. Yes, sir.

191:21 - 192:05 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:24

191:21 Q. If we go to the 165 column and look at the Re: [191:21 to 192:05] Re: [191:21 to 192:05] Re: [191:21 to 191:24] SUSTAINED

191:22 yellow end of the plug, it, again, attenuated at 23.4 Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj 611 leading

191:23 decibels, correct? leading, vague, hearsay, MIL

191:24 A. Yes, sir. G7 Re: [191:25 to 192:05] SUSTAINED

191:25 Q. And beat some but not all of the earmuffs, Pltf Obj Leading 611, 402

192:01 correct?

192:02 A. Yes, sir.

192:03 Q. And the dual-ended plug had these

192:04 performance characteristics even though it's less

192:05 expensive and not electronic, correct?

192:07 - 192:07 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:01

192:07 A. Yes, sir. Re: [192:07 to 192:07] Re: [192:07 to 192:07] Re: [192:07 to 192:07] SUSTAINED

Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj Leading 611, 402, 403

leading, vague, hearsay, MIL

193:14 - 193:21 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:29 G7

193:14 Q. Rephrase it. Is it fair to say that, at Re: [193:14 to 193:21] Re: [193:14 to 193:21] Re: [193:14 to 193:21] OVERRULED

193:15 least up to 195 decibels, your testing shows that it Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading; 402;

193:16 is providing insertion loss which would amount to leading, vague, hearsay, MIL Baker MIL 16

193:17 reducing the pressure in the manikin? G7

193:18 A. Yes, sir.

193:19 Q. So at 195 it is reducing the pressure by

193:20 the numbers that is reflected in this chart.

193:21 A. Yes, sir.

194:03 - 196:19 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 5:38

194:03 Q. All right. So if we'll turn now to section Re: [194:03 to 196:19] Re: [194:03 to 196:19] Re: [195:10 to 195:17] OVERRULED

194:04 6.0. And I just want to make sure I understand. What Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading

194:05 did you do in this particular testing methodology? hearsay, MIL G7, Strike

194:06 A. So, as I remember, there's speech and noise Nonresponsive Re: [195:18 to 196:19] OVERRULED

194:07 testing that -- that clinicians can use. You know, Pltf Obj Lay opinion on

Page 20 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 21 of 34
194:08 basically, it changes the speech or the efficacy

194:09 signal-to-noise ratio over a list of words.

194:10 And so what we're looking at here is the

194:11 first -- the first intelligibility, I believe, in the

194:12 previous section was just the ability to communicate

194:13 over radio, whereas this, this test was, you know, the

194:14 idea was that we would see how well you could

194:15 communicate through the talk-through mics.

194:16 So instead of over a radio, you know, this

194:17 would maybe be somebody standing beside you, you know.

194:18 Your ambient noise, you know, for the electronic

194:19 active headsets, you know, were -- would have been on,

194:20 you know, and you can -- you can hear, you know, how

194:21 well can you hear the person talking next to you. So

194:22 that's kind of -- just what we're trying to do.

194:23 And the way that we did that was used this

194:24 speech and noise test, you know, I believe on CD, and

194:25 we can play it through a speaker and in one of those

195:01 controlled environments. I believe we used the Myers

195:02 facility for that. And, you know, the subject would

195:03 sit in front of a loud speaker and, basically, you

195:04 know, accomplish this test.

195:05 And the score, you know, the lower the score on

195:06 the QuickSIN the better, and that's essentially -- the

195:07 idea was to evaluate the talk-through capability of

195:08 that -- of the tactical headset as opposed to the

195:09 radio communication.

195:10 Q. So this was not testing just the dual-ended

195:11 plug. This was the dual-ended plug combined with

195:12 something else and then do the testing.

195:13 A. Yes.

195:14 Q. And it was not a test really designed to

195:15 specifically look at protection or attenuation that

195:16 was being provided by an individual product.

195:17 A. That's correct.

195:18 Q. Now if you'll turn over to page 65, the

195:19 Discussion section under 6.3, the second paragraph

195:20 about halfway down, there's a sentence that begins,

195:21 "When using the CAEP green end it is not a surprise

195:22 that performance is slightly worse and may be a

195:23 positive indication of passive attenuation." Do you

195:24 see that?

195:25 A. I do.

196:01 Q. Can you tell the jury what that means?

196:02 A. So the CAEP -- so, again, this is in

196:03 conjunction with the bone conduction tactical headset.

Page 21 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 22 of 34
196:04 And so the ear is open when it's in combination with

196:05 the Sidewinder. And, you know, when you're plugging

196:06 your ear up, when you're putting your ear protector

196:07 in, you know, there's -- there's going to be, you

196:08 know, not only, you know, the noise you're trying to

196:09 avoid is reduced, but the noise to hear speech is also

196:10 reduced. And so that's what that statement means.

196:11 Basically, you know, we're using, you know, the

196:12 Sidewinder tactical headset, but, you know, it's a

196:13 passive plug in the ear, and, you know, it's basically

196:14 just attenuating the sound. And that's -- that's, you

196:15 know, it's a positive indication of the passive

196:16 attenuation, but, again, the performance, you know, on

196:17 this test, you know, as anticipated probably did worse

196:18 than the other tactical headsets for -- on this

196:19 QuickSIN test.

196:22 - 197:05 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:24

196:22 Q. And just to sort of follow up on that, so Re: [196:22 to 197:05] Re: [196:22 to 197:05] Re: [196:22 to 197:05] OVERRULED

196:23 the idea is that the test is designed to see how well Pltf Obj 403, 702, MIL G7 OVERRULED Pltf Obj 403, 702

196:24 you can hear something, and when you combine the green

196:25 end of the dual-ended plug with this other device, it

197:01 did slightly worse, which was an indication to you

197:02 that it was working because it was attenuating sound,

197:03 correct?

197:04 A. Attenuated the speech that you're trying to

197:05 hear.

197:07 - 202:04 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 6:18

197:07 Q. And then if you look a little further down, Re: [197:07 to 202:04] Re: [197:07 to 202:04] Re: [197:07 to 197:23] OVERRULED

197:08 it says, "the fact that there is some performance Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 602

197:09 differences between the Combat Arms Earplug green and

hearsay, MIL G7

197:10 yellow ends is an indication of the functionality of Re: [197:07 to 197:23]

197:11 the earplug." Tell me what that means. Pltf Obj Lay opinion on

197:12 A. Well, again, just that, you know, the green efficacy; 702, 403

197:13 is continuous noise -- you know, kind of blocks out

197:14 everything. The yellow ends attenuates and lets the Re: [199:20 to 200:03] OVERRULED

197:15 ambient noise in, and, you know, reduce the impulse Pltf Obj 602

197:16 noise -- noise exposure.

197:17 And, you know, you know, by the subject, you Re: [199:20 to 200:03]

197:18 know, the subject is doing better with the yellow end Pltf Obj lay opinion, 702,

197:19 inserted versus the green end inserted, you know, 402, 403

197:20 again, it could be an indication that the yellow is

197:21 letting your ambient environment through and not Re: [200:04 to 202:04] OVERRULED

197:22 attenuating it as much as the green end or the Pltf Obj 602; 611 leading

197:23 continuous noise.

197:24 Q. Thank you. All right. So now if we move Re: [200:04 to 202:04]

Page 22 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 23 of 34
197:25 to section 7 of the report, Localization Measurements, Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702 lay

198:01 this is something we talked about earlier with opinion on efficacy

198:02 plaintiff's counsel; is that right?

198:03 A. Yes, sir.

198:04 Q. And just so I understand it --

198:05 Will, if you'll go to page 67 and just show the

198:06 sphere with the person standing in it.

198:07 So if I understand this, the idea is that a

198:08 person is standing in this sphere and sounds are

198:09 coming at them from all directions, right?

198:10 A. Not all at one time.

198:11 Q. Fair point.

198:12 A. Yeah.

198:13 Q. A single sound would come from one

198:14 direction, and the test subject would then need to

198:15 figure out and identify where that sound came from,

198:16 correct?

198:17 A. Yes, sir.

198:18 Q. I think you said they had a wand in their

198:19 hand and they would literally point in the direction

198:20 they thought the sound came from, right?

198:21 A. Yes, sir.

198:22 Q. And then you would then go to another

198:23 location, sound would come, and the test subject would

198:24 point to where that next sound came from, and you

198:25 would do that over a series of different kinds of

199:01 sounds and from different directions, right?

199:02 A. Yes, sir.

199:03 Q. And then you would measure how many times

199:04 the test subject got it right and how many times the

199:05 test subject got it wrong, right?

199:06 A. It wasn't really right and wrong. It was

199:07 if they were right, it was more the error, the angular

199:08 error. So, I mean, if they got it right, there was

199:09 zero degrees of angular error. If they got it wrong,

199:10 it was to what degree the angular error.

199:11 Q. Gotcha. So it wasn't just the black and

199:12 white, right or wrong. It was how much did you get it

199:13 right, or, if you missed it, how far off were you.

199:14 A. Yes, sir.

199:15 Q. Okay. And then you, as I understand it,

199:16 you would have maintained and kept track of the

199:17 ultimate results of all these devices you were

199:18 testing, right?

199:19 A. Yes, sir.

199:20 Q. And some of these devices, were they

199:21 electronic devices that actually amplified the sound?

199:22 A. They were pretty much at least linear gain,

199:23 you know, like -- so, in other words, you know,

Page 23 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 24 of 34
199:24 whatever was going into the mic came out into the ear

199:25 until a certain point when they would compress, and

200:01 then -- but whether or not some of them amplified -- I

200:02 guess it would probably just depend on the setting,

200:03 the volume setting and all that.

200:04 Q. But they had electronic aid for the test

200:05 subject or the listener.

200:06 A. Yes, sir.

200:07 Q. Except for the Combat Arms earplug, which

200:08 was passive and had no electronic enhancement at all,

200:09 correct?

200:10 A. That's correct.

200:11 Q. And then you created various charts that

200:12 showed the performance of these different devices,

200:13 correct?

200:14 A. Yes, sir.

200:15 Q. And so you were shown some of these, but

200:16 I'd like to revisit those, if we could.

200:17 Will, if you'll go to page 68.

200:18 And this chart that we're looking at now is the

200:19 overall error, correct?

200:20 A. Yes, sir.

200:21 Q. In other words, you were looking at

200:22 different things left to right, did you miss it front

200:23 to back, what are the angles. This is a combination

200:24 of all that, correct?

200:25 A. I believe so, yes, sir.

201:01 Q. All right. And the first thing you look at

201:02 is the open end or the open ear, and that's just the

201:03 test subject is tested and they don't have anything in

201:04 their ear, right?

201:05 A. Yes, sir.

201:06 Q. And even with nothing in the ear, if you

201:07 got a burst -- and what is a burst sound?

201:08 A. A burst, I think, in the methods section

201:09 was 250 milliseconds.

201:10 Q. Okay. And then the second was continuous,

201:11 and obviously that's a longer version of the sound.

201:12 A. Yeah, it would, I believe, stay on until

201:13 the subject responded -- until the subject actually,

201:14 you know, the subject take their time to find the --

201:15 find the sound.

201:16 Q. And so even in the open ear there was some

201:17 error by the test subject.

201:18 A. Yes, sir.

201:19 Q. And then if we look at the yellow plug, the

201:20 yellow end of the Combat Arms plug, that's the one

201:21 that's got the hole in it, that's got the filter or

201:22 whatever you want to call it that allows some ambient

Page 24 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 25 of 34
201:23 sound in, right?

201:24 A. Yes, sir.

201:25 Q. And plaintiff's counsel had you compare it

202:01 to the open ear indicating that it is somewhat worse

202:02 and there's more error if you compare the yellow end

202:03 to just the plain open end, right?

202:04 A. Yes, sir.

202:15 - 203:03 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:46

202:15 Q. Well, let's do that. So if we compare the Re: [202:15 to 203:03] Re: [202:15 to 203:03] Re: [202:15 to 203:03] OVERRULED

202:16 yellow, let's say -- let's start with the CEPS. Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 702 lay opinion on

202:17 That's the next one after the open ear. Is it fair to hearsay, MIL G7 efficacy; Baker MIL 16; 402,

202:18 say that in both continuous noise and burst that the 403

202:19 yellow end of the plug performed better?

202:20 A. Yes, sir.

202:21 Q. To save time, as we walk through the next

202:22 one, the Nacre device, the yellow end of the plug

202:23 performed better?

202:24 A. Yes, sir.

202:25 Q. And for every single device that you tested

203:01 at the Air Force Research Lab, the yellow end of a

203:02 Combat Arms earplug performed better, correct?

203:03 A. Yes, sir.

203:05 - 203:08 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:12

203:05 Q. Not a single plug that you can turn on and Re: [203:05 to 203:08] Re: [203:05 to 203:08] Re: [203:05 to 203:08]

203:06 turn off and is electronic and is more expensive, not Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading

203:07 a single one of them did as well as the yellow end of MIL G7

203:08 the plug, right? Re: [203:05 to 203:08]

Pltf Obj 402, lay opinion

203:10 - 203:10 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:02

203:10 A. Yes, sir. Re: [203:10 to 203:10] Re: [203:10 to 203:10] Re: [203:10 to 203:10]

Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading

MIL G7

Re: [203:10 to 203:10]

Pltf Obj 402, lay opinion

203:23 - 204:08 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:32

203:23 Q. I'll reask it. I'll reask it. The green Re: [203:23 to 204:08] Re: [203:23 to 204:08] Re: [203:23 to 204:08] OVERRULED

203:24 end of the plug is a solid plug that is designed for Pltf Obj 402, 403, 602, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading; 702 lay

203:25 continuous -- vague, MIL G7 opinion

204:01 A. Yes, sir.

204:02 Q. The yellow end was the open end that was Re: [203:23 to 204:04] OVERRULED

204:03 designed for impulse noise, right? Pltf Obj 602; foundation;

204:04 A. Yes, sir. Baker MIL 15

204:05 Q. As it relates to continuous noise on this

204:06 chart, the green end did better than some and worse Re: [204:05 to 204:08] OVERRULED

204:07 than some, correct? Pltf Obj 402

204:08 A. Yes, sir.

SUSTAINED. From objection 

made at depo.

SUSTAINED. Form objection 

made at depo.

Page 25 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 26 of 34
204:25 - 205:11 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:53

204:25 Q. That's okay. We can cover this quickly. Re: [204:25 to 205:11] Re: [204:25 to 205:11] Re: [205:01 to 205:11] OVERRULED

205:01 If you go to the next page, Will, page 69, if you look Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading; 702 lay

205:02 at the top chart, and you look at the yellow end of hearsay, MIL G7 opinion; 402, 403

205:03 the Combat Arms plug, in this front-back localization

205:04 test, the yellow plug performs either as well as or

205:05 better than all the other devices? One is close and I

205:06 just can't tell ...

205:07 A. Yes, sir.

205:08 Q. And then if we go to the next chart, which

205:09 is below that, which is the left to right error

205:10 degree, it's clear there that the yellow plug

205:11 outperforms all the other plugs, right?

205:13 - 205:25 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:39

205:13 A. Well, with the continuous -- it looks like Re: [205:13 to 205:25] Re: [205:13 to 205:25] Re: [205:13 to 205:25] OVERRULED

205:14 the burst also. Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading; 702 lay

205:15 Q. Yeah, with both of them. And with the hearsay, MIL G7 opinion; 402, 403

205:16 green plug, in this one it does better than some and

205:17 worse than some, right, on both burst and continuous.

205:18 A. Yes, sir.

205:19 Q. And then if we go to the next page, it has

205:20 the last two charts on page 70. If we look at the

205:21 first one, Fig. 55, again, if we look at the yellow

205:22 end of the Combat Arms plug, it performs better than

205:23 all the other devices, right, on both burst and

205:24 continuous?

205:25 A. Yes, sir.

206:02 - 206:12 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:39

206:02 Q. So if you can draw a yellow circle around Re: [206:02 to 206:12] Re: [206:02 to 206:12] Re: [206:02 to 206:12] OVERRULED

206:03 that, Will, maybe or highlight that CAEP-Y, those two, Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 402, 403

206:04 that blue and white bar. hearsay, MIL G7

206:05 (Marking) Re: [206:02 to 206:12]

206:06 Q. So if we look -- that's the yellow and the Pltf Obj leading

206:07 green of the Combat Arms plug, right?

206:08 A. Yes, sir.

206:09 Q. And we can see that the yellow on all

206:10 scores performs better than the other devices you

206:11 looked at, correct?

206:12 A. Yes, sir.

206:14 - 208:16 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 3:31

206:14 Q. And then if we look over on the next page, Re: [206:14 to 208:16] Re: [206:14 to 208:16] Re: [206:14 to 207:20] OVERRULED

206:15 you actually have a discussion of these tests, Pltf Obj 402, 403, 602, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading; 702 lay

206:16 correct? vague, argumentative, hearsay, opinion; 402, 403

206:17 A. Yes, sir. MIL G5, MIL G7

206:18 Q. Section 7.3. And if you look under section Re: [207:21 to 208:10] OVERRULED

206:19 7.3.1.1, do you see that section, sir? Pltf Obj 702 lay opinion, 602,

206:20 A. Yes, sir. foundation; completeness;

206:21 Q. And if you look at the second paragraph, it Baker MIL 16

Page 26 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 27 of 34
206:22 begins "passive plug." Do you see that?

206:23 A. Yes, sir. Re: [208:11 to 208:16] OVERRULED

206:24 Q. It says: Pltf Obj 402; 403;

206:25 "Passive plug performance showed completeness; 602; 702 lay

207:01 considerable differences between the opinion; compound, vague,

207:02 impulse and continuous noise options, leading.

207:03 especially in regards to the Combat

207:04 Arms earplug green (continuous noise)

207:05 and the Combat Arms earplug yellow

207:06 (impulse noise). The Sennheiser

207:07 SLC-110 exhibited less

207:08 differentiation between closed and

207:09 open conditions, which may be related

207:10 to the minimal attenuation

207:11 differences noted between the two

207:12 settings. In other words, the Combat

207:13 Arms Earplug seems to work as

207:14 advertised, in that there are

207:15 significant differences between the

207:16 continuous and impulse settings,

207:17 whereas the Sennheiser SLC-110 showed

207:18 minimal differences."

207:19 Did I read that correctly?

207:20 A. Yes, sir.

207:21 Q. And the report and your team state that the

207:22 Combat Arms earplug seems to work as advertised

207:23 because there are significant differences between

207:24 continuous and impulse settings. Tell me what that

207:25 means.

208:01 A. Well, I'm not sure "advertised" is the

208:02 right word there, you know, looking back on it, but,

208:03 yeah, I mean, essentially Combat Arms earplug, I mean,

208:04 that's what the green is meant for the continuous

208:05 noise, the yellow is meant for the impulse noise, you

208:06 know. It's two -- you're looking for two different,

208:07 you know, uses for that plug, and you're kind of, you

208:08 know, you know, throughout that testing, I mean, you

208:09 know, there were differences between the yellow side

208:10 and the green side.

208:11 Q. And whether it was looking back on it, they

208:12 were the right words to use back when you wrote the

208:13 report before you talked to lawyers and you were

208:14 giving depositions, the words that you used were to

208:15 that effect, right?

208:16 A. That's correct.

208:18 - 208:22 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:18

208:18 Q. Then the last section I'm going to ask you

208:19 about on this report and then maybe we'll take a short

Page 27 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 28 of 34
208:20 break is section 8, and this is the Electroacoustic

208:21 Characterization section.

208:22 A. Correct.

209:06 - 209:09 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:20

209:06 Q. Let me see if I can help you. So if you'll

209:07 go to page 96 it talks about the Passive TH, 8.3.1.3.

209:08 A. Yeah. It looks like it was just the

209:09 earplug itself.

209:23 - 210:25 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:35

209:23 Under this section, did you and your team Re: [209:23 to 210:25] Re: [209:23 to 210:25] Re: [209:23 to 210:21] OVERRULED

209:24 report that, "As expected, the results of the Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 402, 403, 702, Baker

209:25 characterization of passive earplugs were limited in hearsay, leading, MIL G7 MIL 16

210:01 regards to both frequency and intensity. In fact,

210:02 when the CAEP, Combat Arms Earplug-Green end was

210:03 inserted, a response could not be recorded due to the

210:04 limitations of the recording setup."

210:05 Did I read that correctly?

210:06 A. Yes, sir.

210:07 Q. What does that mean?

210:08 A. Well, let's see. So, you know, basically,

210:09 we were playing a different spectrum of sound and then

210:10 recording it through KEMAR, through another manikin

210:11 head, and -- and at whatever levels we were putting

210:12 into there, there just wasn't, you know, the KEMAR has

210:13 that microphone, you know, in the manikin head, and,

210:14 basically, you know, I mean, it's -- as far as I can

210:15 tell, you know, there wasn't a response -- there

210:16 wasn't a response recorded, you know, due to the

210:17 attenuation of the earplug.

210:18 Q. Right. And the next sentence says, "This

210:19 indirectly supports the amount of attenuation provided

210:20 by this earplug," right?

210:21 A. Yes, sir.

210:22 Q. And the idea that this is trying to convey

210:23 is that the attenuation from the green end of the plug

210:24 was such that your recording equipment couldn't take a

210:25 measurement, right?

211:02 - 211:25 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 1:02

211:02 A. Yeah, it -- it could take a measurement, Re: [211:02 to 211:25] Re: [211:02 to 211:25] Re: [211:05 to 211:25] OVERRULED

211:03 but the sound wasn't loud enough to -- to get Pltf Obj 402, 403, 602, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj bolstering

211:04 recorded. vague, hearsay, leading, MIL credibility;

211:05 Q. And that was a positive indication that the G7

211:06 plug was working, right? Re: [211:05 to 211:25] OVERRULED

211:07 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Pltf Obj 611 leading; 702 lay

Page 28 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 29 of 34
211:08 Q. So just to sort of summarize all this, and opinion;

211:09 just so we're clear, this WHISPr Study that we've been

211:10 talking about, you, in fact, did test the Combat Arms

211:11 earplug dual-end, correct?

211:12 A. Yes, sir.

211:13 Q. You recorded your results, correct?

211:14 A. Yes, sir.

211:15 Q. You and your team were truthful in what you

211:16 had to say about the results, correct?

211:17 A. Yes, sir.

211:18 Q. You considered them unbiased findings,

211:19 correct?

211:20 A. Yes, sir.

211:21 Q. You knew that this was being prepared for

211:22 the Marine Corps and expected others to review it,

211:23 right?

211:24 A. At least the Marine Corps. Again, I wasn't

211:25 sure who else would look at it or see it or review it.

212:09 - 212:11 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:10

212:09 Q. The report was -- your results were put Re: [212:09 to 212:11] Re: [212:09 to 212:11] Re: [212:09 to 212:18] SUSTAINED

212:10 into a report and became a record of the United States Pltf Obj 403, 602, vague, SUSTAINED Pltf Obj 602; Baker MIL 16

212:11 military, correct? leading, MIL G5, MIL G7

212:13 - 212:22 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:26

212:13 A. I believe that's the right word to use. Re: [212:13 to 212:22] Re: [212:13 to 212:22] Re: [212:09 to 212:18] SUSTAINED as to

212:14 Again, I'm not, you know, I wrote it there or, you Pltf Obj 403, 602, 702, vague, SUSTAINED as to Pltf Obj 602; Baker MIL 16 [212:13-212:18] OVERRULED

212:15 know, not wrote it, but wrote it in conjunction with leading, MIL G5, MIL G7 [212:13-212:18] OVERRULED as as to [212:19-212:22]

212:16 the others, but, you know, whatever the right words to [212:19-212:22] Re: [212:19 to 213:08]

212:17 are for the Air Force to document the report and Pltf Obj 702 lay opinion; 403;

212:18 format the report. Baker MIL 16; 611 leading

212:19 Q. And in your report you and your team

212:20 describe the green end of the plug as providing very

212:21 good attenuation. That's how you worded it back at

212:22 the time you wrote it, right?

212:24 - 213:08 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:22

212:24 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Re: [212:24 to 213:08] Re: [212:24 to 213:08] Re: [212:19 to 213:08] OVERRULED

212:25 Q. And you -- and you described the yellow end Pltf Obj 403, 602, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 702 lay opinion; 403;

213:01 of the plug and the plug itself as seeming to work as leading, argumentative, MIL Baker MIL 16; 611 leading

213:02 advertised, correct? G5, MIL G7

213:03 A. Yes, sir.

213:04 Q. All words that were chosen by you and your

213:05 team before lawyers and others began interviewing you

213:06 and talking to you and preparing for depositions,

213:07 right?

213:08 A. Yes, sir.

225:17 - 227:06 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:54

225:17 Q. Okay. Shift gears. We talked a little bit Re: [225:17 to 227:06] Re: [225:17 to 227:06] Re: [225:17 to 226:13] OVERRULED

Page 29 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 30 of 34
225:18 about slippage and loosening of plugs. Do you recall Pltf Obj 403, 602, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 611 leading

225:19 the questions and answers from plaintiff's counsel on foundation, vague,

225:20 that? argumentative, MIL G5, MIL G7 Re: [226:24 to 227:06] OVERRULED

225:21 A. Yes. Pltf Obj 611 leading

225:22 Q. Okay. Your REAT testing, you actually

225:23 would have had subjects place the dual-ended Combat

Re: [227:04 to 227:09] OVERRULED

225:24 Arms earplug in their ear, correct? Pltf Obj 702; 602; 402, 403

225:25 A. Yes, after -- yes.

226:01 Q. And then there would have been a series of

226:02 tests at different frequencies over time, correct?

226:03 A. Yes.

226:04 Q. And you know that they raised their hand,

226:05 did they push a button, did they speak. What

226:06 activities did they engage in during the REAT testing

226:07 that would have been performed on an individual

226:08 subject?

226:09 A. Pushed a button.

226:10 Q. Okay. And they would have been tested with

226:11 at different frequency levels?

226:12 A. Across different frequencies, yes, at

226:13 different intensity levels.

226:14 Q. And do you know how many tests were done at

226:15 each frequency?

226:16 A. No, but, you know, I would just defer to

226:17 the standard. Whatever the standard called for,

226:18 that's what we tested to.

226:19 Q. Do you know how long an individual test

226:20 took to complete from beginning to end?

226:21 A. For the REAT test? I do not know the exact

226:22 time. I can give you a roundabout number, but I don't

226:23 know the exact time.

226:24 Q. In calculating the NRR number that's

226:25 contained in the WHISPr chart, would you -- would it

227:01 show you variability at the different frequencies?

227:02 A. There's standard deviations at each -- at

227:03 each frequency.

227:04 Q. And if you saw, for example, if you had a

227:05 plug that loosened and lost its seal, would you expect

227:06 to see variability in the test?

227:09 - 227:09 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:02

227:09 A. I would expect that, yes. Re: [227:09 to 227:09] Re: [227:09 to 227:09] Re: [227:04 to 227:09] OVERRULED

Pltf Obj 403, 602, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 702; 602; 402, 403

foundation, vague,

227:24 - 228:03 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:11 argumentative, MIL G5, MIL G7

227:24 Q. I'll ask it your way. Is it fair to say Re: [227:24 to 228:03] Re: [227:24 to 228:03] Re: [227:24 to 228:03] OVERRULED

227:25 that you got consistent fit and consistent results in Pltf Obj 403, 602, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 402

228:01 the test subjects that you conducted REAT tests on as foundation, vague,

228:02 part of the WHISPr Study? argumentative, MIL G5, MIL G7 Re: [227:24 to 228:03] OVERRULED

228:03 A. Yes, sir. Pltf Obj 702 lay opinion, 403,

Page 30 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 31 of 34
611 leading

228:13 - 228:19 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:19

228:13 Q. Right. And so once the plug was fitted, is Re: [228:13 to 228:19] Re: [228:13 to 228:19] Re: [228:13 to 228:19] OVERRULED

228:14 it fair to say that, at least in your report, there's Pltf Obj 403, 602, 702, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 402

228:15 no indication that any particular subject either had foundation, vague,

228:16 difficulty fitting the plug or it came out during the argumentative, MIL G5, MIL G7 Re: [228:13 to 228:19]

228:17 test? There's no indication of that in the report, Pltf Obj 702, 602, 403

228:18 correct?

228:19 A. That's correct.

228:20 - 228:25 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:15

228:20 Q. And is it fair to say that all preformed Re: [228:20 to 228:25] OVERRULED

228:21 earplugs can and do loosen during use? Def Obj 602, compound, 403

228:22 MR. BUCHANAN: Objection to form,

228:23 foundation.

228:24 A. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that

228:25 question.

229:10 - 229:14 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:14

229:10 Q. Right. Well, in fact, not only have you Re: [229:10 to 229:14] Re: [229:10 to 229:14] Re: [229:10 to 229:14] OVERRULED

229:11 heard it said, the United States military has trained Pltf Obj 403, 602, 702, vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 702; vague

229:12 the audiology community with earplugs, like these argumentative, MIL G1, MIL G2,

229:13 preformed plugs, that loosening and slippage is a MIL G5, MIL G7 Re: [229:10 to 229:14]

229:14 common occurrence, right? Pltf Obj Completeness; 611

leading;

229:17 - 229:21 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:21

229:17 A. Yeah, I -- yeah, I would say that. Re: [229:17 to 229:21] Re: [229:17 to 229:21]

229:18 Q. Yes. Let's go back to Exhibit -- it's tab Pltf Obj 403, 602, 702, vague, OVERRULED

229:19 2. argumentative, MIL G1, MIL G2,

229:20 And, Will, what is the exhibit number? I think MIL G5, MIL G7

229:21 it's 13.

230:01 - 231:24 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 2:28

230:01 You'll recall, Dr. Hobbs, that this was the Re: [230:01 to 231:24] Re: [230:01 to 231:24] Re: [230:01 to 231:21] SUSTAINED as to

230:02 1996 DoD Instruction that we talked about earlier, Pltf Obj 403, 602, Foundation, SUSTAINED as to Pltf Obj 602; 611 leading; [231:22-231:24] OVERRULED

230:03 correct? Leading, Hearsay, Touhy, MIL [231:22-231:24] OVERRULED in foundation; 702 non expert; in all other respects

230:04 A. Yes. G1, MIL G2, MIL G6 all other respects Baker MIL 16

230:05 Q. And it would have been in place until it

230:06 was taken out of service in -- and I don't remember if Re: [231:22 to 231:24]

230:07 it was 2004 or 2006 -- but the DoD Instruction that Pltf Obj 611 leading;

230:08 Mr. Buchanan showed you earlier, correct? completeness; 702; Baker MIL

230:09 A. Yes. 16; 802

230:10 Q. And this would have been the Department of

230:11 Defense of the United States Military giving

230:12 instructions to the military branches, true?

230:13 A. Yes.

230:14 Q. Now if you will turn to page 16, you see

230:15 there is a paragraph 8 that says "Effective Date"? Do

230:16 you see that?

Page 31 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 32 of 34
230:17 A. Yes.

230:18 Q. And then these instructions are signed by

230:19 the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and

230:20 Technology, correct?

230:21 A. Yes.

230:22 Q. And then it gives an inclusion of 18

230:23 enclosures that go with these instructions, right?

230:24 A. Yes.

230:25 Q. And if you'll go down to what's enclosure

231:01 6, can you tell the jury what that enclosure

231:02 references?

231:03 A. "Earplugs: General Information Poster."

231:04 Q. Have you seen from time to time in the

231:05 audiology community military posters used in training?

231:06 A. Yes.

231:07 Q. And if you'll turn over to page 25, is this

231:08 the enclosure that was referenced earlier, E6?

231:09 A. Yes.

231:10 Q. And does it provide general information

231:11 about earplugs?

231:12 A. Yes.

231:13 Q. It's got a list of seven things that are

231:14 common of general information that the DoD is giving

231:15 instruction about; is that true?

231:16 A. Yes.

231:17 Q. And what does the Department of Defense say

231:18 about earplugs under item No. 3?

231:19 A. Item No. 3 says, "Plugs tend to work loose

231:20 as a result of talking and chewing and must be

231:21 reseated."

231:22 Q. And really it was common knowledge that

231:23 earplugs, when in use, tended to work loose over time,

231:24 correct?

232:02 - 232:04 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:11

232:02 Q. Well, it was your knowledge that earplugs, Re: [232:02 to 232:04] Re: [232:02 to 232:04] Re: [232:02 to 232:06] OVERRULED

232:03 as instructed by the DoD, could loosen or slip even Pltf Obj 403, 702, Foundation, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 602; 611; Baker MIL

232:04 with things simply as talking and chewing. Leading, Hearsay, Touhy, MIL 16; Baker MIL 1

G1, MIL G2, MIL G5, MIL G6

Re: [232:02 to 232:06]

Pltf Obj completeness

232:06 - 232:06 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:13

232:06 A. Yes, sir, according to the DoD. Re: [232:06 to 232:06] Re: [232:06 to 232:06] Re: [232:02 to 232:06] OVERRULED

Pltf Obj 403, Foundation, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 602; 611; Baker MIL

Leading, Touhy, MIL G1, MIL G2 16; Baker MIL 1

Re: [232:02 to 232:06]

Pltf Obj completeness

Page 32 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 33 of 34
232:19 - 232:23 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:17

232:19 Q. Have you ever trained soldiers or personnel Re: [232:19 to 232:23] Re: [232:19 to 232:23] Re: [232:19 to 232:23] OVERRULED

232:20 that are responsible for fitting and examining hearing Pltf Obj 402, 403, Vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 402, 403, Vague,

232:21 protection devices that these plugs loosen pretty Touhy Touhy

232:22 easily in general and that you need to reseat them

232:23 from time to time? Re: [232:19 to 232:23]

Pltf Obj Baker MIL 1; Baker

MIL 16; 611 leading

233:01 - 233:04 Hobbs, Brian (2020-07-16) 0:17

233:01 A. Yeah. Yeah, I talk about, you know, just Re: [233:01 to 233:04] Re: [233:01 to 233:04] Re: [233:01 to 233:04] OVERRULED

233:02 the importance of the fit just in general, so, yeah, Pltf Obj 402, 403, Vague, OVERRULED Pltf Obj 402, 403, Vague,

233:03 the importance of the fit, you know, making sure Touhy Touhy

233:04 they're seated and -- yeah.

Re: [233:01 to 233:04]

Pltf Obj Baker MIL 1; Baker

MIL 16; 611 leading

Page 33 of 33

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 173-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 34 of 34