EXHIBIT 1

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 1 of 63
Preserved Objections Previous Rulings New Objections Rulings

8:15 - 8:17 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:09

8:15 Q. Lieutenant Colonel Hannah, could

8:16 you please state your full name for the record.

8:17 A. Yes. Kevin Allen Hannah.

11:20 - 12:10 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:34

11:20 Q. Okay. And you also understand

11:21 that you're giving limited testimony today

11:22 based on your personal knowledge as the former

11:23 hearing program manager at Fort Benning from

12:01 2004 to 2006?

12:02 A. That is correct.

12:03 Q. Are you familiar with the 3M

12:04 Combat Arms Earplug Version II?

12:05 A. Yes, I am.

12:06 Q. And just so we're on the same

12:07 page, the Combat Arms Version II Earplug that

12:08 I'm talking about is a dual ended preformed

12:09 earplug. Is that right?

12:10 A. That is correct.

13:11 - 15:14 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 3:55

13:11 Q. Do you recall the first time that

13:12 you learned about the Combat Arms Version II

13:13 Earplug?

13:14 A. Yes. I believe maybe -- maybe

13:15 2002, 2003.

13:16 Q. And how was it that you came to

13:17 learn about the Combat Arms Earplug Version II?

13:18 A. It was mentioned in a training

13:19 conference.

13:20 Q. Do you remember where that

13:21 training conference was?

13:22 A. No, I do not recall, sir. It's

13:23 some place in the United States. It was a

14:01 training conference I attended. But I do not

14:02 recall what state or the exact year or the

14:03 date.

14:04 Q. And what was it that was happening

14:05 at this training conference that imparted the

14:06 knowledge about the Combat Arms Version II

14:07 Earplug?

Designations

Page 1 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 2 of 63
14:08 A. It was an annual military training

14:09 that was available to people in my -- my field

14:10 to attend.

14:11 Q. And at this conference does the --

14:12 was it a presenter that was presenting

14:13 information about the Combat Arms Earplugs?

14:14 A. No.

14:15 Q. So how did you learn about it

14:16 then?

14:17 A. It was brought up in a discussion

14:18 by Dr. Doug Ohlin who worked for Army Public

14:19 Health Command at that time.

14:20 Q. And do you remember what it was

14:21 back in 2002 or 2003 that Mr. Ohlin or

14:22 Dr. Ohlin would have said at that training

14:23 conference about the Combat Arms Earplug?

15:01 A. He said it was a -- again, I do

15:02 not recall the exact words that he used. But

15:03 he said it was a better alternative than what

15:04 we were using for a combat environment.

15:05 Q. And at the time in 2002 to 2003,

15:06 do you remember what the alternatives were that

15:07 were being used at that time for combat

15:08 soldiers?

15:09 A. Just standard hearing protection

15:10 that we have available that totally occludes

15:11 the ear. So at that time we really did not

15:12 have any type of hearing protection -- standard

15:13 hearing protection available that would allow

15:14 some sound to pass through.

18:14 - 19:06 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:32

18:14 Q. All right. Lieutenant

18:15 Colonel Hannah, are you currently in the

18:16 military?

18:17 A. Yes, I am.

18:18 Q. And what's your current role?

18:19 A. I am the regional consultant for

18:20 Public Health Command Europe.

18:21 Q. And is it true you got your

18:22 master's in audiology from the University of

18:23 South Carolina?

19:01 A. Yes, sir.

Page 2 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 3 of 63
19:02 Q. And then you got your BS in

19:03 audiology and speech pathology from the

19:04 University of West Virginia?

19:05 A. Yes, sir. West Virginia

19:06 University.

19:10 - 19:16 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:30

19:10 All right. Lieutenant Colonel Hannah, I

19:11 want to talk to you now about Fort Benning from

19:12 2004 to 2006. During 2004 to 2006 was

19:13 Fort Benning a base where the U.S. Army

19:14 Infantry trained?

19:15 A. They -- they did have a brigade

19:16 that was stationed at Fort Benning.

20:07 - 20:22 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:46

20:07 Q. Okay. So Lieutenant Hannah (sic),

20:08 I'm going to refer to this then as recruit

20:09 training, but it sounds like that's what the

20:10 nomenclature is. And the reason I'm going to

20:11 focus on that is because just by way of

20:12 background, Mr. Baker attended combat training

20:13 or recruit training at Fort Benning in the 2005

20:14 timeframe. Okay?

20:15 A. Okay.

20:16 Q. All right. And so therefore the

20:17 focus of my questions here today is going to be

20:18 about that -- that recruit training. And I'll

20:19 try to preface my questions with that. But

20:20 just know that that this is my focus today.

20:21 Okay?

20:22 A. Yes, sir.

21:04 - 21:19 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:07

21:04 Q. All right. And were you the

21:05 hearing conservation program manager at

21:06 Fort Benning from 2004 to 2006?

21:07 A. That is correct, sir.

21:08 Q. Do you remember when it was that

21:09 you arrived at Fort Benning in 2004?

21:10 A. I believe it was -- it was summer

21:11 2004, maybe June, July timeframe.

21:12 Q. And can you tell me what is your

Page 3 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 4 of 63
21:13 understanding, what is the hearing conservation

21:14 program in the Army?

21:15 A. The hearing conservation program

21:16 breaks down to four specific areas. One is the

21:17 conservation aspect, another one would be

21:18 monitoring, another could be diagnostic

21:19 services, and another could be education.

22:14 - 23:09 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:09

22:14 Q. All right. And so can you put a

22:15 gloss on that? Can you just give us a little

22:16 bit more detail about what your duties were as

22:17 the hearing conservation program manager at

22:18 Fort Benning from 2004 to 2006?

22:19 A. Sure, sir. So the primary focus

22:20 had to do with recruit training for

22:21 in-processing. We screened every soldier who

22:22 came through for hearing -- for hearing

22:23 testing. We fit every soldier with hearing

23:01 protection. We did follow-up diagnostic

23:02 services for soldiers who did not meet entrance

23:03 standards. We did evaluations, medical

23:04 evaluations for other populations at the

23:05 installation. We also provided hearing

23:06 screening services for other units at the

23:07 installation in addition to providing

23:08 educational training for the units for their

23:09 hearing program officers.

24:03 - 25:19 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 2:09

24:03 Q. And I think I heard you say this,

24:04 Lieutenant Colonel, but was it part of your

24:05 responsibility during 2004 to 2006 as the

24:06 hearing conservation program manager at

24:07 Fort Benning to ensure that medically trained

24:08 personnel fit the individual recruit --

24:09 recruits that were coming in through

24:10 in-processing or otherwise?

24:11 A. The people who fit the hearing

24:12 protection were medically trained to provide

24:13 that service. That is correct. The people who

24:14 worked for me were -- had attended a Department

24:15 of Defense course that was certified by the

Page 4 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 5 of 63
24:16 Council of Accreditation for Hearing

24:17 Conservationists. That's the requirement to

24:18 function as a hearing technician in the

24:19 military. So they had all attended that

24:20 training course. And one of the -- one of the

24:21 blocks of instruction for the training course

24:22 had to do with proper fitting of hearing

24:23 protection. I was not the one that gave them

25:01 the training course. So they could go anywhere

25:02 to attend that training to get that

25:03 qualification.

25:04 Q. Okay. So let's unpack that a

25:05 little bit. So there are other people there at

25:06 Fort Benning from 2004 to 2006 other than

25:07 audiologists that were trained and certified to

25:08 distribute hearing protection. Is that

25:09 correct?

25:10 A. My staff primarily. And if

25:11 somebody would come through my hearing program

25:12 officer course, we would give them instruction

25:13 on proper fitting and hearing protection.

25:14 Q. Okay. And when you say your

25:15 staff, this is kind of what I was getting at,

25:16 do you have other people on your staff besides

25:17 audiologists that were distributing hearing

25:18 protection during the 2004 to 2006 timeframe at

25:19 Benning?

25:21 - 26:17 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:19

25:21 A. Yes. Oh, sorry.

25:22 Q. Was that a yes?

25:23 A. Yes.

26:01 Q. Okay. And who were some of these

26:02 other people? In other words, what was their

26:03 job titles during 2004 to 2006 at Fort Benning,

26:04 these other people, part of your staff that

26:05 were certified to distribute hearing protection

26:06 devices?

26:07 A. They were hearing technicians.

26:08 Q. And do you -- do you recall during

26:09 the 2004 to 2006 timeframe how many hearing

26:10 technicians that you had on your staff?

26:11 A. I'm going to say approximately

Page 5 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 6 of 63
26:12 six.

26:13 Q. And so other than the six hearing

26:14 technicians that you had on your staff, do you

26:15 recall anyone else at Fort Benning that -- that

26:16 may have been distributing hearing protection

26:17 devices to combat training recruits?

26:19 - 26:22 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:44

26:19 A. No, sir.

26:20 Q. Okay. Lieutenant Colonel Hannah,

26:21 who is it at the Army that gets enrolled in the

26:22 hearing conservation program?

27:01 - 27:12 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:30

27:01 Q. Or rather, who does the hearing

27:02 conservation program apply to? Does that make

27:03 sense?

27:04 A. Everybody in the United States

27:05 Army, irrelevant of what your MOS is, are

27:06 considered enrolled in the Army hearing

27:07 program.

27:08 Q. Okay. And is it mandatory under

27:09 the hearing conservation program for soldiers

27:10 to wear hearing protection while around

27:11 hazardous noise at Fort Benning from 2004 to

27:12 2006?

27:14 - 27:14 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:03

27:14 A. That would be correct.

28:14 - 29:01 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:42

28:14 Q. So in your experience at

28:15 Fort Benning from 2004 to 2006, what were the

28:16 potential ways a new combat recruit could

28:17 acquire hearing protection?

28:18 A. They would acquire it from recruit

28:19 training. In-processing we would issue them

28:20 the hearing protection.

28:21 Q. Do you recall whether or not the

28:22 Combat Arms Earplug Version II was available

28:23 for distribution at Fort Benning from 2004 to

29:01 2006?

Page 6 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 7 of 63
29:03 - 29:09 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:32

29:03 A. Not to my knowledge, sir.

29:04 Q. Okay. So -- so you don't remember

29:05 Combat Arms Version II Earplugs being at

29:06 Fort Benning from 2004 to 2006?

29:07 A. Again, not to my knowledge. We

29:08 did not have that earplug available for

29:09 recruits.

32:09 - 32:17 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:46

32:09 Q. So in your experience at

32:10 Fort Benning as far as new recruits are

32:11 concerned, there wasn't anybody -- any other

32:12 commanding officers or NCOs or anything like

32:13 that at Benning during that timeframe that

32:14 would have been distributing hearing

32:15 protection? Is that correct? That would have

32:16 all been done by your staff?

32:17 A. That's correct, sir.

33:22 - 34:03 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:15

33:22 Q. Let me back up. Let me put a

33:23 little gloss on it. Could you explain the

34:01 process of how yourself or somebody on your

34:02 staff would have fit a preformed earplug like

34:03 the Combat Arms Version II Earplug?

34:06 - 36:17 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 4:31

34:06 A. I can't say that, sir, because we

34:07 did not fit the Combat Arms Earplugs at

34:08 Fort Benning during my time there.

34:09 Q. Okay. Have you ever fit the

34:10 Combat Arms Earplugs at any time?

34:11 A. Not the generation two. Primarily

34:12 I fit the -- the predecessor after that.

34:13 Q. And is it -- can I ask you why you

34:14 have never fit the Combat Arms Version II?

34:15 Well, first let me back up. Have you ever

34:16 distributed the Combat Arms Version II Earplugs

34:17 ever at any time?

34:18 A. I'm going to -- I'm going to say

34:19 no, sir, because like I said, I was familiar

34:20 with the Combat Arms Earplug prior to coming to

Page 7 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 8 of 63
34:21 Fort Benning. But when I came to Benning, we

34:22 had considered Combat Arms for like recruit

34:23 training, but opted not to fit them and chose

35:01 to go with a standard earplug instead of the

35:02 Combat Arms Earplug.

35:03 Q. Do you remember why it was that --

35:04 that at least as far as recruits are concerned

35:05 at Benning that you decided not to go with the

35:06 Combat Arms Version II and decided to go with a

35:07 different earplug?

35:08 A. Sure. It was due to cost.

35:09 Q. Okay. And so instead of the

35:10 Combat Arms Earplug for recruit trainees during

35:11 that 2004 to 2006 timeframe, what was it that

35:12 you did distribute to combat recruits?

35:13 A. We distributed initially the --

35:14 it's a four-flange plug called the Quattro

35:15 plug. It's pretty flexible as far as like

35:16 fitting different ear sizes. If for some

35:17 reason that was not functional for the recruit,

35:18 then we would issue them another type of

35:19 design. It was a triple-flanged plug. And

35:20 they come in different sizes. The Quattro only

35:21 came in one size. And then we also had

35:22 available at that time another earplug that was

35:23 called the single-flange plug that came in four

36:01 sizes.

36:02 Q. And so in your experience at

36:03 Fort Benning from 2004 to 2006 as far as which

36:04 particular hearing protection devices were

36:05 issued to the new recruits, was that your

36:06 decision to make?

36:07 A. Yes. Well, the initial fit was

36:08 always going to be the four-flange Quattro

36:09 earplug. If that did not fit, then my

36:10 technicians were to fit the soldiers with one

36:11 of the other types that we had available that

36:12 was going to be a better fit for the recruit.

36:13 Q. Okay. And so the -- and so it

36:14 sounds like that the four-flange Quattro

36:15 earplug was going to be the standard issue.

36:16 And then that decision was made by somebody

36:17 else higher up. Is that true?

Page 8 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 9 of 63
36:19 - 37:04 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:26

36:19 A. Well, I was the one that made the

36:20 decision because of, you know, as far as like

36:21 the cost of what was going to be available for

36:22 funding.

36:23 Q. Okay. So -- so is it fair you

37:01 considered using the Combat Arms Version II

37:02 Earplug for combat trainees during that 2004 to

37:03 2006 timeframe, but decided to use something

37:04 different because of cost? Is that fair?

37:06 - 37:14 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:56

37:06 A. That is fair.

37:07 Q. I didn't hear your answer, sir.

37:08 A. Yes. That's correct, sir.

37:09 Q. Okay. Lieutenant Colonel Hannah,

37:10 do you recall during the 2004, excuse me, to

37:11 the 2006 timeframe, do you recall anyone from

37:12 Aearo or 3M coming on the base at Fort Benning

37:13 to assist in training recruits regarding

37:14 hearing protection?

37:16 - 37:21 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:22

37:16 A. No, sir.

37:17 Q. During the 2004 to 2006 timeframe,

37:18 do you recall anyone from Aearo or 3M coming on

37:19 the base at Fort Benning to give presentations

37:20 to you or your staff regarding hearing

37:21 protection devices?

37:23 - 37:23 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:04

37:23 A. No, sir. No, sir.

38:10 - 38:23 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:43

38:10 Q. No? Okay. So during the 2004 to

38:11 2006 timeframe when you were at Fort Benning,

38:12 would you have been the person responsible for

38:13 ordering and purchasing hearing protection

38:14 devices?

38:15 A. For recruit training, sir?

38:16 Q. Yes, sir.

38:17 A. Yes. Yeah. Like I said, we -- we

Page 9 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 10 of 63
38:18 were the ones who ordered hearing protection

38:19 for recruit training through the hospital.

38:20 Q. And during that 2004 to 2006

38:21 timeframe at Fort Benning, did you -- do you

38:22 remember purchasing Combat Arms Version II

38:23 Earplugs?

39:03 - 39:08 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:13

39:03 A. No, sir.

39:04 Q. Okay. And -- and when I'm asking

39:05 this question, I want to make it a little bit

39:06 broader than just training recruits and ask did

39:07 you ever purchase them at any time during 2004

39:08 to 2006 at Fort Benning?

39:11 - 39:11 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:00

39:11 A. No, sir.

41:01 - 41:09 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:32

41:01 Q. Do you ever remember ordering any

41:02 earplugs or hearing protection devices from

41:03 Brock Sales?

41:04 A. Not that I could say -- well, I'm

41:05 going to say -- I'm going to say no because we

41:06 order our hearing protection through logistics.

41:07 Who they pick as the vendor or whoever they --

41:08 whoever they authorize as the vendor, I -- I

41:09 really don't know.

43:11 - 43:13 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:06

43:11 Q. All right. At least that's what

43:12 it says. But you don't recall ordering these

43:13 earplugs. Is that true?

43:15 - 43:16 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:01

43:15 A. That's correct, sir. That's

43:16 correct.

46:06 - 46:14 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:21

46:06 Q. Oh, and let me ask you this.

46:07 Lieutenant Colonel, do you remember or do you

46:08 recall when it was that you had left

46:09 Fort Benning in 2006?

Page 10 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 11 of 63
46:10 A. I was there until 2008, sir.

46:11 Q. Okay. So you were there from 2004

46:12 to 2008 then. Is that correct?

46:13 A. That's correct. That's correct,

46:14 sir.

49:23 - 50:12 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:34

49:23 Q. Good morning, Colonel Hannah. How

50:01 are you?

50:02 A. I'm doing good, sir.

50:03 Q. Good. As Mr. Fox mentioned, my

50:04 name is Jay Bhimani. I represent 3M and the

50:05 Defendants in this case. And I'm going to ask

50:06 you some questions as well this morning. Okay?

50:07 A. Yes, sir.

50:08 Q. Just for the record, can you just

50:09 state the date and time that we're taking this

50:10 deposition today? I know you're in Germany.

50:11 A. 14 December. I had to think about

50:12 it, 2020.

50:20 - 51:04 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:20

50:20 Q. All right. And as Mr. Fox

50:21 mentioned, you are here in response to a

50:22 subpoena that was issued by 3M. Fair enough?

50:23 A. Yes, sir.

51:01 Q. And you haven't been hired by

51:02 either party as an expert or as a witness of

51:03 any kind in this case. True?

51:04 A. No, sir.

51:11 - 53:10 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 2:21

51:11 Q. Sure. I apologize. Am I correct,

51:12 sir, that you have no affiliation with either

51:13 the Plaintiff, Mr. Baker, in the case or with

51:14 any of the Defendants?

51:15 A. No, I do not.

51:16 Q. Okay. And the Plaintiff in the

51:17 case, Mr. Baker, was at Fort Benning from

51:18 approximately June 2005 until November 2005 for

51:19 basic training. And I think you said this

51:20 already. Were you also at Fort Benning in the

51:21 June 2005 to November 2005 time period?

Page 11 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 12 of 63
51:22 A. Yes, sir, I was.

51:23 Q. All right. And you were the

52:01 hearing conservation program manager at

52:02 Fort Benning during that time period?

52:03 A. That is correct.

52:04 Q. Just so we have the context for

52:05 that, can you just describe for us your career

52:06 in the Army up until that time period in 2005

52:07 at Fort Benning just in a general level.

52:08 A. Okay. Prior to arriving at

52:09 Fort Benning, I had spent three years in

52:10 Wurzburg, Germany. I ran the audiology

52:11 department at the hospital and I was involved

52:12 with hearing conservation in Bavaria. Prior to

52:13 that I had my own business for ten years, and I

52:14 had actively been involved with the Army

52:15 Reserve and the Army National Guard before I

52:16 came back active duty.

52:17 Q. And when you say you were actively

52:18 involved with the Army Reserve and the Army

52:19 National Guard, was that in a hearing

52:20 conservation context?

52:21 A. I was a 72 Charlie. That's my

52:22 MOS. And I had a -- I held that MOS in the

52:23 Army Reserve. When I was in the Army

53:01 National Guard, I was brought in due to the

53:02 fact that I was a 72 Charlie, but I was

53:03 considered an administrative officer at that

53:04 time.

53:05 Q. All right. And if you were to

53:06 assume that I didn't know what a 72 Charlie

53:07 was, can you just describe --

53:08 A. I apologize. That is an MOS

53:09 identifier for the job that you do. 72 Charlie

53:10 would be a military audiologist.

55:21 - 56:08 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:34

55:21 Q. All right. And I think you

55:22 discussed this earlier as well. But your

55:23 understanding of the Army requirement in Army

56:01 pamphlet 40-501 in the 2005 time period was

56:02 that preformed earplugs shall be fitted by

56:03 medically trained personnel. Is that your

Page 12 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 13 of 63
56:04 understanding?

56:05 A. That's correct, sir.

56:06 Q. And the best of your memory at

56:07 Fort Benning in 2005, was that Army requirement

56:08 followed by the folks on the base?

56:12 - 57:01 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:45

56:12 A. Well, I can only speak for my

56:13 staff. I can only speak for the training. I

56:14 have -- I could not be the hearing police for

56:15 every single unit for what they do. But how we

56:16 provided the -- you know, again, my staff were

56:17 trained. They provided proper hearing

56:18 protection fitting. If you attended my

56:19 educational requirement for the unit level

56:20 hearing program officer, they were given proper

56:21 instruction on fitting of hearing protection.

56:22 If somebody else fits hearing protection

56:23 without the training, it would be not in my

57:01 scope and knowledge.

57:11 - 58:01 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:37

57:11 Q. Okay. And while we're talking

57:12 about that, when you were speaking with

57:13 Mr. Fox, Mr. Fox showed you some spreadsheets

57:14 with some sales data in them. Do you remember

57:15 that?

57:16 A. Yes, sir.

57:17 Q. Okay. So I guess really my

57:18 question is, to the extent that Combat Arms

57:19 Version II Earplugs were ordered by somebody at

57:20 Fort Benning, can you be clear about the fact

57:21 that for trainees coming in for basic training,

57:22 the Combat Arms Version II was not a product

57:23 that was being issued or fitted for trainees in

58:01 basic training?

58:03 - 58:05 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:09

58:03 A. That's correct, sir. We did not

58:04 fit the Combat Arms Earplugs to the recruits,

58:05 primarily due to the cost.

59:04 - 59:12 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:30

Page 13 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 14 of 63
59:04 Q. Okay. And -- and just to make

59:05 sure that I'm clear about it, the 3rd Brigade

59:06 is something that's separate and distinct from

59:07 the basic training program at Fort Benning. Is

59:08 that accurate?

59:09 A. That's correct. They're a

59:10 deployable -- deployable brigade. They were a

59:11 part of the 3rd Infantry Division, which was

59:12 out of Fort Stewart, Georgia.

60:17 - 62:23 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 3:40

60:17 Q. And as far as your memory of the Re: [60:17 to 61:01] OVERRULED

60:18 2005 time period, was there any -- was there Pltf Obj 403; legal

60:19 any time during your time at Fort Benning in conclusion; MIL 21

60:20 that time period during which it wasn't the

60:21 military's responsibility to fit and issue

60:22 earplugs under the supervision of medically

60:23 trained personnel?

61:01 A. No.

61:02 Q. And I think you mentioned this

61:03 also. Was it also the Army requirement that

61:04 annual trainings be conducted by medically

61:05 trained personnel on the use of hearing

61:06 protection devices?

61:07 A. Could you restate that again, sir?

61:08 Q. Sure. Is it your understanding

61:09 that the Army requirement during this timeframe

61:10 was also for annual trainings to be conducted

61:11 by medically trained personnel on the use of

61:12 hearing protection devices?

61:13 A. Are you asking -- are you asking

61:14 if soldiers were required to get an annual

61:15 educational brief? Is that what you're asking?

61:16 Q. Yes. Exactly.

61:17 A. Yes. That is a -- that is an Army

61:18 requirement.

61:19 Q. Okay. And did those types of

61:20 trainings indeed occur at Fort Benning during

61:21 your time period there?

61:22 A. To the best of my knowledge, I

61:23 cannot -- I cannot tell you that every unit

62:01 complied with that. I offered training

62:02 support. Sometimes units would contact me or

Page 14 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 15 of 63
62:03 my staff to come and do an educational brief,

62:04 which we were more than happy to do, but I

62:05 could not force units to comply. So if they

62:06 did, I would have seen that they did. If they

62:07 didn't, I really don't have any documentation

62:08 to support one way or the other.

62:09 Q. Okay. And putting aside the

62:10 trainings, was it also your understanding in

62:11 the 2005 time period at Fort Benning that the

62:12 Army requirement was for annual examinations of

62:13 the fit and condition of preformed earplugs by

62:14 medically trained personnel?

62:15 A. That's correct, sir.

62:16 Q. And is that something that

62:17 occurred at Fort Benning during that time

62:18 period to the best of your memory?

62:19 A. Yes. Whenever my staff did annual

62:20 hearing testing, we made sure that people, if

62:21 they had issues with hearing protection, needed

62:22 new hearing protection, they were refit with

62:23 proper hearing protection.

63:16 - 64:10 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:01

63:16 Q. So now outside of the context of

63:17 the initial fittings, do you ever recall

63:18 discussing NRRs or what an NRR was or the

63:19 limitations of NRR with service members

63:20 directly at Fort Benning?

63:21 A. Usually as part of our annual

63:22 educational training, we talk about hearing

63:23 protection and we talk about NRR, noise

64:01 reduction rating. Most of the -- the big

64:02 takeaway is that we always tell soldiers if

64:03 they see that number on a package, the rule of

64:04 thumb is that the effectiveness of that earplug

64:05 is probably only going to be half.

64:06 Q. Okay. And is that -- is that due

64:07 to sort of the real world environment's impact

64:08 on an earplug when used outside of sort of a

64:09 laboratory setting?

64:10 A. That's correct, sir.

67:08 - 68:08 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:04

Page 15 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 16 of 63
67:08 Q. And I think you said the standard

67:09 issue was the quad-flange earplug. Did

67:10 trainees in basic training have any ability to

67:11 select between different types of hearing

67:12 protection devices or was it the -- the hearing

67:13 conservation program staff that were really

67:14 making those decisions and issuing the

67:15 earplugs?

67:16 A. Again, what I said, when we fit,

67:17 if the Quattro earplug did not fit in the

67:18 recruit's ear, i.e., if it was too small, if it

67:19 was too big, then we came up with another

67:20 solution from the other varieties that we had

67:21 available at the time.

67:22 Q. Okay. And was that true of other

67:23 types of preformed earplugs as well? In other

68:01 words, if a preformed earplug didn't fit in a

68:02 service member's ear, the practice and

68:03 procedure would have been for your staff to

68:04 issue some other type of earplug that would

68:05 fit?

68:06 A. Yes, sir. Yes. We don't want

68:07 people to wear earplugs that don't fit in their

68:08 ears.

68:20 - 69:09 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:42

68:20 During your time period at Fort Benning and

68:21 given your experience up until that time in the

68:22 Army, did you have any understanding as to why

68:23 the requirement was that preformed earplugs

69:01 shall be fitted and issued only under the

69:02 supervision of medically trained personnel?

69:03 A. Oh, okay. Well, yeah.

69:04 Everybody's ear canal sizes are different

69:05 sizes. So it's just like we all have different

69:06 size feet, we have different size ear canals.

69:07 So you don't want to fit somebody with a size

69:08 seven foot with a size nine boot. It's not

69:09 going to function too well.

70:08 - 70:16 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:20

70:08 Q. Okay. And you mentioned that your

70:09 current role is as a regional consultant with

Page 16 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 17 of 63
70:10 Public Health Command. That is your current

70:11 role. Right?

70:12 A. That's correct, sir.

70:13 Q. Okay. And am I correct that

70:14 Public Health Command in the past has been

70:15 known as CHPPM, by that acronym?

70:16 A. Correct.

71:22 - 73:03 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 2:52

71:22 Q. Okay. And my question really was

71:23 more general. It's really just getting at, can

72:01 you describe for us what CHPPM's role was from

72:02 your perspective as the hearing conservation

72:03 program manager in providing instructional

72:04 material that your staff could handout to

72:05 soldiers?

72:06 A. Okay. Well, they would provide

72:07 educational instructional aids. They also

72:08 dealt with looking at the numbers for hearing

72:09 testing, what we're doing, annual compliance

72:10 rates, standard threshold shift rates, all the

72:11 compliance rates. I'm going to say during that

72:12 timeframe, we really did not procure a whole

72:13 lot of educational aids from CHPPM to handout

72:14 to soldiers or recruits while I was there.

72:15 Q. At any other point in your Army

72:16 career -- I think Mr. Fox asked you about this

72:17 already -- were you ever issuing the Combat

72:18 Arms Version II Earplug to service members, you

72:19 or your staff?

72:20 A. Yeah. No. No, sir. No, we were

72:21 not. Again, like I said, during my time at

72:22 Benning I had a budget to purchase hearing

72:23 protection. And I had thought about issuing

73:01 the Combat Arms Earplug and whenever I told the

73:02 hospital how much it was going to cost, they

73:03 said we don't have the money to fund that.

75:11 - 76:03 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:55

75:11 Q. Okay. Let me ask a more specific Re: [75:21 to 76:03] SUSTAINED

75:12 question, if you have a memory of that. It's Pltf Obj 602; 403; 402

75:13 possible you don't. Did you ever discuss with

75:14 service members the disadvantages of using

Page 17 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 18 of 63
75:15 foamies over other types of preformed earplugs?

75:16 A. I'm going to say if we did

75:17 educational training on the installation for

75:18 established units, that probably may have been

75:19 mentioned. For recruits that probably was --

75:20 again, I can't say.

75:21 Q. Okay. Do you recall what would

75:22 have been mentioned to the extent it was

75:23 addressed on the use of foamies versus other

76:01 types of preformed earplugs?

76:02 A. I would say that foamies is not

76:03 the best choice.

77:07 - 79:02 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 2:24

77:07 Q. Okay. I think -- I may -- tell me

77:08 if I've got this wrong. I think you mentioned

77:09 that at one point in time in the 2005 time

77:10 period at Fort Benning you looked into whether

77:11 ordering the Combat Arms Version II would be

77:12 possible but ultimately didn't go forward due

77:13 to cost reasons. My only question is,

77:14 understanding you didn't ultimately order them,

77:15 what was your thinking as to why you were

77:16 looking into ordering those earplugs?

77:17 A. Because of the design, having a --

77:18 having the ability to be able to communicate

77:19 more effectively in a tactical environment if

77:20 it's worn properly compared to using the

77:21 standard earplug.

77:22 Q. Okay. And you spoke with Mr. Fox

77:23 about -- I can't remember if you called it a

78:01 training or a meeting or a conference,

78:02 something along those lines, with Doug Ohlin

78:03 and others related to the Combat Arms

78:04 Version II. Can you give us just a general

78:05 summary of what was discussed at that --

78:06 whether it was a training or a meeting or a

78:07 conference, just what was discussed there?

78:08 A. Just, you know, it's like what's

78:09 new out in the field. And it was discussed by

78:10 Dr. Ohlin that this is one of the newest

78:11 designs out there available for tactical --

78:12 tactical environments. And that's -- it was

Page 18 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 19 of 63
78:13 talked about. It was shown to us.

78:14 Q. Other than Dr. Ohlin, anyone else

78:15 discuss or present about the Combat Arms

78:16 Version II at that meeting?

78:17 A. No, sir.

78:18 Q. All right. And when --

78:19 A. Not that I recall.

78:20 Q. Okay. When did that meeting

78:21 occur? And I don't need an exact month or

78:22 anything like that. But just a general

78:23 timeframe.

79:01 A. I'm going to say around 2002, 2003

79:02 maybe.

79:12 - 79:21 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:22

79:12 Q. So let me ask a more specific -- Re: [79:12 to 80:07] SUSTAINED

79:13 in light of the objection, let me ask a more Pltf Obj 602; speculation; 611

79:14 specific question. What I'm really getting at,

79:15 sir, was at the time you were at Fort Benning

79:16 in 2005 and understanding you weren't

79:17 personally issuing the Combat Arms Version II,

79:18 within the military hearing conservation

79:19 community, was the Combat Arms Version II

79:20 Earplug something that was generally well

79:21 regarded?

80:01 - 80:07 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 1:37

80:01 A. I would say -- Re: [79:12 to 80:07] SUSTAINED

80:02 Q. You can answer. Pltf Obj 602; speculation; 611

80:03 A. I would say -- pardon, sir?

80:04 Q. I said you can answer, sir.

80:05 A. Okay. Yeah, it was -- again, it

80:06 was considered a step up over what was

80:07 available at the time.

85:04 - 85:08 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:19

85:04 MR. BHIMANI: All right. So we

85:05 will mark as Exhibit 69 what we have as our

85:06 internal tab 19.

85:07 (Defendant's Exhibit Number 69

85:08 is marked for identification.)

86:04 - 89:01 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 3:24

Page 19 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 20 of 63
86:04 Q. Okay. Does this appear to you to

86:05 be a copy of an e-mail that you sent to Kathy

86:06 Gates copying several other people on

86:07 September 29, 2005?

86:08 A. I am going to have to assume yes.

86:09 If you're asking me if I remember writing it,

86:10 I'll have to say no. But if you have a

86:11 verified e-mail, then I have to assume that it

86:12 must be original.

86:13 Q. Okay. Fair enough. I certainly

86:14 understand that. So my -- I just have a couple

86:15 questions about this, sir. The first question

86:16 is, the e-mail says Fort Benning is above 95

86:17 percent compliance for our recruit training

86:18 program with testing, education, and earplug

86:19 fit. We are now working on phase two to get

86:20 the installation up to par. Do you see that?

86:21 A. Yes, sir.

86:22 Q. Can you just describe in lay terms

86:23 what those two sentences mean? Specifically

87:01 I'm curious about the phase -- the reference to

87:02 a phase two.

87:03 A. Okay. So whenever I arrived at

87:04 Fort Benning, the hearing program had a lot to

87:05 be desired. And the compliance was very poor

87:06 at recruit training at the time prior to my

87:07 arriving there and in addition to on the

87:08 installation. The recruit training, we worked

87:09 at that to get full compliance for testing,

87:10 fitting, education. And the same thing on

87:11 the -- on the installation, the compliance rate

87:12 was poor. And that was referring to -- my

87:13 phase two is to get the installation up to par.

87:14 Q. Okay. All right. When you say

87:15 compliance -- I'm focused on the recruit

87:16 training. When you say compliance was very

87:17 poor, you're talking about the compliance with

87:18 respect to having medically trained personnel

87:19 do the fittings or the instruction or was it

87:20 something else?

87:21 A. Hearing testing.

87:22 Q. Hearing testing. Okay.

87:23 A. Hearing testing, yes. Hearing

Page 20 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 21 of 63
88:01 testing was not actively enforced.

88:02 Q. Okay. All right. Anything

88:03 else -- when you say poor compliance, anything

88:04 else that you're mentioning there other than

88:05 what you just described with respect to hearing

88:06 testing?

88:07 A. No, sir. I just, like I said,

88:08 tried to get people to comply to hearing

88:09 testing, thereby getting them in to make sure

88:10 that they're wearing proper hearing protection,

88:11 and get in some type educational -- educational

88:12 training.

88:13 Q. Okay. Now, would this have

88:14 been hearing -- are you referring to hearing

88:15 testing during sort of in-processing new

88:16 recruit hearing testing or was this the --

88:17 A. Yes.

88:18 Q. -- annual hearing testing?

88:19 A. Yes. Well, both. Okay. So if

88:20 we're talking about recruits, we're talking

88:21 about entry level hearing testing. So every

88:22 recruit coming in does come in with a hearing

88:23 test from their MEPS physical. But it was not

89:01 being actively enforced when I got there.

89:06 - 89:10 Hannah, Kevin (2020-12-14) 0:12

89:06 Q. So am I correct that after you got

89:07 to Fort Benning -- let me ask you actually

89:08 first, when did you get to Fort Benning? I

89:09 think you said this earlier.

89:10 A. Around June 2004.

Page 21 of 21

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 22 of 63
Preserved Objections Previous Rulings New Objections Rulings

12:22 - 13:07 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:27

12:22 Q. All right. Good morning,

12:23 Sergeant Major Huston. I introduced myself off

12:24 the Record a minute ago, but I'm Jay Bhimani,

12:25 I'll be asking you questions. I represent the

13:01 Defendants in the case.

13:02 Before we get started, can you

13:03 just state and spell your name for the Record,

13:04 please.

13:05 A. Yes, sir. My name is Blaine

13:06 Huston. My first name is spelled B-L-A-I-N-E,

13:07 my last name is spelled H-U-S-T-O-N.

15:03 - 15:09 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:14

15:03 Q. Okay. And this is -- Even if we Re: [15:03 to 15:09] SUSTAINED

15:04 were in person, this is kind of a more informal Pltf Obj FRE 402/403;

15:05 procedure than being in court, but you Argumentative

15:06 understand that the oath that you've taken is

15:07 the same as the oath that you would give in

15:08 court; right?

15:09 A. Yes, sir. I understand.

16:08 - 16:19 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:33

16:08 Q. All right. Can you -- Can you Re: [16:08 to 16:19] SUSTAINED

16:09 just describe, since providing your report, Pltf Obj FRE 402/403

16:10 what you've done to prepare for your deposition

16:11 today? And to the extent you've met with your

16:12 counsel, I don't need to know any of the

16:13 substance of those conversations, but just

16:14 generally what you did to prepare.

16:15 A. Yes, sir. To prepare for this,

16:16 I've been on the telephone a couple of times,

16:17 I'd say for about two hours, all said and done,

16:18 with Mr. Adam Wolfson, just going over my

16:19 expert report.

17:12 - 17:18 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:23

17:12 Q. Did you discuss the deposition Re: [17:12 to 17:18] SUSTAINED

17:13 with anyone other than Mr. Wolfson? Pltf Obj FRE 402/403; 802

17:14 A. Yes. I -- Mr. Sean Hollenbeck

17:15 was on a telephone call, listening to Adam and

17:16 I, when I was speaking about the deposition,

Designations

Page 1 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 23 of 63
17:17 yesterday evening. Not a lot of interaction,

17:18 but he was on the telephone.

18:19 - 19:06 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:37

18:19 Q. All right. And is it your Re: [18:19 to 19:06] SUSTAINED

18:20 understanding that Mr. Hollenbeck is a Pltf Obj FRE 402/403;

18:21 consultant for the Plaintiffs' lawyers in the Foundation; 602; speculation.

18:22 case?

18:23 A. Yes, sir. I -- Primarily, I

18:24 understood he was a -- he was a doc before in

18:25 the Army; I knew just a little bit about his

19:01 background. But, yes, I understand he is also

19:02 assisting the team that I'm speaking with.

19:03 Q. Okay. Can you just tell me when

19:04 you were first hired in the case?

19:05 A. I don't recall the exact date,

19:06 sir. Yeah, I don't recall the exact date.

22:24 - 22:25 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:09

22:24 Q. If you can focus your attention

22:25 to Exhibit 2, which is your CV.

23:08 - 23:12 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:16

23:08 Q. Okay. So then let's talk about

23:09 your employment here. And the first thing

23:10 listed under employment is from 2010; is that

23:11 fair to say?

23:12 A. Yes. That's correct, sir.

23:17 - 27:03 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 5:38

23:17 Q. Okay. Can you walk us through

23:18 your employment history preceding October 2010?

23:19 A. Sure. I joined the United States

23:20 Army in July of 1991, after I graduated high

23:21 school. You know, I served for that entire

23:22 twenty-eight years.

23:23 Would you like for me to walk you

23:24 through every assignment I had over that

23:25 twenty-eight years?

24:01 Q. I can just take a higher level

24:02 description. It doesn't have to be to the

24:03 level of each individual position.

24:04 A. Okay. Yeah. So I joined the

Page 2 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 24 of 63
24:05 United States Army in 1991, July. I attended

24:06 Basic Combat Training and AIT. I was at first

24:07 a United States Army Reserve soldier stationed

24:08 in Illinois, and just working part-time jobs as

24:09 I had just graduated high school.

24:10 About one year later, in 1992, I

24:11 went back into the full-time Army. Just

24:12 because employment in the civilian world wasn't

24:13 offering a whole heck of a lot, so I went back

24:14 on active duty in 1992. I was assigned to Fort

24:15 Bragg, North Carolina, after I graduated the

24:16 Airborne School and became an Army paratrooper.

24:17 I was there for four years, I PSC'd from Fort

24:18 Bragg, North Carolina, and I went to Fort

24:19 Lewis, Washington, where I was with the 2nd

24:20 Ranger Battalion.

24:21 Shortly thereafter I took a break

24:22 in active duty service and returned back to my

24:23 home in Savanna, Illinois, where I became a

24:24 police officer for the State of Illinois. And

24:25 I was a United States Army Reserve drill

25:01 sergeant at that time. My dad had just passed

25:02 away, and I was taking care of my mama. I did

25:03 that for six years, until in 2003 is when I

25:04 came back on active duty, full time again. I

25:05 got my mama situated, and I was able to come

25:06 back into this full time.

25:07 I worked at the United States

25:08 Army's CONUS Replacement Center at Fort

25:09 Benning, Georgia; served there for about three

25:10 years before I moved to Fort McPherson, in

25:11 Georgia, where Forces Command and United States

25:12 Army Reserve Command were colocated and

25:13 headquartered together.

25:14 I served there for about a year

25:15 and a half before I moved again back to Fort

25:16 Bragg, North Carolina, where I was laterally

25:17 promoted to 1st Sergeant. And it was my

25:18 responsibility to bring those two commands from

25:19 Fort McPherson, Georgia, as if we were jumping

25:20 in and now relocating those two commands at

25:21 Fort Bragg, North Carolina, so I was a part of

25:22 that main body effort.

Page 3 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 25 of 63
25:23 I found out that same year, what

25:24 was that, 2010 I want to say, that I had been

25:25 selected for promotion to Sergeant Major. So

26:01 right after we accomplished that mission, I

26:02 moved over to the 18th Airborne Corps, also

26:03 located on Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where I

26:04 became an operations Sergeant Major. And just

26:05 a few months later we deployed to Baghdad,

26:06 Iraq. After I got back from Iraq, I went to

26:07 the United States Army Drill Sergeant School to

26:08 be the deputy commandant at Fort Jackson, South

26:09 Carolina, where I trained drill sergeants from

26:10 2012 to 2014.

26:11 After that assignment, I moved

26:12 to -- back to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where

26:13 I became an operations Sergeant Major at that

26:14 same command I just left, Forces Command United

26:15 States Army Reserve Command, coheadquartered

26:16 and colocated.

26:17 After that assignment, I was

26:18 selected for promotion to Command Sergeant

26:19 Major, and I moved, again, out here to

26:20 California where I served as the garrison

26:21 command sergeant major at Camp Parks in Dublin,

26:22 California. That's where, probably about a

26:23 year and a half into it, I submitted by

26:24 retirement paperwork requesting to be retired

26:25 from the United States Army, and got approved

27:01 that same year. And I retired on July 31,

27:02 2019, sir. And then on August 1st, I was

27:03 Blaine Huston.

28:02 - 29:03 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:17

28:02 Q. Okay. And your report talks a

28:03 little about the Hearing Conservation Program

28:04 at Fort Bragg. At any of the other duty

28:05 stations at which you've been over the course

28:06 of your career, did you have any involvement in

28:07 the Hearing Conservation Program at any of

28:08 those other duty stations?

28:09 A. Yes, sir, I did. I was not

28:10 involved, per se, as a person facilitating or

28:11 making that happen. But every single time I

Page 4 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 26 of 63
28:12 moved from one installation to another, I had

28:13 encounters with the Hearing Conservation

28:14 Program. And part of my in-processing before I

28:15 could get released from the unit I was being

28:16 assigned to, I had to go through all of the

28:17 specific training and in-processing

28:18 requirements of the installation, and hearing

28:19 conservation is there every single time.

28:20 Q. Okay. And would that have been

28:21 you going through it as a service member to

28:22 have your own in-processing from the Hearing

28:23 Conservation Program; is that what you mean?

28:24 A. Yes, sir, that's correct. The

28:25 majority of the encounters that I've had with

29:01 the program, moving from one installation to

29:02 another, was me in-processing and being the --

29:03 the welcomed, received soldier.

29:17 - 31:12 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:15

29:17 Q. Okay. Have you ever conducted Re: [30:19 to 31:12] OVERRULED

29:18 fittings of preformed earplugs on service Pltf Obj Scope; FRE 402/403;

29:19 members as part of the Army Hearing 602/701/702.

29:20 Conservation Program?

29:21 A. No, sir. I have been a part of a

29:22 fitting for myself, but I never was a part of

29:23 fitting other soldiers.

29:24 Q. Okay. And have you ever provided

29:25 training or instruction to other service

30:01 members relating to the use of a preformed

30:02 earplug?

30:03 A. No, sir, I did not provide what I

30:04 would consider formalized training. However,

30:05 again, as I discussed just a moment before, I

30:06 was -- I was more into the enforcement of the

30:07 standards and also just cautioning soldiers and

30:08 sharing with the young soldiers my experiences

30:09 and the reason why hearing protection was such

30:10 an important topic, no different than eye

30:11 protection.

30:12 Q. Okay. And when you say

30:13 enforcement, are you talking about enforcement

30:14 meaning that service members should have

30:15 earplugs on their person and wear earplugs as

Page 5 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 27 of 63
30:16 appropriate?

30:17 A. Yes, sir, that's right.

30:18 Enforcing the standards, yes, sir.

30:19 Q. Okay. And I sort of mean to

30:20 distinguish that from, your role is not to tell

30:21 other soldiers how to use the earplug properly,

30:22 in other words, how to put it in their ears

30:23 properly and wear it properly; your role is

30:24 more to make sure that they had the earplug and

30:25 that the earplugs were in their ears in noisy

31:01 environments; is that a fair summary?

31:02 A. I think that that is -- that is

31:03 generally accurate. However, I was involved

31:04 with just on-the-spot corrections. If I saw

31:05 that I -- you know, I'm able to see flanges

31:06 hanging out of the soldier's ear, I can see

31:07 that the hearing protection was not properly

31:08 seated, then I would address those. I knew

31:09 what right looked like, and I was able to

31:10 enforce that. But, no, I never provided any

31:11 formal instruction, fittings, those types of

31:12 things.

33:12 - 34:12 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:02

33:12 Q. Okay. So before we get into the

33:13 meat of your opinions here, I just want to

33:14 clarify the scope of what your opinions are and

33:15 your own experience. Okay?

33:16 Am I correct that you are not an

33:17 audiologist?

33:18 A. Yes, sir, you are correct, I am

33:19 not an audiolo- -- excuse me, audiologist.

33:20 Q. Okay. And you don't hold a

33:21 medical degree; is that fair?

33:22 A. That is correct, sir, I do not.

33:23 Q. Okay. You don't consider

33:24 yourself an expert on hearing; is that true?

33:25 A. Sir, that is correct, I am not an

34:01 expert on hearing.

34:02 Q. And you don't have any expertise

34:03 in the field of audiology, in general; is that

34:04 fair to say?

34:05 A. Yes, sir. That is fair to say, I

Page 6 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 28 of 63
34:06 do not have any training or experience in that.

34:07 Q. Okay. And over the course of

34:08 your career in the Army, you've never been a

34:09 Hearing Conservation Program manager; is that

34:10 true?

34:11 A. That is correct. I've not been a

34:12 manager, sir.

35:24 - 39:01 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 3:10

35:24 Q. Yeah. I'm only saying, if I were Re: [35:24 to 39:17] OVERRULED

35:25 to ask you questions about trainings and Pltf Obj FRE 402/403;

36:01 instructions that Hearing Conservation Program misstates testimony; 611,

36:02 managers would have provided, you would agree leading, speculation; 802/805;

36:03 with me that those managers would, themselves, Scope; 602/701/702

36:04 be able to better answer those questions; is

36:05 that fair?

36:06 A. Sir, I believe that the -- the

36:07 experts of those program managers would be

36:08 better able to talk to you about the specifics

36:09 of the task. But I would be able to talk to

36:10 you about my experiences, what I -- what I

36:11 observed.

36:12 Q. Okay. Am I correct that you are

36:13 not giving an opinion that the Combat Arms

36:14 Version 2 earplug was defective?

36:15 A. Yes, sir. I am not trained to be

36:16 able to tell you defective or not defective. I

36:17 just know they were issued, and we believed in

36:18 them.

36:19 Q. Okay. And this is a related

36:20 question, but you're also not giving an opinion

36:21 that the Combat Arms Earplug Version 2 is

36:22 defectively designed; fair?

36:23 A. No, sir. Again, that's above my

36:24 expertise. I could not speak to that.

36:25 Q. Okay. Are you giving an opinion

37:01 today as to whether and to what extent the

37:02 flanges on the Combat Arms Version 2 earplug

37:03 would need to be folded back for the earplug to

37:04 work properly?

37:05 A. No, sir. Although I had heard of

37:06 that before. No, I can't speak to that, and I

37:07 don't have professional experience or expertise

Page 7 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 29 of 63
37:08 to provide you on that.

37:09 Q. Okay. When you say you've heard

37:10 of that before, can you describe what you mean

37:11 by that?

37:12 A. Yes. I know that, over time --

37:13 And it was nothing that I experienced

37:14 firsthand, but I know that I had heard from

37:15 colleagues, perhaps even during a briefing, I

37:16 truly don't remember where I heard this

37:17 exactly, sir. I just know that if it was

37:18 starting to become loose or if the -- if the

37:19 hearing protection was not able to seat

37:20 properly due to a large ear canal, or something

37:21 along those lines, that you're able to

37:22 flip-flop those flanges to get a more snug fit.

37:23 But, again, I did not experience

37:24 that or have to have my soldiers do anything

37:25 like that personally. I'm just aware of it.

38:01 Q. Okay. Do you recall who would

38:02 have told you that? And I don't mean a

38:03 specific individual name, I just mean, would it

38:04 have been an audiologist, a Hearing

38:05 Conservation Program person, somebody outside

38:06 of that group?

38:07 A. Sir, I could not say

38:08 definitively. But I do feel that the -- The

38:09 majority of the repetitions that I heard about

38:10 appropriate wear and fitting of the hearing

38:11 protection occurred in my time as a drill

38:12 sergeant, as those classes were being presented

38:13 to our basic combat training warriors.

38:14 So as you understand where I'm

38:15 coming from, I heard that so many times from

38:16 leading those soldiers and taking them to that

38:17 briefing, I wouldn't doubt that's probably

38:18 where I absorbed that. And I'm not sure,

38:19 though.

38:20 Q. Okay. And when you're referring

38:21 to a briefing like that, would this have been a

38:22 briefing that Hearing Conservation Program

38:23 staff would have been giving to trainees under

38:24 your command, and you would have been

38:25 attending, having brought the trainees to the

Page 8 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 30 of 63
39:01 briefing?

39:04 - 39:15 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:23

39:04 A. Could you repeat that question Re: [35:24 to 39:17] OVERRULED

39:05 for me, sir, please? Pltf Obj FRE 402/403;

39:06 Q. Yeah. You mentioned -- You misstates testimony; 611,

39:07 mentioned training that was being presented to leading, speculation; 802/805;

39:08 basic combat training warriors. So I'm just Scope; 602/701/702

39:09 trying to get a sense, would this have been a

39:10 training that you would have attended where you

39:11 would have brought the trainees to the

39:12 training, and so you would have been present

39:13 during the training and would have seen the

39:14 training in that capacity?

39:15 A. Yes, sir, that's accurate.

39:18 - 40:06 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:44

39:18 Q. Okay. Do you remember the Re: [39:18 to 40:06] OVERRULED

39:19 general time frame when this may have occurred? Pltf Obj FRE 402/403;

39:20 Understanding you may not remember the exact speculation; 602; scope

39:21 date.

39:22 A. I -- Sir, I have my -- I

39:23 graduated from the Army Drill Sergeant School

39:24 in 1998, so it was a short time after that

39:25 before I went on to, you know, my drill

40:01 sergeant duty. And it would have been through

40:02 that time period, that 1998 through 2000 time

40:03 frame.

40:04 And then -- And then again,

40:05 probably -- Again, I'm speculating, I would say

40:06 it would have been that time frame, sir.

40:15 - 41:18 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:12

40:15 Q. Okay. Do you remember seeing Re: [40:15 to 41:09] OVERRULED

40:16 any, like, written materials, either from Pltf Obj Speculation; FRE

40:17 within the Army or from any other source, that 402/403; 602/701/702; 802.

40:18 talked about the folding back of flanges on a

40:19 Combat Arms Version 2 earplug?

40:20 A. I do remember the graphic

40:21 training me, or the little pictures that came

40:22 inside of the packages of the hearing

40:23 protection. Whether or not the folding of the

40:24 flanges were in there, sir, I truly don't

Page 9 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 31 of 63
40:25 recall. But I do -- I do remember that there

41:01 was -- there were diagrams on appropriate

41:02 seating inside your ear and stuff. I don't

41:03 know if folding of flanges was in there.

41:04 Q. Okay. And would this have been

41:05 -- what you've generally been referring to kind

41:06 of as a wallet card that would come with the

41:07 earplugs when they were issued, is that what

41:08 you're describing?

41:09 A. Yes, sir. That's exactly right.

41:10 Q. Okay. All right. So my next

41:11 question: Am I correct that you are not giving

41:12 an opinion today on the sufficiency of any

41:13 information that was provided by 3M to the

41:14 military about the Combat Arms Version 2

41:15 earplug?

41:16 A. No, sir. I have no knowledge of

41:17 that information, so I'm not able to provide a

41:18 good answer on that.

42:15 - 42:22 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:21

42:15 Q. Okay. You're also not giving an Re: [42:15 to 42:22] SUSTAINED

42:16 opinion that 3M withheld any information from Pltf Obj FRE 402/403; Scope;

42:17 the military that prevented the Combat Arms speculation; 602/701/702

42:18 Version 2 from being used effectively by

42:19 service members; fair?

42:20 A. No, sir. I've never been exposed

42:21 to any data or reports like that. I would have

42:22 no knowledge.

44:23 - 45:05 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:23

44:23 Q. Okay. So am I correct that you Re: [44:23 to 45:05] SUSTAINED

44:24 are not giving an opinion that any of those Pltf Obj COnjecture; FRE

44:25 slide presentations or that wallet card related 602/701/702; 611; 402/403;

45:01 to the Combat Arms Version 2 were incomplete or scope.

45:02 insufficient in any way; fair?

45:03 A. Yes. Yes, sir, that is fair. I

45:04 am not saying they were insufficient or

45:05 incomplete.

65:01 - 65:13 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:38

65:01 Q. Okay. All right. And I think

65:02 you say in your report that you have not

Page 10 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 32 of 63
65:03 provided, before, any expert testimony in other

65:04 cases; is that true?

65:05 A. Yes, sir, that's accurate.

65:06 Q. In other words, today, this case

65:07 is the first case in which you've been retained

65:08 and are serving as an expert witness?

65:09 A. That's exactly correct, sir.

65:10 Q. Okay. And I think you said your

65:11 hourly rate in this case is a hundred and fifty

65:12 dollars an hour?

65:13 A. Yes, sir, it is.

65:20 - 66:14 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:59

65:20 Q. Okay. Did you set your rate or

65:21 was that something that was set for you by the

65:22 Plaintiffs' lawyers or by Mr. Hollenbeck?

65:23 A. Yeah. It was -- It was already

65:24 in the paperwork, sir, when I signed on, and it

65:25 just seemed like a fair rate to me. I wasn't

66:01 overly concerned with it. Sounds fine.

66:02 Q. Okay. Do you know how much time

66:03 you've spent on your work -- excluding the

66:04 deposition today, how much time you've spent on

66:05 your work in the case?

66:06 A. You know, I -- I would say

66:07 somewhere about maybe 15 to 24 hours, somewhere

66:08 around there, sir. I'm speculating by saying

66:09 that, but I'm just thinking about the amount of

66:10 time that I put into my -- into my document,

66:11 and just, you know, my online researching,

66:12 those types things, and the little bit of time

66:13 I spent on the telephone with Adam and Sean.

66:14 And that's probably about accurate.

76:07 - 76:10 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:08

76:07 Q. So my question is: Would you Re: [76:07 to 77:18] OVERRULED

76:08 agree with me that the military had a Pltf Obj Calls for legal

76:09 responsibility to train service members on how conclusion; scope; FRE 611;

76:10 to properly use their earplugs? Plaintiffs MIL #16;

Argumentative

76:12 - 77:08 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:53

76:12 A. Sir, there's a responsibility, as Re: [76:07 to 77:18] OVERRULED

Page 11 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 33 of 63
76:13 those warriors coming in to training or as Pltf Obj Calls for legal

76:14 those warriors are moved around from conclusion; scope; FRE 611;

76:15 installation to installation, if the equipment Plaintiffs MIL #16;

76:16 were to change in any way, from other than the Argumentative

76:17 soldier had been issued before, then there's a

76:18 responsibility to train the soldier on the new

76:19 equipment and make sure they understand the

76:20 differences, make sure they understand how to

76:21 properly don that equipment.

76:22 Does that answer your question?

76:23 Q. I think it does. Just for the

76:24 Record, I think you said how to don that

76:25 equipment, that means put on?

77:01 A. To put that equipment on, sir; to

77:02 don or to place them inside our ears. We

77:03 always say don, don your mask, don your

77:04 protective equipment.

77:05 Q. Okay. And a related question:

77:06 Would you agree with me that the military also

77:07 had a responsibility to fit service members

77:08 with earplugs?

77:10 - 77:22 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:45

77:10 A. The -- The military -- The United Re: [76:07 to 77:18] OVERRULED

77:11 States Army did ensure that the -- that we Pltf Obj Calls for legal

77:12 soldiers, and I was a part of this on the conclusion; scope; FRE 611;

77:13 receiving end, I was also a part of this as a Plaintiffs MIL #16;

77:14 senior leader and observing this, they did Argumentative

77:15 train us on how to properly seat, wear, and

77:16 utilize, to ensure that the fit was adequate

77:17 and appropriate, and it was adequately

77:18 suppressing those noises, if that makes sense.

77:19 Q. Yeah. And would you say that

77:20 that sort of training was also provided in

77:21 connection with the Combat Arms Version 2

77:22 earplug?

77:24 - 78:24 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:05

77:24 A. Sir, are you asking me if there

77:25 was any, you know, discussion or demonstration

78:01 of appropriate wearing of the combat hearing

78:02 protection with the soldiers as they were being

78:03 provided them?

Page 12 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 34 of 63
78:04 Q. Sure.

78:05 A. Yes, sir.

78:06 Q. And can you describe that?

78:07 A. Yes, sir. One that I may tell

78:08 you about -- Well, one of my most familiar ones

78:09 is the drill sergeant was taking the soldiers

78:10 into the recession battalion, sit them down.

78:11 And one of the briefings that the warriors

78:12 would receive would be over their personal

78:13 protective equipment; they were issued their

78:14 hearing protection. That's where I was most

78:15 familiar with seeing that graphic training, and

78:16 either that wallet card that we discussed

78:17 earlier. Saw those on the regular at that

78:18 location.

78:19 And I watched those soldiers get

78:20 the block of instruction for appropriately, you

78:21 know, putting those -- putting the hearing

78:22 protection into their ears; just talking about

78:23 the differences between the yellow side and the

78:24 green side and what the intent behind that was.

79:10 - 80:20 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:36

79:10 Q. Okay. And have you ever heard of Re: [79:10 to 80:20] OVERRULED

79:11 something called the Rapid Fielding Initiative, Pltf Obj FRE 402/403; scope;

79:12 sometimes RFI is the acronym? 701/702; speculation; 602

79:13 A. Yes, sir. Absolutely.

79:14 Q. Okay. And just so that it's

79:15 clear we're talking about the same thing, can

79:16 you just describe what you understand the Rapid

79:17 Fielding Initiative to refer to?

79:18 A. Sure. So Rapid Fielding

79:19 Initiative -- Again, I just -- I use myself as

79:20 the person going through it. This is my last

79:21 deployment, I'm going to Baghdad, Iraq. And

79:22 just about thirty, forty-five days before the

79:23 deployment is taking place, we go back through

79:24 the Rapid Fielding Initiative. They would take

79:25 us to the central issuing facility, or CIF; and

80:01 inside the CIF you would trade out your normal

80:02 issued training body armor, as an example, and

80:03 they would give you the improved outer tactical

80:04 vest with the X savvy plates that had a higher

Page 13 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 35 of 63
80:05 ballistic capability.

80:06 You would also be issued, you

80:07 know, three or four sets of different type of

80:08 sun, wind, and dust goggles and other

80:09 ballistic-type Army certified protective

80:10 eyewear. And all of those other pieces of

80:11 equipment that might be specific to a soldier,

80:12 based on his or her specialty and what it was

80:13 they were getting ready to do or what they did

80:14 for a profession in the combat zone, sometimes

80:15 soldiers would break out, if that makes sense.

80:16 We had our regular line of things

80:17 that were similar to all, and then folks would

80:18 break out and then they'd go down their

80:19 different hallways to get those things specific

80:20 to their career fields.

81:16 - 82:01 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:43

81:16 Q. Are you aware of service members Re: [81:16 to 82:01] OVERRULED

81:17 being provided earplugs, including the Combat Pltf Obj Nonresponsive;

81:18 Arms Version 2 earplugs, in connection with the speculation; FRE 402/403;

81:19 Rapid Fielding Initiative without any fitting 602/701/702; scope; Plaintiffs

81:20 or instruction being provided by the Army? MIL #1, 2, 16, 21.

81:21 A. Sir, all I can say to that is, I

81:22 did not witness a block of instruction, nor did

81:23 I participate in a block of instruction or

81:24 fitting of any kind when I went through the

81:25 Rapid Fielding Initiative before my last

82:01 deployment. I don't -- I didn't experience it.

84:19 - 85:22 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:24

84:19 Q. Okay. So now I want to drill Re: [85:12 to 85:22] SUSTAINED

84:20 down one layer deeper. With respect to the Pltf Obj FRE 602/701/702;

84:21 Hearing Conservation Program, have you done any scope; speculation; 402/403;

84:22 analysis into the resources, manpower, funding, conjecture

84:23 and policy that the Army invested into the

84:24 Hearing Conservation Program specifically?

84:25 A. No, sir, I can't speak to that.

85:01 I don't know.

85:02 Q. Okay. So, for example, you've

85:03 not looked at the levels of staffing that were

85:04 provided to Hearing Conservation Program staff

85:05 within the Army over time; fair?

Page 14 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 36 of 63
85:06 A. Yeah. I couldn't speak to it --

85:07 Yes, sir. I cannot speak to staffing and those

85:08 types of things. Only in terms of, you know,

85:09 manning and equipping and those things of a

85:10 hearing center. I can only tell you what I

85:11 observed when I was at those locations myself.

85:12 Q. Okay. Would you defer to

85:13 personnel within the Hearing Conservation

85:14 Program, itself, to be better equipped to

85:15 address issues of staffing and resources within

85:16 the Army's Hearing Conservation Program,

85:17 itself?

85:18 A. Sir, I believe so. And there may

85:19 be some -- a host of other folks, too, that are

85:20 involved in that. But, yes, definitely not me.

85:21 Definitely the Hearing Conservation folks would

85:22 be better suited.

93:15 - 93:19 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:14

93:15 Q. Okay. Are you giving an opinion Re: [93:15 to 93:20] OVERRULED

93:16 that service members used Combat Arms Version 2 Pltf Obj FRE 602, 611;

93:17 earplugs properly in accordance with the 402/403; conejcture; scope;

93:18 training they were provided by Army Hearing calls for speculation.

93:19 Conservation personnel?

93:21 - 94:10 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:41

93:21 A. I know that -- sir, that the

93:22 hearing protection was provided to us by the

93:23 Army; I know that there was an expectation that

93:24 was enforced for soldiers to have those -- the

93:25 hearing protection readily available to them;

94:01 and I know that, again, as we talked about the

94:02 standards of training that I alluded to

94:03 earlier, for that rifle range, as an example,

94:04 to commence, the hearing protection must be

94:05 inserted in the ears before you can move

94:06 forward on the firing line; before the lawn

94:07 mower may be started, and the leaf blower, you

94:08 must have put in your hearing protection before

94:09 you start those chores, because that's

94:10 enforceable stuff.

94:11 - 96:09 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:00

Page 15 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 37 of 63
94:11 Q. Okay. And the enforcement, what

94:12 would the enforcement of that standard entail?

94:13 Would it be a visual inspection to make sure

94:14 the earplug was in a service member's ear?

94:15 A. Yes, sir. It was actually a lot

94:16 more in depth than that. If I may, I alluded

94:17 that I did -- I'm not sure exactly where it was

94:18 inside my report, but I would tell you that as

94:19 an example, a day in the life, I would, and

94:20 other leaders would, we all did this, and our

94:21 same -- the same expectation of any outfit you

94:22 were assigned to, is prior to departing and

94:23 getting onto transportation to transport

94:24 ourselves out to a rifle range or a pistol

94:25 range, grenade range, you name it, we would do

95:01 the preinspections to make sure everybody had

95:02 their weapons, had their magazines, had their

95:03 eye protection, their hearing protection, their

95:04 body armor, and all of those similar personal

95:05 protective pieces of equipment, to include

95:06 their water and all the things they would need

95:07 to get through that day's worth of training;

95:08 and then we would transport them to the actual

95:09 training event.

95:10 After you get them off the

95:11 trucks, you put them back into a formation with

95:12 all of them standing in a row side by side,

95:13 front to back, so you can take accountability

95:14 one more time. After that accountability has

95:15 been taken, you verify that, yes, the soldiers

95:16 still have all of their required training

95:17 equipment and personal protective equipment,

95:18 then you begin moving into occupation of the

95:19 range, setting up the range, and then

95:20 ultimately the conduct of the range.

95:21 Now, the next step is before

95:22 you're actually engaged in the training event,

95:23 and you're walking up -- in the example I'm

95:24 providing with the rifle range, walking up to

95:25 that rifle range, before you even get to the

96:01 ready mark, you must stop at a sign and range

96:02 safety officers will be standing there, and

96:03 they're going to inspect your ears, your eyes,

Page 16 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 38 of 63
96:04 your fighting load, your magazines, make sure

96:05 your weapon is in the right configuration. And

96:06 all of that must have happened before I'm even

96:07 able to set one foot on that little path that

96:08 leads down to my firing position. If that

96:09 makes sense, sir.

96:10 - 96:24 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:37

96:10 Q. It does. So when you say

96:11 inspection of the ear, would that inspection be

96:12 looking to make sure that the hearing

96:13 protection device was in the ear?

96:14 A. Yes, sir. Especially in the

96:15 training environment, you know, the yellow side

96:16 of the Army -- excuse me, the Combat Arms

96:17 hearing protection would be hanging out of

96:18 their ear; you can see that from a distance,

96:19 too, which is a good thing, being able to see

96:20 that yellow protruding from their ear. And

96:21 seeing only that -- you know, just that tip

96:22 portion of that hanging out indicates that it

96:23 was properly seated, or that was our visual

96:24 inspection, anyway, sir.

97:08 - 98:06 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:15

97:08 Q. I'll rephrase. The visual Re: [97:08 to 97:17] OVERRULED

97:09 inspection of the ear and the hearing Pltf Obj FRE 402/403; 602;

97:10 protection that you just described, did it 611; scope; 701/702

97:11 entail anything else other than what you

97:12 described? Re: [97:18 to 98:06] OVERRULED

97:13 A. No. No. It was literally moving Pltf Obj FRE 402/403; 602;

97:14 forward to the firing line, it was just a 611; 701/702; Plainitff MIL

97:15 visual inspection of the ear, hearing #1, 2, 16

97:16 protection was in place and properly seated,

97:17 you know, in the soldiers' ears.

97:18 Q. Okay. Did the inspection ever

97:19 entail doing any sort of verification or check

97:20 that the earplug was properly sealing the ear

97:21 canal?

97:22 A. No, sir.

97:23 Q. Did the inspection ever entail

97:24 doing a tug test on the earplug to ensure that

97:25 the earplug was fitted properly?

Page 17 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 39 of 63
98:01 A. No, sir. We did not -- We did

98:02 not put hands on the soldiers.

98:03 Q. Did the inspections ever entail

98:04 ensuring that flanges were rolled back or not

98:05 rolled back on a Combat Arms Earplug?

98:06 A. No, sir.

103:08 - 105:14 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:19

103:08 Q. Fair enough. And so you talked Re: [103:08 to 105:23] SUSTAINED

103:09 about service members being instructed to and Pltf Obj FRE 402/403; 602;

103:10 in your experience wearing the Combat Arms speculation, compound;

103:11 Version 2 in all situations where you narrative; scope; 802; 805;

103:12 understood it was appropriate. 611; 701/702; Plaintiff MIL

103:13 Did you ever receive any #1, 2, 16

103:14 complaints about the Combat Arms Version 2

103:15 earplugs from service members: You know, they

103:16 don't stay in my ear, they're not blocking

103:17 sound, anything like that?

103:18 A. No, sir. I didn't -- I didn't

103:19 have anyone talking -- I did not experience a

103:20 direct conversation about those types of things

103:21 or any of those topics that you just provided.

103:22 I would tell you, though, one

103:23 thing I heard repeatedly that, to me, seems

103:24 like it kind of -- kind of goes in that same --

103:25 that same category is, you know, if you are in

104:01 a -- you know, you're running forward, and

104:02 you're getting ready to throw your body into a

104:03 prone supported or prone unsupported position

104:04 so you can pick up on that rifle and start

104:05 putting rounds down, you know, there are

104:06 different things on the field of battle,

104:07 different obstacles on the field of battle, or,

104:08 you know, in the training environment that we

104:09 might be in, or the real environment that we

104:10 might be in, that it causes you to fall to the

104:11 ground or rapidly take cover and do those types

104:12 of things. I will tell you, there are times

104:13 when you could hit the ground, and I would

104:14 imagine earplugs can shake loose or not be

104:15 seated as properly as they were previous to

104:16 that.

104:17 And what I'm really trying to get

Page 18 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 40 of 63
104:18 at here is that we did stress that. There's no

104:19 difference between your eye protection and your

104:20 ear protection than it is to your ammunition.

104:21 You have an expectation that you will

104:22 communicate when your hearing protection is not

104:23 doing what it's supposed to be doing. And

104:24 there's a way to simply reach up and reseat

104:25 that in your ear and continue your mission. So

105:01 that was the big thing for us instructing the

105:02 soldiers, your own resilience, don't let one

105:03 change in the situation dictate a change in

105:04 that battle or fight; just simply pick up where

105:05 you left off, reseat the hearing protection or

105:06 the eye protection, or whatever it is, share

105:07 your ammunition, and keep going after that

105:08 enemy.

105:09 Q. Okay. And I think you said

105:10 earplugs can shake loose. Is this something

105:11 that you heard specific to the Combat Arms

105:12 Version 2 earplug, or is this type of situation

105:13 something that is common to preformed earplugs

105:14 generally?

105:18 - 106:03 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:29

105:18 A. Sir, from my experience -- I'm Re: [103:08 to 105:23] OVERRULED

105:19 sorry. Can you say that one more time? Pltf Obj FRE 402/403; 602;

105:20 Q. Yeah. So you described the speculation, compound;

105:21 situations in which earplugs can shake loose narrative; scope; 802; 805;

105:22 based on movement of a service member's body. 611; 701/702; Plaintiff MIL

105:23 A. Right. #1, 2, 16

105:24 Q. And my question was, you said

105:25 earplugs can shake loose. Are you referring to Re: [105:24 to 107:11] OVERRULED

106:01 the Combat Arms Version 2 earplugs specifically Pltf Obj FRE 402/403; 602;

106:02 or are you saying this is a general issue that speculation, compound;

106:03 can apply to any number of preformed earplugs? narrative; scope; 802; 805;

611; 701/702; Plaintiff MIL

#1, 2, 16

106:09 - 107:11 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:09

106:09 A. Just say that that's part of the Re: [105:24 to 107:11] OVERRULED

106:10 fog of war, part of the fog of training, you Pltf Obj FRE 402/403; 602;

106:11 know, that the rapid movement, running, jumping speculation, compound;

106:12 over fences, crawling through trenches, narrative; scope; 802; 805;

Page 19 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 41 of 63
106:13 crawling under barbed wire, screaming at your 611; 701/702; Plaintiff MIL

106:14 friends, you know, equipping, dragging your #1, 2, 16

106:15 buddy to safety, all of those different things

106:16 are highly physical activities.

106:17 And what I was trying to say

106:18 there, sir, is in training my warriors to be

106:19 resilient, tough, and to deal with -- you know,

106:20 expect the unexpected, is that if you find

106:21 yourself in a situation where your -- some of

106:22 your protective equipment has fallen off you,

106:23 don't lose your mind, don't be afraid, simply

106:24 reach up, reseat your hearing protection,

106:25 adjust your eye protection, and continue to

107:01 fight. That's what I was trying to say, sir.

107:02 Q. Okay. And I think you said this,

107:03 although I don't see it on the rough, so I'll

107:04 just ask again: That type of guidance, that's

107:05 not guidance specific to the Combat Arms

107:06 Version 2 earplug, that's guidance just more

107:07 general for different types of PPE and more

107:08 general for all types of earplugs; fair enough?

107:09 A. That is a true statement, sir. I

107:10 was not speaking just specifically on the

107:11 Combat Arms Earplugs.

107:22 - 108:15 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:47

107:22 Q. Okay. And I think you said in Re: [108:13 to 108:25] SUSTAINED

107:23 your report you personally also used the Combat Pltf Obj FRE 602; 611;

107:24 Arms Version 2 earplug throughout the course of vague/ambiguous

107:25 your career in the Army; right?

108:01 A. Yes, sir. I definitely had to

108:02 use them when they came out. I think that that

108:03 first duty assignment that I was in was the --

108:04 was actually the CONUS Replacement Center, was

108:05 in the business of sending soldiers over on

108:06 deployments, and so we had fast access to all

108:07 the newest, latest, and greatest equipment as

108:08 it was being fielded to the Army. A lot of

108:09 that stuff landed right at the CONUS

108:10 Replacement Center, because those warriors were

108:11 actually, you know, moving out to the theater

108:12 of operations.

108:13 Q. And did you ever personally have

Page 20 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 42 of 63
108:14 any issues, yourself, with the Combat Arms

108:15 Version 2 earplugs?

108:17 - 109:04 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:28

108:17 A. You know, I just -- I don't Re: [108:13 to 108:25] SUSTAINED

108:18 recall any, sir. Pltf Obj FRE 602; 611;

108:19 Yeah. No. I don't recall any vague/ambiguous

108:20 time when I was -- actually had anything that

108:21 was problematic. Did I ever have an earplug Re: [109:01 to 109:15] SUSTAINED

108:22 that may have gotten loose? It's a possibility Pltf Obj FRE 611; 402/403;

108:23 for sure, based on all the circumstances I vague/ambiguous/unclear; scope

108:24 talked about before. But I don't have a

108:25 recollection.

109:01 Q. Okay. And when you say the

109:02 circumstances you talked about before, just for

109:03 the Record, can you confirm what circumstances

109:04 you're referring to there?

109:09 - 109:15 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:16

109:09 A. Talking about running; jumping; Re: [109:01 to 109:15] SUSTAINED

109:10 crawling; airborne operations; you know, Pltf Obj FRE 611; 402/403;

109:11 leaving an aircraft and having a parachute vague/ambiguous/unclear; scope

109:12 open, those kind of things are very, very

109:13 physically rough. And it's amazing the things

109:14 that can shake loose when those things are

109:15 happening.

119:11 - 121:07 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:15

119:11 Q. Just take a minute to look at Re: [119:20 to 120:10] OVERRULED

119:12 what we've marked here as Exhibit 9, it's tab Pltf Obj FRE 611; speculation;

119:13 three in your binder. foundation; scope; Plaintiff

119:14 My first question will be whether MIL # 1, 2, 16; 402/403

119:15 you recognize this document.

119:16 A. Yes, sir. We're talking about Re: [121:01 to 121:12] OVERRULED

119:17 Hearing Conservation Program doctrine? Pltf Obj FRE 602; 611; scope;

119:18 Q. Correct. foundation; Plaintiff MIL #16

119:19 A. Yes, sir.

119:20 Q. And so do you recognize -- Does

119:21 Exhibit 9 appear to be a true and correct copy

119:22 of Department of the Army Pamphlet 40-501,

119:23 which relates to the Hearing Conservation

119:24 Program?

119:25 A. Sir, I do recognize it. To be

Page 21 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 43 of 63
120:01 fair, I don't recall the latest publication.

120:02 I'm not sure 10 December '98 is the latest.

120:03 But I do recognize this document, and I would

120:04 imagine y'all probably provided me with the

120:05 latest. But I don't recall, so . . .

120:06 Q. Sure. So we'll look at -- You're

120:07 familiar with the -- You see that this was the

120:08 pamphlet that was issued December 10, 1998;

120:09 right?

120:10 A. Yes, sir.

120:11 (Whereupon, Exhibit 10 was

120:12 marked for identification

120:13 purposes.)

120:14 Q. Okay. And why don't we mark the

120:15 other one, too. So if you look at tab four,

120:16 which we'll mark as Exhibit 10. Do you

120:17 recognize Exhibit 10 to be the 2015 issuance of

120:18 Department of the Army Pamphlet 40-501?

120:19 A. Yes, sir, I sure do.

120:20 Q. Okay. And were these documents

120:21 that you considered in connection with forming

120:22 your opinions in this case?

120:23 A. Yes, sir. That's correct. It

120:24 was a resource that I utilized when I was

120:25 preparing my report.

121:01 Q. Okay. So if you'll look at -- If

121:02 you'll look at Exhibit 9, which is tab three,

121:03 and my first question is, is it your

121:04 understanding that this pamphlet would have

121:05 applied and governed with respect to the Army

121:06 at large in the absence of other regulations

121:07 during the time that it was in effect?

121:09 - 121:12 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:11

121:09 A. Yes, sir. Yeah. I would -- I Re: [121:01 to 121:12] OVERRULED

121:10 would agree that this would be the document Pltf Obj FRE 602; 611; scope;

121:11 that would have governed Hearing Conservation foundation; Plaintiff MIL #16

121:12 Program in both instances.

122:06 - 124:01 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:07

122:06 Q. Okay. So if you'll turn to page Re: [122:06 to 124:01] OVERRULED

122:07 3, Section 2-3 of Exhibit 10, please. I'm Pltf Obj outside scope of

122:08 sorry, Exhibit 9. expert report, compound, Needs

Page 22 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 44 of 63
122:09 A. Chapter 3? personal knowledge to opine on

122:10 Q. It's section 2-3. FRE 611; 602; 402/403;

122:11 A. Okay. Got you. 701/702; 802; 805; scope;

122:12 Q. So Section 2-3(a), I'll just read foundation; outside expert

122:13 it for the Record, says: Noise is one of the report. Armywide

122:14 most common health hazards soldiers and success/failure/noncompliance

122:15 civilians face in the workplace and during according to the Court's

122:16 training. The most dangerous occupational and Daubert ruling on Timothy

122:17 recreational noise is from firing weapons. Edens

122:18 Do you see that?

122:19 A. I do see that, sir.

122:20 Q. And do you agree with that

122:21 statement?

122:22 A. I read the words and I do agree

122:23 with the words that I'm reading. I'd also say

122:24 I don't think that just firing weapons is the

122:25 most dangerous. You know, this was written,

123:01 too, in 1998, so this is before improvised

123:02 explosive devices and a lot of those other

123:03 things that we saw overseas. So it may have

123:04 been during that -- during that year, but

123:05 that's probably not all encompassing, from my

123:06 perspective, my opinion.

123:07 Q. Well, the first sentence, you

123:08 would agree that noise is one of the most

123:09 common health hazards soldiers and civilians

123:10 face in the workplace and during training?

123:11 A. It's definitely there. It's a

123:12 problem on a regular basis, yes, sir.

123:13 Q. Okay. We discussed this

123:14 situation a little bit before, but if you'll go

123:15 to page 6, please.

123:16 A. (Witness complies.) Yes, sir.

123:17 Q. And on the two columns on page

123:18 six, at the top of the right-hand column, do

123:19 you see there's a provision that says -- it

123:20 starts on the left-hand column at the bottom,

123:21 it says: In combat, soldiers should not, in

123:22 all caps, wear hearing protectors when they

123:23 impair necessary hearing, for example, in

123:24 dismounted infantry operations.

123:25 Do you see that?

124:01 A. I do see it, sir.

Page 23 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 45 of 63
129:14 - 130:25 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:36

129:14 Q. Okay. So do you have any Re: [129:14 to 130:16] OVERRULED

129:15 knowledge of training that was provided to Pltf Obj FRE 402/403;

129:16 service members on when they should wear 602/701/702; outside scope;

129:17 hearing protection devices outside of the foundation; 802; Plaintiffs

129:18 training events, meaning, you know, in their MIL #1, 2, 16, 21

129:19 day-to-day duties or in combat?

129:20 A. Yes, sir. Some of the examples I

129:21 provided for you a little bit earlier just are

129:22 the ones that come to mind first, and that was,

129:23 area beautification where utilizing the riding

129:24 mowers, the leaf blowers, and such; boarding an

129:25 aircraft from the rear and preparing for an

130:01 airborne operation, something like that; if you

130:02 were going to put a generator into operation in

130:03 a field training exercise, as an example,

130:04 that's another high -- high-noise situation,

130:05 and hearing protection is required for those as

130:06 well.

130:07 So those scenarios were talked

130:08 about, and that's, again, where it was kind of

130:09 reinforced too about the resiliency, if you

130:10 were ever in a situation where you did start to

130:11 feel your hearing protection start to loosen up

130:12 or you're hearing way more than you know you

130:13 should be and that you had in the past with

130:14 your hearing protection seated properly, stop,

130:15 don't let the fog of war get you; slow down,

130:16 reseat it, and continue your mission.

130:17 Q. That concept of individual

130:18 resiliency, was that part of the trainings that

130:19 were provided to service members during your

130:20 career in the Army?

130:21 A. Yes, sir. We talked about it all

130:22 the time, the ability to be resilient and

130:23 continue to fight. You never give up, and you

130:24 never give up on your people, and we're in this

130:25 together, you know.

131:24 - 132:17 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:51

131:24 Q. Turning back to the earplug

131:25 specific nature of this, you talked about

Page 24 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 46 of 63
132:01 circumstances in which earplugs should be

132:02 reseated. Was that a part of their training

132:03 that trainees would receive in basic training?

132:04 A. Sir, that was not a part of the

132:05 training in basic combat training program of

132:06 instruction, it was not embedded or formalized

132:07 in that training. But I know that that was

132:08 something that -- me, personally, as a drill

132:09 sergeant, that was one of the things that I

132:10 discussed, that was one of the things that I

132:11 imparted on my warriors was, you know, things

132:12 happen and how you adapt and how you deal with

132:13 that in the -- in the fog of war, will very

132:14 much dictate how that -- how that battle ends

132:15 up. And so, yes, we did talk about that; but,

132:16 no, it was not formalized in that program of

132:17 instruction, to my recollection.

138:12 - 138:21 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:26

138:12 Q. Okay. If you will open to tab Re: [138:12 to 138:21] SUSTAINED

138:13 six in your binder, which we will mark as Pltf Obj FRE 402/403;

138:14 Exhibit 11. Foundation; Scope; 802; 805;

138:15 And just to make sure we're 602/701/702; Plaintiff MIL #2

138:16 looking at the same document, this should be a

138:17 document that says United States Government

138:18 Accountability Office, Report to Congressional

138:19 Committees at the top. Do you have that

138:20 document in front of you?

138:21 A. I do sir.

138:22 - 139:11 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:53 138:22-139:11 EXCLUDED

138:22 Q. Have you seen this document

138:23 before?

138:24 A. I'm going to take just a moment

138:25 to scan, sir.

139:01 Q. No, problem.

139:02 A. No, sir, I don't recognize this.

139:03 I don't believe that I've ever looked at this

139:04 before. I'm not certain.

139:05 Q. Okay. Do you know -- Do you have

139:06 any familiarity with what the Government

139:07 Accountability Office is or what their function

139:08 is?

Page 25 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 47 of 63
139:09 A. No, sir. I would be speculating.

139:10 I do believe that I understand the words, but I

139:11 don't know them well enough to quote that.

139:21 - 140:06 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:24 139:21-140:06 EXCLUDED

139:21 Q. And I'm correct that this is not

139:22 one of the documents that was provided to you

139:23 by the Plaintiffs' lawyers or a document that

139:24 you found on your own in connection with your

139:25 report; fair to say?

140:01 A. Yes, sir. I'd have to go back to

140:02 the very front and look at the ones that were

140:03 listed. It may have been provided, but I truly

140:04 do not recognize it. I don't believe I've seen

140:05 this cover sheet before. I don't believe that

140:06 I've scanned this before.

140:12 - 142:09 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:41

140:12 Q. Okay. So if we look at the Re: [140:12 to 142:09] SUSTAINED

140:13 second page of this document, it's the page Pltf Obj FRE 402/403;

140:14 that says in the upper left-hand corner Foundation; Scope; 802; 805;

140:15 highlights, just let me know when you're there? 602/701/702; Plaintiff MIL #1,

140:16 A. (Witness complies.) I'm here, 2, 16, 21

140:17 sir.

140:18 Q. Okay. And then in the left-hand

140:19 column there, there's a section that says why

140:20 GAO did this study.

140:21 Do you see that?

140:22 A. I see that, sir.

140:23 Q. And then at the bottom of that

140:24 paragraph, it says, and I'll it for the Record:

140:25 GAO reviewed DoD and services' policies and

141:01 guidance, reviewed DoD performance data,

141:02 interviewed officials and service members, and

141:03 conducted site visits to nine military bases.

141:04 Do you see that?

141:05 A. I do, sir.

141:06 Q. And you have no reason to dispute

141:07 that the Government Accountability Office, in

141:08 fact, did the things that that sentence is

141:09 discussing; true?

141:10 A. No, sir. I have no reason to

141:11 dispute that.

Page 26 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 48 of 63
141:12 Q. Okay. And then under what GAO

141:13 found, do you see that section?

141:14 A. I do see it, sir.

141:15 Q. Okay. And in the first paragraph

141:16 there, the last sentence, and I'll just read

141:17 it: For example, service members told us that

141:18 they do not always wear hearing protection,

141:19 citing concerns with comfort and communication.

141:20 Do you see that sentence?

141:21 A. I'm sorry. You said that was the

141:22 first paragraph, last sentence?

141:23 Q. Second-to-last sentence, excuse

141:24 me.

141:25 A. Yes. I do see it. For example,

142:01 service members. Yes.

142:02 Q. Okay. My first question is: You

142:03 have no reason to dispute that in the

142:04 interviews that the Government Accountability

142:05 Office authors, conducted that service members

142:06 told them these things; is that fair to say?

142:07 A. Yeah. I can't say definitively,

142:08 but I have no reason to doubt it in this

142:09 publication, sir.

149:02 - 149:08 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:16

149:02 Q. Okay. So having reviewed that, Re: [149:02 to 149:16] SUSTAINED

149:03 you would agree that in that paragraph, the Pltf Obj FRE 602; speculation;

149:04 authors of this GAO report are summarizing the 611; foundation; FRE 402/403;

149:05 work that they've done in connection with the 802; 805; 701/702; Plaintiff

149:06 report, including documents they've reviewed, MIL #1, 2, 16,

149:07 site visits they've conducted, and interviews

149:08 they've conducted?

149:12 - 149:16 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:11

149:12 A. Yes, sir. Yes. I can see -- I Re: [149:02 to 149:16] SUSTAINED

149:13 can see what they're -- what they were looking Pltf Obj FRE 602; speculation;

149:14 at; and, yes, I can see what they were -- what 611; foundation; FRE 402/403;

149:15 they were looking for and what they actually 802; 805; 701/702; Plaintiff

149:16 looked at, how it was evaluated. MIL #1, 2, 16,

150:01 - 150:15 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:31 150:01-173:23 EXCLUDED

150:01 Q. Okay. So if you would go on to

150:02 page 6, please.

Page 27 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 49 of 63
150:03 A. Sure. (Witness complies.) I'm

150:04 here, sir.

150:05 Q. Do you see at the bottom of page

150:06 6 there's a sentence there that says: In

150:07 recent years, studies have addressed hearing

150:08 loss and tinnitus in the military. For

150:09 example, in 2002, Congress directed that VA

150:10 contract with the National Academy of Sciences

150:11 to conduct a study on noise exposure with

150:12 respect to hearing loss and tinnitus in the

150:13 military.

150:14 Do you see that?

150:15 A. I do, sir.

150:22 - 151:21 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:01

150:22 Q. And on page seven, there's a

150:23 sentence there that says: The study found that

150:24 military hearing conservation programs were not

150:25 adequate to protect service members' hearing.

151:01 Do you see that?

151:02 A. I don't. Where are you at? The

151:03 big paragraph or the two bottom ones?

151:04 Q. It's the -- The top paragraph on

151:05 page 7, six or so lines down.

151:06 A. I got it. Yeah.

151:07 The study found that military

151:08 hearing conservation programs were not adequate

151:09 to protect service members' hearing.

151:10 Q. Do you see that sentence?

151:11 A. I do see it, sir.

151:12 Q. Okay. My first question is, do

151:13 you have any reason to dispute that the

151:14 National Academy of Sciences' study, that's

151:15 being described here, in fact, reached that

151:16 finding?

151:17 A. Sir, I was not aware of this and

151:18 I've not been aware of this before. But, no,

151:19 based on the legitimacy of how the document

151:20 appears and whatnot, no, I have no reason to

151:21 dispute that.

154:22 - 155:10 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:34

154:22 Q. All right. And then on the last

Page 28 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 50 of 63
154:23 sentence of this paragraph, on page 7, it's the

154:24 sentence, I'll read it for the Record, says:

154:25 Furthermore, while information was limited,

155:01 this study noted that a high proportion of

155:02 service members, sometimes up to 50 percent in

155:03 certain situations, may not be wearing hearing

155:04 protection when needed.

155:05 Do you see that?

155:06 A. I'm scanning it right now. Okay,

155:07 last portion of that paragraph. If you'll just

155:08 give me a second to read that, please.

155:09 Q. No problem.

155:10 A. Yes, sir, I see that sentence.

155:23 - 156:16 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:43

155:23 Q. Okay. If you go to page 13.

155:24 A. (Witness complies.) I'm there,

155:25 sir.

156:01 Q. All right. So this is the last

156:02 sentence right before you see Figure 3. And

156:03 for the Record, I'll read it. It says:

156:04 Finally, we observed that service members

156:05 themselves are not necessarily using equipment

156:06 provided to them or are not using the hearing

156:07 protection equipment properly.

156:08 Do you see that?

156:09 A. Yes, sir, I see it.

156:10 Q. Okay. And so my first question

156:11 is: You've got no reason to dispute that the

156:12 authors did, in fact, make these observations

156:13 in connection with their preparation of this

156:14 GAO report; fair?

156:15 A. No, sir, I have no reason to

156:16 dispute or doubt them.

157:22 - 158:15 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:44

157:22 Q. Okay. So, again, the sentence

157:23 here: These service members said their

157:24 superiors did not consistently check for

157:25 equipment usage and there's little to no

158:01 discipline for members who are not using them.

158:02 Do you see that sentence?

158:03 A. Yes, sir, I see it.

Page 29 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 51 of 63
158:04 Q. Okay. Again, my first question

158:05 is only: You've got no reason to dispute that

158:06 the service members made these statements to

158:07 the GAO authors; fair?

158:08 A. Yes, sir. While I was not here

158:09 while this was, you know, being formed or while

158:10 any of the interviews were being conducted, I

158:11 have no reason to dispute it.

158:12 Q. But it is -- You would agree that

158:13 it is inconsistent with your own opinions in

158:14 this case; is that fair to say also?

158:15 A. Yes, sir, that is fair.

161:08 - 162:21 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:29

161:08 Q. Okay. All right. So going back

161:09 to this GAO report that we've marked as Exhibit

161:10 11, the first sentence of the next paragraph

161:11 there says: During our interviews with DoD

161:12 officials and service members, we heard that in

161:13 some cases service members do not wear required

161:14 hearing protection.

161:15 Do you see that?

161:16 A. I do see it, sir.

161:17 Q. Okay. And, again, my only

161:18 question there is: You've got no reason to

161:19 dispute that the GAO's authors heard what

161:20 they're describing here in their interviews

161:21 with DoD officials and service members; fair?

161:22 A. Yes, sir.

161:23 Q. Okay. And then it goes on to

161:24 say: During our site visits, many service

161:25 members discussed a number of reasons why they

162:01 chose not to wear the required hearing

162:02 protection.

162:03 Do you see that?

162:04 A. I do, sir.

162:05 Q. And then just to summarize, the

162:06 reasons that are being described here are

162:07 because protective equipment was uncomfortable;

162:08 service members cited the impact of hearing

162:09 protection on communication; and, finally, many

162:10 service members expressed the view that hearing

162:11 loss is part of the military experience and

Page 30 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 52 of 63
162:12 many accepted this as a fact of a military

162:13 career.

162:14 Can you see that general content

162:15 there?

162:16 A. I do, sir.

162:17 Q. Okay. And, again, my only

162:18 question there is: You have no reason to

162:19 dispute that service members made these various

162:20 statements in the interviews that the authors

162:21 of this GAO report conducted; fair?

162:24 - 163:04 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:13

162:24 A. No, sir. I have no reason to

162:25 dispute the validity of the report.

163:01 Q. I think, as we discussed earlier,

163:02 you would say that those types of statements

163:03 are inconsistent with your own opinions that

163:04 you reached in the case; true?

163:07 - 163:13 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:21

163:07 A. No, sir. And that -- That is

163:08 correct, that's inconsistent with my

163:09 experiences.

163:10 Q. Okay. And if you look at page

163:11 17.

163:12 A. (Witness complies.) I'm there,

163:13 sir.

163:21 - 164:03 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:16

163:21 Q. Okay. It says -- For the Record,

163:22 I'll read it: The education generally

163:23 consisted of instructors telling new recruits

163:24 to simply use hearing protection in their ears,

163:25 but not explaining its importance or the proper

164:01 technique to insert such equipment.

164:02 Do you see that?

164:03 A. Yes, sir.

167:21 - 169:20 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:21

167:21 Q. And we'll take a look at tab ten,

167:22 which we will mark as Exhibit 12. And just to

167:23 make sure we're looking at the same thing, it

167:24 should be a printout of an article from

Page 31 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 53 of 63
167:25 Health.mil News.

168:01 A. I haven't gone far enough.

168:02 Yes. It's something out of an

168:03 article dated November 28th of 2020.

168:04 Q. May 21, 2020.

168:05 A. Oh, no. That's not what I'm

168:06 looking at.

168:07 Q. I think you're looking at the

168:08 print date.

168:09 A. Yes.

168:10 Q. The date of the article itself,

168:11 just for the Record, is May 21, 2020?

168:12 A. Sure. I see it.

168:13 Q. Okay. Have you seen this

168:14 document before?

168:15 A. No, sir, I do not recall it.

168:16 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with

168:17 Health.mil? Have you ever been on that site

168:18 before?

168:19 A. Yes, sir.

168:20 Q. I think my audio cut off for a

168:21 second. Did you say yes?

168:22 A. Yes, sir, I did.

168:23 Q. Okay. What do you understand

168:24 Health.mil to be, just at a general level?

168:25 A. Just informational, a repository

169:01 of information, a repository of scenarios and

169:02 findings, just a great wealth of information

169:03 for anyone that wants to tap into it and do

169:04 some research or pull out some information.

169:05 Q. Okay. Is that a military

169:06 website, to your knowledge?

169:07 A. No. Not -- not -- I don't 100

169:08 percent know. I would speculate and say yes,

169:09 because it has the .mil at the end of the -- of

169:10 the URL, but I can't say definitively, sir.

169:11 Q. Sure. What does the .mil

169:12 typically indicate?

169:13 A. Military. It's affiliated or

169:14 associated or branch published by military

169:15 sources.

169:16 Q. Okay. And if you look at the

169:17 byline on this article, it says by Larine Barr,

Page 32 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 54 of 63
169:18 Hearing Center of Excellence.

169:19 Do you see that?

169:20 A. I do.

171:19 - 172:19 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:04

171:19 Q. Okay. So would it be a fair

171:20 summary to say the various centers of

171:21 excellence have sort of a specialty or focus on

171:22 a particular topic area?

171:23 A. Yes, sir, that's exactly right.

171:24 Q. Okay. So I want to point you to

171:25 the first sentence of this article, which we've

172:01 marked here as Exhibit 12, and I'll just read

172:02 it for the Record. It says: Researchers

172:03 studying hearing loss over the last decade have

172:04 found that service members often don't wear

172:05 hearing protection because they think the

172:06 devices will block out critical sounds that are

172:07 necessary to complete the mission.

172:08 Do you see that?

172:09 A. I do, sir.

172:10 Q. So, again, my first question: Do

172:11 you have any reason to dispute that researchers

172:12 studying hearing loss have, in fact, found what

172:13 is being described in that sentence?

172:14 A. No, sir. I don't have any

172:15 knowledge either way. But, no, I don't have

172:16 any reason to dispute this.

172:17 Q. Okay. And it's fair to say that

172:18 that is also inconsistent with the opinions

172:19 that you've reached in the case?

172:24 - 173:17 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:51

172:24 A. Yes, I did not experience that.

172:25 We wore hearing protection.

173:01 Q. Okay. And if you go to the third

173:02 paragraph, it says, quote: While hearing loss

173:03 is a concern, we find that some service members

173:04 accept it as a risk when more pressing or

173:05 life-threatening duties depend upon having no

173:06 hearing limitations or barriers, end quote,

173:07 said Dr. Theresa Schulz, Prevention Branch

173:08 Chief for Department of Defense Hearing Center

Page 33 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 55 of 63
173:09 of Excellence.

173:10 Do you see that?

173:11 A. Yes, sir, I do.

173:12 Q. And am I correct that your own

173:13 opinions in this case are inconsistent with

173:14 this statement that we have here from Theresa

173:15 -- Dr. Theresa Schulz, the Prevention Branch

173:16 Chief for the Department of Defense Hearing

173:17 Center of Excellence?

173:20 - 173:23 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:10

173:20 A. Yes, sir. That's inconsistent

173:21 with discussions I'd had and my personal

173:22 experience and the discussions and

173:23 conversations I've held with my own warriors.

176:10 - 176:20 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:56

176:10 Q. Okay. If you would take a look

176:11 at -- Let me just make sure I have the right

176:12 document. It's tab eight in your binder. And

176:13 we will mark tab eight in the binder as Exhibit

176:14 13.

176:15 Sir, do you recognize this

176:16 document that we're looking, which we've marked

176:17 as Exhibit 13, as Department of Defense

176:18 Instruction Number 6055.12, and this is the

176:19 March 5, 2004 version?

176:20 A. Yes, sir.

178:13 - 179:01 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:26

178:13 Q. Okay. And that's fair. If

178:14 you'll skip ahead, then, to Section 6.6.7.

178:15 A. (Witness complies.) I'm here,

178:16 sir.

178:17 Q. It says, again I'll read it:

178:18 Preformed earplugs shall be fitted and issued

178:19 only under the supervision of personnel

178:20 specifically trained to fit earplugs.

178:21 Do you see that?

178:22 A. I do, sir.

178:23 Q. And is that requirement

178:24 consistent with your understanding of what the

178:25 requirement was within the Army during your

Page 34 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 56 of 63
179:01 time in the Army?

179:06 - 179:18 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:31

179:06 A. Yes. It was my experience --

179:07 Like I say, when new equipment is fielded or

179:08 when the initial issue is provided, that you're

179:09 going to get that block instruction, and you're

179:10 going to get it from someone that's authorized

179:11 to actually perform that, like medical

179:12 personnel.

179:13 The only time I saw that that

179:14 wasn't happening was a replenishment. I lost

179:15 my stuff. I got to Baghdad, and I found out

179:16 that I lost a portion of my kit. I had to go

179:17 back to my troop medical clinic or back to the

179:18 surgeon's office and replenish myself.

182:05 - 182:10 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:08

182:05 Q. Okay. All right. Section 6.6.9

182:06 says, quote: Medically trained personnel must

182:07 examine the fit and condition of preformed and

182:08 custom earplugs at least annually.

182:09 Do you see that?

182:10 A. Yes, sir.

183:22 - 184:07 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:43

183:22 Q. Okay. All right. So putting

183:23 aside the policy or what the requirement was,

183:24 in your experience in the Army, did -- did

183:25 service members have annual meetings with

184:01 medically trained personnel in which the fit

184:02 and condition of their preformed earplugs were

184:03 examined by those personnel?

184:04 A. No, sir. Not to my knowledge.

184:05 And I know that I didn't experience that

184:06 myself. I never had anyone double-check or

184:07 check my hearing protection after the fact.

185:07 - 186:10 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:23

185:07 Q. And Section 6.7.1.3 references

185:08 the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation

185:09 of various hearing protectors as a topic that

185:10 would be covered in the annual training.

Page 35 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 57 of 63
185:11 Do you see that?

185:12 A. I do, sir.

185:13 Q. Is that consistent with your own

185:14 experience, that the advantages, disadvantages,

185:15 and attenuation of various hearing protectors

185:16 would be a topic covered in these annual

185:17 trainings?

185:18 A. No, sir. I did not experience

185:19 that myself. To be fair, though, I guess I

185:20 need some clarification. I don't know what

185:21 attenuation means, the definition of that word.

185:22 Q. Okay. Well, for purposes of my

185:23 questions, you can assume that it means the

185:24 extent to which a hearing protector can block

185:25 sound.

186:01 So with that clarification, would

186:02 the advantages or disadvantages of hearing

186:03 protection devices or the ability of a hearing

186:04 protection device to block sound be topics that

186:05 would be covered in annual trainings on hearing

186:06 issues in the Army?

186:07 A. No, sir. After hearing that, I

186:08 don't recall ever having received that type of

186:09 training or providing that type of training as

186:10 an annual training requirement.

198:14 - 198:23 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:24

198:14 Q. Okay. So then am I correct that

198:15 all service members who receive the Combat Arms

198:16 Version 2 earplug, and I'm not talking about

198:17 basic training now, I'm talking about outside

198:18 of the basic training context, all service

198:19 members who receive the Combat Arms Version 2

198:20 earplug would receive instruction from an

198:21 audiologist on how to insert the earplug?

198:22 A. Yes, sir. That was my

198:23 experience.

199:15 - 203:13 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 5:38

199:15 Q. Okay. And did you personally

199:16 receive a fitting and instruction by an

199:17 audiologist on the Combat Arms Version 2

199:18 earplug?

Page 36 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 58 of 63
199:19 A. I did. I did, actually. I was

199:20 -- Again, this is me transitioning from being a

199:21 drill sergeant and moving back over to the

199:22 CONUS Replacement Center, and I actually sat in

199:23 the class when the new ones came out, and I sat

199:24 in there and took advantage of that.

199:25 Q. Okay. And can you describe for

200:01 me what that fitting and instruction consisted

200:02 of?

200:03 A. Sure. For us, it was obviously

200:04 just orientation and the graphic training that

200:05 I talked about, I know there was slide decks on

200:06 the back that showed -- almost like an image

200:07 that we saw earlier as we were flipping pages,

200:08 had diagrams of the ears and showed the actual

200:09 plug sitting inside of the ear, appropriately

200:10 seated.

200:11 But then after that, it was

200:12 essentially using for left ear, right hand,

200:13 pulling down slightly to expand the canal

200:14 slightly; and then usually left hand to shove

200:15 up and in until it was properly seated into the

200:16 left ear canal, and then reversing that process

200:17 for the right ear, again tugging the ear down,

200:18 pulling on the ear lobe, inserting the hearing

200:19 protection until it was appropriately seated.

200:20 And then verify by moving back and forth and up

200:21 and down to make sure it was seated in my ears

200:22 and not falling out and that I could still hear

200:23 but that the hearing was significantly muffled,

200:24 as it should be.

200:25 Q. Okay. Anything else you remember

201:01 about that fitting instruction?

201:02 A. Again, that's kind of -- You

201:03 know, I know that the -- the larger or smaller

201:04 or crooked ear canals and just all of those --

201:05 those one-offs, I guess, and I'm sorry for that

201:06 terminology, that's the best I can come up with

201:07 right now, I know that at one point in my

201:08 career, at least, that was discussed about

201:09 flipping the flanges the opposite direction to

201:10 help them seat better in a bigger ear or bigger

201:11 ear canal. But I don't recall if that was

Page 37 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 59 of 63
201:12 during that initial block of instruction that I

201:13 received or if that was just information in

201:14 passing. I really don't remember, sir.

201:15 Q. Fair enough. And I think you

201:16 said this earlier, but am I correct that in

201:17 your own use of the product, you did not have a

201:18 need to fold the flange on the earplug?

201:19 A. That's right, sir. I never had

201:20 to.

201:21 Q. And as part of the fitting

201:22 instruction that you had from the audiologist

201:23 in the Army, did the audiologist, once you had

201:24 it in your ear, kind of take a look at it and

201:25 do a visual inspection of it in your ear?

202:01 A. I know that there's definitely a

202:02 visual inspection. I don't believe that anyone

202:03 ever, like, put hands on me or tried to, you

202:04 know, gently tug on the hearing protection or

202:05 anything like that, sir. I'm not sure if that

202:06 answers your question.

202:07 I don't remember anyone touching

202:08 me. I do remember people -- the -- I do

202:09 remember the cadre taking a look at it.

202:10 Q. Do you remember what duty station

202:11 this happened at?

202:12 A. Yes, sir. That was Fort Benning.

202:13 Q. Fort Benning, okay.

202:14 A. Yeah. Fort Benning, Georgia.

202:15 Q. And do you remember the time

202:16 period?

202:17 A. Yes, sir. It was back in 2003.

202:18 Again, these were when they were brand-new and,

202:19 like I said, this was -- it was being provided

202:20 to the force, so those were -- those were the

202:21 newest addition of the hearing protection, so

202:22 there was an interest in it. You know, new

202:23 Army gear.

202:24 Q. Okay. I think you said you've

202:25 seen the wallet cards before. Did you

203:01 personally get a wallet card for the CAEv2 when

203:02 you received it?

203:03 A. Yes, sir. I believe -- I can't

203:04 say definitively. I want to say yes. Because

Page 38 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 60 of 63
203:05 I believe that this was packaged inside the

203:06 plastic carrying package that the actual

203:07 hearing protection came in.

203:08 I know that I've seen them

203:09 multiple times. I do want to say that I had

203:10 one of my own, but I can't say definitively

203:11 that I got one issued just at that moment. But

203:12 I did take advantage of the training to learn

203:13 the ins and outs of the Combat Arms Earplugs.

205:18 - 206:25 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 2:41

205:18 Q. All right. And I was looking for

205:19 a document earlier before we broke, I think we

205:20 found it, if we can display it, and we will

205:21 mark it as Exhibit 14.

205:22 Okay. So this is a two-page

205:23 document. We'll just scroll so you can see

205:24 both pages. This is not one that's in your

205:25 binder. Just let me know when you've had a

206:01 chance to kind of familiarize yourself with it.

206:02 A. Which one do you want me to look

206:03 at, the top one or the bottom one you scrolled

206:04 to?

206:05 Q. So Exhibit 14 is a two-page

206:06 document. The top part is the first page, I

206:07 believe, and the second -- the bottom portion

206:08 of the document is the second page.

206:09 A. Yep. Okay. So do you want me to

206:10 focus on the entire thing?

206:11 Q. Let me just direct your attention

206:12 to this second page that we're looking at now.

206:13 A. Okay.

206:14 Q. Do you recognize this as the

206:15 wallet card that you would have received at the

206:16 time you met with an audiologist about the

206:17 Combat Arms Version 2 earplug?

206:18 A. Yeah. I can't -- That was a long

206:19 time ago, but, yes, this is very reminiscent of

206:20 what I actually looked at. Yes, sir.

206:21 Q. So would this -- Would this

206:22 wallet card also have been the wallet card that

206:23 was provided to other service members,

206:24 trainees, about the Combat Arms Earplug Version

Page 39 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 61 of 63
206:25 2?

207:03 - 207:03 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:03

207:03 A. Yes, sir, I believe that it is.

207:24 - 208:07 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:24

207:24 Q. Okay. And so directing your

207:25 attention back to Exhibit 14, if we go to the

208:01 first page of Exhibit 14, do you see, sir, the

208:02 logo at the bottom right-hand corner there:

208:03 USACHPPM?

208:04 A. Yes, sir, I do.

208:05 Q. Okay. And do you recognize that

208:06 as the logo for CHPPM?

208:07 A. I sure do, sure.

212:18 - 212:22 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:18

212:18 Q. Okay. And do you recall any

212:19 instance over the course of your career in the

212:20 Army in which a representative of 3M came and

212:21 spoke to service members directly on the proper

212:22 use of the Combat Arms Version 2 earplug?

213:08 - 213:12 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:24

213:08 A. No, I don't know. I've never

213:09 spoken to -- to a 3M representative nor have I

213:10 participated in the 3M represented training

213:11 event or informational event or anything like

213:12 that, sir.

235:02 - 235:10 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 0:23

235:02 Q. Okay. So Sergeant Major Huston,

235:03 fair to say your report cites to a lot of Army

235:04 safety policies and regulations just throughout

235:05 the report; right?

235:06 A. Yes, sir.

235:07 Q. And would you agree with me that

235:08 if those policies and regulations were not

235:09 implemented and followed, could that endanger

235:10 the hearing of service members?

235:12 - 236:05 Huston, Blaine (2020-12-08) 1:52

235:12 A. Yes. I think that the Army is

Page 40 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 62 of 63
235:13 pointing out what are those hazards that are

235:14 most common to us? What are those hazards that

235:15 over time they've studied and, you know,

235:16 researched and taken a look at to determine,

235:17 you know, what really does cause problems for

235:18 our service members over time or maybe even

235:19 shorter careers.

235:20 And so that's why it's such a hot

235:21 topic of discussion and why it's been such a

235:22 big deal or something that we are so pepped up

235:23 on enforcing, at least in my experience.

235:24 So, yes, I do think that -- Just

235:25 like I alluded to earlier, had the Army not

236:01 focused me as much as it did on my own hearing,

236:02 I was a lot less careful and more radical with

236:03 my own hearing as a young man than I was after

236:04 I joined the service and they taught me how to

236:05 take better care of myself.

Page 41 of 41

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 170-1 Filed 06/15/21 Page 63 of 63