Opinion ID: 2658241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opportunity for Cross-Examination

Text: It was discovered at a relatively late stage of the hearings, in October 2011, that Gorove/Slade had utilized data from a discredited government traffic study in making its traffic volume projections.53 This led petitioners and ANC 3D to voice additional concerns about Gorove/Slade‟s report. AU did not initially respond to these concerns, but during its deliberations the Commission requested additional information about traffic issues from the parties. In its response to this request, AU stated that according to Gorove/Slade and the Department of Transportation, the data from the withdrawn study that Gorove/Slade had used did “not have any (continued…) 52 On the other hand, we are not persuaded by petitioners‟ complaint that the Commission improperly rejected ANC 3D‟s trip cap recommendation by ignoring traffic issues related to the TDM program and improperly crediting AU‟s representation that the program would be improved. The Commission addressed the issue with sufficient precision, albeit concisely: it took specific cognizance of the trip cap proposal, found that ANC 3D had not substantiated its claims that the TDM strategies would be ineffective, and explained that a cap would be unnecessary because other measures (including the several elements of the TDM program) would limit trips. The Commission‟s findings regarding the need for a trip cap were based on substantial evidence in the record, Gorove/Slade‟s expert opinion that there was “no basis” for it. We think the Commission provided an adequate response to the ANC‟s concerns in this regard. 53 It appears that the study had been prepared for the General Services Administration regarding the future development of the Department of Homeland Security‟s Nebraska Avenue Complex. The GSA reportedly had questioned the analysis in the study and commissioned another firm to redo it. 46 material impact” on its conclusions. Gorove/Slade itself submitted a response addressed to other traffic concerns raised by the Commission. ANC 3D and petitioners also made submissions, in which they reiterated their original concerns. Petitioners now complain that they and ANC 3D were afforded no opportunity to cross-examine AU‟s expert about the factual assertions in AU‟s post-hearing submissions. However, we do not agree that the Commission acted improperly. Neither petitioners nor ANC 3D requested an opportunity for further crossexamination or otherwise objected to the post-hearing procedure. In that respect alone, this case is unlike Glenbrook Road (on which petitioners rely), where we held it error to deny a request to cross-examine an expert about new matter in his rebuttal testimony.54 Indeed, for that reason, petitioners‟ claim is not even properly before us.55 Furthermore, as in Glenbrook Road, we are confident that petitioners were not prejudiced by not having been afforded an opportunity for further crossexamination. The experts already had been cross-examined extensively on almost 54 Glenbrook Rd., 605 A.2d at 43 (D.C. 1992). 55 See Fair Care Found., v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Ins. & Sec. Reg., 716 A.2d 987, 993 (D.C. 1998) (“We have long held that we will not review a procedural claim that was not adequately raised at the agency level.”). 47 all of the issues raised in the post-hearing submissions.56 And even if the posthearing submissions from AU and Gorove/Slade did introduce some new information or opinion, all parties were on an equal footing, unlike in Glenbrook Road—neither AU nor petitioners were able to introduce additional oral testimony, and the parties had the opportunity to respond to each other‟s submissions. Especially given that petitioners did not request an opportunity for further crossexamination, we do not see any impropriety in the procedure that was followed.