Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW
00001 1 IN THE:

Document 219-8

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 1 of 5

2 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 3 CAROL AND ROBERT TESTWUIDE, * 4 et al., 5 6 7 8 vs. Plaintiffs, * * No. 01-201L * * *

9 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * 10 Defendant. *

11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 The deposition of DAVID DALE-JOHNSON was

13 taken on Friday, December 9, 2005, commencing at 14 9:00 a.m., at the Department of Justice, Patrick 15 Henry Building, 601 D Street, N.W., Room 2313, 16 Washington, D.C. before Alfred A. Betz, Court 17 Reporter and Notary Public. 18 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19 20 Reported by: 21 Alfred A. Betz, Certified LiveNote Reporter

Dale-Johnson, David 12.09.05

Page 1

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW
00099 1 the end of '99. That's my recollection.

Document 219-8

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 2 of 5

2 Q. Is that, I mean did you have any better 3 data as to when they arrived or is it just that 4 general statement is what you knew? 5 A. I'm sure I have more detail but I can't 6 remember the specifics. I mean, the July '99 date 7 was in fact chosen because that's, as I understand 8 it, the event date or the date of impact selected 9 by the plaintiffs. 10 Q. Would you have selected a different date 11 to study knowing the facts of the case if you just 12 did it as an academic exercise? 13 A. Well, as I -14 MR. BRYANT: Objection. Foundation. 15 A. As I implied earlier, one might expect to 16 see an impact at the point when people expect the 17 change to occur. So we actually do include in the 18 appendices subsequent analysis where we broaden the 19 event timeframe to begin my recollection is mid 20 '90. To begin in the beginning of '98 and end at 21 the end of July -- beginning of -- I'm sorry. July

Dale-Johnson, David 12.09.05

Page 99

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 219-8

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 3 of 5

00100 1 '97 through July '98. So we look at alternative 2 assumptions regarding the event date, if you like. 3 Q. Would you turn to appendix B. Also if 4 you would take a look at your 2002 study. 5 Specifically, it's a list of documents you 6 utilized. Do you have that? 7 A. I believe so. 8 Q. So the 2002 study is exhibit what? You 9 have to look on the first page. 10 A. It's exhibit 150. 11 Q. And your study is 151, right? Your 12 present study. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Now, in your 2002 study you listed 15 five articles by Dr. Nelson that you utilized in 16 connection with that study and in your 2005 study 17 you list no articles by Dr. Nelson. Why is that? 18 A. Well, the simple answer or the answer to 19 your question is that the appendix B in appendix E 20 in exhibit 151 reflects specifically those 21 publications I reviewed in preparation of this

Dale-Johnson, David 12.09.05

Page 100

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 219-8

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 4 of 5

00101 1 report. That doesn't mean that there aren't other 2 articles that I have looked at in the past but I 3 didn't specifically review them in preparation for 4 this report. 5 Q. Isn't Dr. Nelson the leading academic 6 evaluator of the impact of noise on property 7 values? 8 A. I don't know that he's the leading. He 9 certainly is an expert. 10 Q. Can you cite for me some folks that 11 deserve to be placed up in that category along with 12 him? 13 A. Not offhand, no. 14 Q. You note in paragraph 20 of your report 15 which is on page 10? 16 A. Which report now? 17 Q. Your 2005 report, paragraph 20, page 10. 18 Do you have it? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You note the differences in noise 21 patterns in expectations of future noise levels

Dale-Johnson, David 12.09.05

Page 101

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 219-8

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 5 of 5

00102 1 between commercial airports and military air bases. 2 What information do you have on that subject? 3 A. My own, you know, in preparation for this 4 case, and I can't recollect the specific documents, 5 but I reviewed information on flight patterns that 6 are typical for Oceana. I think having done that 7 it's clear that there is a, you know, a difference 8 in the regularity of flight patterns and the 9 consistency of airport-related noise as a 10 consequence of that. 11 Q. Let's take an Air Force base and a 12 commercial airport. What would you think is the 13 difference between noise that could be expected in 14 those two environments? 15 A. Well, airport noise I would think would 16 be more regularly scheduled throughout the day to 17 accommodate the movement of multiple aircraft going 18 to and from that particular airport to other 19 locations throughout the country. 20 Q. You're referring to the commercial 21 airport?

Dale-Johnson, David 12.09.05

Page 102