Deposition of J. Kevin Lacy - NCDOT

Page 1
2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT

3 OF DALLAS COUNTY, CAUSE NO. DC-14-01965
4 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
5 JAY SCOTT TRAYLOR,
6 Plaintiff,
7 vs.
8 TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. AND
TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, LLC,
9
10 Defendants.
11 ________________________________X
12
13 Raleigh, North Carolina

14 Monday, April 3, 2017
15
16 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JAMES KEVIN LACY

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Job No: 121586
TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Page 2 Page 3
1 1 APPEARANCES
2 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
2 Videotaped Deposition of JAMES KEVIN Arnold & Itkin
3 LACY, a witness, taken by Defendant Trinity 3 6009 Memorial Drive
4 Industries, at Smith Moore Leatherwood, 434 Houston, Texas 77007
4 BY: RYAN MACLEOD, ESQ.
5 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, North 5 and
6 Carolina, before Randi J Garcia, Registered 6 THE LAWRENCE LAW FIRM
7 420 Throckmorton Street
Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in 7 Fort Worth, Texas 76102
8 and for the State of North Carolina, on BY: STEVEN LAWRENCE, ESQ.
9 8
April 3, 2017, beginning at approximately 9
10
ATTORNEYS FOR TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. AND
10:05 a.m., when were present on behalf of TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, LLC
11 the respective parties: 10 BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR &
12 SCOTT
11 54 West Hubbard Street
13 Chicago, Illinois 60654
14 12 BY: SEAN GALLAGHER, ESQ.
15 JOHN FITZPATRICK, ESQ.
13
16 14 ATTORNEYS FOR THE WITNESS.:
17 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
15 1505 Mail Service Center
18 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
19 16 BY: SCOTT SLUSSER, ESQ.
17 Also Present: Julius Bolton, Videographer
20 18
21 19
20
22
21
23 22
24 23
24
25 25
Page 4 Page 5
1 1
2 INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2 INDEX 3
4 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
3 WITNESS: 5
4 EXAMINATION PAGE 6 Exhibit 1 THP-000303993 45
7 Exhibit 2 FHWA review of ET-Plus 107
5 8 Exhibit 3 product evaluation program 114
6 By Mr. Gallagher: ................................8 recertification form
9
7 By Mr. Macleod ..................................60 Exhibit 4 Product evaluation program 117
10 recertification form
8 By Mr. Gallagher: ..............................288 11 Exhibit 5 Anthony Wyatt/Dave Galloway 120
9 By Mr. Macleod: ................................326 email
12
10 By Mr. Gallagher: ..............................338 Exhibit 6 April 24, 2013 email 125
11 By Mr. Macleod: ................................339 13
12 Exhibit 7 February 14, 2013 email 137

14
13 Exhibit 8 Bradley Hibbs email 150
15
14 *** Exhibit 9 e-mail from Ricky E. Green 154
16
15
Exhibit 10 February 19, 2014 email 162
16 17
17 Exhibit 11 June 28, 2013 email 175

18
18 Exhibit 12 Dangerous Guardrails Still 184
19 Exist Years After States
19 Were Told To Remove Them
20 20
Exhibit 14 WSOCTV.COM article 188
21 21
22 Exhibit 15 February 18, 2014 email 208

22
23 Exhibit 16 Jeff Traylor email 210
23
24
Exhibit 17 Certificate of a compliance 241
25 24 for Trinity Industries
25 Exhibit 18 Terminals NCHRP Approved 281
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
Page 6 Page 7
1 (Continued) 1 J. KEVIN LACY
2 Exhibit 19 Task Force 2 Report 289 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the start
3 Exhibit 20 THP00303990 through 92 324 3 of tape labeled number 1 of the videotaped
4 4 deposition of James Kevin Lacy in the
5 5 matter of Scott Traylor versus Trinity
6 6 Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
**Exhibit 13 was not marked. 7 Products, LLC.
7 8 This deposition is being held in
8 9 Raleigh, North Carolina on April 3rd, 2017
9
10 at approximately 10:05 a.m.
10
11 My name is Julius Bolton. I'm the
11
12 videographer. The court reporter is Randi
12
13 Garcia.
13
14 Will counsel please introduce
14
15 yourselves for the record.
15
16 MR. GALLAGHER: Sean Gallagher and
16
17 John Fitzpatrick representing the Trinity
17
18 defendants.
18
19 19 MR. MACLEOD: Ryan Macleod and Steven
20 20 Lawrence here on behalf of the plaintiff
21 21 Mr. Jay Traylor.
22 22 MR. SLUSSER: Scott Slusser with the
23 23 North Carolina attorney general's office
24 24 here with Mr. Lacy.
25 25 JAMES KEVIN LACY,
Page 8 Page 9
1 J. KEVIN LACY 1 J. KEVIN LACY
2 after having been first duly sworn, was 2 A. North Carolina State University.
3 examined and testified as follows: 3 Q. And when did you start working for
4 EXAMINATION 4 the North Carolina Department of
5 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 5 Transportation?
6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Lacy. 6 A. May 1993.
7 A. Morning. 7 Q. Was that something you did right out
8 Q. Do you work for the North Carolina 8 of college or did you hold other jobs before?
9 Department of Transportation? 9 A. I was still in school. I was a
10 A. I do. 10 temporary tech aid or transportation aid
11 Q. What is your position at the North 11 something, whatever that -- you hire college
12 Carolina DOT? 12 students to do a lot of the, you know, grunt
13 A. I'm the Director of Transportation 13 work.
14 Mobility and Safety Division, also known as 14 Q. Was it an intern-like position?
15 State Traffic Engineer. 15 A. It really wasn't intern. It was a
16 Q. I'd like to talk to you a little bit 16 temporary position. I mean, it wasn't intern
17 about your background just as a prelude to some 17 as in the typical intern types that you read
18 of -- some of the questions I'm going to ask 18 about. It's the Department of Transportation
19 you today. 19 hires students, engineering students.
20 First, can you just tell us where 20 In fact, we hire a lot of students in
21 you're from? 21 a lot of things, you know, again, do a lot of
22 A. I'm from North Carolina. Grew up in 22 the grunt work and -- and help. You know, it's
23 North Carolina but I moved around quite a bit 23 a -- it's used as a tool for recruiting.
24 through the years. 24 And -- and it's a -- it's a -- it's a good tool
25 Q. Where did you go to college? 25 for the department.
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Page 10 Page 11
2 Q. Do you have a degree in engineering? 2 from college, go to work for the DOT?
3 A. I do. Bachelor of Science. 3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What specialty? 4 Q. And what was your first position, you
5 A. Bachelor of Science in civil 5 know, when you went to work there full-time?
6 engineering from North Carolina State 6 A. My first full-time position was a
7 University. 7 transportation technician supervisor position
8 Q. Did you focus on any particular area 8 in the -- what was then called the accident
9 related to, you know, traffic safety or issues 9 studies unit.
10 like that? 10 Q. And what -- what sort of work did you
11 A. My -- the area that I took my -- I 11 do in the accident studies unit as a
12 guess my senior classwork in was in 12 technician?
13 transportation. And traffic engineering is the 13 A. We did crash analysis, specific
14 area that I particularly have a -- a -- traffic 14 locations around the state, we conducted the
15 engineering and traffic safety is the area that 15 crash analysis for the Highway Safety
16 I have a -- my interest in. That's what I 16 Improvement Program. We conducted crash
17 worked in my career. 17 analysis based upon requests from citizens.
18 Q. Do you have any advanced degrees in 18 Those type, you know.
19 that area? 19 Someone would request, well, how many
20 A. No advanced degrees. I've taken some 20 crashes occurred at this intersection or how
21 advanced class -- classes. I've taken some 21 many crashes occurred on this section of road.
22 graduate level classes. I think I've gotten 22 That's what we would do.
23 nine or 12 hours towards a -- a higher degree 23 Q. If you could, just walk us through
24 if I chose to pursue that, but... 24 the -- the progression of your career with the
25 Q. So did you, then, after graduating 25 DOT from when you started as a technician in
Page 12 Page 13
2 the accident studies unit to the position of 2 helped develop again some of our analytical
3 director of mobility and safety that you hold 3 practices and policies and working with the
4 today. 4 engineers who are actually conducting the field
5 A. All right. Well, I was promoted to 5 investigations.
6 engineer, I can't give you the exact dates. 6 Short time after that I was promoted
7 I'd have to look on my resume. But I was 7 to a supervisor, engineering supervisor or
8 promoted to an engineer, I believe it was -- it 8 transportation supervisor, engineering
9 was either '95 or '96. And from there we were 9 supervisor 2 I think it -- TES2 is I think the
10 doing -- again, what I did then was I actually 10 classification.
11 modified the Highway Safety Improvement Program 11 And I supervised a group. Actually
12 and developed the -- what we call warrants, 12 started a safety evaluation group where we were
13 identify locations -- basically doing a network 13 evaluating the effects of completed projects,
14 screening for areas of concern that needed 14 you know -- you know, how well did it perform.
15 further investigation by the department. 15 Did a lot of advanced I would say analysis of
16 A lot more topic oriented types of 16 roadway safety issues, got into some
17 analysis. Started doing some reconstruction, 17 operational issues, traffic operational issues.
18 crash reconstruction. Did some of that as 18 Actually led the effort to rebuild
19 well. Worked with the highway patrol and other 19 the crash analysis tools back in the late '90s,
20 law enforcement in those areas. 20 part of Y2K issues.
21 After I was -- was promoted to an 21 Looks like everybody in here probably
22 engineer 2, you know, a year or two later, 22 remembers that.
23 again maybe three years later -- specific 23 So -- so basically rebuilt the tools
24 timeline I -- I don't think is as important. 24 working with the contractor to -- laying out,
25 But then I was leading a -- a small group, 25 you know, the specifications, any changes in
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
Page 14 Page 15
2 how to do all the -- the analysis that the 2 of other items in -- worked on a number of
3 tools would -- did. 3 research projects while I worked there.
4 Again, more reconstruction work. A 4 When I came back to Department of
5 lot more detailed site specific analysis as 5 Transportation it was in I think 2002, maybe
6 well as, again, topic oriented. Responded to a 6 March of 2002. Came back as the unit head for
7 lot of media requests. Did a lot of legal 7 the -- what was -- you know, it was called the
8 work. Been deposed a number of times through 8 traffic safety systems management unit, which
9 that. 9 was the old accident analysis unit.
10 And then in late 2000, I think it was 10 And -- and we had made a lot of
11 November of 2000 I went to the Highway Safety 11 changes over the years. Instead of just
12 Research Center at the University of North 12 primary focusing on the request from folks, it
13 Carolina, Chapel Hill. I worked there for -- 13 was, you know, leading a lot of the safety
14 as a research associate doing research in 14 analysis and decision-making for the
15 highway safety. Worked on things -- there was 15 department.
16 a -- a study called the Southeast Fatal Study. 16 Did that job until April of 2004, I
17 It was a pooled fund study that was completed 17 was promoted to the state traffic engineer.
18 in the southeast of the United States. 18 And then with that job basically led the --
19 Worked on some of the 500 reports. 19 most of what I have today it's -- there was a
20 There was a National Cooperative Highway 20 few other groups added over the years. But
21 Research Program 500. If you look up those 21 it -- it was the lead traffic engineer for the
22 NCHRP 500s you'll see a series of reports on 22 state of North Carolina that deals with the
23 those. I worked on the run-off-road lane 23 signals, signs, delineation, pavement marking,
24 departure, as well as the tree -- you know, 24 traffic safety, work zone traffic control.
25 crashes involving trees. And -- and a number 25 Work zone traffic control was added later. I
Page 16 Page 17
2 think it was maybe 2006. 2007. 2 And its title then was just State Traffic
3 The ITS, the Intelligence 3 Engineer. And then in -- may have been -- it's
4 Transportation Systems unit's under my 4 probably about six or seven years ago. Other
5 division. Of course all the infield review 5 components were added and the chief engineer
6 of -- and development of safety projects review 6 and highway administrator at the time had the
7 of, again, issues, topic oriented, site 7 position reviewed. And -- actually, it was --
8 specific analysis, doing any of the safety work 8 it was split off and called a division I think
9 for any of the TIP projects, transportation 9 in -- in 2010. And -- yeah, I -- again, I'm --
10 improvement projects that we do. Managing the 10 I -- I work in a time machine so, you know,
11 federal highway safety improvement program and 11 time flies.
12 all the analytics that go with that. And 12 Q. What -- what year did you get your --
13 the -- there's a state funded spot safety 13 your degree from North Carolina State?
14 program. 14 A. Well, 1994. December of 1994. And I
15 Few years later the oversized, 15 had started a few years earlier than that. In
16 overweight permit unit was moved into my 16 fact, I graduated high school in '84. I got a
17 division, as well as the -- there was a small 17 military degree -- or a military career in
18 group called, you know, basically ITS 18 between that so I wasn't in school for 10
19 operations. That group was moved into my 19 years.
20 division as well. So... 20 I -- I started at state in August of
21 Q. When were you given the title of 21 1984. Got married in 1986. Joined the Coast
22 director? 22 Guard. Spent four years in the Coast Guard.
23 A. That was I think 20 -- 2007. 23 Then went back to school and got my degree.
24 Actually 2004 the position was a director. It 24 Q. So you -- you obtained your
25 was a Transportation Engineering Director 1. 25 bachelor's degree in engineering in 1994?
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
Page 18 Page 19
2 A. Yes, sir. 2 Department of Transportation, has your focus
3 Q. Started to work full-time for the 3 and -- been on safety issues?
4 North Carolina Department of Transportation in 4 A. Yes. You know, I'm a traffic
5 1994? 5 engineer by trade and traffic safety is -- I
6 A. No. Well, actually January '95 I 6 tell people I grew up in traffic safety.
7 think was the -- I believe, that's my -- 7 That's -- that was -- you know, that was the
8 Q. Official start date? 8 focus of -- of my career. That's the focus of
9 A. Yeah. 9 what we do now. Highway safety is a critical
10 Q. And since then, except for a brief 10 component of what DOTs do.
11 stint where you were in a -- in a university 11 Q. And -- and does that -- under --
12 job, you've worked for the -- the state DOT? 12 under the rubric of highway safety would you
13 A. Yes, sir. 13 include questions about the -- the approval or
14 Q. Your current position -- well, you 14 what should be approved -- devices that should
15 were elevated to the -- to a state traffic 15 be approved for use in and around the -- the
16 engineer in roughly 2004? 16 roads in North Carolina?
17 A. Yes, sir. 17 A. We don't do the specific approval --
18 Q. And since roughly 2007 you have been 18 we're not the part of the department that says,
19 the director of a group now called the Mobility 19 you know, this product is approved. We're part
20 and Safety Group? 20 of the department that does the analysis to
21 A. I -- and 2007 may not be the correct 21 determine whether or not we're going to have a
22 date but it's somewhere in that time range. 22 concern with approving or disapproving a
23 Q. Roughly that time frame? 23 product.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. So your -- your group would do the
25 Q. During your career with the State 25 analysis to say whether there's a safety
Page 20 Page 21
2 problem or not? 2 question about the safety of the product in --
3 A. Yes. Or, you know, DOTs like every 3 in North Carolina, your department would be
4 other government organization, there -- you 4 charged with analyzing and evaluating that?
5 know, there's policies and there's group, and 5 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And we have
6 there's folks that focus on different aspects 6 been and we'll continue to do so.
7 of it. 7 Q. Are you familiar with the -- what's
8 But our department, what we do is, is 8 called the ET-Plus end terminal system?
9 whenever there's products that definitely 9 A. Yes, sir.
10 cross, you know -- for instance, asphalt. I 10 Q. Are you aware that in around 2005
11 know what asphalt is, I can tell you all about 11 Trinity made a few changes to the dimensions
12 it, studied it in school but it's not my 12 and the design of that end terminal system?
13 favorite thing in the world. But if there's a 13 A. I'm familiar with the background,
14 concern with an asphalt design or something of 14 yes.
15 that nature, we learn a whole lot more about 15 Q. How did you learn about the -- the
16 asphalt. 16 fact of those changes?
17 But so -- and we help, you know, 17 A. I think we -- our department learned
18 provide information, opinions, engineering 18 about the same time a lot of other folks
19 judgment on products that do end up on our 19 learned. It was not initially disclosed to us
20 system. And there's another group that 20 that those changes were made.
21 actually processes the paperwork and -- and 21 In fact, in 2010 when we were
22 those type of things. 22 revamping our approved products list, we sent
23 Q. So this is a case about the -- the 23 notification to all of the people that were on
24 design of end terminals for guardrail systems. 24 the list to, you know, state that they've not
25 Is -- is that a product where if there was a 25 made any changes to their products since they
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
Page 22 Page 23
2 were approved. 2 A. Yes, sir.
3 And Trinity responded that there was 3 Q. Are you aware that the -- the
4 no changes made. I believe it was in 2010. 4 plaintiff's lawyers in -- in this litigation
5 But obviously later we found out that that 5 and others have -- have alleged that the
6 wasn't correct. 6 change, that change and others, made the
7 Q. I'm going to refer to the -- the two 7 ET-Plus less safe?
8 different versions of the -- of the ET-Plus end 8 A. I'm aware of the allegations, yes,
9 terminal product. I'll refer to one as the 9 sir.
10 4-inch and the other as the 5-inch. 10 Q. That -- that the allegation is that
11 Is that terminology that would be 11 that change to the 4-inch makes the product
12 familiar to you? 12 defective?
13 A. Yes, sir. Yes, as to the size of 13 A. I'm aware that's the claim that they
14 the -- the chute that the guardrails are -- 14 make, yes, sir.
15 THE REPORTER: "That the guardrail?" 15 Q. Is the ET-Plus currently approved for
16 THE WITNESS: The beam, the W-beam 16 use in North Carolina?
17 is -- is forced through. 17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. All right. So one of the changes 18 Q. Is the ET-Plus currently being
19 that was made in -- was that the -- the width 19 installed on North Carolina roads?
20 of the chute was changed from 5 inches to 20 A. To my knowledge, yes. It's
21 4 inches? 21 available. I know for a while there there
22 A. Yes, sir. 22 were -- of course, Trinity quit shipping them.
23 Q. And so you'll -- you'll understand 23 So contractors were using other products.
24 what I'm talking about if I refer to the 4-inch 24 I think since then Trinity has
25 ET-Plus? 25 started shipping again, and they continue to be
Page 24 Page 25
2 an eligible product on our highways. 2 process is and what your -- what role your
3 Q. And -- and to be clear, the -- the 3 department of Mobility and Safety Group has in
4 ET-Plus with the 4-inch guide channel is 4 approving or maintaining the approval of
5 currently approved -- 5 guardrail end terminals in North Carolina?
6 A. Yes, sir. 6 A. Well, of course, a -- let's take a
7 Q. -- for use in North Carolina? 7 hypothetical situation where a manufacturer
8 A. Yes, sir. 8 comes up with a -- a new device and it's a
9 Q. I want to ask a little about the 9 guardrail end, their first -- we're -- we're
10 process that North Carolina DOT follows to -- 10 not going to accept it in our state without it
11 to decide to approve which kind of guardrail 11 going through the proper crash testing and --
12 end terminals be allowed to be installed on 12 and approvals or -- or whatever the federal
13 North Carolina roads. 13 highways would like to call their -- their
14 Are you familiar with that process? 14 process. They approve it for -- make it
15 A. I'm familiar with the process as 15 eligible for reimbursement for the National
16 general, but that's not a -- a section that's 16 Highway System I think is their lawyer's terms.
17 directly in -- in my division. We, again, are 17 So when Federal Highway says it an
18 involved in it, but the individual who says 18 eligible device for reimbursement on the
19 this product is an eligible product is -- is 19 National Highway System, that's an important
20 not me. 20 component for us.
21 Q. So you -- you do have a role as the 21 Q. So let me -- let me just ask you
22 Director of Mobility and Safety in that 22 about that. That -- for a product to be -- to
23 process? 23 be accepted in North Carolina, it first has to
24 A. Yes, sir. 24 go through the process, whatever the process is
25 Q. So please explain for us what the 25 for the Federal Highway Administration's crash
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
Page 26 Page 27
2 worthiness testing and qualification? 2 Highway Administration approval?
3 A. If it's going to be a common product 3 A. Yes, sir.
4 like a guardrail end or a guardrail device, I 4 Q. And, therefore, was it a requirement
5 mean, of course there may be some items that 5 to get approval in North Carolina?
6 people are working on that's not as common as, 6 A. Yes, sir. For guardrail end, yes,
7 you know, if they're working on, you know -- 7 sir.
8 we'll use a bus shelter. 8 Q. Does -- in addition -- so you talked
9 You know, we may not require them to 9 about the Federal Highway Administration
10 go through the crash testing or -- or get 10 qualification and crash testing process.
11 approved by the Federal Highway Administration 11 Is there anything that North Carolina
12 or eligible for reimbursement for -- for use on 12 DOT does independent of that in deciding
13 the National Highway System. 13 whether to approve a guardrail end terminal for
14 Q. And -- and you mentioned "crash 14 use on your roads?
15 worthiness testing." Are you familiar with 15 A. We're not doing any independent
16 the -- the crash testing that is required for 16 testing for guardrail ends. So to my
17 Federal Highway Administration approval? 17 knowledge, we're not doing anything additional
18 A. Yes. 18 in that area.
19 Q. Are -- are you familiar with NCHRP 19 There may be instances where, you
20 Report 350? 20 know, of course you don't want to have 500
21 A. Yes, sir. 21 different products out there where you're
22 Q. Is -- to your understanding is -- is 22 trying to track 500 different components
23 testing to that standard, the Report 350 23 and/or, you know, sets of components and all
24 standard, or at least was until the standard 24 that.
25 evolved, was that required to get Federal 25 So some divisions may say, you know,
Page 28 Page 29
2 we prefer to use these types. And -- and they 2 safety issue?
3 may or may not have done that. But we 3 A. We looked at the trends involving
4 generally require it to be a 350 approved 4 crashes involving guardrail ends over a very
5 device before we allow it on our system. 5 long period of time.
6 Q. And then does North Carolina if -- if 6 Q. If -- if you and your department or
7 a question arises about the safety of a device 7 anybody in the North Carolina DOT thought there
8 like a guardrail end terminal, will you do an 8 was a safety issue with a product, like the
9 independent evaluation of safety? 9 ET-Plus, do you have the authority to revoke
10 A. We have done in-service evaluations 10 the approval for it or to require that it be
11 on various products. Depending upon what that 11 removed from the roads?
12 product is and what the concern is, the level 12 A. I would advise our chief engineer
13 of that in-service evaluation may vary. 13 and/or our secretary on what action that I
14 The -- with the ET-Plus we did what 14 would recommend taking. And that was the case
15 we would call a high level in-service 15 with this particular product as well.
16 evaluation. We do not have a guardrail 16 Q. And what was your recommendation with
17 inventory or guardrail end inventory to resort 17 respect to the ET-Plus?
18 to and say, well, this particular end on this 18 A. What my recommendation was is that
19 date was this model and this manufacturer. 19 before we've completed our review, was if we
20 What we've looked at -- but we -- we 20 find it to be a -- a concern in a product that
21 did an in-service evaluation on this product. 21 -- that is hazardous, then we should remove it.
22 Q. You -- with -- specifically with -- 22 Just suspending it from use on the system
23 with respect to the ET-Plus, you've done a -- 23 doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me
24 some sort of in-service evaluation to monitor 24 because, you know, we found that's a problem,
25 its performance and see if there is in fact a 25 you know, if we were to find it was a problem,
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
Page 30 Page 31
2 then we would need to remove the system -- 2 But so I can understand, was it your
3 remove it. 3 recommendation that -- that -- that you study
4 Now, what we found was is that the 4 the performance of the ET-Plus?
5 crash trends involving vehicles running into 5 A. Yes.
6 the guardrail ends across our state, the number 6 Q. And was it your recommendation that
7 of crashes increased over -- it was like a 7 they -- depending on the results of that study,
8 14-year period. I think we looked at from 1999 8 you either continue to allow the product on the
9 to that time, 2013, 2014. The number of 9 roads, or if there was a safety issue that you
10 crashes increased. We installed more guardrail 10 found you would -- you would say to remove it?
11 over those years as well. 11 A. Yes.
12 And the number of serious injuries 12 Q. And did you perform the study?
13 and fatalities striking the guardrail ends 13 A. Yes, we did.
14 actually reduced, numbers went down. So the 14 Q. And did you conclude based on your
15 rate of severe injury and fatalities were 15 study that there was in fact not a performance
16 reducing over that time period while the number 16 issue with the 4-inch ET-Plus?
17 of crashes were increasing. 17 A. What we found was that there was no
18 And we also looked at the product 18 reason to remove the product from our -- based
19 share -- the market share that -- that this 19 on the information that we had, we saw no
20 product had in our state. And based upon our 20 reason to remove it from our qualifying
21 construction unit, it was a pretty significant 21 products list nor to remove it from our
22 product share -- or market share. 22 roadside.
23 Q. So -- so if I can -- if I can 23 Q. And so was that -- was that then your
24 understand. And we'll -- we'll spend some more 24 recommendation that you continue to allow its
25 time on the analysis you did. 25 use in North Carolina?
Page 32 Page 33
2 A. Yes, sir. 2 of the Federal Highway Administration's
3 Q. I want to take a minute and talk 3 oversight.
4 first about the first component of the approval 4 What -- what crash testing are you
5 process that you mentioned before, which is the 5 familiar with that they have requested or
6 Federal Highway Administration's process and -- 6 reviewed?
7 and what they have done with the ET-Plus. 7 A. They basically conducted the crash
8 Have -- have you followed any of the 8 testing that would be required for the product
9 procedures that the Federal Highway 9 to be accepted for reimbursement on the
10 Administration has undertaken to evaluate the 10 National Highway System by Federal Highways.
11 safety of the -- the 4-inch ET-Plus? 11 Q. Is that Report 350 testing?
12 A. Yes, I have. 12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Are you familiar with the crash 13 Q. Are you -- are you aware that in
14 testing that was requested by the Federal 14 2000 -- late 2014 and early 2015 there was a --
15 Highway Administration? 15 a round of testing that was done on the ET-Plus
16 A. Yes, I am. 16 under the auspices of the Federal Highway
17 Q. And are you familiar with the -- the 17 Administration's review?
18 task force analysis that was done and -- by the 18 A. Yes. It was done by the Southwest
19 Federal Highway Administration in conjunction 19 Research Institute.
20 with the group called AASHTO, the American 20 Q. And do you know how many tests were
21 Association of State Highway and Transportation 21 conducted?
22 Officials? 22 A. Seven. Five. It was -- it was a
23 A. Yes. 23 handful. I don't remember the exact number it
24 Q. So first let's talk about the crash 24 was, but -- but I do recall it was several. I
25 testing under the Federal -- under the auspices 25 think there -- they may -- there may have been
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
Page 34 Page 35
2 eight. 2 Q. So the second area I was going to ask
3 Q. Do you -- do you recall what the 3 you about is -- are the -- the task forces and
4 conclusion was as a result of that testing? 4 that were -- those reports by the Federal
5 A. Yeah. The conclusion was is that 5 Highway Administration that were done in
6 Federal Highways continued to approve the 6 conjunction with AASHTO.
7 product for reimbursement on -- for use on the 7 What do you know about those reports?
8 National Highway System. 8 What -- what analysis was done?
9 Q. Have you reviewed any of the test 9 A. My understanding is, is that -- I
10 results from that Southwest Research Institute 10 think there was a couple portions of that task
11 testing? 11 force. One was, is to determine whether or not
12 A. I looked at the -- their basic 12 there were multiple versions of the product
13 findings. I do recall there was some concern 13 change.
14 with one of the crash tests about the amount of 14 So I think they randomly selected in
15 intrusion into the side panel, I believe, of 15 Arizona and a few other states to see if there
16 one of the tests. 16 were some variations in the -- the chute width
17 But I didn't look at the individual 17 and -- and they determined with a pretty high
18 data streams that were output by the devices on 18 degree of certainty that there was not.
19 the -- in the crash test. But, you know, 19 Q. So that -- that would be -- we'll
20 the -- the key thing to -- to our state at the 20 call that task force 1?
21 time was, is whether or not Federal Highways 21 A. I believe that's what it -- that was
22 was going to continue to approve it. 22 their first -- first outcome was, is to check
23 Q. And -- and did they continue to 23 and see if there was multiple versions of -- of
24 approve it after that testing was conducted? 24 the revision.
25 A. Yes. 25 And then I know their -- the part of
Page 36 Page 37
2 the AASHTO task force, they looked at data of 2 and pictures and -- and all that that can
3 number of crashes that were reported around 3 be reviewed after the fact.
4 the -- the country that had photos of the 4 It's usually -- you know, and I think
5 scene, had information about the various 5 everybody can understand that, you know,
6 products that were on there. And they looked 6 when you report to a crash scene, you
7 at not only -- it included crashes that -- of 7 know, the goal is not to preserve data so
8 not only the ET-Plus but other guardrail 8 an engineer can come look at it later.
9 devices as well -- end treatments as well, 9 It's to, you know, let's protect --
10 other manufacturers as well. 10 you know, let's help the people who are
11 Q. Did North Carolina contribute data to 11 involved and let's, you know, provide
12 that -- that second task force? 12 traffic control so other folks don't get
13 A. I'm sure we -- if we were asked to we 13 hurt as well.
14 would have. I do not recall if any of the 14 MR. MACLEOD: Objection.
15 crashes that -- that -- that they reviewed were 15 Nonresponsive.
16 in North Carolina. It's possible. I'm sure -- 16 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
17 I'm sure they probably considered the cases 17 Q. Did you understand that the -- that
18 looking -- you know, the subject here today or 18 the second task force, the AASHTO Federal
19 one of the items here today. 19 Highway Administration task force was looking
20 Q. And that would be the Traylor case? 20 at, among other things, whether there was
21 A. Yes, sir. Because again -- 21 anything to suggest unique problems with the
22 MR. MACLEOD: Sorry. Objection. 22 4-inch ET-Plus?
23 Nonresponsive. 23 A. Yeah. They -- they were looking --
24 THE WITNESS: The -- again, the issue 24 they were looking at all of the products that
25 is, is finding enough data and information 25 they were viewing to see if there was, you
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
Page 38 Page 39
2 know, issues that were attributed to the 2 there will be conditions in a crash that
3 product itself. 3 are outside of the design for a guardrail
4 And based upon the -- my 4 to handle? I would say that there's
5 understanding of the time frame of the crashes, 5 conditions that occur that are outside of
6 they were specifically looking at the ET-Plus. 6 the testing procedures. And I'm certain
7 Q. Do -- have you read the report of 7 that there's going -- you know, there's
8 the -- of the task force 2? 8 going to be conditions that are outside
9 A. Not in great detail, no. I'm 9 the design itself.
10 familiar with the outcome, spoke with people 10 For instance, you know, we are not
11 who participated in it. 11 designing guardrail for a 100-mile per
12 Q. And -- and what was the outcome of 12 hour crash, and there's crashes of
13 that analysis? 13 vehicles doing 100-miles an hour hitting
14 A. What I recall is, is that there were 14 guardrail.
15 no more concerns for this product than in any 15 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
16 other product that was used on the roadside. 16 Q. Would you agree that there are
17 The energy absorbing product, the other energy 17 performance limitations for all types of
18 absorbing guardrail ends. 18 extruding guardrail end terminals?
19 Q. Would you agree that there -- that -- 19 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. Form.
20 that there are going to be events or crash 20 Lacks foundation.
21 conditions that are outside of what a product 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. I would say that
22 like a -- a guardrail end terminal is designed 22 there's performance limitations on all
23 to handle? 23 roadside devices.
24 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. Form. 24 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
25 THE WITNESS: Would I agree that 25 Q. Has the -- has the performance of the
Page 40 Page 41
2 ET-Plus 4-inch end terminal been extensively 2 probably looked at more from a roadside safety
3 studied and reviewed by the -- by AASHTO and 3 device is -- is probably the cable guardrail.
4 the Federal Highway Administration? 4 Q. So earlier you mentioned that -- that
5 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. Form. 5 the -- the ET-Plus 4-inch is -- is probably the
6 THE WITNESS: I would guess it's 6 most studied of the guardrail end terminal
7 probably been the most reviewed product 7 products based on the Federal Highway
8 available. 8 Administration and AASHTO task forces --
9 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 9 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. Form.
10 Nonresponsive. 10 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
11 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 11 Q. -- is that correct?
12 Q. Let me talk about the work you did in 12 MR. MACLEOD: Form.
13 North Carolina. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. Based on my
14 Has North Carolina also done a review 14 review of the information, yes.
15 of the performance of the ET-Plus 4-inch 15 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
16 product? 16 Q. With the exception of -- of the --
17 A. We -- again, we've reviewed it at a 17 the cable product you mentioned, is the 4-inch
18 relatively high level. We have not gone out 18 ET-Plus also the product that's been the most
19 and tracked each guardrail end. As I mentioned 19 studied and evaluated by North Carolina?
20 earlier, we do not have a -- an inventory that 20 A. We've looked at guardrail ends in
21 has -- or history that says, well, here's what 21 general. Again, that's our review. So we've
22 was there on this such and such date. 22 reviewed it in -- in detail. But not the
23 But, yes, as -- as far as we have 23 ET-Plus specific. So when we -- you know,
24 reviewed it. Probably the only device that -- 24 when -- when I -- what I mention is, is like
25 the only item that I'm aware of that we've 25 cable guardrail, we've reviewed cable guardrail
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
Page 42 Page 43
2 quite a bit. We've looked at guardrail ends 2 in-service evaluation.
3 quite a bit. 3 Are you familiar with what an
4 As long -- as well as other roadside 4 in-service evaluation would be?
5 devices. I would say that we've spent as much 5 A. Yes, sir.
6 time on guardrail ends in general as we have 6 Q. Do you in North Carolina have the
7 any other product that's on the roadside, other 7 data that you would need in order to perform a
8 than the cable guardrail. 8 full in-service evaluation of guardrail end
9 Q. Given the -- the purchase history for 9 terminal performance?
10 North Carolina, is the ET-Plus the most 10 A. I would say no. Not -- not looking
11 prevalent guardrail end in the state? 11 back in history. If we were wanting to do a
12 A. Based upon our construction office, 12 full in-service evaluation history of a
13 it has ranged from 50 to 75 percent of market 13 specific product, then we would have to plan
14 share over an extensive period of time. So I 14 that going forward.
15 would say that it is a very prevalent device on 15 Q. And -- and why is that? What data
16 our roadside. 16 are you missing?
17 MR. MACLEOD: Go off the record. 17 A. We do not have guardrail inventory
18 MR. GALLAGHER: Sure. 18 regarding, you know, as far as the -- a
19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record at 19 inventory of all the devices, when it was
20 10:46 a.m. 20 installed, you know, if it was replaced with
21 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 21 something else when it was struck by or damaged
22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on record at 22 or something of that nature.
23 10:55 a.m. 23 So we do not have, again, the
24 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 24 guardrail -- a guardrail end inventory that
25 Q. You mentioned earlier a concept, an 25 look backwards.
Page 44 Page 45
2 Q. In order to do an in-service 2 MR. GALLAGHER: I am going to mark as
3 evaluation, would you need to have data that 3 Exhibit 1 -- first, can you mark this as
4 allowed you to match up, you know, information 4 Exhibit 1?
5 about accidents to -- to information that told 5 (Thereupon, Exhibit 1 was marked for
6 you what kind of guardrail end terminal was 6 identification.)
7 struck? 7 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
8 A. Yes. 8 Q. I've handed you what the court
9 Q. Is that the data you don't have? 9 reporter has marked as Exhibit 1. This is a
10 A. Yes. That's the -- the -- the 10 one-page document with a Bates number
11 inventory of -- of what's there. 11 THP-000303993.
12 Q. Lacking that inventory that would 12 And this is a document that has a
13 tell you, you know, exactly what end terminal 13 data table at the top entitled "Combined Fatal
14 was struck in each accident, how did you go 14 and A Injury Crashes by Year for W-beam Barrier
15 about evaluating the performance of the -- the 15 End Hits."
16 ET-Plus 4-inch or guardrail end terminals, 16 Do you see that?
17 generally, in the analysis that you did? 17 A. Yes, sir.
18 A. We looked at the data over a very 18 Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 1?
19 long period of time. Again, 13, 14, 15 plus 19 A. I do.
20 years. We looked at -- based upon the 20 Q. What is Exhibit 1?
21 officer's reports of the crashes striking the 21 A. Exhibit 1 is the number -- it's a
22 guardrail end, not guardrail face but just the 22 table that my -- my staff had put together
23 guardrail end, and looking at the trends of the 23 looking at the trend of crashes involving
24 fatal and severe injury crashes involving those 24 W-beam barrier end hits. This is guardrail end
25 types of crash -- those types of crashes. 25 hits, striking the end terminal.
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
Page 46 Page 47
2 Q. So the -- is the -- is the data 2 crash -- or guardrail crashes, then we have end
3 that's contained in these tables at the top of 3 unit crashes.
4 Exhibit 1, is that data that you and your staff 4 So we're looking at, again, a -- a
5 pulled from North Carolina DOT records? 5 large dataset. So this was more than several
6 A. Yes. 6 hundred crashes in total. This was just the
7 Q. And am I right that the first table 7 ones that the officer reported as hitting the
8 is -- lists by year the number of combined 8 end unit. And again, whether end was a fatal
9 fatal and severe injury crashes for W-beam 9 or a severe injury crash.
10 barriers that are hit on the end? 10 MR. MACLEOD: Objection.
11 A. Yes. 11 Nonresponsive.
12 Q. And so it looks like you -- you 12 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
13 collected data on several hundred crashes for 13 Q. And -- and just to be clear, the
14 this study. 14 number that are in the table that involve fatal
15 A. Actually, it was -- we looked at 15 or severe injury crashes, after you had
16 probably several thousand crashes overall. 16 narrowed down the universe from the large
17 Q. And did you restrict yourself in -- 17 dataset to that group, was that still several
18 in the analysis that you did to the fatal and 18 hundred crashes?
19 severe injury crashes as opposed to all the 19 A. Yes.
20 crashes that involve end terminals? 20 Q. Why did you focus on, in this table,
21 A. There's another table that we have 21 the fatal and severe injury crashes as opposed
22 where we looked at the number of run-off-road 22 to all crashes involving an impact with the end
23 crashes. You have total crashes, number of 23 terminal?
24 lane departure crashes, number of guardrail 24 A. Well, any time a crash, especially on
25 face crashes, then you got guardrail end 25 a -- on a high-speed facility occurs and you
Page 48 Page 49
2 hit a fixed object, whether it's a guardrail 2 going to hit a fixed object at -- at that rate
3 end, or bridge pier or a tree, it's -- it's a 3 of speed.
4 relatively violent crash. 4 So that's why we focused on the fatal
5 And the -- a fatal injury is pretty 5 and severe injury crashes. Typically fatal
6 much, you know, the officer, you know, knows 6 crashes are relatively few when you look at the
7 that the person has -- has passed away due to 7 overall number of crashes that occur. And same
8 the results of the crash. A severe injury in 8 thing, you know, the severe injury or A injury
9 North Carolina, an A injury crash here is a 9 crashes are also relatively few. There's more
10 noncapacitating -- excuse me, incapacitating 10 of them than there are the fatal crashes.
11 injury crash, pretty obvious to the officer. 11 So your -- we look at those as
12 If you're involved -- well, we 12 combined to help increase that sample size as
13 determined or decided was, is that if you're 13 well.
14 involved in a crash that hits a guardrail end 14 MR. MACLEOD: Objection.
15 at freeway speeds and you walk away with cuts 15 Nonresponsive.
16 and bruises, then that was a success. That 16 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
17 was -- you know, as far as the occupants of the 17 Q. Are there -- were there far more
18 vehicle are concerned. 18 cases in the -- in the database that -- that
19 The products did what they were 19 North Carolina maintains where after striking
20 supposed to do. The car did what it was -- you 20 the guardrail end terminal, the driver had cuts
21 know, the safety features of the automobile did 21 and bruises or just property damage than there
22 what it was supposed to do. All you have are 22 were severe in fatal injury cases?
23 cuts and bruises. Property damage only. Or 23 A. Yes.
24 minor injuries. Again, those are what we 24 Q. And -- and the cases where there's
25 classify as a -- a desired outcome if you're 25 just property damage or -- or cuts and bruises,
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
Page 50 Page 51
2 those are all cases that you would consider to 2 A. Yes. That is correct.
3 be a successful outcome? 3 Q. And was this data data that you
4 A. Well, it's kind of hard to say a 4 collected from the official records of the --
5 crash was -- you know, was ever successful, but 5 the North Carolina DOT?
6 when -- when you look at what the intent and 6 A. This is the data that law enforcement
7 purpose of what guardrail is there for, it's to 7 officers are required to report to the Division
8 shield from something that would be more 8 of Motor Vehicles and the -- on a DMV-349,
9 hazardous to hit. Or, you know, run off a 9 which is the cash report that's used throughout
10 embankment or something. 10 the state. And the Division of Motor Vehicles
11 So a -- cuts and bruises and 11 maintains the crash database. And we use that
12 scratched paint, dented up car, is a far more 12 crash database.
13 desirable outcome than a severe injury or -- or 13 Q. And is the summary of the data that
14 fatal result. 14 you have included in Exhibit 1 something that
15 Q. And the -- and the vast majority of 15 you or your staff prepared in the ordinary
16 cases that you have in your database are 16 course of your work in the DOT?
17 property damage or -- or cuts and bruises type 17 A. Yes.
18 outcomes? 18 Q. As part of your official study?
19 A. Yeah. The -- the majority of -- of 19 A. Yes.
20 all crash types are property damage, minor 20 Q. What analysis did you perform on this
21 injury or moderate level injury crashes. 21 data in -- in your study of the safety of end
22 Q. Looking at the data in Exhibit 1, did 22 terminals?
23 you, for purposes of your evaluation of end 23 A. The concern was, is that -- that the
24 terminals, did you look at data from 1999 24 end unit is more susceptible to penetrating the
25 through 2014? 25 occupant department whenever it is struck.
Page 52 Page 53
2 That was the -- the concern. 2 Q. And when you looked at the severe and
3 So when we, you know, looked at the 3 fatal injury crashes for trends before and
4 number of crashes again, we're looking at the 4 after 2005, what did you find?
5 crashes where the officer indicated that a 5 A. As I mentioned earlier, the trends
6 vehicle hit the end of the guardrail -- and 6 were decreasing in number as far as frequency,
7 that's the -- the first set of tables. 7 generally.
8 And then the second table is where 8 Q. So generally speaking, you saw fewer
9 the officer indicated that a portion of the 9 severe and fatal injury crashes after the
10 guardrail penetrated the passenger compartment. 10 ET-Plus 4-inch was introduced than you saw
11 Q. So the -- the first table is the 11 before?
12 severe and fatal injury crashes, and the second 12 A. Yes.
13 table is a subset that is just penetrating 13 Q. And what did that -- what did -- what
14 hits? 14 did you conclude from that observation?
15 A. Yes. 15 A. Based upon the market share, that
16 Q. Did you, in analyzing the data, look 16 this product hadn't -- that Trinity had in
17 at -- look to see if there were any -- any 17 North Carolina, that there is -- there's not an
18 trends in the -- in the incidents of severe and 18 indication that this product is -- is
19 fatal crashes or penetrating hits? 19 contributing to a higher incidence of -- of
20 A. Yes. We looked at the trends over 20 severe or fatal crashes or crashes involving
21 time. 21 the product entering the passenger compartment.
22 Q. Did you in particular look to see if 22 Q. Right. So I was -- I was actually
23 there was a trend after 2005 when the 4-inch 23 going to ask about that second table where
24 ET-Plus was introduced? 24 you -- where you looked at just the penetrating
25 A. Yes. 25 hits.
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
Page 54 Page 55
2 A. Yes. 2 A. That's what this table says, yes.
3 Q. Did you also evaluate that data to 3 Q. And were most of those side impact
4 see if there was a difference in the -- in the 4 cases?
5 incidence of penetrating hits after 2005 when 5 A. Yes.
6 the ET-Plus 4-inch was introduced? 6 Q. And by "side impact," do we mean
7 A. We did. And it was -- again, looking 7 where the side of the car, as opposed to the
8 at the data, it's relatively a very small 8 bumper, struck the end terminal?
9 number. You're looking at, you know, one or 9 A. Yeah. Side impact is -- what we were
10 two a year. Some years zero. So, you know, 10 looking at was where the -- the initial impact
11 it's not a very large sample size to -- to 11 with the guardrail itself was not a head-on
12 make, you know, very concluding -- or, you 12 type collision with the guardrail. It was
13 know, remarks on. 13 either at a yaw where it was sliding in at some
14 It doesn't appear that, you know, 14 angle, or in a couple cases it may have been
15 based on looking at those crashes, that the -- 15 perpendicular.
16 when we look at the penetrating crashes, a lot 16 Q. Did you do anything for the -- the
17 of times they were side impact crashes. In 17 cases that you described as -- as head-on, did
18 fact, most the time they were side impact 18 you do anything to determine what angle the car
19 crashes. 19 was traveling at or -- or where on the -- on
20 Q. So just -- just to summarize the 20 the front of the vehicle the initial impact
21 data, in total for the 15 years from 1999 to 21 was?
22 2014, were there only nine crashes with a -- in 22 A. We would not have that data for the
23 North Carolina with a barrier -- with an end 23 older crashes. I mean, it's just going to be
24 terminal that resulted in penetration of the 24 what the officer sketched out on the crash
25 vehicle? 25 report.
Page 56 Page 57
2 You know, we -- if we were aware of 2 trends that we have and knowing, you know, when
3 one that we could, you know, get information 3 the product was changed, there's nothing that
4 on, then we would look at it. 4 indicates that we would remove it from our
5 Generally, when you're looking at 5 approved products list.
6 anything more than a couple years old, the -- 6 Q. Did you see any indication that the
7 the chances are you're not going to get that 7 4-inch was performing differently than, say,
8 data. 8 the 5-inch that preceded it?
9 Q. So you -- you were unable to 9 A. Not based upon this data, no.
10 determine, for example -- 10 Q. Did the data that you looked at
11 A. Yes. 11 that's listed here in Exhibit 1, did that
12 Q. -- whether the impact was all the way 12 include Mr. Traylor's crash that's the subject
13 out at the corner by the headlight as opposed 13 of this lawsuit?
14 to in the middle of the bumper? 14 A. If it was in 2014 -- I don't recall
15 A. Yeah, we would not know that. Other 15 the exact date, but if it was included in that
16 than the way the officer sketched it. And 16 date, yes.
17 those sketches are by no means to scale. You 17 Q. So you included crashes up through
18 know, they're -- they're sketches. They're not 18 2014, and if Mr. Traylor's accident occurred --
19 engineering drawings or works of art. 19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Based on your analysis of the data 20 Q. -- before the end of 2014, it would
21 on -- on crashes involving an end terminal 21 have been included in the data you analyzed?
22 where there was a penetration of the vehicle, 22 A. That is correct.
23 did you see any trend to suggest that there was 23 Q. As a result of the analysis you did
24 a particular problem with the 4-inch ET-Plus? 24 reflected in Exhibit 1 that we've -- we've
25 A. Again, based upon the data and the 25 talked about, did you make a recommendation
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Page 58 Page 59
2 regarding whether the 4-inch ET-Plus should 2 do not see a reason to remove them from our
3 remain approved for placement on North 3 qualified products list, nor any reason to
4 Carolina's roads? 4 remove them from the roadside.
5 A. Let me backtrack just real quick. 5 Q. If you perceived there to be a safety
6 Q. Okay. 6 issue with the 4-inch ET-Plus, would you have
7 A. This says it was created on 10/28/14. 7 made that recommendation?
8 So there's going to be a lag time. So this 8 A. Absolutely. My recommendation to the
9 would not have the full 2014 crash data in it. 9 chief engineer prior to us looking at this
10 So depending upon -- usually there's a -- a 10 information, because this was -- this was a
11 month or two, so I would say, you know, this 11 media event before it was an investigation
12 may have August, possibly September data in it. 12 event. That, you know, if we were to find it
13 Q. So if -- if -- if Mr. Traylor's 13 to be a problem, then we would -- we would
14 accident was in the early part of 2014, it 14 recommend removing it if it had a safety
15 would be included? 15 concern.
16 A. Yes. That is correct. It was -- 16 Q. And you --
17 yeah. 17 MR. MACLEOD: Nonresponsive.
18 Q. Did you -- so back to -- back to the 18 Q. -- didn't find a problem?
19 question that -- before you clarified. 19 A. We did not -- we did not find one
20 Based on the analysis of the data you 20 that we would, again, indicate that it would be
21 had in Exhibit 1, did you make any 21 worthwhile -- worth removing from our -- let me
22 recommendation regarding whether the 4-inch 22 rephrase.
23 ET-Plus should remain approved for placement on 23 We did not find a data trend
24 North Carolina's roads? 24 indicating that there was a problem with the --
25 A. The -- yes, we went and said that we 25 the way we were doing business today with the
Page 60 Page 61
2 market share or anything else that we were 2 Q. I'm going to go kind of backwards
3 doing in relation to guardrail ends as of that 3 here just for a minute and talk about this
4 date. So we didn't change what we were doing. 4 Exhibit 1 that you were handed.
5 It was allowed before. And it's continued to 5 A. Uh-huh.
6 be allowed. 6 Q. You still have that in front of you?
7 MR. GALLAGHER: I want to thank you 7 A. I do.
8 for your -- your time, sir. I have -- I 8 Q. My understanding, at least from your
9 have no further questions. I may have 9 testimony, is that this table in the data
10 some follow up after Mr. Traylor's lawyers 10 that's -- that's contained therein was what
11 ask their questions. 11 actually -- what was actually made the basis
12 FURTHER EXAMINATION 12 for your recommendation to keep this product on
13 BY MR. MACLEOD: 13 North Carolina roads; is that correct?
14 Q. Good morning. 14 A. There -- there's other tables as
15 A. Good morning, sir. 15 well. There's other data. As I mentioned we
16 Q. How are you, sir? 16 looked at -- you know, looking at all --
17 A. Another day in the life. 17 looking at the trends of run-off-road crashes
18 Q. Another day in the life. 18 in general, looking at the ones that struck
19 You good to proceed right now or do 19 guardrail, looking at the ones that struck
20 you want to take a break? 20 guardrail ends.
21 A. I'm fine. 21 So, you know, the basis of the
22 Q. Okay. My name is Ryan Macleod. I'm 22 decision was on a variety of -- of the
23 one of the attorneys who represent Jay Traylor. 23 information that we were working with.
24 Do you understand that? 24 Q. Let me ask you this. When you made
25 A. Yes, sir. 25 the decision to continue the approval of these,
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Page 62 Page 63
2 did you issue any sort of written report or 2 And the recommendation from that
3 written review of your findings? 3 meeting was, let's go look and see what the
4 A. No. We had a number of meetings. We 4 data tells us. If the data indicates that
5 had the tables that we put together. 5 there's a problem then obviously we should --
6 Q. And -- and so I understand, you told 6 Q. Were you expecting a call -- I'm just
7 us about tables. But before you had that 7 joking.
8 meeting, was there some sort of written 8 Let's back up just a little bit. You
9 findings or conclusions that you or someone 9 told me Jon Nance and Ricky Greene?
10 within your department would have issued? 10 A. Jon Nance was the deputy chief
11 A. No. The question -- you know, when 11 engineer at the time. Ricky Greene was the
12 we had the discussion, the question was -- 12 director of operations. I'm trying to think
13 well, from this -- I'm trying to remember if it 13 what his actual title was.
14 was a e-mail or a memo or something in it. I 14 And looking at whether or not we
15 didn't put one together. 15 should take an action to remove this from our
16 Q. If you didn't put one together, who 16 qualified products list.
17 would have put it together? 17 Q. Do those gentlemen, do they remain in
18 A. It would have been either our chief 18 their positions today?
19 engineer or deputy chief engineer. At the time 19 A. No.
20 it was Jon Nance and Ricky Greene were involved 20 Q. Okay. Are they still -- are they
21 in that. And then when we started talking 21 both still employed by North Carolina DOT?
22 about the safety concerns, that's when we -- 22 A. They have both retired.
23 you know, we -- we held a -- we had a couple 23 Q. Okay. Is Jon Nance, is he a
24 meetings and discussing whether or not there 24 professional engineer like yourself?
25 was a -- a safety concern for the product. 25 A. Yes.
Page 64 Page 65
2 Q. What about Ricky Greene? 2 members I guess to -- to partially discuss the
3 A. He is too. 3 performance of end terminals in the state of
4 Q. Okay. And then there was a meeting 4 North Carolina; is that true?
5 you said, and -- and the decision was, let's 5 A. That is correct.
6 look at the data; correct? 6 Q. Okay. And during that meeting would
7 A. Yes. 7 the efficacy of the 4-inch ET-Plus, as opposing
8 Q. Who was involved in that meeting that 8 counsel has referred to it, was that discussed?
9 said, all right, let's take a look at these 9 A. Not specifically in those terms. It
10 past crashes and then let's -- let's get a 10 was generally at the statement of the ET-Plus.
11 report together, who would have -- who would 11 Q. Okay. So just globally the ET-Plus
12 have been a part of that meeting? 12 and its performance, regardless of whether or
13 A. I may need to ask Scott a question, 13 not we're talking about the 5-inch or 4-inch
14 if I may. 14 model; is that right?
15 Q. Yeah. If you want to take a break 15 A. For the folks at that meeting, yes,
16 real quick, you can go. 16 that was...
17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record at 17 Q. And -- and can you tell the ladies
18 11:21 a.m. 18 and gentlemen of the jury, what prompted that
19 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 19 meeting of the -- of the folks who were
20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Start of Tape 2. 20 present?
21 Back on record 11:25 a.m. 21 A. The -- well, this was the -- I think
22 BY MR. MACLEOD: 22 this was the second round of discussions. The
23 Q. All right. Mr. Lacy, before we took 23 first round, I -- I will tell you, I was not
24 a break you were telling us that there was a -- 24 involved in that. It had to do with I believe
25 a meeting that took place involving certain 25 when Nevada had removed the product from their
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
Page 66 Page 67
2 qualified products list. 2 A. Second round I -- I believe it was
3 Q. And -- and so when would the first 3 prompted because there was -- again the issues
4 round of discussions -- when would that have 4 were raised in the media that there was a
5 occurred regarding Nevada's removal of the -- 5 concern about the safety of these devices.
6 of the product? 6 Q. And if you can tell -- if you can
7 A. It was either shortly after Nevada 7 tell us here, who attended the second round of
8 removed it from their products list -- you'd 8 discussions that you would have attended as
9 have to look and see when that date was. I was 9 well?
10 not involved in that initial discussion because 10 A. I can't tell you everybody who was in
11 it was primarily focused on a -- you know, 11 there, but I can tell you the -- the folks that
12 discussion over product change. 12 I recall that were there.
13 Q. Okay. Was there a discussion within 13 Q. Why don't you hit us with your best
14 or was it your understanding that there was a 14 shot?
15 discussion within that meeting concerning 15 A. All right. Jon Nance, who was deputy
16 whether or not North Carolina should join some 16 chief engineer at the time. Ricky Greene who
17 of these other states that are removing the 17 was the director of -- of operations. Beth
18 ET-Plus from the roadside? 18 McKay who is with the attorney general's
19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 19 office. She's -- I believe special deputy
20 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm certain that 20 attorney general is her title. Myself. And
21 was discussed. 21 there may have been other folks in there as
22 BY MR. MACLEOD: 22 well, but those are the ones I remember.
23 Q. And -- and then in the second round 23 Q. And do you remember when that meeting
24 of discussions, what prompted the second round 24 would have taken place?
25 of discussions? 25 A. Not the specific date. No, sir.
Page 68 Page 69
2 Q. And -- and you've -- you've told us 2 this item. And so, yes. As far as sharing
3 what prompted the meeting, but what was the 3 data, we offered our data to anybody who wanted
4 actual subject matter that was discussed during 4 to review it.
5 that second meeting? 5 Q. What -- what about Missouri,
6 A. Whether or not we should remove this 6 specifically did you talk to folks with the DOT
7 product from our qualified products list based 7 in Missouri?
8 upon the -- the media stories and the 8 A. I don't recall speaking to the state
9 complaints that other states have received. 9 traffic engineer of Missouri.
10 Q. I was going to say, was part of it 10 Q. Okay.
11 prompted by the fact that other states were 11 A. I do -- I have read some of their --
12 removing the product from -- from their state 12 I think there was a report that was put
13 highways? 13 together by -- for the Missouri Department of
14 A. I believe at that time there may have 14 Transportation. I did read that report. I'm
15 been maybe 10. It -- it was a -- you know, it 15 trying to remember that fellow's name who --
16 was a dozen or so that had removed them at that 16 who did that -- who did that.
17 time. But, yes. 17 Q. Did you ever have e-mail discussions
18 Q. Did you, as the state traffic 18 with other DOT staff in other states?
19 engineer for North Carolina DOT, reach out to 19 A. I don't think we had -- I don't
20 any of those other DOTs in -- in those states 20 believe I have many e-mail discussions back and
21 that removed those devices and -- and, you 21 forth. They're generally probably on the
22 know, collaborated on the data in kind of an 22 phone.
23 analysis of the same? 23 Q. Okay. And just kind of the keyword
24 A. I have talked to quite a few of the 24 that I'm going to hone in on there, you said "I
25 state traffic engineers around the country on 25 don't think I had many e-mail discussions."
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Page 70 Page 71
2 Did you have some? 2 of crashes went up. But those -- so the
3 A. I can't recall. I will tell you 3 frequency and rate of severe injuries and
4 this: Every item that has anything to do with 4 fatalities involving guardrail ends are in
5 this has been in -- in one or more public 5 the -- are trending in the direction that
6 records request, so... 6 you would want them. And that's, you
7 Q. Right. And we're -- we're going to 7 know, having a negative trend.
8 talk about some of those documents today. I've 8 BY MR. MACLEOD:
9 got some of them we'll talk about. 9 Q. Do you know how many highway deaths
10 Okay. So getting back to Exhibit 10 there were in North Carolina in 2015?
11 Number 1. The conclusion ultimately, if I 11 A. I can't quote you the number. It was
12 understood you right, was that it was -- there 12 13- -- it was over 1,300, close to 1400.
13 was no indication that this product is 13 Q. I think that's right.
14 contributing any more to severe or fatal 14 Do you know that that put North
15 injuries than other products. 15 Carolina, at least per capita, as the fifth
16 Did I -- did I hear your conclusion 16 highest in the United States?
17 right, sir? 17 A. Yes.
18 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 18 Q. That's a -- it's a pretty substantial
19 THE WITNESS: I -- I think the 19 figure. I would -- I would imagine that North
20 conclusion is, is that what we have been 20 Carolina Department of Transportation is
21 doing over time has been working as far as 21 concerned when it sees a statistic like that;
22 when you start looking at the number of 22 is that right?
23 crash -- the crashes are going down, as 23 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
24 far as the severe injury, and fatal 24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 crashes are going down, the total number 25
Page 72 Page 73
2 BY MR. MACLEOD: 2 BY MR. MACLEOD:
3 Q. Is it concerning to North Carolina 3 Q. How many not successful events have
4 Department of Transportation when they see that 4 to have happen before the North Carolina
5 they're the fifth highest per capita for 5 Department of Transportation says, enough is
6 vehicle fatalities in the United States of 6 enough, let's get this device off our road?
7 America? 7 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
8 A. Yes. 8 THE WITNESS: There -- when -- when
9 Q. All right. And one of the phrases 9 you say a -- a event is not successful,
10 that I heard you talk about earlier was that if 10 you have to look at the nature of -- of
11 you walk away that is considered a success; 11 the crash itself.
12 correct? 12 BY MR. MACLEOD:
13 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And -- and so when you're
14 Q. The converse of that would be at 14 looking at the nature of a crash itself, my
15 least -- and I'm pretty simple here, but it 15 understanding is that in Exhibit Number 1,
16 would be that if you don't walk away, it's not 16 you're looking at the nature of these crashes
17 a success. 17 consisted of a narrative provided by police
18 Would that be an accurate 18 officers, as well as a drawing in most cases
19 representation? 19 that was completed by these police officers;
20 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 20 correct?
21 THE WITNESS: It would definitely be 21 A. That is correct.
22 a -- not a desirable outcome. And you 22 Q. Okay. Is there any additional
23 could classify it as a -- a not successful 23 analysis that you, as the state traffic
24 event, yes. 24 engineer for North Carolina, would have done
25 25 with regard to each one of these accidents
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
Page 74 Page 75
2 other than reviewing the officer's reports and 2 A. -- we have one available.
3 the drawings? 3 Q. Okay.
4 A. If the data were available, we would 4 A. If it was conducted, being that it's
5 have looked at more information. 5 a 2002, it's possible it is beyond retention
6 Q. And so there was a -- for example, in 6 records schedule as well.
7 2002 there was -- there was -- says here there 7 Q. Well, my understanding from your
8 was a wreck, there was a collision. It was an 8 sworn testimony earlier was that you were an
9 end penetration hit in 2002. 9 integral part of doing this analysis that --
10 As you sit here today, can you tell 10 that is at least partly reflected in Exhibit 1;
11 me of a single document that I can look at or 11 correct?
12 that this jury would be able to look at that 12 A. Yes.
13 would show the North Carolina Department of 13 Q. Do you remember, based upon your own
14 Transportation's analysis with regard to that 14 personal knowledge, whether or not you had
15 collision? 15 datasets, such as the datasets you just
16 A. If it involved a fatal crash, we may 16 described, that pertain to any of the -- the
17 have conducted a -- a fatal investigation. 17 collisions listed in Exhibit Number 1?
18 Q. When you say "we," who are you 18 A. I don't recall, no.
19 referring to? 19 Q. Do you think, as you sit here, as the
20 A. Department of Transportation. 20 state traffic engineer who's here to testify
21 Q. And if I wanted to know whether or 21 about the efficacy of guardrails, that that
22 not that in fact did happen, where would I need 22 would being something you would likely
23 to look, sir? 23 remember?
24 A. You would need to ask my office -- 24 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
25 Q. Okay. 25 THE WITNESS: So you're asking me
Page 76 Page 77
2 what I should remember, and I just told 2 within the time periods.
3 you I don't recall. 3 You know, we -- you know, you're
4 BY MR. MACLEOD: 4 talking about a 2002 wreck. Today is
5 Q. No. I know what your testimony was. 5 2017. Whether or not we retained records
6 But what I'm asking you is -- is a different 6 for about 15 years, on that case there are
7 question. 7 12 years, I don't know the retention
8 As the state traffic engineer who's 8 record of every record we have. We have
9 doing an analysis, you have told me so far that 9 thousands of records.
10 you rely upon the officer's narrative and the 10 I got a file room full of records
11 drawings. And then in some cases there's 11 that -- that we, you know, attempt to
12 additional data. 12 maintain the -- the retention schedule.
13 And I just want to make sure that you 13 BY MR. MACLEOD:
14 cannot tell me right now of a single case in 14 Q. Are you finished?
15 which you had additional data, at least as you 15 A. Yes.
16 sit here today; correct? 16 Q. Okay. What is the retention policy
17 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 17 with regard to collisions and data? Do you --
18 THE WITNESS: No. That's not 18 do you know what the formal retention policy is
19 correct. There were other staff who put 19 for the North Carolina Department of
20 this data together, did review information 20 Transportation?
21 that they did have. 21 A. No, I do not know what the formal
22 For instance, you know, obviously the 22 retention schedule is for each and every one of
23 case that we're talking about today, there 23 the records that we maintain. No, sir. I can
24 was additional information available 24 usually get that from our schedule that has
25 because it was -- at the time was more 25 been approved.
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
Page 78 Page 79
2 Q. Earlier you were talking about, in 2 could. I -- I don't recall the -- the
3 your analysis you found, or -- or the staff who 3 exact details, but it's possible that it
4 was working on this found that most of these 4 could have hit the front bumper as well as
5 collisions involved side impacts. 5 the front quarter panel right before the
6 Did I hear you right? 6 wheel well.
7 A. That was of the -- where the 7 BY MR. MACLEOD:
8 guardrail actually penetrated the passenger 8 Q. Did you do any analysis of the
9 compartment. 9 measurement of the angle of impact with respect
10 Q. Okay. What portion of Jay Traylor's 10 to Mr. Traylor's vehicle?
11 vehicle struck the ET-Plus end terminal? 11 A. I didn't, no.
12 A. It appeared to be -- the initial 12 Q. Are you familiar with anyone within
13 impact was probably the -- either the far edge 13 the North Carolina DOT who did?
14 of the vehicle or the wheel well itself, 14 A. I believe someone may have looked at
15 somewhere -- you know, if -- if the -- what 15 whether or not the -- I believe someone may
16 I'm -- I'm trying to picture, it was either the 16 have looked at it. I'm -- I'm trying to recall
17 extreme right as you're facing the front of the 17 if I remember seeing it. What I, again,
18 vehicle, or the right wheel well itself. 18 remember -- go ahead.
19 That's what I recall. 19 Q. Where -- where would they have gotten
20 Q. All right. So -- and just to make 20 that data from?
21 this even -- even more basic, was it the front 21 A. They would have gotten it either from
22 of Mr. Traylor's vehicle that struck the end 22 the photos that were taken at the scene or they
23 terminal? 23 would have gone out and possibly measured
24 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 24 themselves based upon any tire impressions.
25 THE WITNESS: It's possible that it 25 Q. And have you seen anything that
Page 80 Page 81
2 suggests that that was actually done or are you 2 recall being given that offer.
3 just -- or are you just speculating that's 3 Q. All right. So I want to go back to
4 possible? 4 this second meeting. You told me who was
5 A. I recall seeing photos. I don't know 5 there. You told me who was -- who was talking.
6 whether they were provided by the highway 6 And my understanding is the -- the
7 patrol or if someone went out there and did it 7 meeting was whether we should remove products
8 themselves. 8 from -- or whether we should remove the ET-Plus
9 Q. Have you reviewed any of the 3D scans 9 from the road; correct?
10 that were taken of -- of the guardrail's actual 10 A. The question was is, should we remove
11 impalement of Mr. Traylor? 11 it from our qualified products list.
12 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. Qualified products list.
13 Q. Have you reviewed any of the actual 13 Do you know who decided that that --
14 accident reconstruction reports that have been 14 that that meeting in fact needed to be held?
15 completed regarding this -- this accident? 15 A. I imagine it was Jon Nance or Ricky
16 A. No, sir. 16 Greene.
17 Q. Did North Carolina DOT do any sort of 17 Q. How were you notified of the meeting?
18 accident reconstruction with respect to this 18 A. I don't know if I received phone call
19 collision? 19 or if they sent an e-mail and said, let's have
20 A. No, sir. Not that I'm aware of. 20 this discussion.
21 Q. Did you ever receive an offer to 21 Q. During the meeting were there any
22 receive the 3D scans and data from Mr. Traylor 22 sort of presentations that were provided, not
23 or -- or one of his attorneys? 23 just verbal, were there any written
24 A. I have not. That doesn't mean the 24 presentations provided?
25 Department of Transportation has not. I do not 25 A. Not that I recall. No, sir.
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
Page 82 Page 83
2 Q. Were there -- did you take any notes? 2 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
3 A. No. Not that I recall. I think the 3 THE WITNESS: This was not the
4 outcome was, is that we would go look at the 4 Guardrail Committee meeting.
5 crash data. 5 BY MR. MACLEOD:
6 Q. Did you see anyone that took notes 6 Q. I understand that. This -- this was
7 during that meeting? 7 more of a -- this was a smaller group, kind of
8 A. Not that I -- not that I can 8 a small task force so to speak; correct?
9 remember. No, sir. 9 A. This was a -- whenever you bring your
10 Q. I have seen Guardrail Committee 10 attorney into a meeting, then, you know, you --
11 meetings and other meetings within the North 11 you start making sure that you -- you know, you
12 Carolina Department of Transportation. 12 start worrying about, well, what are we really
13 Certainly you're familiar with those; 13 going to talk about and what's the issues here.
14 correct? 14 Q. Why were you worried about what
15 A. Yes, sir. 15 you're really going to talk about?
16 Q. I would imagine you've -- you've 16 A. Well, DOT has a whole floor full of
17 attended more than your fair share of Guardrail 17 attorneys, and it's generally dealing with
18 Committee meetings, correct? 18 right-of-way and -- and those items.
19 A. I've been to several, yes, sir. 19 Contracts. And it's rare that those attorneys
20 Q. Typically what they will do is, post 20 get involved in these type decisions, so I
21 meeting there will be a set of minute -- 21 think that, again, when you got a meeting where
22 minutes from the meeting that will be released. 22 you're talking about a product and an attorney
23 Were there any minutes kept for this 23 is present, then, again, that's -- that's not
24 second meeting? 24 the norm.
25 A. This was not -- 25 You have a lot of -- we've had a lot
Page 84 Page 85
1 1 J. KEVIN LACY
J. KEVIN LACY
2 of discussions about various products. I mean, 2 Department of Transportation or was that a --
3 the Guardrail Committee meeting -- committee 3 an outside attorney?
4 meets all the time and there's very rarely, if 4 A. When you say "outside," what do you
5 ever, an attorney there. 5 mean by "outside"?
6 Q. So the fact that an attorney was 6 Q. I -- I mean, was it -- you -- you
7 present, a special deputy attorney general was 7 said that there's a whole floor of attorneys
8 present, did that tell you that this was maybe 8 with North -- North Carolina DOT.
9 more serious than some other meetings? 9 Was it one of those attorneys or --
10 A. Well, it tends to say that there's 10 or are we talking about Department of Justice
11 obviously some potential of concern from the 11 for North Carolina? Who -- who was the actual
12 legal aspect of it. 12 attorney who instructed you that you're not
13 Q. Was that also discussed during the 13 supposed to answer any questions about that?
14 meeting? 14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection. Compound.
15 A. There are items that were discussed 15 THE WITNESS: We have all of -- I'm
16 that our -- our attorneys have asked us not to 16 trying to think. I think with the
17 disclose. 17 exception of one or two --
18 Q. So as you sit here today, is it your 18 BY MR. MACLEOD:
19 testimony to the jury that there are things 19 Q. While you -- while you're thinking,
20 that were discussed during that meeting that 20 I'm going strike my last question because he's
21 you are -- that you are not going to be able to 21 got a good objection there.
22 divulge to us today? 22 A. Okay. So I don't answer that
23 A. That is correct. 23 question?
24 Q. Who was the attorney? Was that an 24 Q. You're -- you'll answer the next
25 in-house attorney for the North Carolina 25 question. It will be -- it will be even
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
Page 86 Page 87
2 better. 2 Q. Okay. And who -- and that's what I
3 Which attorney instructed you not to 3 want to know is who requested it?
4 answer questions with respect to some of the 4 A. We've had a number of public requests
5 conversations of that meeting? 5 for information. I can't tell you how many of
6 A. The -- and it reminds me that there 6 those because we put them all together and
7 was another attorney there. Shelly Blake was 7 someone else sends those out. I have provided
8 at one of the meetings. She was counsel to the 8 it -- I believe I provided it at a AASHTO
9 secretary. I believe she may have been one or 9 meeting of the -- the subcommittee on traffic
10 two of the attorneys that worked for DOT that 10 engineers.
11 don't work for the Department of Justice. 11 So I've provided it where -- you
12 All of our attorneys that we normally 12 know, at least the data where we have been
13 work for are employees of the Department of 13 requesting -- Federal Highways has -- has the
14 Justice. So there's been occasions that have 14 information. We did provide it to Federal
15 we've been advised by both attorneys that work 15 Highways. They requested any -- any
16 primarily for the Department of DOT or through 16 information that we have.
17 the -- you know, through the Department of 17 Q. And I guess what I'm specifically
18 Justice, and those that don't reside in our 18 asking you is that within the North Carolina
19 building that have also advised us -- advised 19 DOT, who specifically with this other
20 me on the disclosure of certain items. 20 department, A, asked for this analysis to be
21 Q. Okay. With respect to -- after 21 done that you then performed?
22 this -- after this analysis was completed, you 22 A. No. The -- this was suggested that,
23 provided it to another department. 23 primarily by me, let's look at the data before
24 You said that; correct? 24 we make a decision to remove a product based
25 A. We provided whoever requested it. 25 upon a safety concern.
Page 88 Page 89
2 Q. But ultimately you said that it was 2 would say of course the governor could direct
3 not your decision to make. It was someone 3 us to do so as well.
4 else's decision in another department? 4 So I would say the -- the two primary
5 A. To remove? 5 positions would be the governor -- I mean,
6 Q. To remove. 6 the -- the secretary of transportation and the
7 A. All right. 7 chief engineer would be the ones that would end
8 Q. Is that right? 8 up signing off on that final decision to do so.
9 A. To remove the product all together it 9 Q. Was -- was the focus of -- of these
10 would have been a -- it would have been a 10 meetings and the subsequent analysis to
11 directive probably from -- and -- and under 11 determine whether or not the product would be
12 this scenario it would have came from the -- 12 removed from the list or whether or not it
13 the chief engineer or the deputy chief 13 would be subject to a recall?
14 engineer. 14 A. The -- ask that question again. So
15 Q. Which would have been who at the 15 let me make sure I understand what you're
16 time? 16 asking.
17 A. Either Jon Nance or Terry Gibson. 17 Q. Right. My understanding from your
18 And he is also a licensed engineer. 18 earlier testimony is that the subject of this
19 Q. Who with the North Carolina 19 meeting was to determine whether or not there
20 Department of Transportation has the authority 20 should be a removal of qualified products from
21 to take 4-inch ET-Plus terminals completely off 21 the list; correct?
22 the road? 22 A. It was whether or not we would remove
23 A. To remove them completely, of course 23 the ET-Plus from the qualified products list.
24 the secretary of transportation could direct 24 Q. Was there also a concern or
25 that. The chief engineer could direct that. I 25 discussion about doing a total recall of the
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
Page 90 Page 91
2 ET-Plus? 2 Again, I -- but as far as going out
3 A. At that time the discussion basically 3 and doing a detailed analysis of the sequence
4 had the components of, if we think that the 4 of events and -- and all that, no, I did not.
5 product is dangerous so we quit using it, so 5 We did not do -- I did not do the crash
6 why would we continue to allow that product on 6 reconstruction of that crash.
7 the roadway if we believe that it was dangerous 7 Q. Is it also true that there was no
8 to the well being of our citizens? 8 North Carolina DOT investigation of the Traylor
9 So it -- it -- it was -- you know, 9 crash beyond analyzing the damage to the actual
10 when you're talking about the safety component 10 guardrail?
11 of it, then to me they're one and the same 11 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
12 decision versus whether or not there was a 12 THE WITNESS: We're a big agency, so
13 product change and it violated a -- a 13 whether or not somebody else outside of --
14 department policy or something of that nature. 14 you know, within the division or someone
15 Q. Is it true that you did no personal 15 looked into it much different, we look at
16 inspection of the Jay Traylor crash or related 16 the performance of the guardrail, yes.
17 materials? 17 As far as did someone else look at,
18 A. I did not look at the -- I did not do 18 you know, anything else, I can't tell you
19 a detailed review of the Jay Traylor crash. 19 that -- I don't recall anybody doing so,
20 I'm familiar with -- like -- like I said, 20 no.
21 I'm -- I'm -- reviewed pictures, that -- there 21 BY MR. MACLEOD:
22 may have been -- I may have been in one of 22 Q. Right. And if someone had done that,
23 those meetings they may have had some of those 23 it would likely be reflected in one of these
24 pictures. That's -- may have been where I saw 24 analysis tables or documents; correct?
25 those. 25 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
Page 92 Page 93
2 THE WITNESS: If they had done so and 2 repair the guardrail.
3 believed that there was a concern, I would 3 Q. So going through this, earlier you
4 hope that they would have brought it 4 talked about -- a lot about analysis and
5 forward. 5 investigation and -- and both of those are very
6 BY MR. MACLEOD: 6 important; correct?
7 Q. Right. And it would be published in 7 A. Sure.
8 one of these documents; correct? 8 Q. And you said earlier that highway
9 A. Yes. 9 safety is a critical component of the North
10 Q. Have you ever interviewed the field 10 Carolina Department of Transportation; correct?
11 engineers, the field engineers in North 11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Carolina about their beliefs or concerns 12 Q. I want to go through the same thing
13 regarding the 4-inch ET-Plus? 13 that opposing counsel went over with you.
14 A. Have I interviewed the field 14 First off, just to make sure, North
15 engineers about their concerns about the -- no. 15 Carolina has never done any sort of independent
16 I have not gone out and then talked to each and 16 testing of the efficacy of the 4-inch ET-Plus;
17 every -- each of them about, you know... 17 correct?
18 Q. And who -- the field engineers, I 18 A. That is correct. Not that I'm aware
19 mean, those are the guys with boots on the 19 of.
20 ground; right? 20 Q. And as the state traffic engineer, is
21 A. Most of the -- the field engineers I 21 that something that you would very likely be
22 would say the -- I would say probably the 22 aware of?
23 technicians and the transportation workers are 23 A. Yes.
24 probably who you're more likely referring to. 24 Q. Is it also true that North Carolina
25 The people who would either maintain or -- or 25 Department of Transportation has never done a
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
Page 94 Page 95
2 side-by-side comparison of the efficacy of the 2 it; correct?
3 4-inch ET-Plus versus the 5-inch ET-Plus? 3 A. That is correct.
4 MR. GALLAGHER: Object to the form. 4 Q. And nowhere in those officer reports,
5 THE WITNESS: No. From -- you know, 5 in the narratives that I've seen, is there any
6 running the same incidences, I mean what 6 mention of the description of the terminal or
7 you're looking at here is, you know, a 7 any measurements that are taken; am I correct
8 period of time on the table where there 8 in my assertion?
9 wasn't a 4-inch ET-Plus and then a period 9 A. You're correct. The officer would
10 of time when there was a 4-inch ET-Plus. 10 not know an ET-Plus with -- versus any other
11 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 11 guardrail end. Unless they just particularly
12 Nonresponsive to after "no." 12 happen to have a curiosity in that area.
13 BY MR. MACLEOD: 13 Q. Have you specifically ever reviewed
14 Q. When we're looking at this table can 14 any literature about the side-by-side
15 you even tell us which end terminals were 15 comparisons of the 4-inch ET-Plus versus that
16 involved in these various collisions? 16 of the 5-inch ET-Plus?
17 A. No. 17 A. I have read various documents on
18 Q. And you can't do that because North 18 that, yes.
19 Carolina does not maintain an inventory of -- 19 Q. And -- and what literature have you
20 or maintain a database of the guardrail 20 read, sir?
21 inventory; correct? 21 A. I mentioned earlier, like I -- I
22 A. That's correct. 22 believe Missouri, and I don't know if Ohio was
23 Q. And so the only way in which you can 23 involved in that one, they had commissioned a
24 know what specific end terminal is in a 24 study. I believe the -- I think the guy's
25 location is actually go and physically look at 25 first name may have been Kevin who reviewed it.
Page 96 Page 97
2 Did a research project on that. Published the 2 DOT expressed concerns regarding the
3 results of that. 3 effectiveness of the 4-inch ET-Plus?
4 I also read the number of -- of 4 A. Not that I'm aware -- they have --
5 criticisms of that research project. 5 the concerns that have always been discussed
6 Q. Written by who? 6 have started with the media reports. You know,
7 A. Various folks. 7 this is what other states are doing. You know.
8 Q. Did you ever see one written by 8 You know, what is this -- you know, what -- our
9 Malcolm Ray? 9 position is based on what. Those type things.
10 A. Yes. 10 I've had -- I have met with Secretary
11 Q. Do you know Mr. Ray? 11 Tata at the time, Secretary Tennyson when these
12 A. Not personally. I think I have met 12 items were, you know, again in the -- it seemed
13 him. But I don't -- I don't know him 13 to recycle in the media, especially after
14 personally. 14 the -- the course of findings of the court
15 Q. Do you know whether or not he was 15 cases.
16 actually hired and paid by Trinity Industries 16 So that -- but as far as people
17 to write the report that he did? 17 saying that there's an absolute concern here
18 A. I believe he was hired by Trinity as 18 and there that the -- from DOT, you know,
19 an expert witness. I -- I read the -- to what 19 the -- I guess Mr. Harman, Josh Harman has
20 degree I could stand it, the reporting from the 20 raised that a number of times with folks within
21 court cases and, you know, read a number of the 21 the department. I believe he's -- you know,
22 articles on that, you know, read quite bit 22 there's other folks who have raised it with
23 about this -- this issue. 23 members of our general assembly.
24 Q. Going back. There's -- let me ask 24 You know, I don't -- I don't think
25 you this. Has anyone within the North Carolina 25 the -- and once we look at the whole story
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
Page 98 Page 99
2 that, you know, folks have come up and said, 2 Now, if -- if someone raised a
3 you know -- I've not heard anyone say, there's 3 concern saying, well, I saw this or, you
4 obviously a concern about this product, we 4 know -- you know, Kevin we need to take a
5 should do something more or less or -- or -- on 5 look at these, or -- or I have a concern
6 the ET-Plus, outside of starting with, I saw 6 with this item, we need to -- or this
7 this article in the paper, or I saw this report 7 particular issue, you know, first, no. I
8 on the news or something of that nature. 8 have not had any anybody bring that to me.
9 It always -- every concern that 9 BY MR. MACLEOD:
10 anybody has raised to me has started from that 10 Q. Let me ask you this: With regard to
11 perspective. 11 the Jay Traylor collision, do you personally
12 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 12 believe that the 4-inch ET-Plus operated the
13 Nonresponsive. 13 way that it should?
14 BY MR. MACLEOD: 14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
15 Q. Are you -- are you trying to tell me 15 form.
16 that the concerns always originated from the 16 THE WITNESS: Do I personally believe
17 media; is that right? 17 that the ET-Plus operated the way it
18 A. No. 18 should? From what I know about it, the
19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 19 way the initial strike was in the wheel
20 THE WITNESS: What I'm saying is, is 20 well, which is obviously a softer part of
21 that whenever someone has -- within the 21 the vehicle, it did not operate the way we
22 department has asked questions about it, 22 would have wished it had.
23 it has been because they have read a story 23 It was more of a shallow-angle
24 or heard something in the media or 24 strike. It -- it struck the guardrail at
25 something of that nature. 25 a high rate of speed in a -- in a -- in a
Page 100 Page 101

2 vulnerable part of the vehicle. 2 BY MR. MACLEOD:
3 BY MR. MACLEOD: 3 Q. Are low-angle impacts possible in
4 Q. How fast was the vehicle going? 4 North Carolina, meaning about 5 to 6 degrees?
5 A. I could only guess that it was going 5 A. Absolutely.
6 at least the speed limit on the roadway. 6 Q. Do you believe that the ET-Plus has
7 Q. What was the angle of the impact? 7 problems performing as intended for these
8 A. Again, what I recall was a shallow 8 low-angle impacts?
9 angle. I couldn't tell you whether it was 9 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
10 5 degrees or 10 degrees or -- or 25 degrees. 10 THE WITNESS: The industry -- the
11 But we would have preferred that it 11 NCHRP 350 crash testing did not have the
12 did not, you know, enter the vehicle's 12 low impact requirement.
13 compartment. 13 BY MR. MACLEOD:
14 Q. Let me ask you this: Are terminals 14 Q. No. And I understand that.
15 expected to cause severe injuries or fatalities 15 But what I'm asking you is, as the
16 for low-angle impacts, meaning between zero and 16 state traffic engineer for NCDOT, do you
17 15 degrees? 17 believe that the ET-Plus has problems
18 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 18 performing as intended for low-angle impacts?
19 form. 19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
20 THE WITNESS: The question is, are 20 THE WITNESS: And I'm answering your
21 they expected to cause. I would say, no. 21 question.
22 That's not what the expectation is. 22 BY MR. MACLEOD:
23 They're not tested for that under the 23 Q. No, you're not.
24 350 crash criteria. 24 MR. GALLAGHER: Now I'm going to
25 25 object that you're badgering the witness
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Page 102 Page 103
2 and instruct you to stop it. 2 A. When you ask a question that has a
3 MR. MACLEOD: Are you his attorney? 3 lot of leading items in it, that have
4 He's got an attorney sitting right over 4 explanations to it, then what would you prefer
5 there. If he wants to do it, he can -- he 5 me -- what would you prefer my response to be
6 can tell me. 6 if I'm not going answer it "yes" or "no"?
7 MR. GALLAGHER: And I'm entitled to 7 Q. I prefer you to answer the question.
8 tell you that under the -- under the rules 8 A. Okay.
9 you're not supposed to be badgering a 9 Q. And I prefer you to do it in a much
10 witness. And I'm objecting -- objecting 10 more succinctly fashion than you're doing right
11 that you are. 11 now.
12 BY MR. MACLEOD: 12 A. All right. I will answer no --
13 Q. Sir, I would ask you that when I ask 13 Q. Perfect.
14 you a question that you would give me an answer 14 A. -- to your question.
15 to that question. Because most of the morning 15 Q. Okay. So my question was, do you
16 I've been sitting here, and what would usually 16 believe that ET-Plus has problems performing as
17 require a "yes" or "no" answer has been more of 17 intended for the these low-angle impacts?
18 a narrative. It's going to read kind of like a 18 A. No.
19 novel. 19 Q. And what is that based upon?
20 And my fear is that we're going to be 20 A. Your question was not a very good
21 here a very long time today because of the sort 21 question.
22 of answers you're giving. And I'll do a better 22 Q. What is your opinion that the ET-Plus
23 job or try to in asking questions. But a lot 23 does not have problems performing as intended
24 of these -- these questions don't -- don't need 24 for these low-angle impacts?
25 the -- the five-minute explanations. 25 A. Say that again.
Page 104 Page 105

2 Q. You have now told us that the ET-Plus 2 Q. So the only reason, as you sit right
3 does not have problems performing as intended 3 here now as the state traffic engineer for
4 for low-angle impacts. 4 NCDOT to say that the eighth test was a pass
5 That's what you told us; correct? 5 was because the FHWA said it was a pass; is
6 A. I answered your question "no." 6 that -- is that correct?
7 Q. Okay. And so what is the basis of 7 A. They are the ones who say it passed.
8 the response? 8 Q. And, therefore, they said that it
9 A. The basis of my response is a 9 was -- it remained eligible for federal
10 narrative that says that the crash testing for 10 reimbursement; correct?
11 those products did not include a low-angle 11 A. That is correct.
12 impact, so no product was tested for low-angle 12 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
13 impact under the -- the 350 testing compliance. 13 BY MR. MACLEOD:
14 Q. Let me ask you, was the eighth test 14 Q. Okay. Because at the end of the day,
15 of ET-Plus that you talked about earlier at the 15 the FHWA does not approve guardrails; correct?
16 Southwest Research Institute, was that a pass 16 A. That is their statement now. Yes.
17 or a fail? 17 Q. Do you take issue with that statement
18 A. Those were pass. 18 from the FHWA that they say that they do not
19 Q. Okay. If -- if you say that the 19 approve guardrails?
20 eighth test was a pass, why? 20 A. Yes, I take issue with it.
21 A. Because the Federal Highway said it 21 Q. Was it -- was it your belief that at
22 passed. 22 some point that the FHWA was doing something
23 Q. What about Clay Gabler, do you know 23 more than just saying that it was approved for
24 Clay Gabler? 24 reimbursement but was actually approving?
25 A. I don't know Clay Gabler. 25 A. Say -- say that again.
27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Page 106 Page 107
2 Q. Yeah. I mean, you -- you say that 2 MR. MACLEOD: Can you mark this
3 you -- kind of what I'm hearing you say is that 3 Exhibit Number 2.
4 the FHWA changed their story on you; is that 4 (Thereupon, Exhibit 2 was marked for
5 right? 5 identification.)
6 A. No, I'm not saying the Federal 6 BY MR. MACLEOD:
7 Highway changed their story. 7 Q. I've handed you what's been marked as
8 Q. Okay. But I just asked you a 8 Exhibit Number 2.
9 question in which -- in which I asked you about 9 Is that a document that you've seen
10 whether or not their job was to tell you 10 before, sir?
11 whether or not it's eligible for federal 11 A. Yes.
12 reimbursement or whether or not their job was 12 Q. This came out November 12, 2014. And
13 to tell you that they were approved. 13 it says -- this is a -- this is a question and
14 And you told me, well, now they say 14 answer. It's an FHWA review of ET-Plus.
15 that it's the latter. 15 When it comes to guardrails and their
16 A. That is correct. 16 components, does the FHWA regulate roadside
17 Q. Okay. And what is the basis for 17 safety hardware like guardrails?
18 that? 18 And the response from FHWA was what?
19 A. The basis of it is, is that to me, 19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
20 they're synonyms. Approved for reimbursement, 20 form.
21 eligible for reimbursement, approved for 21 THE WITNESS: No.
22 reimbursement. Approved products are all -- 22 BY MR. MACLEOD:
23 in -- in this -- in my opinion are synonyms. 23 Q. So is it your understanding, as you
24 And I believe that there's obviously some legal 24 sit here today, that the FHWA does not regulate
25 nuance that... 25 or prescribe requirements for safety hardware?
Page 108 Page 109

2 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 2 form.
3 form. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is correct.
4 THE WITNESS: Say that again. 4 BY MR. MACLEOD:
5 BY MR. MACLEOD: 5 Q. In the second question and answer, it
6 Q. Yes. Is it your understanding, as 6 says, AASHTO recommends assessments of devices
7 you sit here today, that the FHWA does not 7 and use on roads. Also known as in-service
8 regulate or prescribe requirements for safety 8 evaluations of roadside hardware.
9 hardware, including the ET-Plus? 9 Are you familiar with that
10 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 10 recommendation from AASHTO?
11 form. 11 A. Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: I believe Federal 12 Q. Okay. And earlier Trinity's lawyer
13 Highways does prescribe and provide 13 was asking you questions about the type of
14 requirements for the use of guardrail ends 14 in-service evaluations that were done on -- on
15 and -- and guardrail. 15 certain products, including end terminals;
16 BY MR. MACLEOD: 16 correct?
17 Q. And that is despite what this 17 A. Yes.
18 document in front you says; is that correct, 18 Q. And you indicated to this jury that
19 sir? 19 what you do is -- is a high-level in-service
20 A. Yes. 20 evaluation; correct?
21 Q. Okay. It says, States and 21 A. That's correct.
22 territories install and maintain their highway 22 Q. And one of the reasons that you do
23 systems, including hardware; is that -- that's 23 that is because there's no guardrail inventory;
24 correct? 24 correct?
25 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 25 A. That's one of the reasons, yes.
28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Page 110 Page 111
2 Q. I mean, there's absolutely no 2 form.
3 tracking system that North Carolina has in 3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 place to make a determination in connection 4 BY MR. MACLEOD:
5 with an -- with an in-service evaluation; 5 Q. Is it true that it is expensive to
6 correct? 6 maintain a sort of tracking system that would
7 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 7 allow you to do an in-service evaluation that
8 THE WITNESS: Ask your question 8 AASHTO would recommend?
9 again. 9 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
10 BY MR. MACLEOD: 10 form.
11 Q. First off, why does North Carolina or 11 THE WITNESS: No.
12 the NCDOT not maintain a tracking system for 12 BY MR. MACLEOD:
13 its guardrails? 13 Q. Are you -- are you saying it's not
14 A. Because it's a -- it -- it's a -- one 14 expensive?
15 of the many roadside devices that are out 15 A. Not to do what AASHTO is
16 there. There's literally millions of devices 16 recommending.
17 out there, whether it's guardrail, guardrail 17 Q. Okay. But you're doing a high-level
18 ends, signs, sign posts. There's lots of the 18 in-service evaluation because that's all you
19 items out there that it would be -- and we have 19 can do because you don't have an inventory;
20 not historically collected that data because 20 correct?
21 it's expensive to maintain. 21 A. When we look backwards in time, you
22 Q. All right. That's what I wanted to 22 don't have an inventory. If you look forward
23 ask you. It's -- it's a money thing. It's 23 in time, then you create the data that you're
24 expensive to do that; isn't it? 24 reviewing.
25 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 25 Q. So is -- is the NCDOT, are they now
Page 112 Page 113

2 looking at that data moving forward? 2 the Federal Highway -- federal aid highway
3 A. Not today, no. 3 system and they are the ones who are to make
4 Q. Okay. They didn't do it in the past, 4 the day-to-day decisions.
5 and now you're still not doing it -- doing it 5 Is that correct?
6 looking forward? 6 A. That is correct.
7 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Also says, States decide which safety
8 Q. And so would it be your testimony 8 hardware to install on the roads and are
9 today that there is still absolutely no 9 responsible for maintaining such hardware.
10 tracking system in place, despite the concerns 10 Is that correct?
11 that were raised in those two prior meetings, 11 A. That is correct.
12 about the effectiveness of end terminals in the 12 Q. And that also the NCDOT, pursuant to
13 state? 13 this memorandum, is responsible for setting the
14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form 14 safety criteria for roadside safety hardwares
15 of the question. 15 members of AASHTO; is that right?
16 THE WITNESS: No. We're not tracking 16 A. That's correct.
17 it. Specific sites, no. 17 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
18 BY MR. MACLEOD: 18 form.
19 Q. Then it says, A letter of funding 19 BY MR. MACLEOD:
20 eligibility is not required for federal 20 Q. When did the NCDOT realize that there
21 funding. It says, A state may opt to certify a 21 were issues with the ET-Plus?
22 product's crash worthiness on its own. 22 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
23 Is that true per your understanding? 23 of the question.
24 A. Yes. 24 BY MR. MACLEOD:
25 Q. Then it says, States own and operate 25 Q. Let me ask it to you like this: When
29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Page 114 Page 115
2 were you first made aware that there were 2 whatever it is, I believe, you know -- at
3 potential safety concerns with respect to the 3 the -- I believe that was the case here.
4 ET-Plus? 4 And the decision was -- and I'm,
5 A. It was sometime before October 28, 5 again, just paraphrasing, send the information
6 2014. 6 to the companies and if they respond back, then
7 MR. MACLEOD: Let me show you what 7 we'll know that the company's still in business
8 we'll mark as Exhibit Number 3 to your 8 and providing the product. If not, then we'll
9 deposition. 9 remove them from the list.
10 (Thereupon, Exhibit 3 was marked for 10 Q. Would it have been your expectation
11 identification.) 11 that -- that these would have been re- -- at
12 BY MR. MACLEOD: 12 least with the manufacturer that these would
13 Q. Have you ever seen a document that 13 have been reviewed by an engineer?
14 looks like this, sir? 14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
15 A. Yes, I have. 15 form.
16 Q. And what we're talking about is a 16 THE WITNESS: By our engineer or the
17 product evaluation program recertification 17 manufacturers' engineer?
18 form; is that true? 18 BY MR. MACLEOD:
19 A. That is correct. 19 Q. Manufacturers.
20 Q. And what is the purpose of -- of 20 MR. GALLAGHER: Same objection.
21 these program recertification forms? 21 THE WITNESS: I don't know what each
22 A. At the time we were going through and 22 company would do.
23 I think removing some of the products on the 23 BY MR. MACLEOD:
24 list that we either were not using anymore, 24 Q. What I'm just asking you is, as a
25 didn't have current contact information or 25 state traffic engineer would it be your
Page 116 Page 117

2 expectation that a responsible manufacturer 2 completed this.
3 would actually have an engineer who -- who 3 Is that -- that's what this document
4 would review this and make sure that it's being 4 says; correct?
5 filled out accurately before it's sent back to 5 A. That's what it says, yes.
6 your agency? 6 Q. Do you know that Angelo De Joseph is
7 A. Our expect- -- 7 Trinity's registered lobbyist in North
8 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 8 Carolina?
9 form. 9 A. No, I do not.
10 THE WITNESS: Our expectation that it 10 Q. Then if you go to section 3 here,
11 would be accurately completed by the 11 it's got product information. And it says, Has
12 company that submitted it. 12 the product changed since original submission.
13 BY MR. MACLEOD: 13 And what does it say there, sir?
14 Q. Okay. So at the very least, you 14 A. It says "no."
15 would want this to be completed accurately by 15 Q. And is that an accurate response?
16 the company, such as Trinity Industries; 16 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
17 correct? 17 form.
18 A. That's correct. 18 THE WITNESS: No. That is not an
19 Q. Okay. And so we're looking at the 19 accurate response.
20 first one here, Manufacturer Trinity Highway 20 MR. MACLEOD: I'll show you Exhibit
21 Products, and it says Angelo De Joseph. 21 Number 4.
22 Do you know Angelo? 22 (Thereupon, Exhibit 4 was marked for
23 A. I do not. 23 identification.)
24 Q. Okay. It says here that his title is 24 BY MR. MACLEOD:
25 in marketing. And that he was the one that 25 Q. This is -- this is another product
30 (Pages 114 to 117)

Page 118 Page 119
2 evaluation program recertification form and 2 January 2013 to your agency that they provided
3 it's dated here as January 4, 2013, correct, 3 false information to you?
4 sir? 4 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
5 A. That is correct. 5 form.
6 Q. And again, what we have is Angelo De 6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 Joseph, and now his title is listed as products 7 BY MR. MACLEOD:
8 promotion; is that right? 8 Q. If a company stops providing a
9 A. That is correct. 9 product, would you take it off the lot?
10 Q. Okay. And then -- now we're under 10 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
11 section 4. It says "product update." It says, 11 form.
12 Has the product changed since original 12 THE WITNESS: If a company stopped
13 submission, referring to the ET-Plus guardrail 13 providing the product, if they no longer
14 end treatment; is that correct? 14 provided the product then it's not
15 A. That is correct. 15 available, so it's -- it removes itself.
16 Q. What is the answer there? 16 So that was -- granted it's a long answer,
17 A. It says "no." 17 that was the purpose of the first of these
18 Q. Okay. Do we know that to be false? 18 forms that you came out with.
19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 19 BY MR. MACLEOD:
20 form. 20 Q. Did Trinity stop providing ET-Plus?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 A. No.
22 BY MR. MACLEOD: 22 Q. And --
23 Q. Okay. Is it true then that when 23 A. There was that period of time where
24 Trinity Highway Products sent this product 24 they were not shipping.
25 evaluation program recertification form in 25 Q. There was that small period of time.
Page 120 Page 121

2 Now they're back to shipping; correct? 2 Anthony Wyatt. Dave Galloway.
3 A. My understanding is, yes. 3 A. Yes, I know them.
4 Q. Okay. And North Carolina's still 4 Q. If you flip to the second page of
5 installing these things across the state; 5 this, are you familiar with Nickelston
6 correct? 6 Industries?
7 A. They are an eligible product to be 7 MR. GALLAGHER: Are you looking at a
8 installed on our road, yes. 8 particular place on page 2?
9 (Thereupon, Exhibit 5 was marked for 9 MR. MACLEOD: Yeah. The very bottom.
10 identification.) 10 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not -- I don't
11 BY MR. MACLEOD: 11 know Nickelston Industry.
12 Q. Would you agree with me there have 12 BY MR. MACLEOD:
13 been times where within the North Carolina DOT 13 Q. But here's what it says. And this is
14 the North Carolina DOT relies upon the FHWA to 14 in February 13, 2013. It says, Tim Nickelston
15 tell people like you and others within NCDOT 15 with Nickelston Industries Inc. dropped in on
16 whether or not a particular product is safe 16 me with information that the ET-Plus anchor
17 or -- or not safe? 17 units type 350 from Trinity Industries is not
18 A. Yes. 18 performing as designed and is causing injury or
19 Q. I'm going to hand you what's been 19 in some cases fatality when struck.
20 marked as Exhibit Number 5. 20 He cited that the reason for this is
21 All right. This is an e-mail from 21 that an internal change was made to the ET-Plus
22 some of the people with -- with Trinity -- or 22 that has not been approved by FHWA. He
23 I'm sorry, with the NCDOT. You know some of 23 forwarded me an e-mail that supported what he
24 the gentlemen, I guess, who are represented on 24 was telling me and I've attached it for your
25 there; correct? 25 reference.
31 (Pages 118 to 121)

Page 122 Page 123
2 Were you familiar with complaints by 2 would have been important to you as the state
3 Tim Nickelston? 3 traffic engineer?
4 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form 4 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection. Form.
5 of the question. 5 MR. MACLEOD: What's the basis?
6 THE WITNESS: No. I was not. 6 MR. GALLAGHER: It's a -- both
7 BY MR. MACLEOD: 7 foundation and speculation.
8 Q. Were you familiar with the fact that 8 MR. MACLEOD: It's speculation as to
9 in February 13, 2013 Tim Nickelston was 9 whether or not it's something that he
10 informing representatives with -- within the 10 would want -- want to know about?
11 North Carolina Department of Transportation 11 MR. GALLAGHER: Speculation as to
12 that there were potential design issues with 12 whether he would want to know it as the --
13 respect to the ET-Plus? 13 as in his -- in his role, especially given
14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form 14 the lack of foundation that he ever saw it
15 of the question. 15 or that this actually ever occurred.
16 THE WITNESS: No. I was not. 16 BY MR. MACLEOD:
17 BY MR. MACLEOD: 17 Q. Sir, are you reading an e-mail?
18 Q. At this point did anyone with -- 18 A. I'm reading a printed copy of an
19 internally within the North Carolina Department 19 e-mail.
20 of Transportation, did they come to you and 20 Q. Do you have any reason to believe
21 share this information with you? 21 that this is not an accurate e-mail, as you sit
22 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection. Form. 22 here today?
23 THE WITNESS: No. 23 A. I have no reason to believe that this
24 BY MR. MACLEOD: 24 is not e-mails that were sent.
25 Q. Is this the sort of information that 25 Q. Okay. And what I'm asking you is
Page 124 Page 125

2 that in your role as the state traffic engineer 2 what is marked as Exhibit Number 6.
3 for the North Carolina DOT, is this the sort of 3 (Thereupon, Exhibit 6 was marked for
4 information that you would have wanted to know? 4 identification.)
5 MR. GALLAGHER: Same objection. 5 BY MR. MACLEOD:
6 THE WITNESS: Of course I would want 6 Q. Anthony Wyatt. Who is Mr. Wyatt
7 to know if there was a concern. But the 7 again?
8 gentlemen who this went to, Roger Thomas, 8 A. He's actually -- was on my staff.
9 Jay Bennett -- Roger Thomas at the time 9 He's retired.
10 was -- I believe was the chair of the 10 Q. Okay. So he actually worked for you?
11 Guardrail Committee. If he wasn't, Jay 11 A. Yes.
12 was. 12 Q. What about Joel Howerton?
13 So they -- those were the people who 13 A. Joel Howerton works in the roadway
14 would appropriately be notified if there 14 design unit.
15 was a concern to initiate any review from 15 Q. Okay. So if we go to the back of
16 the department. 16 this first, are you familiar with a gentleman
17 BY MR. MACLEOD: 17 named Todd Spurlin?
18 Q. But you never received that 18 A. No, I don't know Todd.
19 information; correct, sir? 19 Q. It says that he was an assistant
20 A. I did not. Not until obviously a 20 district engineer, division 11, district 1.
21 later date. 21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. A much later date, right? I think 22 Q. It says -- he's writing this e-mail
23 you said somewhere around October 2014 maybe? 23 to Ken and Jimmy.
24 A. I said sometime before then. 24 Do you know who Ken and Jimmy are?
25 MR. MACLEOD: Okay. I'll show you 25 A. I know Jimmy.
32 (Pages 122 to 125)

Page 126 Page 127
2 Q. Who's Jimmy? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. They are on
3 A. He -- 3 the -- I'm sorry, on the e-mail.
4 Q. Is that Jimmy Hamrick? 4 BY MR. MACLEOD:
5 A. Jimmy Hamrick. He is a regional 5 Q. Did anyone, did Ken or Jimmy Hamrick
6 traffic engineer also on my -- on my staff. 6 ever come to you and say, sir, we need to tell
7 Q. Okay. So he's on your staff? 7 you that there's a video clip that shows how
8 A. Uh-huh. 8 Trinity guardrail end treatments are failing in
9 Q. All right. And this was an e-mail 9 frontal impacts?
10 and it says -- I'm on the second page in the 10 A. No.
11 middle of the page. And it says, This may not 11 Q. Being as though you were the person
12 even be an item for us here, but it appears to 12 that did this analysis that we've marked -- or
13 be gaining interest across the nation. The 13 that opposing counsel marked as Exhibit 1,
14 video clip below shows how Trinity guardrail 14 would a video clip showing how Trinity
15 end treatments are failing in frontal impacts. 15 guardrail end treatments are failing in frontal
16 Did I read that correctly? 16 impacts, would that be something that you would
17 A. Yes. 17 have wanted to consider --
18 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 18 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection.
19 form. 19 BY MR. MACLEOD:
20 BY MR. MACLEOD: 20 Q. -- when doing your analysis?
21 Q. Were those two sentences I just read 21 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
22 you, are they contained here in Exhibit Number 22 BY MR. MACLEOD:
23 6? 23 Q. You can answer.
24 MR. GALLAGHER: I'll maintain my 24 A. I'll try to make sure I understand
25 objection to form. 25 your question. Because I want to -- there's a
Page 128 Page 129

2 lot of nuances in it. 2 various things, but...
3 Q. Well, let me ask you this: At the 3 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection.
4 time you -- you told the jury that you were the 4 Nonresponsive.
5 state traffic engineer and Jimmy and Ken did 5 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
6 not tell you about this e-mail correspondence 6 Q. What -- what I'm asking you, though,
7 that -- that they received from Mr. Spurlin; 7 is you specifically -- or did you
8 correct? 8 specifically -- did ever -- did anyone ever
9 A. No. I did not receive notice that 9 come and bring you a video clip that showed how
10 the e-mail correspondence took place. 10 Trinity guardrail end treatments were failing
11 Q. And -- and later after this date, you 11 in frontal impacts?
12 did your data analysis that you've already 12 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
13 discussed with us; correct? 13 THE WITNESS: At some point in time,
14 A. That's correct. 14 yes.
15 Q. Did you think that it would be 15 BY MR. MACLEOD:
16 important that when you're doing the analysis, 16 Q. Okay. When did -- at what point did
17 which you described, that you have knowledge of 17 you learn that they were failing with frontal
18 a video that would show how Trinity guardrail 18 impacts?
19 end treatments are failing in frontal impacts? 19 A. I can't tell you an exact date.
20 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 20 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
21 form. 21 BY MR. MACLEOD:
22 THE WITNESS: And I'm not attesting 22 Q. But was it your understanding that
23 that the people who pulled the data 23 there were videos that showed the ET-Plus
24 together did not know that. They may have 24 failing with regard to frontal impacts?
25 pulled -- they were aware, I'm sure, of 25 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
33 (Pages 126 to 129)

Page 130 Page 131
2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 than guardrails themselves. The scenario you
3 BY MR. MACLEOD: 3 described is not the normal operation of a
4 Q. And earlier you told us that 4 guardrail.
5 guardrails are there to shield persons and to 5 MR. MACLEOD: Objection.
6 protect them; correct? 6 Nonresponsive.
7 A. That is correct. 7 BY MR. MACLEOD:
8 Q. In fact, Trinity Industries, that's 8 Q. If you go to the first page here.
9 how they make money, because they manufacture 9 You will see here that it says -- in April 24,
10 these guardrails that are intended to act as a 10 2013, Mr. Wyatt sends an e-mail to Mr. Howerton
11 cushion or barrier so that they can protect 11 that says, Was news to me. Is this competition
12 people; correct? 12 driven or factual.
13 A. They're shielding people from a more 13 By April 24 of 2013 would that have
14 hazardous scenario. 14 been news to you with respect to the failing of
15 Q. What could be more hazardous than a 15 frontal impacts, the ET-Plus?
16 guardrail turning into a spear and penetrating 16 MR. GALLAGHER: Object to the form of
17 through a car into -- and into a -- literally 17 the question.
18 directly striking an individual? 18 THE WITNESS: In 2013 would it have
19 A. That's not the normal function of a 19 been news to me? Yes.
20 guardrail. 20 BY MR. MACLEOD:
21 Q. Right. 21 Q. Okay. Even though people on your
22 A. But the guardrail is intended -- you 22 staff, such as Anthony Wyatt, were aware of it
23 have large fixed objects, you may have other 23 based upon this e-mail chain?
24 fixed objects, you may have vertical faces. 24 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
25 You know. There's many items more hazardous 25 of the question.
Page 132 Page 133

2 THE WITNESS: My staff doesn't tell 2 Q. Now, Mr. Howerton is the NCDOT
3 me every item that they're working on. I 3 standards engineer. He's a professional
4 got, at this time, almost 200-some-odd 4 engineer; correct?
5 people. 5 A. That's correct.
6 BY MR. MACLEOD: 6 Q. Do you respect his opinion?
7 Q. No. I understand. But you drive on 7 A. Yes.
8 these record roads, correct? 8 Q. His response to Mr. Wyatt here is, I
9 A. Yes. 9 think it is legitimate. I spoke to FHWA and
10 Q. In fact, I drove on this -- these -- 10 they're reviewing the situation. We haven't
11 these roads last night and in the morning 11 received any new information from them yet.
12 coming here today. Certainly it would be 12 Jay may make a decision for NCDOT, but I'm not
13 important for you to know if there's an end 13 sure.
14 terminal on your road that's not functioning 14 Did I read that right?
15 like it should be; correct? 15 A. That is correct.
16 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Did -- did Mr. Howerton tell you that
17 Q. And would you then have an 17 he believed that this was a legitimate concern
18 expectation that your staff, the employees who 18 back in April 24, 2013?
19 work for you at the NCDOT, that they would 19 A. He didn't tell me that. He told
20 share this sort of information with you? 20 Mr. Wyatt that obviously.
21 A. I would expect that they would review 21 Q. During any of the -- I've seen you on
22 to see if it is a legitimate complaint first. 22 TV. During any of the media interviews that
23 Or if it was, again, just, you know, news 23 you've done, have you ever shared that in -- as
24 driven or -- or some other reason. I believe 24 early as April 24, 2013, your office believed
25 that's what Mr. Wyatt was doing. 25 that the failing of the ET-Plus in frontal
34 (Pages 130 to 133)

Page 134 Page 135
2 impacts was a legitimate concern? 2 identified, let's go take a look.
3 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form 3 Did you do that at that point?
4 of the question. 4 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
5 THE WITNESS: Say the question again. 5 form.
6 BY MR. MACLEOD: 6 THE WITNESS: When we're talking
7 Q. You did not know that this was a 7 about one or two crashes nationwide,
8 legitimate concern in April 24 -- April 24, 8 that's a pretty small number, you know,
9 2013 because nobody from your office told you 9 when you start looking at a very small
10 about it; correct? 10 number of events nationwide.
11 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 11 BY MR. MACLEOD:
12 form. 12 Q. How many crashes have there been
13 THE WITNESS: It's possible after 13 nationwide involving the 4-inch ET-Plus that
14 Tony -- Anthony Wyatt received this 14 resulted in severe injuries or fatalities?
15 response that he informed me of it. 15 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
16 BY MR. MACLEOD: 16 THE WITNESS: Last I recall, I think
17 Q. So after you receive a response like 17 there may have been 40. There may be
18 this, and you're the state traffic engineer, 18 more.
19 did you pick up the phone and say, we need to 19 BY MR. MACLEOD:
20 figure out what's going on immediately? 20 Q. And is it your understanding that in
21 A. Pick up the phone and ask who? 21 those crashes you have the guardrail that's
22 Q. Well, or -- or maybe you don't need 22 actually protruding inside a vehicle?
23 to pick up the phone. Maybe, because you're 23 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
24 the state traffic engineer, you could have just 24 form.
25 said, okay, there's an issue, it's been 25 THE WITNESS: It's my understanding
Page 136 Page 137

2 that there was a number of them that had 2 Q. Well, that's what I'm asking. I
3 occurred, yes. 3 mean, Jay Traylor lost both of his legs; right?
4 BY MR. MACLEOD: 4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. And you already told us earlier that 5 Q. Are you familiar with Darius
6 that is abnormal; correct? 6 Williams?
7 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 7 A. Was that the gentleman that was in
8 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 8 Archdale?
9 BY MR. MACLEOD: 9 Q. What happened?
10 Q. Which would mean that that would be 10 A. Is that the Archdale crash?
11 the opposite of -- of the success you walk 11 Q. What happened?
12 away. It's -- that's the not success, not 12 A. My understanding is, is that he had a
13 walking away; correct? 13 side impact with some guardrail, and it -- I
14 A. That's correct. 14 think he may have injured his legs as well.
15 Q. How many of those abnormalities or 15 His feet.
16 not successes need to happen before the North 16 Q. Is -- are you telling the jury that
17 Carolina Department of Transportation says, 17 one abnormality is -- is not enough, that there
18 okay, enough is enough? 18 needs to be multiples before North Carolina
19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 19 Department of Transportation takes some further
20 BY MR. MACLEOD: 20 action?
21 Q. Is there a number? I mean -- 21 A. It all depends upon the issue. We're
22 A. No. 22 talking -- is that an appropriate answer? It's
23 Q. -- have you all thought of a number 23 not a "yes" or "no," but...
24 that you have said -- 24 (Thereupon, Exhibit 7 was marked for
25 A. There is not a number. 25 identification.)
35 (Pages 134 to 137)

Page 138 Page 139
2 BY MR. MACLEOD: 2 And it goes through a -- a number
3 Q. So this is Exhibit Number 7. So 3 of -- number of instances. Like in May 2010 it
4 here, if you -- if you flip -- if you flip to 4 talks about a Eirvin Pinckney Senior, and that
5 the second page there's Billie Burnette and 5 he was driving and the guardrail came up
6 then Ricky Greene. And you have told us that 6 through the floor of the truck and nearly took
7 Ricky Greene was -- was one of the fine 7 his head off.
8 individuals who was involved in -- in the 8 Were you familiar with that?
9 second meeting; correct? 9 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
10 A. That is correct. 10 of the question.
11 Q. All right. And Joel Howerton who we 11 THE WITNESS: No.
12 were just talking about was saying, you know, I 12 BY MR. MACLEOD:
13 don't know if you have this information about 13 Q. Then it says, if you skip down a
14 this, you know, that was passed on to us by 14 little bit, it says, The same thing happened to
15 Nickelston Industries, but it was attached to 15 the now 24 year-old Charles Pike in Lake
16 the e-mail here. I'm -- I'm going to send it 16 County, Florida, in October that same year,
17 to you now; is that right? 17 although he wasn't as lucky. The guardrail
18 If you look on the second page -- 18 entered through the right front fender of the
19 A. Yes. 19 pickup truck severing his leg below the knee.
20 Q. Now, did you ever -- if you look at 20 Were you aware of that prior to
21 the very bottom of the second page, it says, 21 reading that just right now?
22 Very interesting read. Got a feeling that this 22 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
23 is about to become a bigger issue moving 23 of the question.
24 forward. And then it starts with, "Guardrail 24 THE WITNESS: No.
25 design raises concerns." 25
Page 140 Page 141

2 BY MR. MACLEOD: 2 The guardrail entered the passenger compartment
3 Q. And, again, this is an e-mail 3 and Carrier suffered multiple fractures and
4 that's -- that's an internal e-mail from the 4 damage to her internal organs. She died five
5 North Carolina Department of Transportation, 5 hours after the crash.
6 this whole set of e-mails we're looking at. 6 Were you aware of Sabrina Carrier's
7 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form 7 unfortunate death prior to reading this just
8 of the question to the extent that was a 8 now?
9 question as opposed to a 9 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
10 mischaracterization of the document. 10 form.
11 BY MR. MACLEOD: 11 THE WITNESS: No. No. All these are
12 Q. Are you looking at e-mails here, sir? 12 not in North Carolina.
13 A. What I'm looking at is an e-mail to 13 BY MR. MACLEOD:
14 Mr. Ricky Greene forwarded from Joel Howerton 14 Q. Oh, I understand. There are
15 who received it from Jeff Grover with the 15 certain --
16 Gregory Corp. That's what I'm reading. 16 A. In fact, none of these were in North
17 Is that what you're reading? And I 17 Carolina.
18 don't know Greg -- Jeff Grover. 18 Q. I know. There's certainly been there
19 Q. So you're -- you're reading e-mails; 19 fair -- there have been some in North Carolina
20 right? 20 as well; correct?
21 A. Yes. 21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Then the number 3 one that 22 Q. Then it says, The catastrophic
23 talks about a -- a woman named Sabrina Carrier, 23 results of these head-on accidents involving
24 she was in a Honda Ridgeline when her vehicle 24 guardrail end units may not be coincidences.
25 struck an end unit of the guardrail in 2008. 25 That is what it says.
36 (Pages 138 to 141)

Page 142 Page 143
2 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 2 Then if you go -- if you flip over to
3 BY MR. MACLEOD: 3 the fifth page here. In the middle of the
4 Q. Is that what it says right there when 4 page --
5 it says that -- the sentence that says, 5 A. What's the top sentence?
6 Catastrophic results of these head-on accidents 6 Q. Changing the proven design.
7 involving guardrail end units may not be 7 If you go down the middle of the page
8 coincidence? 8 there's a gap. And then it says, But a video
9 A. Well, you have to point that out to 9 from a 2005 test by Texas Transportation
10 me. 10 Institute, which patented the ET-Plus and
11 Q. Sure. I'm right here. 11 licensed it to Trinity, showed even with a
12 Did you see that, sir, where it says 12 properly installed 4-inch ET-Plus device, even
13 "the catastrophic results"? 13 if it didn't lock up, it would redirect the
14 A. Maybe I'm on the wrong page. 14 vehicle back into traffic rather than safely
15 Q. Oh, that's all right. I think 15 down the guardrail beam. TTI's own document
16 you're -- if you're you on page 3? 16 showed that this particular test using a 1997
17 A. I'm looking at -- you see a Texas A&M 17 Geo Metro was considered a failure.
18 University above that? 18 Were you ever familiar with that
19 I was on the wrong page. 19 test, sir?
20 Q. That's all right. 20 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
21 A. Yes. That's what it says. 21 of the question.
22 Q. Do the laws of physics differ in 22 THE WITNESS: I'm familiar that there
23 North Carolina from other states? 23 were some tests that TTI had in the
24 A. No, sir. We hope not. 24 process of developing their product that
25 Q. Then -- I would hope not. 25 did not meet the -- what would be
Page 144 Page 145

2 considered a passing mode. 2 multiple tests and only provide the select
3 BY MR. MACLEOD: 3 tests that they want to provide to the FHWA?
4 Q. Was -- was that ever a concern to 4 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
5 you? 5 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that
6 A. Not really because -- may I explain 6 they could have multiple fail tests and not
7 why? 7 provide those as long as they just provide
8 Q. Sure. 8 whatever select tests they want to the FHWA?
9 A. When they're developing a product, 9 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
10 you're always going to -- you're likely going 10 Q. Is that somewhat concerning to you?
11 to have some tests that aren't going to pass. 11 A. Yes.
12 That's why you go out there and once you -- if 12 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
13 it doesn't pass, you understand why it didn't 13 BY MR. MACLEOD:
14 pass and you -- you make changes to your 14 Q. Why is that concerning to you, sir?
15 product to make it -- to make it so it can pass 15 A. The reason it's concerning to me is,
16 the test. 16 is that there's not a break in the chain of
17 Q. Are you familiar with the actual 17 interest.
18 process, the actual testing that was -- that a 18 Q. Okay.
19 company like Trinity Industries does prior to 19 A. That's why it's concerning to me.
20 getting FHWA at least approval for the federal 20 Q. I mean, as a -- as a state traffic
21 reimbursement? Are you familiar with that? 21 engineer who is entrusted with trying to
22 A. Not to the level that people who are 22 protect the people who drive on these roads,
23 in that industry do. But I am familiar with 23 wouldn't it be more fair to you for you to see
24 it. 24 all the testing that's done and then you make
25 Q. Are you aware that they can do 25 a -- then you make a reasonable determination
37 (Pages 142 to 145)

Page 146 Page 147
2 on whether or not this product is safe -- 2 worked on the approval for reimbursement
3 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection. 3 letters.
4 BY MR. MACLEOD: 4 Q. Right.
5 Q. -- rather than a company like Trinity 5 A. Yes.
6 saying, here's the test that we -- we're going 6 Q. And I think Nick was even very
7 to give? 7 careful to point out that FHWA does not
8 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 8 approve, they only -- they only say, this is on
9 THE WITNESS: I'm going to say no to 9 the list for eligibility for federal
10 your answer. 10 reimbursement.
11 BY MR. MACLEOD: 11 Do you remember at the time when Nick
12 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with a 12 did that?
13 gentleman named Nicholas Artimovich? 13 A. Yes, I remember the legal jargon that
14 A. Yes. 14 came out to not say "approved" but "eligible
15 Q. How well do you know Nick? 15 for reimbursement."
16 A. I would say casual acquaintances. I 16 Q. So if you will flip over to the next
17 met -- I know him. I could pick him up out of 17 page, sir.
18 a lineup. I know he works for Federal 18 A. Tell me the top sentence.
19 Highways. I know he's worked on roadside 19 Q. Yeah. It's going to be "he says
20 safety stuff. 20 because they stuck to the original design."
21 Q. Is it true that your office routinely 21 A. Yes.
22 depends on communications from Nick regarding 22 Q. Okay. Were you ever aware of a
23 whether or not certain products are safe, at 23 patent trial that involved the ET-Plus?
24 least with respect to end terminals? 24 A. Yes.
25 A. Well, Nick's office was the one that 25 Q. Did you ever talk to Nick about that
Page 148 Page 149

2 trial? 2 Q. And so one of the things you're
3 A. No. 3 looking at is making sure that the FHWA says
4 Q. Let me ask you this: Is the 4-inch 4 this product is in fact safe; correct?
5 ET-Plus head design that's on the roads right 5 A. That's correct.
6 now, is it safe? 6 Q. Okay. Would it be concerning to you
7 A. Based on the information that we have 7 if during a deposition for the patent case, if
8 in North Carolina, again, we're back to the 8 Nick was asked directly whether the 4-inch
9 discussion of whether or not we're going to 9 ET-Plus head design by Trinity on the road
10 change our practices and things that we have 10 today was even safe, and he was instructed by
11 been doing since 2007, it appears to be as safe 11 his attorney not to answer that question?
12 as any other product that we've put out on the 12 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
13 roadway. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. That concerns me
14 The trends are -- now again, I do not 14 on a number of items.
15 see a reason to change what we have been doing. 15 BY MR. MACLEOD:
16 Q. And part of the reason that you 16 Q. Why does that concern you?
17 believe that it's safe is because your agency 17 A. Well, first of all, when attorneys
18 has relied upon the FHWA and people like Nick; 18 are telling engineers how to present their
19 correct? 19 opinions to their peers, and that is a concern.
20 That's what you told me earlier, you 20 Q. Okay.
21 told opposing counsel, that that's -- that's 21 A. We should -- we should, you know, we
22 the step -- second step that you look for in 22 should be able to have frank discussions about
23 the process to approve guardrails is that the 23 the products and whether they're performing or
24 FHWA says eligible federal reimbursement? 24 not. And without having to worry about the
25 A. That's correct. 25 next lawsuit.
38 (Pages 146 to 149)

Page 150 Page 151
2 That's a concern. 2 "approval." It says, FHWA has determined that
3 Q. What else? 3 the ET-Plus is eligible for reimbursement under
4 A. The other concern is, is that if he 4 the Federal Aid Highway Program.
5 had information that was relevant to this 5 Is that your understanding that you
6 product and was not able to share it, then 6 were made aware of by the FHWA?
7 that's not meeting the expectations that we put 7 A. Yes. It was -- I thought you were
8 into that group. 8 going to ask me if that's what that reads.
9 (Thereupon, Exhibit 8 was marked for 9 Q. Right. Well, is that your
10 identification.) 10 understanding of it, was that he was making
11 BY MR. MACLEOD: 11 sure that you all understand that FHWA --
12 Q. Just to be consistent, so we have the 12 A. Yes.
13 e-mail that I was just talking about. Handing 13 Q. -- does not approve, instead they
14 you what has been marked as Exhibit Number 8. 14 just say "eligible for reimbursement"?
15 And what it -- this is an e-mail 15 A. Yes.
16 communication involving Nick that we've 16 Q. And it also says here, if you look in
17 discussed about with the FHWA as well as a 17 the -- the kind of middle of the page, it says
18 gentleman named Bradley Hibbs with the FHWA; is 18 October 2nd, 2013. Bradley Hibbs is
19 that correct? 19 responding, sending an e-mail to Ricky Greene,
20 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 20 as well as Nick. He says, The NCDOT upper
21 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 21 management has been made aware of a lawsuit
22 BY MR. MACLEOD: 22 against the manufacturer of ET-Plus. The NCDOT
23 Q. Now, at the top here, this is an 23 is exploring ways to respond to that
24 e-mail from Nick to Bradley Hibbs and Ricky 24 information in regards to its use of ET-Plus.
25 Greene who works with you that says -- the word 25 He said, My response to the NCDOT is
Page 152 Page 153

2 the same as it was in February of this year, 2 all we should say about the situation," is that
3 that the FHWA has a 2005 approval of ET-Plus 3 concerning to you?
4 and is not aware of any complaints from the 4 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
5 states. Plus, also there is an N -- NCHRP 5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 study underway to conduct in-service studies of 6 BY MR. MACLEOD:
7 end terminals to determine factors affecting 7 Q. Because he's also the same person who
8 crash performance. Is my response accurate? 8 said, that -- you know, that was told that he
9 Were you ever made aware of -- of 9 was not going to respond to whether or not
10 this correspondence that was going on between 10 the -- the 4-inch ET was even safe; correct?
11 Ricky Greene, Bradley Hibbs and Nick 11 A. That is correct.
12 Artimovich? 12 MR. MACLEOD: Let's go off the
13 A. Yes. 13 record.
14 Q. You were aware of that it? 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record at
15 A. Not while it was taking place, no. 15 12:57 p.m.
16 Q. When did you learn about it? 16 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
17 A. Shortly after I got pulled into this 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the start
18 topic. 18 of Tape 3. Back on the record at
19 Q. And then Nick's response says -- in 19 1:14 p.m.
20 response to his "is my response accurate," it 20 MR. GALLAGHER: Just quickly, to
21 says, yes. That is correct. And then at the 21 memorialize a discussion we had off the
22 bottom it says, And that is about all we should 22 record, Ryan, I asked with respect to the
23 say about the situation. 23 exhibits you've used, whether they had
24 When someone who is a highway 24 been produced to us in litigation because
25 engineer with the FHWA says, "and that is about 25 none bear a Bates number.
39 (Pages 150 to 153)

Page 154 Page 155
2 You indicated that these exhibits are 2 A. Yes.
3 exhibits -- are materials that you 3 Q. Did you have any part in authoring
4 obtained through a FOIA request and that 4 this -- Terry Gibson's questions re Trinity's
5 you would let me know where they have been 5 ET-Plus guardrail end units?
6 produced to us in litigation and if -- if 6 A. I do not believe I did. As I
7 they have not, provide an explanation as 7 mentioned earlier, there were two discussions
8 to why. 8 on this. The first set of discussions I was
9 MR. MACLEOD: Sean, we will do that. 9 not involved in. And the second one is -- I
10 All right. You ready to proceed? 10 was.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 11 Q. So this was part of the second
12 BY MR. MACLEOD: 12 conversation, then?
13 Q. I am going to hand you what has been 13 A. I would have to read the whole thing
14 marked as Exhibit Number 9 to your deposition. 14 here. But give me a second and I will look at
15 (Thereupon, Exhibit 9 was marked for 15 it.
16 identification.) 16 Q. Yeah, please.
17 BY MR. MACLEOD: 17 A. I think I provided some comments on
18 Q. It appears to be an e-mail from Ricky 18 the crash test versus the variable nature of
19 E. Greene. 19 the actual crash. I do not believe the second
20 Have you seen this e-mail before, 20 part I was involved in nor the third, fourth.
21 sir? 21 Of course, the fifth one is just
22 The better question is: Have you 22 whether or not John Sullivan and Federal
23 seen the second page of this e-mail? The 23 Highways is aware of. I think I received some
24 attachment is named "Trinity Industries 24 questions about -- in response to number one on
25 ET Plus.doc." 25 that item.
Page 156 Page 157

2 Q. Because on the first page it says, 2 summary of Trinity guardrail end units on our
3 "Spoke to Kevin L. as well." I can presume 3 system is as follows."
4 that's you -- 4 Do you know if that was ever filled
5 A. Yes. 5 out?
6 Q. -- correct? 6 A. Ron and stuff -- that's Ron Hancock,
7 And then number one when it says, "Is 7 who was the director of construction office at
8 this a valid issue concern?" is it an accurate 8 the time. I don't -- what I recall is there's
9 statement that as of October 4, 2013, the 9 an estimate. I don't know if that document was
10 answer to that question being, number one, was 10 updated and a number was put in there.
11 not completely known at the time? 11 So I guess "I don't know" is the
12 A. Yes. 12 answer to your question.
13 Q. And that the very last sentence says, 13 Q. Nick Artimovich, is he professional
14 "The severity and vehicular damage in 14 engineer?
15 real-world crashes may be greater than that 15 A. I don't know.
16 which occurs in controlled crash setting;" 16 Q. You placed an emphasis on whether or
17 correct? 17 not a person is a professional engineer;
18 A. That is correct. 18 correct?
19 Q. This was knowledge that -- that NCDOT 19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
20 had prior to Jay Traylor's crash, correct, 20 BY MR. MACLEOD:
21 based upon timing of this e-mail? 21 Q. Is that true, sir?
22 A. Yes. That's -- that's always the 22 A. It depends upon what their position
23 case. 23 is and whether or not it is required.
24 Q. Then when it says, "How many are out 24 THE COURT REPORTER: And whether it's
25 there?" number three, it says, "An approximate 25 required?
40 (Pages 154 to 157)

Page 158 Page 159
2 THE WITNESS: Whether or not it's 2 was a traffic complaint from 2011, correct?
3 required. Yes, ma'am. 3 A. Uh-huh, yes, sir.
4 BY MR. MACLEOD: 4 Q. It says, "State engineer files
5 Q. Do you remember back in 2011 raising 5 complaint against group that challenged traffic
6 concerns over some folks involved in the 6 study."
7 neighborhood, that they were trying to act as 7 Do you remember that?
8 traffic engineers but they weren't professional 8 A. Yes, I do.
9 engineers? 9 Q. What it says here is that you wrote
10 A. Yes, I remember the issue. 10 to Mr. Cox that he is "legally required, as a
11 Q. And I think one of your criticisms 11 licensed traffic engineer, to report anyone
12 was that they were not professional engineers 12 treading on the professionals' turf. The
13 and they were unauthorized or they were 13 analyses and decisions affecting the safety of
14 violating laws because they were trying to do 14 the public are all determinations that are to
15 the work of what a professional engineer would 15 be made by licensed engineers."
16 do; is that right? 16 Do you stand by that statement, sir?
17 A. No. That's not the full story. 17 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
18 Q. Is that part of it? 18 THE WITNESS: What I said is poor
19 A. No. That's not -- that doesn't even 19 journalism is not a new phenomenon.
20 give a glimpse of what the issue was. 20 BY MR. MACLEOD:
21 Q. We can come back to that. 21 Q. If you were quoted in here saying,
22 A. It was probably a folder with 22 "Analyses and decisions impacting the safety of
23 Mr. Cox's name on it. 23 the public are all determinations that are to
24 Q. That's right. That's exactly what it 24 be made by licensed engineers," is that a
25 was. You knew exactly what it was. Yeah. It 25 statement that you will stand by or do you
Page 160 Page 161

2 refute that that statement -- 2 lawsuit against Trinity Industries?
3 A. That's a statement that is a 3 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
4 requirement of law and statute. 4 THE WITNESS: The --
5 Q. So what I was asking you is, do you 5 MR. SLUSSER: We are talking about an
6 place an emphasis on whether or not when a 6 attorney-client communication here.
7 person is giving recommendations or is making 7 BY MR. MACLEOD:
8 determinations related to traffic engineering 8 Q. Were you represented at the time by
9 and safety engineering, do you place an 9 Beth McKay?
10 emphasis on whether or not that person is a 10 A. Beth McKay is always representing us.
11 professional engineer? 11 Q. Was it your understanding during that
12 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 12 meeting that Beth McKay was acting as your
13 THE WITNESS: And my comment was it 13 lawyer? Did you have -- did you have an
14 depends upon the role they are in where 14 agreement with her that she was to act as your
15 they are working. There are some agencies 15 lawyer or the lawyer for the NCDOT during that
16 and there are some scenarios that are 16 meeting?
17 not -- where there is an exception to the 17 A. Yes. She is always our lawyer.
18 licensing requirements. It doesn't make 18 Q. So -- so just so I've got a clean
19 them any less of a professional. It just 19 record, are you going to refuse to answer
20 means that they are not required to have a 20 whether or not during the meeting there was
21 license. 21 discussion about whether or not a lawsuit
22 BY MR. MACLEOD: 22 should be filed against Trinity Industries by
23 Q. During the second meeting, did you 23 the NCDOT?
24 discuss with Beth McKay her concern of whether 24 A. Yes. I'm going to refuse to answer
25 or not the North Carolina DOT should file a 25 that based on the advice of counsel.
41 (Pages 158 to 161)

Page 162 Page 163
2 Q. Okay. 2 on the materials received report as ET2000."
3 (Thereupon, Exhibit 10 was marked for 3 Then it says -- the next one is,
4 identification.) 4 "10,665 other Trinity Industries anchor units
5 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 5 entered in a generic manner and could be 350
6 Q. I will show you Exhibit Number 10. 6 standard or older, but a high percentage of
7 Exhibit Number 10, is this a document 7 this number is likely ET2000 or ET2000 Plus."
8 you have seen before, sir? 8 Did I read that correctly?
9 A. Yes. 9 A. You sure did.
10 Q. It says here, "Below is a breakdown 10 Q. Out of the -- can you tell us right
11 of what those consist of" regarding -- talking 11 now how many ET2000 Plus guard or end terminals
12 about end terminals, correct? 12 are installed and are in operation in
13 A. Yes, sir. 13 North Carolina?
14 Q. All right. It says, "84 percent from 14 A. No.
15 Trinity Industries and 16 percent from other 15 Q. And is it true that there is -- that
16 suppliers," is that correct? 16 you have absolutely no way to tell us how many
17 A. That is correct. 17 would be 5-inch or -- versus 4-inch?
18 Q. Then it says, "157 clearly identified 18 A. It is true that we cannot tell you
19 on the materials received report as 19 that.
20 ET2000 Plus." 20 Q. There is absolutely no sort of
21 Do you know off the top of your head 21 tracking system or database that would allow us
22 whether or not out of those 157 how many of 22 to have that sort of information, correct?
23 them were 5-inch versus 4-inch? 23 A. That is correct.
24 A. No. 24 Q. Just to make sure, one of the things
25 Q. Then it says, "854 clearly identified 25 I saw was -- I saw from reviewing the
Page 164 Page 165

2 documents, in addition to the table that you 2 A. That is correct.
3 had earlier, was some talk about future 3 Q. So that's why when you talk about the
4 monitoring. You told us that there is no 4 crash data that you looked at, that's why you
5 future monitoring; correct? 5 and the other folks at the NCDOT were forced to
6 A. That is correct. We are not -- we 6 rely primarily on officer narratives and the
7 have not created a database to track each of 7 little drawings that are done in those police
8 these devices. 8 reports; correct?
9 Q. Is that due to lack of funding? 9 A. That is correct.
10 A. That's definitely a major issue. 10 Q. Let me ask you this: If Trinity
11 Q. Would you agree with me that there 11 would offer you, meaning the NCDOT, not you
12 was a lack of funding in the past that 12 personally, would you offer the NCDOT at the
13 prevented the NCDOT -- and I'm not blaming you. 13 same price as the 4-inch ET-Plus, would you buy
14 I'm just saying as an agency -- that there was 14 the 5-inch ET-Plus instead?
15 a lack of funding that allowed the NCDOT to 15 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
16 track these -- these -- the type of end 16 BY MR. MACLEOD:
17 terminals that were installed at various 17 Q. Based upon you what you know.
18 places? 18 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
19 A. I would say that extends to all the 19 THE WITNESS: Let me paraphrase the
20 roadways -- roadside devices, not just 20 question.
21 guardrails. 21 BY MR. MACLEOD:
22 Q. Not just guardrails. Sometimes 22 Q. Please.
23 you -- there is just not enough man-hours. 23 A. If the question was, "If Trinity
24 You're spread too thin. You can't do it all; 24 offered to sell us the ET2000 in lieu of the
25 correct? 25 ET-Plus -- or the ET-Plus with the 5-inch
42 (Pages 162 to 165)

Page 166 Page 167
2 versus the ET with the 4-inch, would we prefer 2 THE WITNESS: I would say that they
3 one over the other?" 3 may have made faulty assumptions.
4 Q. Yes, sir. 4 Q. You would agree with me -- or do you
5 A. My guess is, is that -- I mean, based 5 know what size the terminal was, whether it was
6 upon the information I have, I would say it 6 a 4-inch or a 5-inch that actually -- causing
7 wouldn't matter. I think the media or the 7 the impalement of Jay Traylor?
8 communications office would say, "Let's take 8 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
9 the 5-inch," because it has less media 9 of the question.
10 discussions around it. 10 THE WITNESS: The -- I believe it was
11 Q. Based upon the data you reviewed, how 11 the 4-inch.
12 many of the actual guardrail end terminal 12 BY MR. MACLEOD:
13 collisions involved a 5-inch ET-Plus or an 13 Q. What about Mr. Darius Williams?
14 ET2000? Can you tell us that? 14 A. I couldn't tell you that one.
15 A. No, but I would say if you took the 15 Q. Did you review photographs?
16 statistics here, then you could come up with an 16 A. No. Not on that one.
17 assumption. 17 Q. Do you know whether or not they were
18 Q. All right. But isn't it true that 18 provided -- or were you aware that the NCDOT
19 you have criticized other reports with respect 19 was actually provided with photographs of
20 to the ET-Plus because you have said that the 20 Mr. Williams' vehicle?
21 researchers have made assumptions? Is that 21 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
22 true? 22 THE WITNESS: I do not know.
23 A. All research has assumptions in it. 23 BY MR. MACLEOD:
24 So, no, that is not true. Faulty assumptions. 24 Q. Do you think that's something that
25 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry? 25 would be important for you to review when
Page 168 Page 169

2 you're trying to make the determination on 2 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
3 whether or not a 4-inch ET-Plus should remain 3 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
4 on products list? 4 BY MR. MACLEOD:
5 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 5 Q. And, in fact, other states have
6 THE WITNESS: One specific crash out 6 reached out to you before with regard to, you
7 of all of them, no. 7 know, what you were seeing with regard to the
8 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 8 performance of the ET-Plus; correct?
9 BY MR. MACLEOD: 9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. So I keep hearing you saying that. 10 Q. And isn't it true that other states,
11 Is there -- did someone within NCDOT tell you 11 when they have done an analysis, they have
12 that you had to rely solely on collisions 12 actually looked at performance of -- or these
13 involving end terminals in North Carolina as 13 crashes in other states as well as their own
14 part of your study? Was that direction given 14 state, correct, so they had a larger size, a
15 to you, or did you make that decision on your 15 larger sample?
16 own? 16 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
17 A. No. That direction has not been 17 THE WITNESS: I can't attest to that.
18 given to us. I can elaborate if you wish. 18 BY MR. MACLEOD:
19 Q. No. I mean, earlier you told us that 19 Q. Would you agree with me that having a
20 your study focused solely on North Carolina; 20 larger sample is better than having a smaller
21 correct? 21 sample in terms of determining whether or not
22 A. That is correct. 22 there is a trend, as you used that word
23 Q. And you told us that there had been 23 earlier?
24 numerous other instances of similar crashes in 24 A. Yes.
25 other states; correct? 25 Q. And then would you agree with me that
43 (Pages 166 to 169)

Page 170 Page 171
2 if you had done your analysis and had looked at 2 have.
3 the collisions involving -- that were involved 3 Q. Well, let me ask you this: How could
4 in other states, that it would have been more 4 the crash data in another state be worse than
5 accurate than the study that was done by you 5 the crash data in North Carolina? How could it
6 that involved just North Carolina crashes? 6 be worse?
7 A. I would not agree with you. 7 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
8 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 8 THE WITNESS: Under-reporting, poor
9 BY MR. MACLEOD: 9 reporting, lack of reporting. Training on
10 Q. So on one hand you agree that having 10 the officers.
11 a larger sample size is the better practice; 11 BY MR. MACLEOD:
12 but on the other hand, you say that you feel 12 Q. How do you know that that hasn't been
13 fine going on your study that relied on the 13 the case here in North Carolina?
14 only crashes in North Carolina and only the 14 A. Oh, every state has those challenges.
15 police officer's report; correct? 15 Q. So with respect to data, if you have
16 A. That is not the -- that is not a 16 some other state who is actually tracking
17 simple yes-or-no question. All 50 states have 17 crashes and they actually got data and accident
18 different crash-reporting criteria, different 18 reconstructions, wouldn't you want to look to
19 crash-reporting practices. Some data -- some 19 that other state and say, "Hey, show me what
20 states' data quality -- crash data quality is 20 you got because I don't have a lot of that"?
21 better than others. 21 A. You're asking a question in an area
22 So just taking a arbitrary state and 22 that when we start talking about crash data and
23 using their crash data is -- you know, you may 23 collecting the data, it is important to make
24 expand your sample size, but you may also 24 sure you understand what you're using.
25 decrease the quality of information that you 25 North Carolina crash data --
Page 172 Page 173

2 North Carolina is one of the few states that it 2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 is in what's called Highway Safety Information 3 BY MR. MACLEOD:
4 Systems. There's a handful of states that's in 4 Q. You feel comfortable as the state
5 HSIS data collection system, and that's because 5 engineer, looking at police reports that are
6 the people who manage that system have reviewed 6 most often two pages, and making a
7 their data and say that these data are better 7 recommendation that a end terminal is safe even
8 than the average data. 8 if you don't know what type of end terminal it
9 So I'm sure they can give you a 9 is?
10 plethora of information on how one state's data 10 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
11 can be better than the other. 11 THE WITNESS: It gets done every day
12 Q. Sir, but you told us earlier that the 12 in all 50 states.
13 data that you had when you did this study was a 13 BY MR. MACLEOD:
14 police report in most cases; correct? 14 Q. Well, how do you know that if you're
15 A. Yes. 15 not talking to other states?
16 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 16 A. I mentioned earlier I have talked to
17 BY MR. MACLEOD: 17 other states.
18 Q. And are you telling the jury that a 18 Q. Do you think that the 4-inch terminal
19 police report that doesn't have anything about 19 that was involved in the collision with Jay
20 any other impacts or accident reconstruction or 20 Traylor was safe?
21 even the type of end terminal, that that is 21 A. The -- it comes back to the
22 sufficient to conduct this sort of study that 22 discussion, again, that -- whether or not we
23 is supposed to provide for the safety of 23 should change what we have been doing. As the
24 drivers in the state? 24 state of North Carolina, the trends that we see
25 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 25 indicate that that product, assuming that they
44 (Pages 170 to 173)

Page 174 Page 175
2 sold us the same products that they were 2 A. No.
3 selling everybody else was performing as good 3 Q. Has -- have you ever compared the
4 prior to 2005 as after 2005. 4 efficacy of the 4-inch ET Plus to the 5-inch
5 Now, if you want me to sit here and 5 ET-Plus in North Carolina?
6 say is this product safe for all collision 6 A. No.
7 types under every condition, under all 7 Q. So isn't it true that you are simply
8 conditions, the answer is, you know, no. There 8 relying upon statements by the FHWA?
9 is no product that is 100 percent. 9 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
10 Q. What have you done as the state 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. We rely heavily
11 traffic engineer to compare the 4-inch ET-Plus 11 upon the statements of the Federal
12 to any of the other end terminals that are 12 Highways on reviewing their crash tests.
13 currently on the side of the roads in North 13 BY MR. MACLEOD:
14 Carolina? 14 Q. The FHWA is the same agency that
15 A. We continue to monitor the crashes. 15 employs a gentleman named Nick Artimovich, who
16 We have folks who work with the AASHTO Roadside 16 in sworn testimony refused to answer the
17 Design or AASHTO Roadside Review, the 17 question of whether or not the ET 4 --
18 committee -- I forget AR, whatever the numbers 18 ET 4-inch Plus was safe, correct?
19 are -- that stay intimately involved in those 19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
20 discussions. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. Federal Highways
21 Q. What I'm asking is: What actual 21 is Nick Artimovich or was his boss or his
22 testing has North Carolina done with respect to 22 agency. I'm not sure. I think he may
23 the end terminals on its roads to compare the 23 have retired.
24 safety of, say, like the 4-inch ET-Plus to the 24 (Thereupon, Exhibit 11 was marked for
25 ET2000? Has that ever been done? 25 identification.)
Page 176 Page 177

2 BY MR. MACLEOD: 2 low-impact angle.
3 Q. This was an e-mail to Roger Thomas. 3 BY MR. MACLEOD:
4 Who is Mr. Thomas? 4 Q. Knowing that a state like Virginia
5 A. Roger Thomas was a assistant state 5 did testing and said that the end terminal did
6 roadside or roadway design engineer. 6 not pass, does that make you at least
7 Q. Did he ever reach out to you and let 7 reconsider whether or not the 4-inch ET-Plus
8 you know that Charles Patterson with VDOT was 8 should be on North Carolina roads?
9 interested in investigating the in-service -- 9 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
10 in-service performance of their tangent 10 THE WITNESS: From my discussions
11 extruding guardrail terminals due to some 11 with various folks in Virginia, the
12 claims that were brought to their attention? 12 decision on the ET-Plus was made before
13 A. Roger didn't bring this e-mail to me 13 any testing was made at all. They had
14 or make it aware. There's other issues with 14 decided the outcome. And what their
15 Virginia and other cases that led up to this. 15 desire to do was, is to remove the
16 I'm assuming you guys will have that discussion 16 product.
17 somewhere along the line as well. 17 And then my question to them was:
18 Q. Correct. Did you review the VDOT 18 Are you going to test all of the products
19 testing of the ET-Plus? 19 to the same standard?
20 A. Their last testing? I did not review 20 And at that time they did not know.
21 their test criteria or their test. I'm aware 21 BY MR. MACLEOD:
22 that they said it did not pass their 22 Q. Are you aware that the SKT-3050 did
23 shallow-angle test. 23 pass VDOT shallow-angle test?
24 THE COURT REPORTER: Their? 24 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
25 THE WITNESS: The shallow-angle or 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm aware that
45 (Pages 174 to 177)

Page 178 Page 179
2 there may have been one or two that have 2 approval process.
3 passed. I'm also aware that others have 3 Q. No, we are not. We are talking about
4 failed, and I have recently asked to find 4 whether or not you actually reviewed the
5 out who was the actual testing agency. 5 testing.
6 BY MR. MACLEOD: 6 A. No. I have not reviewed their
7 Q. Why have you asked to find out who 7 testing in detail. No, I have not.
8 was the actual testing agency? 8 Q. Have you reviewed their testing at
9 A. When we were talking earlier about 9 all?
10 the break of chain of interest, the vast 10 A. No, sir. Other than the comments
11 majority of the crash -- the agencies that do 11 about the outcomes.
12 crash performing, that do the crash test, have 12 Q. Have you ever Googled VDOT guardrail
13 products that they developed and have been 13 safety?
14 approved by Federal Highways or excuse me, have 14 A. Not lately.
15 been eligible for reimbursement by Federal 15 Q. Are you aware that test reports are
16 Highways. 16 available online?
17 Q. Are you accusing the State of 17 A. I'm certain they are.
18 Virginia in some manner that they somehow had a 18 Q. After this deposition, do you think
19 conflict of interest when they performed their 19 you will go and review them?
20 VDOT testing? 20 A. No. I will probably have my fellow
21 A. I'm not accusing the State of 21 who is working on this follow up on it.
22 Virginia of anything. 22 Q. Who is your fellow that is working on
23 Q. But as you sit here today, you have 23 this?
24 not even looked at that testing? 24 A. David Galloway.
25 A. We're back to the discussion on the 25 Q. What is he currently doing?
Page 180 Page 181

2 A. He's been one of the people who have 2 kind? What if it doesn't fit the existing
3 been monitoring the end unit issue, concerns. 3 conditions? What do you do then?
4 Q. To what -- what is he doing in terms 4 So it is not -- this isn't like
5 of monitoring, Mr. Galloway? 5 changing your shoestrings. There's a lot more
6 A. He is on the one that's on the AASHTO 6 to it.
7 committee. He is our representative on the 7 Q. It would cost a lot of money to
8 AASHTO committee. 8 replace all the 4-inch ET-Pluses that are, in
9 Q. So if he is not doing -- if you all 9 fact, in the state right now, correct?
10 are not doing data tracking or monitoring, what 10 A. Yes, sir. As I mentioned earlier, if
11 specifically is he doing, then? 11 we believe it was a dangerous product that was
12 A. Well, he is keeping up with what 12 going to expose our citizens to a higher risk
13 tests have been done, what other states are 13 than other products that are out there, then we
14 doing, having a discussion about that; looking 14 would have been out there replacing the
15 at, you know, are there other products out 15 product.
16 there that are having concerns? 16 Q. But you have done no analysis of how
17 The MASH testing, which is the -- 17 the risks are associated with 4-inch ET-Plus
18 currently is the new standard for guardrail 18 versus the 5-inch ET Plus versus the ET2000.
19 ends, I mean, how many devices have passed 19 As you sit here as a state traffic engineer,
20 that. When -- working with other folks within 20 you have no comparative knowledge of how these
21 our department on when we will completely 21 operate; correct?
22 convert to MASH. 22 A. The --
23 There's a lot of decisions that get 23 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
24 made about these items. What do you do when an 24 BY MR. MACLEOD:
25 old guardrail end is hit? Do you replace it in 25 Q. The individuals that are -- Federal
46 (Pages 178 to 181)

Page 182 Page 183
2 Highways has had independently tested; had it 2 Q. Should BCTs have been removed on the
3 reviewed by other engineers, not the ones 3 roadways years ago?
4 actually doing the test. They reviewed the 4 A. Well, BCTs were -- in the '90s,
5 data as well. They still stand by the product, 5 Federal Highways said they are no longer
6 saying it is eligible for reimbursement. They 6 approved under certain conditions and that we
7 don't approve it. 7 should replace them when we reconstruct the
8 A. Well, according to them, they have 8 roadways.
9 never approved anything. 9 Q. Right. And then --
10 Q. Okay. And so the people who approve 10 A. I think that is a 1994 letter.
11 it are the states. And North Carolina is one 11 Q. I'm well aware. Then you had -- in
12 of the very few, minority, who actually approve 12 2015, you had two young girls who were actually
13 this product; correct? 13 killed by a BCT that was on the side of the
14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 14 road in Durham; correct?
15 THE WITNESS: We continue to allow it 15 A. Yes.
16 to be on our -- used on our roadways, yes. 16 Q. And -- and I think you said -- my
17 BY MR. MACLEOD: 17 understanding is you said, "We had set up a
18 Q. Are there still BCTs on your 18 number of statewide projects in the late '90s
19 roadways? 19 and early 2000s to do just that," meaning to
20 A. I'm certain you will find one. 20 take them off the road.
21 Q. That's dangerous, isn't it? 21 "Is it possible for us to have missed
22 A. Well, it all depends upon how it's 22 some?"
23 being used. If it is trailing end -- if it's 23 The answer is, "Absolutely."
24 trailing end that can't be hit head on, then, 24 Is that correct?
25 you know, it's -- it's not a hazard. 25 A. That was not the BCTs. The -- they
Page 184 Page 185

2 were BC -- there was projects set up for -- to 2 Then it says, "We had set up a number
3 remove blunt ends. There were projects 3 of statewide projects in the late '90s and
4 removed -- for bridge tie ends. And then there 4 early 2000s to do just that. Is it possible
5 were projects set for up for certain -- certain 5 for us to have missed one? The answer is
6 highways for different types. 6 absolutely."
7 (Thereupon, Exhibit 12 was marked for 7 Was that correct?
8 identification.) 8 A. Yes.
9 MR. GALLAGHER: What number is this? 9 Q. Is that acceptable, sir?
10 MR. MACLEOD: Number 12. 10 A. That's not -- the question, what you
11 There you are, sir. 11 said is what this paper says. But you were not
12 Okay. 12 there when the whole interview was being made.
13 BY MR. MACLEOD: 13 We had --
14 Q. So on the second page of this, it is 14 Q. What I'm asking you is: Is this
15 talking about that there were some members of 15 statement true?
16 the media that discovered that dozens of these 16 A. No, this statement is not true
17 dangerous guardrails are in use today on the 17 concerning BCTs.
18 stretch between southern Wake County and Orange 18 Q. Okay. And then you said, "We are
19 County. And it was referring to BCTs; is that 19 going to dedicate some highway improvement
20 correct? 20 funding. We are going to start looking across
21 A. This article may -- was referring to 21 the state. We are going to start at our
22 BCTs. 22 higher-speed roadways first and surveying
23 Q. Okay. And what it says is, "We went 23 whether or not we have any guardrail ends that
24 to North Carolina's top highway safety engineer 24 are no longer compliant. If they aren't, then
25 to find out why." 25 we are going to inspect them so we can get an
47 (Pages 182 to 185)

Page 186 Page 187
2 estimate on what it would take, if anything, to 2 wouldn't you just say, "You know what? This is
3 replace those." 3 a dangerous condition. We are going to replace
4 Is that what you said, sir? 4 them"?
5 A. That is what it says there, yes. 5 A. That is what we would do. What
6 Q. Okay. So even knowing that back in 6 you're -- what you're blurring the line here
7 1994, BCT failed testing and was no longer 7 is, is that in early '90s, it was the blunt-end
8 acceptable for installation, even in 8 guardrails and bridge transitions. They
9 February 4, 2015, BCTs were still on the 9 also -- Federal Highway said that the BCTs will
10 highways in North Carolina; is that correct? 10 no longer be eligible as well as a MELT, no
11 A. That is correct. 11 longer be eligible for -- on leading edges --
12 Q. And in response, the sentence is: 12 basically leading edges for the National
13 "We are going to inspect them to see so we can 13 Highway System.
14 get an estimate on what it would take, if 14 And at that time they said you should
15 anything, to replace those." 15 remove these products when you reconstruct the
16 And you're now telling me that some 16 roadway. All right?
17 of those still exist; correct? 17 "Reconstruct" has a very specific
18 A. That is correct. 18 meaning to DOTs. We have not reconstructed --
19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 19 if you go out and look at the roads that we
20 BY MR. MACLEOD: 20 have reconstructed, you will see the BCTs have
21 Q. And let me ask you this. Why in the 21 been removed.
22 world -- if this is brought to your attention 22 If you go out and look at the roads
23 and you know there's a dangerous product on 23 where we have not reconstructed, there's going
24 side of the road, why would you get an estimate 24 to be some BCTs out there that have been out
25 and see what it would take to replace it? Why 25 there since they were put in.
Page 188 Page 189

2 Now, what this last statement says 2 So now -- that was in February 2015.
3 is, is that we are going to use some Highway 3 Now we fast-forward to May 2015. Here the
4 Safety Improvement Program funds to start 4 Department of Transportation -- it says,
5 systematically removing and replacing them with 5 "Department of Transportation gave Channel 9 a
6 a 350, at that time, a crash -- more 6 document that lists 53 locations in and around
7 crashworthy device. That's what that means. 7 Charlotte where there are guardrails that
8 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 8 outdated end caps need to be replaced."
9 Nonresponsive. 9 And that's -- and then it goes on to
10 BY MR. MACLEOD: 10 say you -- "State traffic engineer Kevin Lacy
11 Q. If you will then look at Exhibit 11 said his office was only directed to remove
12 Number 14, there is another article. Actually, 12 cable terminals when they are damaged in a
13 if you want to take a look at it first. I 13 crash or a road is reconstructed, and many
14 don't have an extra copy. 14 haven't been since that 1998 mandate."
15 (Thereupon, Exhibit 14 was marked for 15 So that's what you were just trying
16 identification.) 16 to tell me about?
17 THE WITNESS: Exhibit 13? 17 A. Yes.
18 You don't make mistakes. 18 Q. And here's what your reasoning was.
19 MR. GALLAGHER: What's that? 19 Here's what you said. "If we were to replace
20 THE WITNESS: You didn't want to have 20 everything each time a new standard came
21 a gap. 21 out" -- because there was a standard that said
22 BY MR. MACLEOD: 22 BCTs no longer should be on roadsides, correct?
23 Q. No. That's okay. I'm going to 23 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
24 renumber it. It will be fine. Thank you, 24 THE WITNESS: On the National Highway
25 though. 25 System.
48 (Pages 186 to 189)

Page 190 Page 191
2 BY MR. MACLEOD: 2 THE WITNESS: If they hit them.
3 Q. Okay. North Carolina took it upon 3 There is a possibility they could get --
4 itself to say that they were going to keep 4 they could get hurt on compliant guardrail
5 some, correct? 5 ends, too. I think that is the whole
6 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 6 discussion today.
7 THE WITNESS: We were following the 7 BY MR. MACLEOD:
8 guidance. 8 Q. But the whole purpose of guardrails
9 BY MR. MACLEOD: 9 is to act as a barrier to protect people,
10 Q. It says, "If we would replace 10 correct?
11 everything each time a new standard came out, 11 A. The whole purpose of a guardrail is
12 then that's all we would ever spend money on." 12 to shield errant motorists from a more
13 He said that while cable terminals 13 hazardous scenario.
14 are outdated, people should feel safe driving 14 Q. But companies like Trinity
15 by them. 15 Industries, they profited off of knowing that
16 Do you stand by those comments? 16 there are vehicles that are going to leave the
17 A. Yes. 17 roadway from time to time. That's why they
18 Q. Even if it takes that money -- I 18 developed guardrails; correct?
19 mean, obviously to replace these, it's going to 19 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
20 take money, isn't it? 20 of the question.
21 A. Yes, it will. 21 BY MR. MACLEOD:
22 Q. But if the money is not spent, isn't 22 Q. Is that right?
23 the alternative that someone could get 23 A. I'm not talking about Trinity
24 extremely hurt? 24 themselves. I mean, that --
25 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 25 Q. I'm saying that the whole purpose of
Page 192 Page 193

2 a guardrail is to try to shield motorists once 2 Malcolm Ray wrote an article called "The
3 their car leaves the road, correct, to try to 3 Performance of Breakaway Cable and Modified
4 protect them? 4 Eccentric Loader Terminals in Iowa and North
5 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 5 Carolina."
6 Asked and answered. 6 Are you familiar with that?
7 THE WITNESS: That is the purpose of 7 A. I may or may not be.
8 the guardrail, yes. 8 Q. And in his words, what he said was,
9 BY MR. MACLEOD: 9 "The BCT is performing reasonably well."
10 Q. Okay. And if you have something like 10 That was before -- before the actual
11 a BCT that is literally cutting two girls in 11 ban came out. Do you think that that was a
12 half, and killing them, that's dangerous; 12 problem for Malcolm Ray to opine on that,
13 correct? 13 knowing what you know now?
14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
15 THE WITNESS: It was -- it was the 15 THE WITNESS: I don't know what the
16 best that was available for many, many 16 date when Malcolm Ray said that. I do not
17 years. 17 know.
18 BY MR. MACLEOD: 18 But what I will say is that if you
19 Q. Well, until it wasn't. In 1994 they 19 look at the progression of the products
20 said, "Didn't pass testing. It's no good," 20 that are used to protect the public, that
21 correct? 21 are errant, we started with nothing; then
22 A. In 1994 they said, "Do not use them 22 we put guardrail out there. Many cases it
23 for new products or new installations." 23 was a blunt end.
24 Q. And are you familiar that prior to 24 And it obviously was an issue. So
25 the time in which these were banned, that 25 research over the years have developed new
49 (Pages 190 to 193)

Page 194 Page 195
2 products to lessen the severity of the 2 false.
3 crash. 3 BY MR. MACLEOD:
4 The BCT at one time was a new product 4 Q. Was the BCT still on the road?
5 that lessened the severity of the crash. 5 A. The BCT was there.
6 BY MR. MACLEOD: 6 Q. And you still have some on the road;
7 Q. And when was that? 7 correct?
8 A. Obviously prior to 1994. I don't 8 A. It's still there, yes.
9 know -- I don't know when it came on the scene. 9 Q. And two young girls died because that
10 However -- 10 BCT was there?
11 Q. But even after '94 -- even after '94, 11 A. That is not correct, sir.
12 the North Carolina Department of Transportation 12 Q. Yes, it is.
13 said, We are going to keep those on the road, 13 A. So what you're saying is that the BCT
14 because if we were to replace everything each 14 jumped out and hit those girls. The BCT was
15 time a new standard came out, then that's all 15 static on the side of the road. Obviously it's
16 we would ever spend money on; correct? 16 not in the middle of the road, so people do not
17 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 17 hit things that are in the middle of the road.
18 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 18 When -- you're making accusations
19 BY MR. MACLEOD: 19 that the Department injured these young
20 Q. And as a result -- I mean, literally 20 girls --
21 as a direct result of the NCDOT making that 21 Q. I'm saying the department's decision
22 decision, two girls were killed by a BCT; 22 not to remove what was supposed to be removed
23 correct? 23 is exactly what hurt these young girls.
24 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 24 A. So the people who are injured on
25 THE WITNESS: No. That is completely 25 compliant products that are the newest of the
Page 196 Page 197

2 kind, best of all, tell me whose fault is that. 2 structure.
3 Q. Tell me about those injuries. Are 3 BY MR. MACLEOD:
4 they turning into spears and taking peoples' 4 Q. Sir, I realize you don't like the
5 legs off? What other product is doing that 5 answer, but what I'm asking you is as the state
6 other than the ET 4-inch Plus? Tell me. 6 traffic engineer for the North Carolina DOT,
7 MR. GALLAGHER: Object to the form of 7 what other end terminal other than 4-inch
8 the question. 8 ET-Plus has impaled drivers in North Carolina?
9 BY MR. MACLEOD: 9 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
10 Q. Other than the -- as you sit here 10 of the question.
11 today, as the state traffic engineer for North 11 THE WITNESS: I don't know. We did
12 Carolina, what other product have you seen in 12 not -- all those other crashes we did not
13 your state that is spearing through cars and 13 know what product was out there. Now --
14 impaling people? Name one product. 14 BY MR. MACLEOD:
15 A. There are other products. 15 Q. Because you didn't have the data?
16 Q. Name one. 16 A. That's right.
17 A. There are other products that people 17 MR. GALLAGHER: I'm going to object
18 hit and they die from hitting them. 18 and I'm going to ask you, sir, to stop
19 Q. Name one other product, an end 19 interrupting the witness when he is
20 terminal, that is actually impaling people 20 answering your question. You have done it
21 through their cars in North Carolina other than 21 several times and I have indulged it, but
22 the four-inch ET-Plus. 22 he is talking and you're interrupting him
23 MR. GALLAGHER: Object to the form of 23 and that is wrong.
24 the question. 24 MR. MACLEOD: Are you done?
25 THE WITNESS: Temporary sign and 25 MR. GALLAGHER: I'm done, but I am
50 (Pages 194 to 197)

Page 198 Page 199
2 telling you my objection will be you're 2 MR. MACLEOD: Objection.
3 badgering the witness and I will instruct 3 Nonresponsive.
4 him not to answer and to finish his prior 4 At the end of the day, can you
5 answer if you keep cutting him off. 5 give -- Counsel, is this funny? Because
6 MR. MACLEOD: Again, he has 6 you have got your legs, and you keep
7 absolutely fine counsel down here. 7 laughing over there and smirking. Is this
8 Mr. Slusser is here. And I'm certainly 8 funny to you?
9 willing to take instructions if -- 9 MR. GALLAGHER: I'm neither laughing
10 MR. GALLAGHER: And I'm not here as a 10 nor smirking and your commentary is
11 potted plant. I can object and I'm 11 inappropriate.
12 objecting. And you're on notice of what 12 Examine the witness and do it -- do
13 I'm going to do if you continue to do it. 13 it ethically according to the rules and
14 Go ahead. 14 not with the badgering that you have
15 MR. MACLEOD: You feel better? You 15 conducted and the interrupting of the
16 good? 16 witness.
17 MR. GALLAGHER: I stated my objection 17 MR. MACLEOD: I don't care where you
18 and you can continue your examination. 18 come from and who you are. You want to
19 THE WITNESS: I was going to 19 tell me about being ethical, good luck.
20 continue, that the studies that have been 20 BY MR. MACLEOD:
21 done by others have shown that, in fact, 21 Q. Okay. What I'm asking you is, can
22 other products that have been approved or 22 you tell the ladies and gentlemen of this jury
23 eligible for reimbursement have penetrated 23 a single end terminal, other than the 4-inch
24 the passenger compartment of motor 24 ET-Plus that has impaled drivers on the roads
25 vehicles that had hit them. 25 of North Carolina? Can you give us one?
Page 200 Page 201

2 A. The blunt end, the blunt-end 2 injuries or deaths?
3 guardrail has done that in North Carolina. 3 A. Well, as the state traffic engineer
4 Q. When was that? 4 we have millions and millions of people who
5 A. Years past. It used to be a product 5 drive on the roads every day. We have,
6 that was on the roadway. 6 unfortunately, several hundred thousand crashes
7 Q. Okay. Since 2005, other than the 7 a year that occur in North Carolina.
8 4-inch ET-Plus terminal, what other end 8 Unfortunately, several thousand of those
9 terminal has impaled drivers in the state of 9 involve severe injuries and fatalities. And we
10 North Carolina? 10 buy products that have been approved, made
11 A. I can't tell you if there are other 11 eligible for reimbursement, that are designed
12 ones, but obviously based upon the earlier 12 to lower the impacts of these crashes. And in
13 document there is not that many. Since 2005 we 13 most cases they appear to be doing their job.
14 are looking at two, four, five -- 14 Now, there are some instances that
15 Q. How many -- 15 exceed the performance expectations of the
16 A. -- maybe six events. And some of 16 products. That is reasonable to expect from
17 those could be -- obviously we know one of them 17 time to time. I have looked at lots of crashes
18 is an ET-Plus. Some of those other ones could 18 in my lifetime and I have learned that expect
19 be something else. 19 everything involved in a crash. So when you
20 Q. Would it be important to you as the 20 narrow the question down to such a small sample
21 state traffic engineer to know, instead of just 21 size, you got your answer.
22 sitting here at a deposition guessing what 22 Q. Are you finished, sir?
23 terminals they were, would it be important to 23 A. Yes, sir.
24 you to actually know and have a foundation for 24 MR. MACLEOD: Objection.
25 what terminals they were that caused these 25 Nonresponsive.
51 (Pages 198 to 201)

Page 202 Page 203
2 BY MR. MACLEOD: 2 isn't one. It isn't two. It isn't 26.
3 Q. Is it your testimony -- I just want 3 The issue comes up is, is it a trend.
4 to make sure -- is it your testimony that 4 And a wreck --
5 because of -- there were five crashes involved, 5 BY MR. MACLEOD:
6 serious injuries or fatalities, that that is 6 Q. So let's --
7 just not enough? You would need more in order 7 A. Let me finish.
8 to say, you know what, we need to do something 8 Q. Go ahead, please.
9 about this? Is there a certain number that you 9 A. So when a trend occurs and we notice
10 have in your head, sir, to where you say, you 10 that a trend occurs, we do investigate those
11 know what, if maybe there were 12 more people 11 trends. Now, it is unacceptable to us that
12 who lost both legs, or maybe there were four 12 anybody dies on our roadway. We would prefer
13 more people that were killed? Do you have a 13 no one dying on our roadway. We would prefer
14 number? 14 no one wrecking on our roadway. We are a
15 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form 15 Vision Zero state. We take every crash serious
16 of the question. 16 in North Carolina and I object to the tone of
17 THE WITNESS: And I'm going to object 17 the way you asked that question.
18 to the statement that you're making that 18 Q. Well, you have continuously pointed
19 it is a callous -- and, quite frankly, if 19 to this chart and your trend. So if you think
20 you're trying to make us look like a 20 it is callous, I'm going to tell you I do think
21 jackass because someone lost their legs. 21 it is callous. Because here is my response to
22 What I'm telling you, sir, is that there 22 that is --
23 are millions -- over 100 billion miles 23 A. What car did you drive here today on,
24 driven on our roads each year. People get 24 sir? What car were you riding in today?
25 in wrecks. There isn't a number. It 25 Q. Actually, I walked from next door.
Page 204 Page 205

2 A. All right. You know what? We have 2 responsible for.
3 pedestrians die on our roadways. Should we 3 Q. No. What I'm saying is that you have
4 prevent people from walking on the roadway? 4 absolutely no tracking system in place;
5 Q. Sir, what I'm going to ask you -- 5 correct?
6 A. We have people dying in every mode, 6 A. We do not track the -- we do not have
7 every -- you know, people wreck all the time. 7 an inventory, that's correct.
8 Q. And whose responsibility is it to 8 Q. You do a high-level in-service
9 protect them? 9 evaluation?
10 A. Whose responsibility is it to not 10 A. That is correct.
11 wreck in the first place? 11 Q. You can't tell this jury at all that
12 Q. Is that -- do you think that that is 12 you have ever done any sort of testing on the
13 a safe mentality? 13 4-inch ET-Plus, correct?
14 A. No. What I'm telling you, sir, is -- 14 A. Using your assumption of stuff, we
15 Q. Do you want to answer my question? 15 should not allow any vehicle on the roadway,
16 I'm going to give you an answer, right? 16 sir. We should not allow anybody on the
17 A. No, you badgered me long enough. But 17 roadway because we do track vehicles, we know
18 let me tell you, you have insulted my 18 that this Ford, this -- the Mustang, we know
19 department. You insulted me. You're trying to 19 that these cars have wrecks and people die in
20 degrade my professionalism by coming here with 20 them. Based on having a tracking system of
21 narrowly-asked questions, which happen to be in 21 that, should we prevent those cars from riding
22 the wrong direction all together, that you're 22 on the roadway? You're making --
23 trying to support something that we allowed a 23 Q. All I am saying is Jay Traylor is a
24 callous department to leave dangerous items on 24 citizen of this state.
25 the roadway and that the department is 25 A. I agree. And it is very unfortunate
52 (Pages 202 to 205)

Page 206 Page 207
2 for Mr. Traylor. 2 correspondence between Mr. Lacy and
3 Q. Did you ever call Mr. Traylor and 3 Mr. Traylor's dad. Has that been produced
4 tell him that? 4 to us in litigation or is that something
5 A. I talked to his dad through 5 you're keeping secret as well?
6 correspondence. 6 BY MR. MACLEOD:
7 Q. I have got that and we are going to 7 Q. You ready to proceed?
8 talk about it in a minute. And what you told 8 MR. GALLAGHER: You're not going to
9 his dad was, I've looked at the data and there 9 answer me?
10 is a trend; right? And there is a trend and we 10 MR. MACLEOD: Sir, I don't know you,
11 are going to talk about the trend because there 11 I never met you. But what I'll tell you
12 are a lot of other things that go into trends; 12 is I'm going to show you the letter here
13 correct? You talked about all these other 13 in a minute and we will give it to you.
14 factors, right? And you want this jury to 14 You can look at it. If you don't like it,
15 believe that in 15 years they're supposed to 15 that's fine. You can ask this witness
16 believe your little chart here reflects a trend 16 questions about it today.
17 that supports you not removing the 4-inch 17 MR. GALLAGHER: Can I look at it now,
18 ET-Plus from the roadway; correct? 18 since you didn't bother to produce it in
19 A. I'm not trying to convince the jury 19 litigation as required by the rules?
20 of anything. You're the one trying to convince 20 MR. MACLEOD: Absolutely.
21 the jury of something. What I'm trying to 21 MR. GALLAGHER: Now you're the one
22 convince the jury is is that I'm answering the 22 smirking. You can hand it to me.
23 questions you're asking me honestly. 23 MR. MACLEOD: You ready?
24 MR. GALLAGHER: Mr. MacLeod, I have a 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
25 question for you. You just referenced 25 BY MR. MACLEOD:
Page 208 Page 209

2 Q. So let's talk about this. Exhibit 2 Okay. Was that fair? Was that the
3 Number 15. 3 e-mail that you received?
4 (Thereupon, Exhibit 15 was marked for 4 A. That is it.
5 identification.) 5 Q. Okay. And Renee wanted to know if
6 BY MR. MACLEOD: 6 there is any quantifiable measure of how many
7 Q. So I take it you're not a huge fan of 7 miles' worth of percentage of these ET-Pluses
8 the media; is that correct? 8 were in North Carolina. You were not able to
9 A. I like the media. I think they have 9 give her that information; correct?
10 a very good role in highway safety. 10 A. Going back to one of your other
11 Q. All right. Okay. So you're copied 11 responses, that is the item that they should
12 on this e-mail. This is February 18, 2014, 12 have provided.
13 from Mike Charbonneau to Kevin Lacy. It says, 13 Q. No. You already told us earlier that
14 "WRAL's Renee Chou is working on a story about 14 you cannot tell us what percentage of the
15 a lawsuit against Trinity Industries of Dallas 15 ET-Pluses are 4-inch or 5-inch; correct?
16 over their ET-Plus guardrails. This stems from 16 A. That is correct.
17 a crash. Apparently the lawyer told WRAL that 17 Q. Or where they are located; correct?
18 we have these types of guardrails from this 18 A. That is correct.
19 company all over North Carolina and that there 19 Q. Okay. And then it says, "The story
20 have been problems with them elsewhere. Renee 20 is running today. Let's develop a response."
21 wants to know if we have any quantifiable 21 Okay. Who was tasked with developing
22 measure of how many miles' worth of percentage 22 a response to this media inquiry, do you know?
23 of these we have in North Carolina, and if we 23 Because you were copied on the original e-mail.
24 have had any issues -- any issues. This is for 24 A. You asked me who was tasked to
25 a story that is running today. Can you help?" 25 develop a response?
53 (Pages 206 to 209)

Page 210 Page 211
2 Q. Yes, sir. 2 like yourself?
3 A. This person here, this is one person 3 A. That is correct, based upon his
4 in my division talking to one of his direct 4 response, his notice to us.
5 reports talking about the issue, itself. The 5 Q. Okay. You said in here that you
6 response is more than likely updating the 6 wanted to answer his questions objectively;
7 information that we have. That is who Brian 7 correct?
8 Mayhew is. That is who Sean Troy is. 8 A. I do. Yep.
9 Q. All right. 9 Q. When you look at Exhibit Number 1, is
10 (Thereupon, Exhibit 16 was marked for 10 it your testimony that the data -- that the --
11 identification.) 11 or the conclusions that were drawn from the
12 BY MR. MACLEOD: 12 data in Exhibit 1, that they were objective
13 Q. Show you what has been marked as 13 conclusions rather than subjective conclusions?
14 Exhibit Number 16 to your deposition. 14 A. Well, considering that there was
15 I'm letting you take a look at that. 15 other data other than just this table, these
16 MR. GALLAGHER: Is this the e-mail 16 sets of tables, I would say that they were
17 you just handed me? 17 objective conclusions based upon a large amount
18 MR. MACLEOD: Yes. 18 of data. Now, is there a deterministic answer
19 BY MR. MACLEOD: 19 in there? No.
20 Q. You say here -- this was an e-mail 20 Q. And what you said earlier was that
21 from you to the father of Jay Traylor, that 21 you did not find -- based upon this analysis
22 being Jeff Traylor; correct? 22 that you did not find a problem that made it
23 A. Yes, sir. 23 worthwhile. Do you remember that testimony?
24 Q. Is it your understanding that 24 That was the word you used to us, "did not make
25 Mr. Jeff Traylor is a professional engineer 25 it worthwhile."
Page 212 Page 213

2 Do you remember that? 2 THE WITNESS: Do I disagree with the
3 A. I think I -- yes, I remember saying 3 Missouri statement?
4 that, and I misspoke. What I was obviously 4 BY MR. MACLEOD:
5 indicating, it did not make it a value for us 5 Q. Yes.
6 to change our process. We were not expecting 6 A. In what manner would you want me to
7 to get a different outcome with -- by banning 7 have a comment on?
8 the product or changing what we are doing 8 Q. Well, they said the ET-Plus guardrail
9 today. 9 end treatment is not performing as intended and
10 Q. So like when Missouri says that our 10 could pose a risk of malfunctioning. Do you
11 internal observations as well as our review of 11 disagree with that?
12 available information indicate to us that the 12 A. That is what their findings are.
13 ET-Plus guardrail and treatment is not 13 Q. Correct. Did you --
14 performing as intended and could pose the risk 14 A. I didn't -- I'm not going to -- do I
15 of malfunctioning. He says, therefore, we are 15 agree with what Missouri's approach is? That
16 taking proactive steps to correct the 16 was, you know, each state is to take their own
17 situation. We are immediately stopping the 17 approach. Now, if Missouri is finding that
18 further use of this product on Missouri's 18 that product is a dangerous product, then the
19 highway system by taking it off our approved 19 question is why does Missouri allow it to
20 products list, removing it from projects 20 continue to stay on the road in the first
21 currently under construction, and prohibiting 21 place?
22 it in use on any future projects. 22 Q. What they said was we are taking
23 Do you then disagree with the 23 proactive steps to correct the situation. That
24 Missouri DOT statement that I just read? 24 is something North Carolina has not done;
25 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 25 correct?
54 (Pages 210 to 213)

Page 214 Page 215
2 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 2 Q. It says, "We are immediately stopping
3 form. 3 the further use of this product on Missouri's
4 THE WITNESS: I disagree with your 4 highway system."
5 statement. 5 That is something that North Carolina
6 BY MR. MACLEOD: 6 has not done but Missouri is doing; correct?
7 Q. No, that is not my statement. It 7 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
8 says -- 8 form.
9 A. What you just said. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. -- "We are taking proactive steps to 10 BY MR. MACLEOD:
11 correct the situation." What proactive -- 11 Q. Then Massachusetts Department of
12 A. Proactive -- 12 Transportation said, "In light of a recent
13 Q. Hold on. What proactive steps is 13 report raising questions about the performance
14 North Carolina taking with regard to ET 4-inch 14 of a specific guardrail end terminal, Mass DOT
15 Plus? 15 has taken initial steps to halt the use of that
16 A. We are reviewing our data. We 16 end terminal while the agency conducts
17 continue to monitor the information that is 17 additional research."
18 going on. 18 That is an action that was never
19 Q. How do you -- and where is that 19 taken by North Carolina as far as halting the
20 located? Where is that -- because you said 20 use of the ET 4-inch Plus terminal; correct?
21 earlier that there is no tracking. 21 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
22 A. The data that produced this dataset, 22 THE WITNESS: We didn't remove it
23 which Exhibit 1 is a subset of that, is the 23 from our qualified products list.
24 North Carolina crash database. That gets -- 24 BY MR. MACLEOD:
25 that is maintained. That is what we are using. 25 Q. Do you know that Missouri, the DOT
Page 216 Page 217

2 actually did some accident reconstructions that 2 Carolina, information provided by the Federal
3 supported their findings of removing the ET 3 Highway Administration, in considering the
4 4-inch Plus from its roadways? 4 overall implications of our decisions."
5 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 5 When you told Mr. Traylor, whose son
6 THE WITNESS: What I know is is that 6 had lost his legs, what actual crash data were
7 some of that data was provided to the task 7 you referring to?
8 force and a lot of that data -- a lot of 8 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
9 the information was thrown out as 9 of the question.
10 inconclusive. 10 THE WITNESS: The crash data from the
11 BY MR. MACLEOD: 11 North Carolina Crash Database.
12 Q. When you say "to the task force," are 12 BY MR. MACLEOD:
13 you talking about the FHWA? 13 Q. And tell us what all that entailed
14 A. Yes, the AASHTO FHWA. 14 then that you were telling Mr. Jeff Traylor
15 Q. Gotcha. Okay. Going back to Exhibit 15 about that you were making decisions based on
16 Number 16, which is the e-mail that you wrote 16 actual crash data.
17 back to Mr. Jeff Traylor. It says, "As you 17 A. I think I mentioned down here the
18 know, as professional engineers it is our 18 15-plus years, 15-plus years of crash data.
19 charge to protect public safety and welfare." 19 Q. I know. What I'm asking is, what did
20 That is correct; right? 20 that -- because you wanted to answer his
21 A. Yep. 21 questions objectively. So what particular
22 Q. Yes? 22 crash data were you referring to when you told
23 A. Yes. 23 that to Mr. Jeff Traylor?
24 Q. It says, "We are basing our decisions 24 A. The collision reports submitted by
25 on actual crash data observed in North 25 the reporting officers.
55 (Pages 214 to 217)

Page 218 Page 219
2 Q. Okay. Here is what you say. You 2 Q. Would you agree with me that there
3 say, "Since 1990 North Carolina has experienced 3 have been significant changes in the industry
4 an increase in crashes where vehicles strike 4 since 1990 in both highway safety engineering
5 the guardrail end units. However, the number 5 as well as automotive engineering?
6 of fatal and severe injury crashes have 6 A. Yes.
7 decreased." 7 Q. You already told us earlier the NCHRP
8 And that is what you were saying in 8 Report 350 was published in 1993 and it
9 reference to Trinity's lawyer earlier; correct? 9 required higher-performing roadside safety
10 A. Yes. 10 devices; correct?
11 Q. And that is what you were trying to 11 A. That is correct.
12 say is that Exhibit 1 shows that trend that 12 Q. The Clear Zone concept, are you
13 you're speaking of; correct? 13 familiar with the Clear Zone concept?
14 A. Yes. 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that 15 Q. When it was disseminated it required
16 the rate of decrease in severe and fatal 16 removing hazardous objects from a large number
17 crashes for terminals in North Carolina is very 17 of crashes; correct?
18 similar to the national rate of decline for all 18 A. That is correct.
19 crashes in the same period? 19 Q. And isn't it true that without those
20 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 20 hazards, as a result of the Clear Zone concept
21 form. 21 there was less of a need for guardrails in
22 THE WITNESS: I haven't compared it 22 places where you have taken that hazard out?
23 to all crashes in North -- or all crashes 23 A. If you remove the hazard, then you
24 in the United States. 24 should not have to shield the hazard, correct.
25 BY MR. MACLEOD: 25 Q. And then, also, in 1998 for the first
Page 220 Page 221

2 time states were required to install only 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, increase -- usage
3 hardware that was tested for standard. Was 3 has increased -- seat belt usage has
4 that correct? 4 increased.
5 A. The -- that is when the 350 5 BY MR. MACLEOD:
6 compliance requirements came in on the NHS. 6 Q. Would you agree with me that vehicle
7 Q. Is it also true that cable barrier 7 design has dramatically increased -- has
8 installation has grown exponentially, which is 8 dramatically changed since 1990 to absorb
9 a far more forgivable barrier and greatly 9 energy in a crash?
10 reduces cross-median collisions with oncoming 10 A. Yes.
11 traffic? 11 Q. So what we're looking at is during
12 A. That is correct. 12 the same time period in which you were
13 Q. Would you agree with me that since 13 reviewing crashes, there were other advances
14 2006 seat belt usage has increased from 14 and other factors that contributed to the
15 81 percent to 87 percent in 2013, and in 1994 15 possible decrease in serious injuries and
16 the seat belt usage rate was 58 percent? 16 fatalities other than the guardrails
17 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 17 themselves; correct?
18 THE WITNESS: I can't -- I would have 18 A. Rephrase your question again.
19 to look that up. 19 Q. Of course. What you testified to
20 BY MR. MACLEOD: 20 earlier was that this trend showed you that end
21 Q. Would you agree with me just based 21 terminals were performing better post 2005
22 upon your general knowledge of the subject 22 because there have been less severe injuries or
23 matter that seat belt usage has increased 23 fatalities involved in end-terminal crashes;
24 exponentially since the time of the 1990s? 24 correct?
25 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 25 A. I testified was -- is that the
56 (Pages 218 to 221)

Page 222 Page 223
2 frequency of fatal and severe injury crashes 2 about the rate of injury or severe injury in
3 striking end units was down as well as the rate 3 fatality compared to -- and what I mean by that
4 of those injuries compared to overall number of 4 is, is that if you have 100 cars prior to
5 strikes on end rail -- on the guardrail end 5 whatever day that you want to hit the guardrail
6 treatments. 6 end, there is nothing that picks out that 100
7 Q. And what I'm saying is that there are 7 cars out of the traffic stream, you know, the
8 other factors involved, including advances in 8 random cars from the sample side. No one says
9 the automotive industry, advances in the fact 9 that someone driving a BMW is more likely to
10 that people are actually wearing seat belts 10 hit it than someone driving an F150 or any
11 now. There are other factors involved other 11 other; is that correct?
12 than just whether which end terminal was 12 Q. I don't know if that --
13 involved; correct? 13 A. I'm getting to the answer is is how
14 A. There are other factors involved, 14 you control -- one of the ways you can control
15 yes. 15 for the other variables is, is that you're
16 Q. When you did this analysis that is 16 looking at the rate of injury based upon the
17 partly seen in Exhibit Number 1, did you 17 overall population of the crashes.
18 consider those other factors? Were those other 18 So all the crashes that hit the
19 factors considered at all? 19 guardrail end, that was the full number of
20 A. Of course. 20 crashes that were collected, that was made up
21 Q. How -- what -- what document or 21 of whatever the vehicle fleet mix was out
22 findings would show us that those other factors 22 there. We did not choose which cars hit that
23 were considered? Is there a document that is 23 guardrail end.
24 going to show us that? 24 So if the number -- the cars that
25 A. That is primarily when you talked 25 involved the fatalities and severe injuries,
Page 224 Page 225

2 they, too, were not any special selected 2 never told NCDOT about in 2005; correct?
3 vehicle either. All the conditions such as 3 A. That is correct.
4 weather, day, night, you know, roadway 4 Q. And even as late as 2013 in the
5 conditions, all those are in there when you 5 recertification form they still told you there
6 start looking at the overall population. 6 had been no modifications; correct?
7 Now, is this something that we would 7 A. That is correct.
8 write a published article? You know, the 8 Q. And, so, then from 2010 until 2014
9 answer is no. But based upon what we are 9 you had five instances of fatal or severe
10 seeing here, we control for a lot of the other 10 injury crashes involving end penetration hits;
11 factors by comparing the rates. 11 correct?
12 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 12 A. That is correct.
13 Nonresponsive. 13 Q. And, so, wouldn't that trend alone,
14 BY MR. MACLEOD: 14 being as though you've got five just from 2010
15 Q. So from 1999 until 2002, before the 15 to 2014, when you look at the years prior,
16 modifications were made by Trinity to the 16 wouldn't that trend alone support the fact
17 ET-Plus -- actually, right, we know that that 17 that, hey, we need to actually do some testing
18 is true. 18 or do some comparisons of these end terminals?
19 So from 1999 to 2002 we have got four 19 A. No. We look at those individual
20 incidents where there were fatal or serious 20 crashes. You can look at five crashes and see
21 injury crashes involving an end penetration 21 what was the nature of the hit. If a car runs
22 hit; correct? 22 off the road and the guardrail end hits on the
23 A. That is correct. 23 side of the car, there is not a product out
24 Q. Okay. Then we know that there were 24 there today that is going to make that a
25 modifications made that Trinity Industries 25 desirable outcome.
57 (Pages 222 to 225)

Page 226 Page 227
2 You know, cars are not made to hit 2 of cars, improvements of other products, a
3 narrow objects, whether it is guardrail end, 3 specific crash has a whole lot more stuff in
4 tree, or utility pole or any other item on the 4 it.
5 side of the vehicle at high rates of speed. 5 Q. Okay. So if you go to page 2 of this
6 What we saw was, is a lot of those 6 e-mail, if you go down to the second full
7 crashes involved side impact collisions. And a 7 paragraph it talks about I'm aware of the Texas
8 side impact collision, again, doesn't matter 8 court case.
9 what guardrail end you have out there. 9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Sir, Jay Traylor's collision was not 10 Q. Then it says, "In these cases, the
11 a side impact collision; correct? Do you know? 11 plaintiff has to show that changes were made
12 A. No, it was not side impact from 12 but not disclosed. But there is not a
13 hitting like on the side of the door. Again, 13 requirement for a finding that the devices are
14 it appears that it was, from what I recall, it 14 dangerous."
15 was a shallow angle. It hit the, you know, 15 Did I read that correctly?
16 possibly the external or the end of the bumper 16 A. That is correct.
17 and went through the wheel well. That is what 17 Q. So I think what you're referring to
18 I know about it. 18 there is that Trinity failed to disclose the
19 But we are not talking about Jay 19 modifications; correct?
20 Traylor's crash in the statistics. When we are 20 A. That is correct.
21 looking at the data over the trend, we are 21 Q. Would you agree with me that the weld
22 talking about how is it trending; not a 22 on the 4-inch ET-Plus is weaker than the weld
23 specific crash. Because when you start looking 23 on the 5-inch ET-Plus, or have you ever studied
24 at a specific crash, when you talk about the 24 that?
25 improvements of seat belt use, the improvements 25 A. I have not studied the welding of
Page 228 Page 229

2 products, nor have I studied the diameter of 2 severe injury crashes. But then in 2010 to
3 holes in a sign post. And there is -- it is a 3 2014 I see five; right? If you look on
4 design. It is a tested product. We do not get 4 Exhibit 1; am I right?
5 into that detail, period. 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You said the reason North Carolina 6 Q. If you look at those dates, if you go
7 DOT has not banned continued use of this 7 from 2003 until 2004, would you say, then, that
8 product is that it is still considered an 8 there is an increase in the trend of end
9 acceptable product by the FHWA. 9 penetration hits in which someone has either
10 Is that what you wrote here, sir? 10 been killed or is severely injured? Is that
11 A. That is exactly what I wrote here. 11 right, sir?
12 Q. Okay. And that is even though the 12 A. When you look at the five crashes
13 FHWA does not approve of products; correct? 13 with one of them with the caveat, the numbers
14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 14 are basically the same. Again, we looked at --
15 Q. We talked about it earlier. It is up 15 Q. What I am asking you is from 2003
16 to the states to approve products. 16 until 2014.
17 A. They approve it for reimbursement, 17 A. Yes.
18 which I call it a synonym for approving. 18 Q. 2003, zero. 2004, zero. 2005, zero.
19 The legal folks can say what they 19 2006. Then we get to 2010, we have got two.
20 want. 20 2011, one. 2012, 2013, zero. And then 2014,
21 Q. Okay. So even if they -- so here is 21 two.
22 what I want to do. I want to assume, I want to 22 So we have got five in a span of
23 take your chart. So from 2002 -- from 2003 23 these years right here and we had a lull there
24 until 2009 I see zero -- at least this is just 24 where we didn't have any.
25 in North Carolina -- but I see zero fatal or 25 So isn't there an increase in the
58 (Pages 226 to 229)

Page 230 Page 231
2 trend of end penetration hits that cause fatal 2 Q. Okay. But what I'm saying is how in
3 -- or that cause fatalities or spear injuries? 3 the world would there be a decrease when, if
4 A. You're talking about penetrations? 4 you look at 2010 to 2014, there is an increase?
5 Q. Yes. 5 Do you see an increase there?
6 A. Yeah. If you want to stop the data 6 A. Are you talking about -- I mean, I
7 at 2003, I mean, if you want to pick what data 7 understand that this table doesn't match what
8 -- if you want to pick the year that is most 8 you wish it to say. But what I am telling you,
9 convenient to you, then, yes, that is how you 9 sir, is is that, you know, we looked at the
10 can interpret that. 10 entire data stream that we had available, that
11 Q. Well, you pick '99. 11 we can go and look at crash reports to get
12 A. Yeah, that is because that was the 12 further information. Now --
13 data that we had crash reports for. 13 Q. Sir, would you agree with me that the
14 Q. So you didn't have any for '98 or 14 more data, the better?
15 '97? 15 A. We already had that discussion.
16 A. No, we no longer had the physical 16 Q. Well, then why did you consciously
17 crash report in '98 and '97. 17 not look at other states? Did someone tell you
18 Q. And let's be real. I mean, every 18 consciously not to look at other states' data?
19 time you say "crash data" you're talking about 19 A. No.
20 the two-page police reports; correct, sir? 20 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
21 A. That is right. 21 BY MR. MACLEOD:
22 Q. So you're telling us that you started 22 Q. Was that a decision that was made
23 in 1999 because that is when you actually had 23 solely by you?
24 police reports? 24 A. We make that decision every day about
25 A. Yes. 25 looking at the stuff that occurs in North
Page 232 Page 233

2 Carolina. Now, are we -- we look at North 2 A. I could not tell you.
3 Carolina data first because that is what we 3 Q. What product was involved in the 2010
4 know best. We know our information best. We 4 shoulder?
5 also have confidence in -- in the data that we 5 A. Could not tell you.
6 have. We went through that discussion, not all 6 Q. What product was involved in the 2011
7 crash data in every state is the same, is not 7 shoulder incident?
8 the same quality, the same anything. 8 A. Couldn't tell you.
9 Q. Right. Some states have more than a 9 Q. Even though the purpose of the second
10 two-page police report; correct? 10 meeting was to determine whether or not the
11 A. Yes. That doesn't mean they have 11 product should remain on the approved product
12 better data. 12 list; correct?
13 Q. Okay. Who specifically asked you or 13 A. That is correct. I can give you an
14 tasked you with developing charts like this? 14 analogy. If I'm --
15 A. That was part of the discussion when 15 Q. That's okay.
16 we said let's look at the, you know, let's look 16 A. I'm going to answer the question.
17 and see what is happening, let's let the data 17 If I'm on I-40, I don't have to --
18 decide whether we have a problem or not with 18 and I want to go to Asheville, I don't have to
19 this product. 19 get all the way to Wilmington to decide that I
20 Q. How -- that is what I'm -- I guess 20 went the wrong way. I look and see am I
21 that is the very core of what I'm asking you. 21 heading in the right direction. I check signs
22 Like the two in 2010, if you wanted to 22 to make sure I'm heading in the right
23 determine whether or not there was a problem 23 direction. Because, you know what, driving all
24 with the product, what product was involved in 24 the way to Wilmington would be a long ways out
25 the 2010 media -- median accident? 25 of the way.
59 (Pages 230 to 233)

Page 234 Page 235
2 This is an indicator saying that the 2 improving trend?
3 trends that we're seeing in North Carolina are 3 A. Absolutely.
4 trending in the direction that we would want 4 Q. Okay. So in 2010 -- what about 2010
5 them to go. 5 to 2014, is there an improving trend there?
6 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 6 A. 2010 to 2014. I'm looking at the top
7 Nonresponsive after "no." 7 table.
8 BY MR. MACLEOD: 8 Q. Let's look at the bottom one where we
9 Q. You say, "Lastly, I believe that it 9 are talking about severe injuries.
10 would be inappropriate to ban the use of the 10 A. Those numbers are so small. We are
11 devices and leave the thousands that are 11 talking about in 15 years you're talking about,
12 already installed across the state. I believe 12 you know, 10 crashes.
13 that if we ban the use of the product, then we 13 Q. Would it be so small if it was your
14 must take measures to remove them from the 14 leg, sir?
15 highway. Our crash data, meaning the police 15 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
16 reports, just does not support that course of 16 BY MR. MACLEOD:
17 action. As mentioned above, the crash data, 17 Q. I mean, you realize that those
18 the police reports, do not show a decreasing 18 numbers, they represent people; right?
19 trend in safety as relates to vehicles striking 19 A. Yes, sir, I do. I take -- that is my
20 guardrail end treatments. In fact, the trend 20 job every day.
21 is an improving one;" correct? 21 Q. So when you say those numbers --
22 A. That is correct. 22 A. And you realize that I take that very
23 Q. Okay. So is it your testimony that 23 personal, that whether I win or lose today or a
24 even if we just look at the North Carolina 24 discussion or any of that, I still do that. I
25 data, that from 1999 to 2014 there is an 25 don't get paid more if I win. I don't get paid
Page 236 Page 237

2 less if I lose. You understand that; right? I 2 your testimony earlier.
3 get paid to do my job, and I was doing my job, 3 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
4 and that is what I'm talking about. I don't 4 THE WITNESS: No, no, you're
5 have someone -- we are looking at this. This 5 paraphrasing -- you're taking it out of
6 is the data trend. You don't agree with it and 6 context and you're smearing it.
7 that's fine. That is perfectly fine you don't 7 BY MR. MACLEOD:
8 agree with it. And that is okay. You would 8 Q. Each one of those --
9 not be the first person to disagree with it. 9 A. But what I'm telling you, sir --
10 But when we look at the trends of 10 Q. Each one of those numbers is an
11 this, it is a responsible trend when we start 11 individual; correct?
12 looking at how this thing occurs. 12 A. Absolutely. And you know what? They
13 Now, when I was talking to 13 live in North Carolina. They generally are
14 Mr. Traylor I do not believe that it is 14 from North Carolina. We take that very
15 appropriate to say that that is a dangerous 15 seriously in our state.
16 product in leaving it on the side of the road. 16 Q. And they deserve to have a North
17 I don't believe that is the case. And I will 17 Carolina Department of Transportation that is
18 not say it's not a dangerous product because we 18 looking out for their best interest with
19 didn't want to go through the expense of 19 respect to end terminals; correct?
20 removing it because we would fix that. 20 A. They deserve the Department of
21 Q. But you did it on the BCT, sir. 21 Transportation to be fiducially responsible for
22 A. No, I didn't. 22 them because, you know, for their money that
23 Q. You left it on the road and people 23 they pay us in taxes because they would like to
24 got hurt. And you said it was their fault 24 get to work on time, they would like to get
25 because they veered off the highway. That was 25 home in the afternoon on time. There is a
60 (Pages 234 to 237)

Page 238 Page 239
2 plethora of other things that come with the 2 A. Since you have such a great
3 transportation dollars that they pay for. 3 experience in this area, then how did it pass
4 Now, if it is your opinion -- and I 4 the test, continually pass the test,
5 don't know where you're from -- that no one 5 independent testing?
6 should ever die on a road, then you're going to 6 Q. First off, Trinity Industries decides
7 have to look at your tax rate a little bit 7 what testing it needs to submit to the --
8 different. 8 A. No, the Federal Highways test.
9 Q. My opinion is that people should not 9 Q. What about the VDOT testing?
10 die on the road when officials know that there 10 A. The VDOT testing was -- is more like
11 is a dangerous product. 11 the new current testing requirements.
12 And what I'm asking you is -- and 12 Q. You have never even seen it. You
13 this has been the whole purpose of -- 13 have never even taken the time to look at it;
14 A. And I told -- 14 have you?
15 Q. -- us being here is that you did not 15 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
16 take the step to ever compare the 4-inch 16 of the question.
17 ET-Plus to the 5-inch ET-Plus. If you had 17 THE WITNESS: That doesn't mean I'm
18 taken that simple step, sir, don't you think 18 not aware of it.
19 that it may have been telling to you to see 19 BY MR. MACLEOD:
20 whether or not the 4-inch ET-Plus was safe? 20 Q. What about the eight test? What
21 A. Well, -- 21 about the FHWA? What about that eight test,
22 MR. GALLAGHER: Let me object to the 22 that Southwest Research Institute eight test?
23 form of the question. I'm sorry to 23 A. Yeah, what about it?
24 interrupt. I want to make sure I had that 24 Q. Was that a pass or a fail?
25 on the record. 25 A. Apparently it passed.
Page 240 Page 241

2 Q. Have you ever compared that crash to 2 name. I didn't brush up on everybody that is
3 Jay Traylor -- to Jay Traylor's crash? 3 involved in this for this deposition today.
4 A. From what I understand, it was a 4 Q. Do you know if he is a professional
5 completely different part of the car that got 5 engineer?
6 hit by the guardrail. It folded in. From what 6 A. I do not know. However, most
7 I recall, it had 6-inch penetration. Not 7 professors aren't professional engineers.
8 penetration as far as going into the 8 MR. MACLEOD: We can go off the
9 compartment, but compressing the compartment 9 record and take a short break.
10 in. But the -- the engineers and the 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
11 professors and all that who reviewed it said, 11 2:42.
12 guess what? What did they say? It passed. 12 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
13 Did they not say that? 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record
14 Q. Who reviewed it? Who reviewed it? 14 at 2:59 p.m.
15 Tell me who reviewed it. Tell me, as you sit 15 BY MR. MACLEOD:
16 here right now, all those professors and all 16 Q. Sir, are you ready to proceed?
17 these people that reviewed it. Who reviewed 17 A. Yes, sir.
18 it? 18 Q. Here is a copy of Exhibit Number 17
19 A. Federal Highways is responsible for 19 I'm going to show you.
20 reviewing it. 20 (Thereupon, Exhibit 17 was marked for
21 Q. Who else? 21 identification.)
22 A. They hired a consultant or a guy from 22 BY MR. MACLEOD:
23 Virginia Tech. 23 Q. This was a certification or
24 Q. Who was it? 24 certificate of a compliance for Trinity
25 A. I don't know. I don't remember his 25 Industries. And it's in the state of Virginia.
61 (Pages 238 to 241)

Page 242 Page 243
2 Do you know what this certificate is 2 a repair it would be to the district, or their
3 for? Have you seen something like this before? 3 staff.
4 A. No, sir. 4 Q. Let's move on a little bit. I'm
5 Q. So then my next question was going to 5 going to ask you if you know some people.
6 be, are these same kind of certificates of 6 Do you know a person named Greg
7 compliance used in North Carolina, are they 7 Mitchell?
8 not? 8 A. Greg Mitchell?
9 A. I would not -- that would be someone 9 Q. Yes.
10 else if they get them. But that would not be 10 A. No, I do not know a Greg Mitchell.
11 in my wheelhouse. 11 Q. With Trinity? Don't know him?
12 Q. Who within the NCDOT would be 12 A. When you say "know him," as in do I
13 responsible for handling like certificates of 13 know him personally, or do I -- have I read
14 compliance like these, do you know? 14 anything about him?
15 A. Is this for a particular project, or 15 Q. Have you read anything about him?
16 was this for the approval of their product in 16 A. Just what was involved in, you know,
17 the state of Virginia? 17 this issue down in Texas.
18 Q. This is an order, I mean, a 18 Q. Did you read any of the public
19 certificate of compliance, and they are saying 19 statements that he made after the Texas trial?
20 they need 40 pieces of X, 40 pieces of Y. 20 A. Not that I recall. But it's possible
21 A. This would be the -- typically the 21 that I have.
22 contractor buys the product. 22 Q. But you've never met him?
23 Q. Okay. 23 A. No.
24 A. And they would demonstrate to our 24 Q. Earlier I asked you about Joseph De
25 construction units, the inspectors, or if it's 25 Angelo. Is it your testimony you never met
Page 244 Page 245

2 with him? 2 Q. Who was that individual?
3 A. Not that I'm aware of. I do not 3 A. I cannot recall his name. But it
4 recall meeting him. 4 was -- I'm certain he was probably a
5 Q. Are you familiar with a gentleman 5 salesperson. And as far as I know -- again, I
6 named -- I want to say it was James Bennett, 6 don't recall his name. It was a phone
7 with Trinity? Are you familiar with a James 7 conversation.
8 Bennett or Jay Bennett? 8 Q. What was the nature of that
9 A. I know a Jay Bennett, but he is not 9 conversation? He was wanting to know if North
10 with Trinity, unless he is working for Trinity 10 Carolina would still continue to have this on
11 now. 11 the approved product list?
12 Q. There is a Jay Bennett who says he is 12 A. Yeah. If it -- it was before they
13 a marketing representative for Trinity Highway 13 started reshipping. It was shortly after the
14 who is coming to meet with Roger Thomas back in 14 federal highways, whatever you want to call it,
15 2012. 15 reaffirming their allowance for federal
16 A. No. He would not be the same Jay 16 reimbursement.
17 Bennett. 17 Q. Was his name Brad Lee?
18 I can tell you I've met some Trinity 18 A. It is possible. I cannot remember
19 people in a Guardrail Committee many, many 19 his name. I didn't write it down.
20 years ago. When they were -- had a cable 20 Q. Do you know a Brad Lee who is
21 guardrail system, that we did not accept. I 21 affiliated with Trinity?
22 talked to an individual from Bennett -- from 22 A. No. I don't know anybody affiliated
23 Trinity shortly after the testing and asked him 23 with Trinity.
24 whether or not it was still eligible in our 24 Q. He is a registered North Carolina
25 state. 25 lobbyist for Trinity, but you don't know him?
62 (Pages 242 to 245)

Page 246 Page 247
2 A. No. If I hit met him at the 2 Q. That was my question. Is it still
3 legislative building, then I don't recall it. 3 approved?
4 Q. What about a gentleman named Russell 4 A. It is as of right now. I mean, we
5 Brown who is affiliated with Trinity? 5 are aware of what Tennessee is doing. And I
6 A. No. 6 have -- again, our folks are, again, following
7 Q. A Bill McWhirter he also goes by 7 through, seeing what we can find out about it,
8 William McWhirter. 8 whether we're having any issues in North
9 A. No. Like I said, any one of those 9 Carolina.
10 gentlemen may have been the one on the phone, 10 Q. What steps have you personally taken
11 but I just don't recall. 11 to evaluate the X-LITE, at least in North
12 Q. Did you ever have any correspondence 12 Carolina?
13 with him? 13 A. So far, right now, what we have done
14 A. Other than on a phone call, that I 14 is Mr. Galloway has -- talked to him a number
15 recall. 15 of times what about that committee that is
16 Q. I want to ask you about the X-LITE. 16 reviewing this, what are they looking at. And
17 Are you familiar with the X-LITE? 17 I'm aware that it failed the Virginia testing.
18 A. Yes. 18 And I'm aware that Tennessee is -- said that
19 Q. What is the X-LITE? 19 not only are they going to stop using it but
20 A. It is another guardrail end 20 they are going to look at removing it.
21 treatment. 21 Q. When you said Galloway is reviewing
22 Q. Sorry. Go ahead. 22 it with the committee, who is that committee?
23 A. I can't tell you who the actual 23 A. That is the AASHTO Committee.
24 company who manufactures it, but it's one that 24 Q. Who is on that AASHTO Committee?
25 is also on our system right now. 25 A. I can't tell you all the people on
Page 248 Page 249

2 there. It is from the states. There is 2 killed both persons.
3 representatives from a number of states. There 3 Q. Have you reached out to Tennessee
4 is a federal highways -- 4 with regard to the accident that killed Hannah
5 Q. My apologies. Is there anyone other 5 Eimers?
6 than David Galloway that represents NC? 6 A. I've asked Mr. Galloway to find out
7 A. No. I don't believe North 7 as much other details as we can about that.
8 Carolina -- I think states are only allowed one 8 And also, you know, get information from
9 representative. 9 Virginia on their testing.
10 Q. Have you evaluated Hannah Elmers' 10 Q. If you determine -- if you see from
11 accident? 11 the testing that the X-LITE doesn't work, but
12 A. That doesn't ring a bell for me at 12 the FHWA still says it's eligible for
13 this time. 13 reimbursement, will you continue to buy that
14 Q. Hannah Eimers. I said Elmers. I 14 product?
15 meant Eimers. Hannah Eimers, does that ring a 15 A. If we determine that it is not
16 bell? 16 performing as we want it to, or as advertised
17 A. No. 17 and if Federal Highways continues to support
18 Q. Killed. X-LITE. 18 it, no, we would remove it.
19 A. Was that in Tennessee or was that one 19 Q. What about this: If you -- if you
20 in North Carolina? 20 later go to review the Virginia testing of the
21 Q. Tennessee. 21 4-inch ET-Plus and you make the determination
22 A. Yeah. I'm aware of the -- I'm aware 22 yourself that it does not work, if you actually
23 of the concern. Again, I'm not aware of the 23 go and look at that testing or review it, but
24 details of that crash. You know, apparently 24 the FHWA still says that the 4-inch ET-Plus is
25 at -- a guardrail penetrated the vehicle and 25 eligible for reimbursement, will you keep
63 (Pages 246 to 249)

Page 250 Page 251
2 buying the 4-inch ET-Plus? 2 buying it. But that test alone is -- that is
3 A. The likely scenario is that when we 3 one test. As we mentioned earlier, one test is
4 convert to MASH-required guardrail ends, that 4 is, you know, we are talking about a collective
5 unless that product passes the MASH testing, we 5 of other information.
6 will not use it anymore. 6 So if we determine that that product
7 Now we will not, you know, go out and 7 was not a, you know -- that if we believe it
8 replace the ones that are in service, but we 8 was not performing the way it should be
9 will not -- sometime in the next, you know, six 9 performing, we would not be allowing it on our
10 months or so to a year or so we will be 10 system. If we believe it to impose a hazard,
11 converting to MASH-compliant guardrail ends. 11 we would remove it.
12 Q. And just to make sure, before we even 12 Q. When we're talking about, you had the
13 get to the MASH compliance, I understand what 13 review process, and then your findings were
14 you're saying. Before we even get to that 14 transferred to another department. That is
15 point, for example, if you left here today and 15 what we talked about earlier; correct?
16 looked at Virginia testing. And in your 16 A. Go ahead and finish with your
17 professional engineering opinion you felt that 17 question. I'm not -- when you say the review
18 that testing demonstrated that there was a 18 process.
19 safety issue with the 4-inch ET-Plus, even if 19 Q. When we are talking about Exhibit 1
20 the FHWA still said it was eligible for 20 and the data you looked at.
21 reimbursement, would you take the necessary 21 A. When we look at the data.
22 step and stop buying that product in North 22 Q. Then you presented your findings;
23 Carolina? 23 correct?
24 A. Based on that testimony, if we -- if 24 A. When we, again, with the group we
25 I believed that it was a hazard, we would stop 25 were talking about earlier, here is what we
Page 252 Page 253

2 found, and here is the recommendation. 2 confidential.
3 Q. Did anyone make a determination that 3 Q. But just to be absolutely clear, as
4 some of those documents needed to be maintained 4 you sit here, you can't think of a single
5 as confidential for a period of time? 5 document which would need to be kept
6 A. No. Actually Beth -- Beth is -- 6 confidential with regard to this analysis, the
7 would -- found severely on that. We are a 7 review process, the crash data, anything that
8 sunshine state. And it's very few documents 8 was looked at for determining whether or not
9 that we have. And unless there is -- in fact, 9 the ET 4-inch was a safe product?
10 there has to be a legislative allowance to 10 A. I'm not aware that there is anything
11 remove it from the public availability. There 11 that is being given any confidential, that --
12 has to be some legislative allowance to do so. 12 again, that doesn't mean that someone hasn't
13 Q. As you sit here today, are you aware 13 said a piece of paper or something that
14 of a single ET-Plus document within the 14 somebody has done is deemed that, but I'm not
15 possession of NCDOT that has been deemed to be 15 aware of that. I haven't been made aware of
16 confidential? 16 it.
17 A. The only items that I would say that 17 Q. Do you believe the Test 8 intrusion
18 would be confidential were the ones that 18 was only 6 inches?
19 pertain to the direction given by counsel, 19 A. I can't recall the exact measurements
20 not -- but I'm trying to recall if there is 20 of that Test 8. What I do recall was that
21 actually a document. There is not a document 21 there was an argument amongst folks of whether
22 that we produced, at least my staff produced in 22 or not it was pass/fail.
23 that area that I'm aware of. But there may be 23 What I recall is it was 6-inch
24 some items that the attorney general's office 24 compression in the -- in the passenger
25 and all them have produced that they deemed 25 compartment. That's -- and I don't know
64 (Pages 250 to 253)

Page 254 Page 255
2 whether it was 6 inches, or 3 inches, or 2 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
3 8 inches, but what I think it was 6, but I'm 3 THE WITNESS: Well, there is a lot of
4 not 100 percent sure on that. 4 products on -- on the highway system,
5 Q. If you determined that it was over 5 thousands. And there are some pooled fund
6 12 inches, would that change your mind with 6 studies set up. That is where the states
7 regard to whether or not that was a pass or 7 get together to test stuff, whether it's
8 fail? 8 signed sheeting, whether it is anything
9 A. We -- there is no one in my office 9 else that is out there, where people can
10 that is looking at that data saying that is a 10 take their products -- and NET PET is one
11 pass or fail. That is, again -- the pass or 11 of them. But, you know, to go through a
12 fail discussions have been with the federal 12 full scale crash test and expect each
13 highways and their folks. 13 state to do so is, you know -- or, you
14 Q. But at the end of the day the states 14 know, crash test every product that comes
15 are in charge of approving or disapproving of a 15 across that we get asked to use is going
16 device; correct? 16 to be quite cost prohibitive. And that is
17 A. At the end of the day, we are. We 17 why, again, the states count on federal
18 are not going to argue that. But we are -- a 18 highways to be the caretakers of that
19 lot of states are counting on whether or not 19 information and -- and to approve it.
20 the federal highways is going to allow it to be 20 The other thing is, you know, crash
21 used on the national highway system. 21 testing itself is not a, you know,
22 Q. And to be fair, is the reason that 22 something that you pick up on a Tuesday.
23 there is a -- just a complete lack of testing 23 It is a -- you know, it's a pretty
24 of these products, in comparison of these 24 sophisticated process that as a state we
25 products, due to lack of funding? 25 do not have people who crash test items.
Page 256 Page 257

2 Q. Earlier you talked about that David 2 Safety Unit. They are involved in it. But as
3 Galloway continues to monitor the X-LITE as 3 far as the individuals responsible in our
4 well as 4-inch ET-Plus; is that correct? 4 state, I would say would be folks in the
5 A. Yes. He is -- he is our 5 Guardrail Committee, which would be individuals
6 representative on that AASHTO Committee, and I 6 from the Roadway Design Unit. There would be
7 think the AASHTO Committee is -- is reviewing 7 some maintenance folks as well, but...
8 that. You know, a lot of questions going 8 Q. Have you ever spoken to Dr. Sicking
9 around on that item as well. 9 or Dr. Coon? Have you ever spoken to either of
10 Q. So if I wanted to get documents 10 those gentlemen?
11 related to his review, I would need to do a 11 A. I have met them before at either
12 full request -- request asking for David 12 conferences or other places. I don't know
13 Galloway's documents that refer to monitoring? 13 Dr. Coon, but I have met Mr. Sicking. But I
14 A. You probably would be better off just 14 don't -- I mean, other than, you know, the
15 asking AASHTO for the information from the 15 other 200 people you may meet at...
16 committee. 16 Q. Have you ever read any of the
17 Q. Is there anyone assisting 17 literature that they have written?
18 Mr. Galloway with doing that? 18 A. Yes.
19 A. As far as from the state of North 19 Q. Do you find what they -- what their
20 Carolina? 20 literature says and their opinions to be
21 Q. Yes. 21 credible ones?
22 A. We got Sean Troy, who he has done the 22 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
23 crash -- a lot of the crash analysis were under 23 THE WITNESS: I had a whole lot more,
24 his purview. He also works in my division. 24 I would say belief in his credibility
25 Brian Mayhew is the unit head for the Traffic 25 before this issue. Some of the things
65 (Pages 254 to 257)

Page 258 Page 259
2 that Dr. Sicking has done as far as 2 A. No. No.
3 approaching the Standing Committee on 3 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
4 Highways and others about this issue, I 4 BY MR. MACLEOD:
5 think, has been less than straightforward. 5 Q. I want to talk about a few of the
6 Q. Is part of your complaint with Dr. 6 previously approved products in North Carolina.
7 Sicking that when there are news stories that 7 Are you familiar with the GM barrier?
8 he's often asked to give a response, and you 8 It was the predecessor to the Jersey barrier.
9 give a response to the same news story, and you 9 A. No.
10 don't like what he says? 10 Q. It was previously approved, but then
11 A. No. No. 11 it's not approved now, but there hasn't been a
12 Q. Look at them. 12 removal of that. Are you familiar with that?
13 A. No. I don't have a problem with 13 A. No, I'm not.
14 someone having a difference of opinion. 14 Q. What about the Texas turndown? Its
15 Q. Do you understand that Dean Sicking 15 a/k/a is known as the "buried end"?
16 helped develop the ET2000? 16 A. I'm familiar with that.
17 A. Yes. 17 Q. That was a previously approved
18 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 18 product; correct?
19 Q. Are you familiar with the ET2000 ever 19 A. The buried ends are still allowed.
20 impaling a driver? 20 You just have to do it right. You have to bury
21 A. I'm not personally aware of it, but I 21 it into an embankment. You're not supposed to
22 would not be surprised if it hasn't existed. 22 slope it down. That was the issue with that.
23 Q. As you sit here today, are you aware 23 Q. Is it your testimony the Texas
24 of a single time in which an ET2000 has impaled 24 turndown is currently an approved product?
25 a driver, based upon your personal knowledge? 25 A. No. The Texas turndown is where you
Page 260 Page 261

2 slope the guardrail and bury it. It is not but 2 roadway, unfortunately.
3 you can bury the guardrail in as an acceptable 3 Q. Is it true that there is no reason
4 end treatment. You just have to make sure the 4 that you have to do a recall if you actually
5 conditions for it is appropriate. 5 stop using the products?
6 Q. So it's not approved, but it also 6 A. Well, what I understand a recall
7 hasn't been removed based upon the conditions 7 would be is, is that you're going to fix the --
8 you discussed? 8 just like you get a recall on your vehicle --
9 A. The Texas turndown was a design where 9 you expect to take it to the dealership, and
10 they turned it and, you know, if you had level 10 they are going to repair it and fix it. So why
11 ground, it would bury it there. If you have a 11 wouldn't you -- if there is a defective
12 slope that you can bury it into the slope, that 12 component, why wouldn't you fix it? You either
13 is the -- that is an acceptable design in the 13 fix it or you remove it.
14 roadside design guide. 14 Q. And is there any academic basis for
15 Q. We talked about the BCT. It was 15 that, for your -- for your testimony you just
16 previously approved, no longer approved, but 16 gave?
17 not removed; correct? 17 A. Is there an academic basis for that
18 A. That is correct. 18 position?
19 Q. Then the blunt ends -- I think you 19 Q. Yes, sir.
20 referred to them earlier -- previously approved 20 A. I would say that, no, there is not an
21 product, not all removed though; correct? 21 academic component for saying that there is a
22 A. I would love to sit here and tell you 22 product that is dangerous and proven to be
23 that across the country there is not a blunt 23 dangerous and leaving it out there versus one
24 end on the highway, but it would -- that is not 24 that is just obsolete.
25 true. You know, there are some still on the 25 Your argument isn't that this device
66 (Pages 258 to 261)

Page 262 Page 263
2 is obsolete. Your argument is that it's 2 is one of the handful of policymaking
3 dangerous. 3 positions --
4 The BCT is an obsolete product that, 4 Q. Okay.
5 you know, time has gone by and newer and better 5 A. -- in the department. There is a
6 products are available. 6 secretary, and I think there is, you know, 10
7 Does that make sense, what I'm 7 or 11 other what are deemed cabinet or
8 saying? 8 policy-level making positions that are called
9 Q. I hear what you're saying. I don't 9 exempt policy making. And they serve at the
10 know if it makes sense. 10 whim. I don't think he requested to go to the
11 MR. MACLEOD: I'm going to object as 11 Turnpike Authority. But obviously, they gave
12 nonresponsive. I appreciate you giving 12 him an option.
13 the explanation. 13 Q. Then your current boss is Mike
14 Q. I want to talk to you a little bit 14 Holder?
15 about Terry Gibson. He was your former boss; 15 A. Correct.
16 right? 16 Q. Mike Holder, I guess, before he had
17 A. Yes. 17 the position, was he the District 12
18 Q. He was transferred. Did he request 18 Supervisor?
19 that transfer, or do you know? 19 A. He was the Division Engineer in
20 A. He was transferred to the Turnpike 20 Division 12.
21 Authority. 21 Q. Division 12.
22 Q. Yes. He was transferred to Turnpike 22 Did he -- did Mike Holder have any
23 Authority as the executive director. He stayed 23 role in your work in reviewing the end-terminal
24 there a year. Then he went private. 24 crashes?
25 A. Then he retired. The chief engineer 25 A. Yes. As far as -- as I said earlier,
Page 264 Page 265

2 all secretaries, the chief engineers, Terry, 2 -- strike that.
3 Mike, their deputies, I don't know if they had 3 Do you know why anyone with the North
4 as much conversation with Ron about it, but Ron 4 Carolina Department of Transportation would
5 is the current deputy chief engineer. But we 5 ever say that documents explaining North
6 have had long conversations about this issue 6 Carolina's relationship with Trinity would be
7 because it is such a topic in the media when it 7 confidential for the period of five years?
8 does come up. 8 A. Not unless it has anything to do with
9 Q. Then let me ask you, James Trogdon? 9 the item that I have been advised -- the issue
10 A. Yes. 10 that we have been advised not to disclose.
11 Q. Is he the current NCDOT secretary? 11 Q. Is the item that you have been told
12 A. He is currently the Secretary of 12 not to disclose, does it involve the ET-Plus?
13 Transportation. When this issue was first 13 A. I'm looking --
14 brought forward, I believe he was our Chief 14 Q. I don't want to know what the issue
15 Operating Officer. 15 is. Certainly, counsel is here; he can tell
16 Q. Have you had conversations with -- 16 you not to answer that question. That is
17 does he go by Jim? 17 completely up to your counsel. I just want to
18 A. He goes by Jim. 18 know if it involves the ET-Plus, but I don't
19 Q. Have you had conversations with Jim 19 want to know the circumstances involved.
20 Trogdon about the ET-Plus issue? 20 MR. SLUSSER: Ultimately, yes, it
21 A. Not since he has been back as 21 involves the ET-Plus. It is a legal
22 secretary. I'm trying to recall if we had a 22 issue.
23 whole lot of conversation about it before, but 23 BY MR. MACLEOD:
24 I'm certain he is aware of it. 24 Q. That is the only question I wanted to
25 Q. Do you know why anyone with Trinity 25 ask you, was the issue that you were told not
67 (Pages 262 to 265)

Page 266 Page 267
2 to discuss, does it involve the ET-Plus? 2 I mean, if the secretary said we want
3 A. Yes. 3 to ban it, then all the secretary had to do was
4 MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Counsel, 4 say "ban it." And -- and, you know, it would
5 very much. 5 have taken place.
6 BY MR. MACLEOD: 6 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge,
7 Q. Is there any reason why the North 7 as you sit here, as to what those differences
8 Carolina Department of Transportation would say 8 may be or if there were differences?
9 that its decision to continue to approve the 9 A. I have no idea whether there were
10 ET-Plus would need to remain confidential for 10 differences or not. I have no knowledge if
11 five years that you're aware of? 11 they had differences on this product.
12 A. No. If that is the -- whoever said 12 Q. Are you aware of Mike Holder's
13 that is not aware of obviously exhibits 13 reputation for being what we call the "yes
14 whatever the number is, the exhibits that you 14 man"?
15 have given us today. That has all been 15 A. No.
16 released from Freedom of Information. 16 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
17 Q. Are you aware that Gibson and Tata 17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
18 had any differences over the ET-Plus? 18 Q. You can answer.
19 A. Am I aware that the secretary and the 19 A. No. I'm not aware he is known as the
20 chief had differences over the ET-Plus? 20 "yes man". I would be glad to share that with
21 Q. Yes. 21 him because he tells me "no" an awful lot. I
22 A. I don't know if they had differences 22 got e-mail records of him telling me no.
23 or not. I will say that if they did, neither 23 Q. As an engineer, have you ever looked
24 one of them would be shy enough to do either 24 at the 4-inch and 5-inch side by side?
25 way. 25 A. Yes.
Page 268 Page 269

2 Q. Was that in 2015 at the AASHTO in 2 BY MR. MACLEOD:
3 Chicago? 3 Q. Is that true even though it is the
4 A. Yes. Probably. 4 only device that, at least in these 2010 to
5 Q. Is it your position that the 4-inch 5 2014 time periods has actually impaled the
6 version is an improvement over the 5-inch 6 drivers?
7 version? 7 MR. GALLAGHER: Object to the form of
8 A. You know, the people who designed and 8 the question.
9 test it need to answer that question. I have 9 THE WITNESS: Well, that is not what
10 -- I don't have an opinion on whether it is an 10 we attested to earlier. I attested
11 improvement or not. 11 earlier that I know that at least one of
12 Q. But as the -- as one of the gentlemen 12 those was the ET-Plus. I don't know what
13 with the North Carolina Department of 13 the other ones were.
14 Transportation who's tasked with public safety, 14 Q. When you were looking at the 4-inch
15 do you have a position as to whether or not the 15 ET-Plus, did you notice that the 4-inch version
16 4-inch version is an improvement over the 16 had 4-inch channels inserted into the head?
17 5-inch version? 17 A. Yeah. Mr. Harman went through quite
18 MR. GALLAGHER: Object to the form of 18 a bit of detail on that.
19 the question. Asked and answered. 19 Q. Did you actually watch the
20 THE WITNESS: What I would say is, is 20 demonstration?
21 that based upon the information that we 21 A. I had a pretty good conversation with
22 have in North Carolina and the crash 22 him. So, yeah, he showed me all the stuff up
23 testing, it appears to continue to be an 23 there.
24 acceptable device. That's really all I 24 Q. Did you think that that was an
25 can tell you. 25 improvement, having the 4-inch channels
68 (Pages 266 to 269)

Page 270 Page 271
2 inserted into the head? 2 approved product. Now, is it an improvement?
3 A. Again, you know, the outcome of the 3 Q. That is what I am saying. First --
4 -- if the product is still -- you know, we are 4 A. You asked if it was an improvement.
5 looking at outcomes here, and, you know, if the 5 Q. The first step is is whether or not
6 product still met the crash test criteria, 6 it is approved by the states. North Carolina
7 obviously you don't agree with one of the 7 has approved of it; correct?
8 tests, and it meets the standards that federal 8 A. Yes.
9 highways is going to say we can allow them 9 Q. Now what I'm asking you is, because
10 eligible for reimbursement and our numbers show 10 you have approved it, I want to know what your
11 that the trends that we want are in the 11 knowledge is regarding the details and the
12 direction that we would -- or the trends of the 12 modifications that were made by Trinity.
13 crashes are in the directions that we would 13 Because they made modifications; correct?
14 prefer them to be going as in decrease -- 14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
15 they're not going up. They are going down -- 15 THE WITNESS: No doubt.
16 then, you know, I don't -- I would not call it 16 BY MR. MACLEOD:
17 an improvement or not. You would have to ask 17 Q. Did Trinity make modifications to the
18 the designers whether or not it is an 18 ET-Plus?
19 improvement. 19 A. Yes.
20 Q. But at the end of the day, you 20 Q. And based upon the fact that you are
21 already told us earlier that you now know that 21 the state traffic engineer, did you think that
22 the states are the ones who need to approve 22 the 4 -- 4-inch version, with the 4-inch
23 these devices; correct? 23 channels inserted in the head was an
24 A. We knew before that we are the ones 24 improvement over the 5-inch ET-Plus?
25 who approve it. What we are saying is it's an 25 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection. Asked and
Page 272 Page 273

2 answered. 2 consideration.
3 THE WITNESS: I don't have an opinion 3 Q. So one of those things -- one of the
4 one way or the other whether it is an 4 things you would take into consideration, I
5 improvement or not. 5 would presume, would be to have an
6 Q. As -- 6 understanding of the impact of the
7 A. That's -- I would say that is a 7 modifications of going from a 5-inch ET-Plus to
8 comparison saying that, you know, is it an 8 a 4-inch ET-Plus; correct?
9 improvement over the fleet versus, you know, 9 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
10 one product is better than the other. You 10 THE WITNESS: That is an assumption
11 know, that is -- this group of products have 11 you made.
12 met the testing criteria and, you know, that is 12 BY MR. MACLEOD:
13 what one of our primary uses -- primary 13 Q. No, I'm not making an assumption.
14 determinations of whether or not we are going 14 I'm saying earlier you told me that there were
15 to approve it. 15 modifications from the 5-inch ET-Plus to the
16 Q. Would it be fair to say that you -- 16 4-inch ET-Plus; correct?
17 that North Carolina has taken the position that 17 A. Yes. Modifications were made.
18 they are going to rely solely on the FHWA's 18 Q. Once you learned about that, did you
19 determination that a product is -- is eligible 19 feel it was incumbent upon you to see whether
20 for reimbursement as its standard for accepting 20 or not those changes impacted whether or not
21 that product onto its product approval lists? 21 the 4-inch ET-Plus would act in as safe of a
22 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 22 manner as the 5-inch ET-Plus?
23 THE WITNESS: Are we going to depend 23 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
24 solely upon the -- no. Because there will 24 form.
25 be other things that will be taken into 25 THE WITNESS: I think we're asking --
69 (Pages 270 to 273)

Page 274 Page 275
2 and my answer is askew to your question. 2 A. I know what -- I know what Mr. Harman
3 Because I'm taking the question as 3 has said it has.
4 comparing the two models. 4 Q. No. And I'm not -- I know what he
5 Q. Correct. 5 says. I'm asking what you said. What is your
6 A. Model 5-inch versus model 4-inch. 6 opinion?
7 Q. Correct. 7 A. My opinion is is that it's an
8 A. And if you took 5-inch and said, 8 acceptable product based upon the crash
9 well, this is fleet or, you know, X-LITE or 9 testing. That's all I'm going to say about it.
10 some other item, is this one better than that 10 The -- it is -- you're talking about a design
11 one? You know, we don't go in and say, well, 11 element that they modified their design.
12 this one is better than that one, so we are not 12 Q. Without telling you?
13 going to use this one. It is, is it an 13 A. Without telling us. I'm not going to
14 acceptable for use on the system. That is the 14 argue that.
15 question, whether it is better or not. 15 Q. And you're a professional engineer;
16 Now, you're asking, they made a 16 correct?
17 change; is it my opinion that the change was 17 A. I'm a professional engineer.
18 better or worse. My opinion is is that it was 18 Q. And you have a responsibility with
19 an acceptable product based upon the crash 19 the North Carolina Department of Transportation
20 testing. 20 to make sure that there are safe end terminals
21 Q. And what I'm asking you then is 21 on the roads; correct?
22 specifically with regard to the -- the actual 22 A. And we use -- that's correct.
23 modifications made to the device, to the 4-inch 23 Q. Okay. And you already told us you
24 ET-Plus, do you know what impact, if any, those 24 rely upon FHWA; correct?
25 modifications had? 25 A. Correct.
Page 276 Page 277

2 Q. Now, what I'm asking you is separate 2 within civil engineering, there a lots of
3 and apart from that. Is -- do you or is anyone 3 specialties within it.
4 with the North Carolina Department of 4 Q. I know.
5 Transportation taking any steps to actually 5 A. Now, if you're expecting a traffic
6 determine the impact of those modifications? 6 engineer to understand the nuances of a --
7 A. Not that I'm aware of. 7 where the weld was and what the impact's going
8 Q. Are you aware that the welds changed 8 to be, we're relying back on the tests
9 from the 4-inch to the 5-inch? 9 themselves. No, we did not go into how that
10 A. Yes. Mr. Harman pointed it out very 10 product was developed, how the -- the
11 well. 11 intricacies of the design, we did not do that.
12 Q. Okay. And do you realize what the 12 And if that is the expectation, then, you know,
13 impact was on that? 13 that is not our expectation.
14 A. I know what he said it did. 14 Q. Okay. Is the 4-inch weld stronger?
15 Q. I'm asking your personal knowledge. 15 A. Don't know.
16 As the state traffic engineer, what is your 16 Q. So you do this analysis, and you
17 understanding of the -- 17 write a letter to Mr. Traylor and you say it's
18 A. Do you realize that an engineer -- 18 an accepted approved product. But you -- I
19 there's lots of disciplines in engineering; is 19 mean, honestly, you personally do not know what
20 that correct? There's lots of disciplines in 20 these modifications were; correct?
21 engineering. 21 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
22 Q. Biomechanic, chemical, yes, I know 22 of the question.
23 that there are many. 23 THE WITNESS: I do not know every
24 A. Even within mechanical engineering, 24 detail that they make. Again, we're back
25 there's lots of specialties within it. Even 25 to a -- if you took this and replaced it
70 (Pages 274 to 277)

Page 278 Page 279
2 with another product, let's say the car on 2 you -- what's the question?
3 the road. 3 Q. So when you found out that the
4 Q. What I'm asking you, though, is you 4 recertification forms were false and that there
5 have people who have been killed by the 5 were modifications that were made, why not ask
6 product. You have people who have been maimed 6 Trinity to give you what you thought you were
7 by the product. Did you ever think it was 7 buying, meaning the 5-inch ET-Plus?
8 important to look at the actual modifications 8 A. As I mentioned earlier, there was two
9 and see if those modifications were 9 decision points, one was, you know, the change
10 contributing to these injuries or fatalities? 10 was made, do we make a decision about the
11 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form 11 change without notifying the department? And
12 of the question. 12 the other one is, is it a safety concern? When
13 THE WITNESS: Again, you're talking 13 the department was aware of the change, the
14 about a design detail that would be 14 decision had been made, and apparently by Jon
15 handled through the testing process. No, 15 Nance, and -- who was deputy chief engineer at
16 I did not look at each design modification 16 the time that, you know, if it's an approved
17 made and hypothesize on how that is going 17 product, then we'll continue using it. But I
18 to be different than its previous product. 18 don't have a -- I don't really have a big beef
19 Q. How about when you found out that 19 with what your comment is.
20 there were modifications that were made that 20 Q. Okay. I understand. So do you agree
21 Trinity didn't tell you about, why not ask 21 with me that in some respects that, if you'd
22 Trinity -- Trinity to give you what you thought 22 been in that position when you first learned
23 you were buying, the 5-inch ET-Plus? 23 about these modifications, it may have been
24 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 24 your position you would have said, "Look,
25 THE WITNESS: What the -- what do 25 Trinity, give us what we're buying. We don't
Page 280 Page 281

2 want the modified version; we want the 5-inch"? 2 guardrails were changed compared with before,
3 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 3 and so has number of crashes with serious
4 THE WITNESS: What I would have done 4 injuries, despite there being more cars on the
5 and recommended at the time was, is to 5 road. Do you feel that that statement is
6 write Trinity and say -- explain in detail 6 supported even by your chart in Exhibit 1?
7 what changes were made and demonstrate 7 A. Yes.
8 that the crash -- the crash testing that 8 Q. Okay.
9 you have sent represented those changes. 9 A. Okay. You're looking at a trend over
10 But that decision had already been made 10 time, not one year versus the very next year,
11 that it was an approved -- or excuse me, a 11 but if you were to put that data in a -- in a
12 product that continued to receive 12 plot, you would see that it would have a
13 acceptance by Federal Highways for 13 negative slope on the line.
14 reimbursement on the national highway 14 Q. In -- I will show you what I will
15 system, and the fact that we know -- knew 15 mark as Exhibit 18.
16 changes were made without them informing 16 (Thereupon, Exhibit 18 was marked for
17 us, was, again, that decision had already 17 identification.)
18 been made before they got the safety 18 MR. MACLEOD: I'll show you first.
19 person involved. 19 Q. Before I get there, I was going to
20 Q. Are you familiar with WRAL? It's a 20 ask you, there was another article that I won't
21 local news station that Renee Chou works for. 21 mark it as evidence, but it was a -- it's
22 A. Yes. 22 titled "NCDOT Still Says Highway Guardrail Ends
23 Q. You gave her, or you told her, that 23 Are Safe." It says -- this is quote from you,
24 the number of fatal crashes involving guardrail 24 it says, "There was some controversy with the
25 ends went down after 2005 when the ET-Plus 25 final and eighth test, but the crash testing
71 (Pages 278 to 281)

Page 282 Page 283
2 group as well as other independent researchers, 2 Industries, it says "ET-Plus 5-inch channels
3 they've agreed and said it was a successful 3 and butt weld." They removed the 4-inch.
4 test." You said that earlier, but just since 4 You're aware of that; correct?
5 you're here right now, the name of those 5 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
6 independent researchers just so I know that 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm aware.
7 information? 7 Q. Were you aware that VDOT removed the
8 A. I do not recall off the top of my 8 ET 4-inch from its approved product list?
9 head. I'm sure that if you were to ask Federal 9 A. Yes. I was aware that they had
10 Highways, they can give you the people who were 10 removed the ET-Plus from their approved
11 reviewing that. 11 products list.
12 Q. Would you expect for all those people 12 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that if -- if
13 to be professional engineers? 13 North Carolina Department of Transportation
14 A. It's possible that they were not. As 14 made the decision, they could do the exact same
15 we mentioned earlier, a lot of professors at 15 thing that Virginia and other states have done
16 engineering schools are not licensed engineers. 16 by removing the ET-Plus 4-inch from their
17 Q. What about Dr. Sicking and Dr. Coon? 17 product list; correct?
18 Are they professional engineers? 18 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
19 A. I believe Dr. Sicking is. I don't 19 form.
20 know Dr. Coon, but I think he, you know, I'm 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's -- that's
21 sure Dr. Sicking is a mechanical engineer. 21 in our prerogative to do so, yes.
22 Q. Okay. So what I've just showed you 22 Q. I mean, if -- if you went in tomorrow
23 right here, this is the -- this is from 23 and made the decision and recommendation to
24 Virginia. It says, "These are the VDOT 24 remove the 4-inch ET-Plus from the approved
25 approved products." And then under Trinity 25 product list, you could do that; correct?
Page 284 Page 285

2 A. The Department of Transportation 2 decided to do a recall and do a full
3 could do that, yes. 3 replacement of the 4-inch ET-Plus, that it
4 Q. Who within the Department of 4 would cost a lot of money?
5 Transportation of North Carolina would have to 5 A. Yes. It would cost a lot of money.
6 make that decision? 6 Q. What is the basis for concluding that
7 A. I would say it probably would be the 7 the North Carolina Department of Transportation
8 chief engineer today with this level of 8 has to keep buying a product if it cannot
9 attention that this product has. 9 afford to replace that product?
10 Q. And that would be? 10 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the form
11 A. Mike Holder. Of course the secretary 11 of the question.
12 could if he choose to do so as well. 12 THE WITNESS: What's -- the basis is
13 Q. Could the governor? 13 is that there's not clearly a demonstrated
14 A. Absolutely. We are a cabinet-level 14 need that it's there. So the same
15 agency. 15 question can be phrased, what is the basis
16 Q. Have you compared the ET-Plus to the 16 of spending rare transportation dollars on
17 ET2000 at low angles? 17 an item that doesn't need be replaced in
18 A. No. 18 the first place?
19 Q. What about the -- what about the 19 BY MR. MACLEOD:
20 ET-Plus 5-inch to the SKT? 20 Q. Is it your opinion that the ET 4-inch
21 A. We have not compared any of them at 21 plus should remain on the approval list?
22 low angle. It's my understanding that there 22 A. It's my opinion that the ET-Plus, as
23 are some products that are going through the 23 currently delivered and passing the various
24 MASH testing which has the low angle in it. 24 tests, is the product that is being shipped.
25 Q. Would you agree with me that if you 25 If that is the product being shipped, then --
72 (Pages 282 to 285)

Page 286 Page 287
2 and it has been approved, then, yes, it 2 y'all had meetings, and -- you had a first
3 continues to be on our approved products list. 3 meeting, a second meeting. Has there been a
4 Q. Is the collision involving Jay 4 talk about, hey, maybe this number is maybe
5 Traylor with the 4-inch ET-Plus, is it your 5 what we need to look at?
6 testimony that that collision alone is not 6 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
7 enough evidence that the 4-inch ET-Plus is a 7 THE WITNESS: No. There has not been
8 dangerous end terminal? 8 a number prescribed saying, you know, we
9 A. That single collision, no. It is my 9 change our mind when this number occurs.
10 opinion that a single collision is not the 10 Q. But how many limbs or lives need to
11 basis for making that decision. 11 be lost before somebody from the North Carolina
12 Q. And as you sit here today, can you 12 Department of Transportation tells Trinity,
13 tell us a number of how many collisions would 13 stop sending us 4-inch ET-Pluses?
14 need to happen like Jay Traylor's before you 14 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
15 would say enough is enough with the 4-inch 15 THE WITNESS: I think that is an
16 ET-Plus? 16 inappropriate question.
17 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection. Asked and 17 Q. Well, I think it's --
18 answered. 18 A. I refuse to answer it.
19 MR. MACLEOD: I hear you, Counsel. 19 Q. Well, you do realize that Jay Traylor
20 THE WITNESS: As I said earlier, 20 lost his legs?
21 there isn't a number. 21 A. Yes, I do.
22 BY MR. MACLEOD: 22 Q. You understand that?
23 Q. If one is not enough. And then we 23 A. And it's -- it's -- I wish that
24 heard Darius Williams, that two is not enough. 24 hadn't happened.
25 So is there -- have y'all had discussions, have 25 Q. But it did. And that's why we're
Page 288 Page 289

2 sitting here today; correct? 2 that from looking at photographs of the
3 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 3 accident, that there -- that the point of
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, it did occur. 4 impact was, if not the wheel well, at least the
5 Q. And it occurred with a 4-inch 5 extreme far side of the vehicle?
6 ET-Plus; correct? 6 A. Yes, sir.
7 A. Yes. 7 Q. So not, for example, an impact with
8 Q. And the 4-inch ET-Plus failed. There 8 the center of the bumper?
9 is no doubt about that; correct? 9 A. No. It was not center of the bumper.
10 A. In that crash it failed. 10 Q. And it was not an impact with offset
11 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 11 as you would test in the Report 350 offset
12 MR. MACLEOD: Pass the witness. 12 test?
13 FURTHER EXAMINATION 13 A. No, it was not.
14 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 14 Q. It was further out than that?
15 Q. I want to ask you about Mr. Traylor's 15 A. Yes, sir.
16 accident. I think you testified earlier that, 16 Q. Are you familiar with the analysis
17 from your review of information about that 17 that was done by AASHTO and the Federal Highway
18 accident, that the point of impact on 18 Administration and Task Force 2 about corner
19 Mr. Traylor's car was the extreme far side if 19 impact shallow-angle accidents?
20 not the wheel well of the vehicle. 20 A. I'm -- not in great detail but, yes,
21 A. Yeah. Again, I'm -- we didn't 21 I'm aware that they reviewed a lot of those.
22 reconstruct that crash. We didn't do a 22 MR. GALLAGHER: Can I mark this as
23 in-depth review. It's based upon my 23 the next exhibit? I believe it's number
24 recollection of some photographs. 24 19.
25 Q. But it is your recollection that -- 25 (Thereupon, Exhibit 19 was marked for
73 (Pages 286 to 289)

Page 290 Page 291
2 identification.) 2 joint effort between the Federal Highway
3 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 3 Administration and AASHTO."
4 Q. I've handed you Exhibit 19, which is 4 Do you see that?
5 a copy of Task Force 2 Report. Have you seen 5 A. Yes, sir.
6 this before? 6 Q. And then it sets forth what the
7 A. Yes. 7 questions were. And the first question listed
8 Q. You've read it? 8 there is "Are there performance limitations
9 A. Not word for word, no. I got the 9 with the ET-Plus 4-inch product?"
10 Reader's Digest version from Dave Galloway. 10 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
11 He's listed there as David D.D. "Bucky" 11 Q. You see that?
12 Galloway. 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So listed in the document on page 2, 13 Q. It also indicates that there is --
14 is Bucky Galloway, the representative of the 14 the task force is going to look at whether
15 North Carolina DOT? 15 there's performance limitations with other
16 A. Yes, sir. 16 extruding W-Beam guardrail terminals. Do you
17 Q. So North Carolina was represented on 17 see that?
18 the committee that did this analysis, this Task 18 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
19 Force 2? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 A. That is correct. 20 Q. In the next paragraph there is the
21 Q. If you turn to page 5, there is an 21 statement that, "The purpose of this effort was
22 executive summary. Are you with me? 22 to determine whether there is any evidence of
23 A. Yes. 23 unique performance limitations of the ET-Plus
24 Q. At the top of the executive summary 24 4-inch guardrail terminal and the degree to
25 the report states, "This report documents a 25 which any such performance limitations extend
Page 292 Page 293

2 to other extruding W-beam guardrail terminals." 2 one that begins with "the information
3 Do you see that? 3 provided."
4 A. Yes, sir. 4 Do you see that, that paragraph?
5 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Did you understand one of the things 6 Q. At the end of that paragraph there is
7 that Task Force 2 was looking into was whether 7 a reference to some performance limitations
8 there was evidence that the ET-Plus had unique 8 that could be gleaned from the analysis that
9 performance limitations that other products in 9 was done by the task force.
10 its class did not share? 10 Do you see that?
11 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 11 A. Yes, sir.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 12 Q. And then there's the statement, "The
13 Q. And do you recall what the conclusion 13 evidence did not suggest that these performance
14 was of Task Force 2 with respect to that 14 limitations are limited to the ET-Plus 4-inch
15 question? In other words, the conclusion as to 15 device."
16 whether there was a unique problem with the 16 Do you see that?
17 ET-Plus as opposed to other products? 17 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
18 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
19 THE WITNESS: What I recall is is 19 Q. Was that your understanding of the
20 that there were similar performance 20 conclusion that any performance limitations
21 constraints with other products as well. 21 that were found were limitations that were
22 Q. And if you look at the -- at page 6, 22 shared by all products in this class including
23 still in the executive summary, do you see that 23 the 5-inch ET2000, the SKT, and the fleet?
24 there's a reference in the second full 24 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
25 paragraph, maybe the third full paragraph, the 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't -- I
74 (Pages 290 to 293)

Page 294 Page 295
2 don't know if it specifically called out 2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 each one of those products in their 3 Q. And is that, as you understand, the
4 testing, but -- because some of them, I 4 circumstances of Mr. Traylor's accident, was
5 think, had a very small sample size. 5 his accident a head-on shallow angle corner
6 Q. If you turn to page 7 of the 6 impact?
7 executive summary under the heading number two, 7 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
8 performance limitations. 8 Lacks foundation.
9 Do you see that? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. Now, if you turn to page 41 of Task
11 Q. Here the report talks about in the 11 Force 2's report, there's a diagram that
12 second full paragraph how the task force 12 illustrates, a figure 7, that illustrates a
13 identified several performance limitations for 13 head-on shallow angle corner impact scenario.
14 all types of extruding W-beam guardrail 14 Do you see that?
15 terminals reviewed in the study. 15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Do you see that? 16 Q. And just to be clear, is that what
17 A. Yes. 17 you understand to be the circumstances where
18 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 18 the task force determined that all extruding
19 Q. It was one of the limitations that 19 type guardrail end terminals have performance
20 the task force, between the Federal Highway 20 limitations?
21 Administration and AASHTO, identified for all 21 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
22 products in this class, that there are 22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 limitations in what are described here as 23 Q. And is this diagram what you
24 head-on shallow angle corner impacts? 24 understand to be similar to what happened in
25 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 25 Mr. Traylor's crash?
Page 296 Page 297

2 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 2 respect to the performance of an end terminal
3 THE WITNESS: What I recall, I 3 in a crash, whether it's been previously
4 believe, the -- the side of the vehicle 4 damaged?
5 may be in a different side than what is 5 A. Well, you would want to monitor it
6 shown here, but, again, that's going off 6 closely.
7 my memory. 7 Q. Because if it had been previously
8 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 8 damaged and left unrepaired, the end terminal
9 Q. With respect to Mr. Traylor's crash, 9 wouldn't be expected to function, would it?
10 did you do anything to determine whether the 10 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
11 end terminal that his car struck had been 11 Lacks foundation.
12 previously damaged but unrepaired? 12 THE WITNESS: If it had been
13 A. No. We wouldn't know that unless 13 previously damaged, then it's questionable
14 someone happened to inform us or someone, you 14 on how -- you know, you have less
15 know, identified that it was damaged. 15 certainty on how it's supposed to perform.
16 Q. And it does sometimes happen, doesn't 16 Q. You said earlier, I think you said
17 it that -- 17 this several times, something to the effect
18 A. Yes. 18 that personally you wish that Mr. Traylor had
19 Q. -- these end terminals are struck and 19 not been injured in this accident; is that
20 they're damaged and they're left unrepaired for 20 right?
21 some period of time? 21 A. Yes, I wish -- I wish he wasn't
22 A. Yes, it can happen. 22 injured. I wish -- our goal is no one dies or
23 Q. And that's, in fact, one of the 23 gets seriously injured on our roadways.
24 considerations you have to investigate if 24 Q. Do you know of any end terminal
25 you're going to determine what happened with 25 product that would have prevented his injuries
75 (Pages 294 to 297)

Page 298 Page 299
2 given the circumstances of his crash? 2 Mr. Traylor would be easy?
3 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 3 A. No.
4 Lacks foundation. 4 Q. Did you expect it would be, in fact,
5 THE WITNESS: Yeah. That would be 5 quite difficult?
6 complete speculation on my end, so I would 6 A. Absolutely.
7 say no. I don't really have a basis to 7 Q. And were you willing to meet with
8 answer that. 8 him?
9 Q. You don't know if the, for example, 9 A. Yes, sir.
10 the 5-inch would have performed any differently 10 Q. Did he ever take you up on that
11 than the 4-inch in those circumstances? 11 offer?
12 A. No. 12 A. No, sir.
13 Q. And you were shown an e-mail that you 13 Q. Did you expect that if you did meet
14 wrote to Mr. Traylor's father. I think it was 14 with Mr. Traylor, that you would be asked to
15 marked as Exhibit 16. 15 defend the analysis you did leading to your
16 A. Yes. 16 recommendation that the 4-inch ET-Plus be
17 Q. At the end of that e-mail, you state 17 maintained for approval in North Carolina?
18 "I am willing to meet with you to review the 18 A. The -- whenever we deal in these
19 data that we have concerning this issue." 19 sensitive situations, a lot of times you're --
20 Do you see that? 20 I'm not trying to convince him one way or the
21 A. Yes, sir. 21 other. I'm generally looking for, you know,
22 Q. Knowing that Mr. Traylor had 22 his understanding. There's always the
23 experienced the awful circumstance of having 23 possibility that people can miss things. And,
24 his son be injured in the way he was in this 24 you know, so, you know, I'm not asking for
25 crash, did you expect that a meeting with 25 agreement, never asking for agreement. I'm
Page 300 Page 301

2 asking for, you know, here is our perspective. 2 A. Yes.
3 Here's our direction. Here's what we've done. 3 Q. In addition to being a cost to North
4 You know, we understand you may disagree, but 4 Carolina to remove the product if you decided
5 is there anything else that you would like to 5 it needed to be removed, would that decision
6 see us do. And if it's something we can do 6 also mean a windfall for whatever company made
7 within reason, we can do it. 7 the product that replaced it?
8 Q. Were you confident enough in your 8 A. Well, it's -- you know, we would
9 analysis that you were willing to sit down with 9 likely not have said, "Go pick this company."
10 Mr. Traylor, even knowing the circumstances, 10 You know, we would have said, pick a, you know,
11 and defend it to him and answer his questions? 11 an approved product off of our list.
12 A. Absolutely. I think we owe, you 12 Q. So, for example, if you or another
13 know, any family member of anybody that's 13 state were convinced that the 4-inch needed to
14 injured or -- the opportunity to ask questions 14 be replaced, one option out there might be the
15 and call us to task if they need to. It's not, 15 SKT product. Are you familiar with that
16 you know, it's not pleasant, but it's far less 16 product?
17 of an issue than what his son is having to deal 17 A. Yes.
18 with. 18 Q. So that would be one option?
19 Q. Change topics and ask you a different 19 A. Absolutely. If it's, again, the
20 line of questioning you were taken through 20 various products that are -- again, been
21 today. That is this question of what -- what 21 reviewed and eligible for -- eligible for
22 would it cost to replace all of the 4-inch 22 installation on our system would have been
23 ET-Plus products if you were to decide that 23 those that are available.
24 they were dangerous and needed to be removed. 24 Q. And did you -- do you know that
25 Do you recall that topic? 25 Dr. Sicking that who you've been asked some
76 (Pages 298 to 301)

Page 302 Page 303
2 questions about today, has a financial interest 2 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
3 in sale of the SKT product? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm aware of that.
4 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 4 Q. You were asked about the two forms
5 THE WITNESS: I'm familiar with that, 5 that are marked as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4,
6 yes. 6 which are the product evaluation
7 Q. Are you aware that in advocating 7 recertification forms. I would ask you to pull
8 against the 4-inch ET-Plus, Dr. Sicking stood 8 those out if you could.
9 to gain financially to a pretty significant 9 A. All right.
10 degree if he could convince states to remove 10 Q. In each case, Exhibit 3 and
11 the 4-inch ET-Plus from their product list? 11 Exhibit 4, the question that is asked is on
12 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 12 product information or product update is, "Has
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm aware of that 13 the product changed since original submission?"
14 claim. 14 Do you see that?
15 Q. I want to ask you about the -- you 15 A. Yes, sir.
16 were also asked earlier some questions about 16 Q. Let me first ask before I ask about
17 analysis done by the state of Missouri. 17 the form, is this a form that your department
18 Do you recall that? 18 put together?
19 A. Nothing was actually given to me to 19 A. No.
20 discuss, but he did mention some studies done 20 Q. Is it a form that you or your
21 by Missouri. 21 department reviewed?
22 Q. Did you know that the study done by 22 A. No -- when you mean department, this
23 Missouri was a study done by Dr. Sicking and a 23 is a DOT form, but not in my division.
24 associate of his, that he was a paid consultant 24 Q. It wasn't under the purview of your
25 to the state of Missouri for purposes of that? 25 safety group?
Page 304 Page 305

2 A. No, sir. 2 the 4-inch, and not the 5-inch, then both of
3 Q. Do you know what was meant by 3 these representations would be true and
4 "original submission"? 4 accurate, wouldn't they?
5 A. I think it's pretty straightforward 5 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
6 in the question. 6 THE WITNESS: If that was the case.
7 Q. All right. So would that be a 7 Q. So do you know when the ET-Plus was,
8 reference -- "original submission," would that 8 in fact, formally approved?
9 be a reference to since the product was first 9 A. It was -- it was prior to 2005.
10 approved in North Carolina? 10 Q. Let me ask you to take a look at
11 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 11 Exhibit 9. This is an e-mail you were asked
12 THE WITNESS: Yes. My guess would be 12 about that has an attachment, a series of
13 that we have the ET-Plus that we approved 13 answers to questions entitled "Terry Gibson's
14 for use in North Carolina put on our 14 Questions."
15 qualified products list some many years 15 Do you see that?
16 ago, and, you know, has it been changed 16 A. Uh-huh.
17 since that original ET-Plus. 17 Q. Under Terry Gibson, under that
18 Q. Since whenever it was that it was 18 attachment, question number two, the question
19 originally -- 19 is, Do we know about it? If so, what do we
20 A. Yes. 20 know?" And the reference there is do we know
21 Q. -- submitted and approved? 21 about the change in the design of the ET-Plus;
22 A. Yes. 22 correct?
23 Q. All right. So if it turns out that 23 A. That is correct.
24 the version of ET-Plus that was originally 24 Q. And so there's a statement here, "A
25 submitted and approved by North Carolina was 25 follow-up question was when NCDOT officially
77 (Pages 302 to 305)

Page 306 Page 307
2 made the change from the ET2000 to the 2 Q. And then there was a change made
3 ET-Plus." 3 officially from the ET2000 to the ET-Plus;
4 You see that? 4 correct? Different product.
5 A. I'm -- 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Right? There's a -- I'm quoting. It 6 Q. And what's stated here, anyway, is
7 says, "A follow-up question was when NCDOT 7 that, "officially, the change from the ET2000
8 officially made the change"; right? 8 to the ET-Plus occurred with the August 16,
9 A. Yes. 9 2011, letter, but ET-Plus units were allowed on
10 Q. And so there was a period of time 10 our projects prior to that time since they had
11 where the NC, North Carolina Department of 11 been successfully crash tested and were
12 Transportation had the ET2000 on its approved 12 approved by FHWA."
13 list; correct? 13 Do you see that?
14 A. Yes. 14 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
15 Q. And then there was a change made to 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I see it.
16 the ET-Plus; correct, at some point? 16 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
17 A. Well, the ET2000, the ET-Plus was a 17 Q. So at least with respect to North
18 separate product. 18 Carolina and your product list and what had
19 Q. Correct. 19 been submitted and approved, the ET-Plus wasn't
20 A. So the ET-Plus was added. 20 submitted and approved officially until
21 Q. There was a time -- just so we're 21 August 16, 2011, after the change to 4-inch had
22 clear on the sequence of events, there was a 22 been made?
23 time where the ET2000 was on the approved 23 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
24 product list; right? 24 Q. Is that right?
25 A. Yes. 25 A. I can't -- I can't attest to that.
Page 308 Page 309

2 I -- I'm not certain I agree with it, but you 2 to it, or, you know, something other than, you
3 would need to get that timeline from someone 3 know, cosmetic or insignificant or immaterial
4 else. 4 changes?
5 Q. If it were the case that the ET-Plus 5 A. Which form would you -- are you
6 was not initially submitted and approved, 6 referencing, because one...
7 but -- until after the 4-inch change had been 7 Q. Well, they both refer to has the
8 made, then it would be correct in each of these 8 product, quote, "changed."
9 certifications to say the product had not been 9 Do you see that?
10 changed since original submission? 10 A. Yes.
11 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 11 Q. And do you know what was meant by
12 Q. Right? 12 "change" in this circumstance? In particular,
13 A. Yeah. It all comes down on the 13 did there have to be a material change, one
14 dates. I mean, if we had not approved a 14 that affected performance?
15 product prior to the change, then that would be 15 A. The way I would read this, if this
16 the case. But that would be the case, but I... 16 was, you know, my form, is is that, especially
17 Q. That sort of paperwork question is 17 knowing that these systems are approved as a
18 something that somebody else might be able to 18 system. So changing the width of the diameter
19 clear up with access to all the documents and 19 of a hole on a washer, is -- is -- could be a
20 the records? 20 material change. Then I would say were there
21 A. Yeah. That would be Joel and -- and 21 any changes at all to what you're delivering
22 his team. 22 that has not been, you know -- that you have
23 Q. And do you know on this form what was 23 not made us aware of?
24 meant to be included within the concept of 24 Q. And did other manufacturers besides
25 "changed"? Was there a materiality component 25 Trinity, when they responded to the form,
78 (Pages 306 to 309)

Page 310 Page 311
2 interpret it that way, let you know when they 2 were asked some questions about a video. And I
3 changed things like the diameter of a hole? 3 want to be clear understanding whether you've
4 A. I couldn't tell you. 4 actually seen a video, and if so, what it was.
5 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 5 A video about the ET-Plus.
6 Speculation. 6 So the question is, there's a
7 Q. Is the SKT on your approved list? 7 reference in Exhibit 6 in one of the attached
8 A. I'm sure it is. 8 e-mails to a video clip. And I believe you
9 Q. Do you know if it's been changed? 9 were asked earlier whether you had seen any
10 A. I have no idea. 10 video clips about the ET-Plus and whether it's
11 Q. Have the changes to the SKT that have 11 having -- how it performed in frontal impacts.
12 been made over the years, have they been 12 Do you recall that?
13 disclosed to the North Carolina DOT? 13 A. Yes.
14 A. We'd have to go look and see the same 14 Q. Have you seen any videos that address
15 forms if they exist. 15 that?
16 Q. If there were a change, you would 16 A. Dozens.
17 expect the manufacturer of the SKT to have 17 Q. And where have you seen them?
18 checked the "yes" box there? 18 A. Internet, YouTube. Local TV
19 A. Yes. 19 channels.
20 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 20 Q. Who were the authors of the videos?
21 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 21 A. Say again?
22 Q. You can set aside Exhibit 3 and 4. I 22 Q. Who are the authors of the videos
23 want to ask you about Exhibit 6. 23 that you've seen?
24 You were asked some questions about 24 A. Usually it's a -- a news article.
25 25 Q. And do they, the videos that you've
this e-mail exchange. And in particular you
Page 312 Page 313

2 seen, do they show any kind of comparison 2 available too on YouTube.
3 between the 4-inch ET-Plus and other products? 3 Q. Have you seen any crash testing
4 A. Typically, they do not show a 4 videos where the ET-Plus failed?
5 comparison. They show a crash. A lot of times 5 A. I'm aware that they exist because of
6 it's the same crash and they're discussing. 6 the court record.
7 And then claims made. 7 Q. But you don't know what the
8 Q. Are these videos of the crash testing 8 circumstances were of those tests or how the
9 or are they videos of actual crashes on the 9 things were set up?
10 highway that have been somehow captured? 10 A. No. I do not know the details of it.
11 A. These are typically a crash occurred 11 And as I mentioned, as the product development
12 and -- and then the news -- the local news 12 there's going to be some tests that fail
13 station will do a story on the crash itself 13 anyway.
14 and, you know, if it's in North Carolina, of 14 Q. Do you know if they even, the videos
15 course, they see -- you know, ask North 15 that you're referring to, do you know if they
16 Carolina DOT questions, and those type of 16 were even videos of tests performed on the
17 things. 17 commercial ET-Plus product that's actually sold
18 Q. So if I understand correctly, when 18 on the roads?
19 you were asked earlier by Mr. Macleod, about 19 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
20 whether you'd seen videos, what you were 20 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't.
21 referring to is you had seen media reports on 21 BY MR. GALLAGHER:
22 accidents? 22 Q. I want to ask you about Exhibit 7.
23 A. Yes. I mean, he also asked about 23 Exhibit 7 is an e-mail exchange. And if you
24 crash testing videos and those items as well. 24 turn to the end, you'll -- you might recall
25 And, you know, I believe some of those were 25 that you were asked a whole bunch of questions
79 (Pages 310 to 313)

Page 314 Page 315
2 by Mr. Macleod where he said that, referring to 2 [email protected]. That's the
3 Exhibit 7, he said "it reads," and then he read 3 e-mail.
4 from parts of this document about accidents 4 Q. Well, let me ask you, sir. If you
5 and, for example, the Carrier case and other 5 look at the bottom of page 2, you see there's
6 things. 6 an e-mail from Jeff Grover?
7 Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. And you don't know Mr. Grover, do
9 Q. And do you recall that Mr. Macleod 9 you?
10 represented to you that this was an e-mail 10 A. No.
11 exchange, and in fact, an internal e-mail 11 Q. You have no idea who he is?
12 exchange? 12 A. I do not.
13 A. Yes. 13 Q. And what he is quoting that
14 Q. The portion that he was reading from, 14 Mr. Macleod quoted in his questions to you
15 starting on the bottom of page 2 and following, 15 about the, quote, e-mail, is a news article
16 that's not from an e-mail, is it? 16 written by a guy named Daniel Goldstein; right?
17 A. No. That appears to be a news 17 A. That's correct.
18 report. 18 Q. Did you know when Mr. Macleod was
19 Q. So when Mr. Macleod was asking you 19 asking you the questions that what he was
20 questions about what the e-mails said, what he 20 quoting was a news article and not an e-mail?
21 was really reading from was some news report 21 A. Yes.
22 from a guy named Goldstein; right? 22 Q. So you understood that what he was
23 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 23 doing was presenting you with what somebody
24 Misrepresents prior questioning and his 24 said in the media and asking you about it?
25 prior answers. It's actually 25 A. Yes.
Page 316 Page 317

2 Q. In making your decisions about 2 way that obscures the important information?
3 whether to -- whether there's a safety problem 3 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
4 with the ET-Plus 4-inch or any other version, 4 A. I would say that those are correct
5 do you rely on the statements that are made in 5 statements. That's my opinion.
6 news articles? 6 Q. You were asked some questions about
7 A. No. 7 the Virginia Department of Transportation and
8 Q. Why not? 8 some testing that it performed.
9 A. Having been involved in so many media 9 Do you recall that?
10 stories over the years, the vast majority of 10 A. Yes, sir.
11 time I can't even recognize what the story's 11 Q. Did you know that the Virginia
12 about. So a lot of times the articles 12 Department of Transportation also performed
13 themselves miss a lot -- the important details. 13 testing to the Report 350 criteria on the
14 The stories are, you know, they have a 14 ET-Plus 4-inch?
15 different purpose. They -- and that's fine. 15 A. I really didn't get into all their
16 They're selling commercial time. They're 16 details of what crash testing they're doing,
17 selling those type items, and so the news 17 other than asking them are they going to crash
18 article in the newspaper are often -- miss the 18 test every device.
19 important details. 19 Q. Do you know if any tested the 5-inch
20 Q. Are they often incomplete? 20 version?
21 A. Usually. 21 A. I do not know.
22 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 22 Q. And do you know the circumstances or
23 Q. Are they often inaccurate? 23 the test conditions under which the one shallow
24 A. Frequently. 24 angle test was performed that you were talking
25 Q. Are they often sensationalized in a 25 about earlier?
80 (Pages 314 to 317)

Page 318 Page 319
2 A. No. I've asked Mr. Galloway to find 2 questions that were raised. One was whether
3 out who actually did the testing, what company 3 those changes were disclosed, and then
4 did it. Was it, you know, a university or a 4 separately, whether the product, as changed,
5 private company or who actually handled it. 5 was safe.
6 Q. Do you know whether there were 6 Do you recall that?
7 even -- whether there were even any criteria 7 A. Yes.
8 defined in advance for determining whether that 8 Q. And with respect to the second
9 test would be considered a pass or a fail? 9 question, whether the product, as changed, was
10 A. No. And I'm not going to disparage 10 safe, is that something that you evaluated?
11 what Virginia did. I mean, they're doing what 11 A. As we mentioned earlier, we evaluated
12 they believe is to be appropriate for their 12 based upon whether or not, A, does it pass the
13 citizens. And you know, that's their decision 13 testing, that question has been answered. And,
14 to make. So and I didn't go, you know, again, 14 B, are the conditions on our roadways, the
15 didn't look into the details of everything 15 crashes that are occurring, from a high level,
16 they're doing. Because, you know, when I look 16 is it improving or degrading, and/or staying
17 at applying it to North Carolina, it would be, 17 the same. And if, for instance, that we saw
18 you know, difficult to -- at best to use that 18 increases in severe injuries and fatalities
19 information, other than just as, you know, 19 that were not explained based upon the
20 information that was used, that it took place. 20 frequency of crashes themselves, then, of
21 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 21 course, we would be asking a whole lot more
22 Nonresponsive. 22 questions.
23 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 23 Q. You were asked about -- there was a
24 Q. Earlier you made the comment that, 24 meeting you had where the question was whether
25 with the changes to the ET-Plus, there were two 25 to remove the product, the ET-Plus from your
Page 320 Page 321

2 approved list; right? 2 Q. Do you know that in this litigation,
3 A. Yes. That actually was before -- 3 that Mr. Traylor's lawyers have claimed that
4 that meeting took place before I got involved 4 the 5-inch version of the ET-Plus product is a
5 in it. 5 safer alternative design?
6 Q. And there was another meeting where 6 A. Did I know his lawyers were making
7 the lawyers were involved? 7 that -- I -- I -- no, didn't know that.
8 A. Yes. That's when we started talking 8 Q. So you didn't know that when we asked
9 about whether or not -- this is when, you know, 9 them, well, tell us what's safer than the
10 a number of states started banning the product 10 4-inch, they said, "The product we think North
11 from their -- or removing it from there QPL. 11 Carolina should use that's safer is the
12 Q. And around the same time as that 12 5-inch"?
13 meeting in late 2014, that's when you wrote 13 A. That's the first I heard of it.
14 your letter to Mr. Traylor? 14 Q. In determining whether -- well, let
15 A. Yes. 15 me ask this. You were asked whether you
16 Q. Did you know he was represented, or 16 considered the outcome of Mr. Traylor's crash
17 at least his son was represented, by lawyers? 17 to be an unsuccessful performance for the
18 A. I suspected he was. I mean, there 18 guardrail system. I think you said it was an
19 was no real reason to not expect that. 19 unsuccessful result given the severity of his
20 Q. Regardless of the purpose of the 20 injuries; is that right?
21 meeting that led to your analysis, did you take 21 A. Absolutely.
22 the question of whether the ET-Plus 4-inch was 22 Q. Do you have any reason to believe
23 safe and should remain on your product list, 23 that the 5-inch version of ET-Plus or any other
24 did you take that seriously? 24 product out there on the market would have
25 A. Absolutely. 25 performed differently?
81 (Pages 318 to 321)

Page 322 Page 323
2 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 2 Carolina, you're aware it has happened
3 Lacks foundation. 3 elsewhere?
4 THE WITNESS: No. I have no reason 4 A. Yes, sir.
5 to believe it would. 5 Q. Are you aware it can happen with the
6 Q. You were asked about whether there 6 5-inch ET-Plus?
7 were incidents where, as a result of the crash 7 A. I'm certain it can.
8 conditions and whatever else affected it, 8 Q. Are you aware it can happen with --
9 whether there were incidents where the 9 it can happen, these kind of penetrating
10 guardrail penetrated a vehicle in a crash with 10 circumstances can happen with the ET2000?
11 the ET-Plus 4-inch. 11 MR. MACLEOD: Object to form.
12 Do you recall that? 12 Q. And the SKT?
13 A. Yes. 13 A. Yes, I would suspect that, given the
14 Q. You can think of the one example, 14 correct conditions to do so, it could.
15 Mr. Traylor's; right? 15 Q. Fortunately, it just haven't happened
16 A. Yes. 16 in North Carolina?
17 Q. And do you know that that can happen 17 A. Fortunately, yes.
18 with other extruding type guardrail end 18 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
19 terminals? 19 Q. You were asked -- let me conclude by
20 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form. 20 saying, at the very outset of Mr. Macleod's
21 Lacks foundation. 21 question whether there was any kind of report
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I know it has 22 or official documentation that you prepared of
23 happened with other. I'm just not aware 23 your study and your recommendation.
24 of them in North Carolina. 24 Do you recall that?
25 Q. Even it didn't happen in North 25 A. Yes.
Page 324 Page 325

2 Q. And I think you said maybe you had 2 A. That's correct.
3 prepared an e-mail on the topic. Let me hand 3 Q. And before I turn to the conclusion,
4 you what I'm marking as Exhibit 20. 4 the top e-mail on Exhibit 20 shows that this
5 (Thereupon, Exhibit 20 was marked for 5 analysis of yours was forwarded to and shared
6 identification.) 6 with the Federal Highway Administration.
7 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 7 Do you see that?
8 Q. So Exhibit 20 is an e-mail exchange 8 A. Yes, sir.
9 from October of 2014 with the Bates numbers 9 Q. Did you know that your analysis was
10 THP00303990 through 92. 10 going to be shared with the FHWA?
11 Do you see that? 11 A. I did. They asked for anything that
12 A. Yes. 12 we, on a number of occasions, anything that we
13 Q. At the bottom of the first page of 13 had.
14 Exhibit 20 there is an e-mail from you to 14 Q. Now, I want to turn to the second
15 Michael Holder and others, the subject of which 15 page of Exhibit 20, your e-mail, and in
16 is W-beam guardrail end crash review summary. 16 particular the conclusion. You see where you
17 Do you see that? 17 say "Based upon the more than 15 years of data
18 A. Yes. 18 reviewed, the frequency of fatal and
19 Q. And to remind us, Mr. Holder was the 19 severe-injury guardrail end treatment crashes
20 chief engineer, your boss? 20 are decreasing"?
21 A. That is correct. 21 A. Yes.
22 Q. He had the final say, short of the 22 Q. Was that the conclusion of -- that
23 secretary getting involved, on whether the 23 was one of the things you concluded based on
24 ET-Plus 4-inch would remain approved in North 24 your analysis of the data?
25 Carolina? 25 A. That is correct.
82 (Pages 322 to 325)

Page 326 Page 327
2 Q. Then you summarized the rest of your 2 conclusion it says, "I recommend that we
3 analysis and you end your e-mail by stating "I 3 maintain the current status of all
4 recommend that we maintain the current status 4 manufacturers' guardrails end units used in
5 of all manufacturers' guardrail end units used 5 North Carolina including the ET-Plus by
6 in North Carolina, including the ET-Plus by 6 Trinity." And that was an e-mail that you sent
7 Trinity." 7 on October 28, 2014; correct?
8 Was that your recommendation? 8 A. That's correct.
9 A. That was my recommendation. 9 Q. But that last sentence has not been
10 Q. And was this your official report to 10 done; correct?
11 the chief engineer on that topic? 11 A. I can't tell you whether or not we've
12 A. This was the report out. 12 added some because a new product's come out. I
13 MR. GALLAGHER: I have nothing 13 mean, if a -- if a new manufacturer or an
14 further. Thank you, sir. 14 existing manufacturer's come up with a new
15 FURTHER EXAMINATION 15 product. I mean, the intent here wasn't to say
16 BY MR. MACLEOD: 16 freeze everything that we won't allow, you
17 Q. All right. It is true, looking at 17 know, new products to come in.
18 Exhibit Number 20, is it true that since your 18 Q. Have you seen any evidence that the
19 conclusion came out, North Carolina hasn't 19 SKT has impaled people?
20 changed status of any of the end terminal 20 A. I think there was a -- I don't know
21 products? 21 if it was a report or an e-mail or -- but I
22 A. It's possible that we've approved a 22 think there was some findings that there was
23 new one. I mean, there's -- or, you know, 23 some similar concerns with other energy
24 something that's been modified. 24 absorbing products, whether the SKT
25 Q. Here in the very last sentence under 25 specifically ...
Page 328 Page 329

2 Q. Based upon your personal knowledge as 2 Q. And if Trinity paid for a recall, how
3 you sit here, can you tell -- 3 much would it cost North Carolina?
4 A. I cannot tell you I have seen an SKT 4 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
5 fail to where it impaled a vehicle in the state 5 Q. Let me strike that.
6 of North Carolina. 6 One thing we agree on is that -- and
7 Q. All right. You were asked about 7 he doesn't like it over there. But one thing
8 Mr. Jeff Traylor. Do you know where Mr. Jeff 8 that we agree on is that Trinity made
9 Traylor lives? 9 modifications without telling you-all; correct?
10 A. He lived in North Carolina, Orange 10 A. I believe that to be the case.
11 County, what I recall, but I don't... 11 MR. GALLAGHER: I will object -- I'm
12 Q. What if I told you he lives in New 12 going to object to the form of the
13 Zealand? 13 question, in particular the prelude.
14 A. I don't know. 14 MR. MACLEOD: Stop laughing and I
15 Q. Would it be hard to get to North 15 won't do it.
16 Carolina from New Zealand? 16 MR. GALLAGHER: I wasn't laughing.
17 A. He wouldn't drive here overnight. 17 You're just making snide comments.
18 Q. Well said. 18 BY MR. MACLEOD:
19 If North Carolina DOT today made a 19 Q. All right. So one thing that we know
20 decision they were going to take 4-inch ET-Plus 20 is that the ET-Plus was modified by Trinity
21 off the road, would the Trinity Safe-Stop or 21 without your knowledge; correct?
22 the 5-inch be an option in lieu of the 4-inch 22 A. Yes.
23 ETs? 23 Q. Do you know how much money they saved
24 A. If they were -- if they're on our 24 per terminal in doing that?
25 qualified products list, yes. 25 A. No. Not specifically. I think I
83 (Pages 326 to 329)

Page 330 Page 331
2 read in -- it was either in the court docket or 2 also the implication that was made about,
3 something. It was a dollar and a half, two 3 you know, our state that we, you know,
4 dollars per terminal. 4 don't have the money, don't have the
5 Q. Do you think a company like Trinity 5 capabilities. But what I will say is, is
6 should profit off of making modifications that 6 that our department has a very strong
7 are dangerous without telling Department of 7 record that if there is a known safety
8 Transportations around this country like the 8 issue, even if it is outside of the
9 North Carolina Department of Transportation? 9 standards of policies and so forth, we
10 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 10 will spend the money to do so.
11 form. 11 And a clear example of that is the
12 THE WITNESS: I'm going to give you a 12 median guardrail program that we
13 long answer, and I know you're not going 13 instituted that was well over $140 million
14 like it, but you're going to get it. This 14 statewide that have saved many lives.
15 is a -- our country is a capitalist 15 So from a state perspective, our
16 society, and companies that can figure out 16 state, I think, has responded well in that
17 how to make things better, that cost less 17 area. Am I going to give Trinity a, you
18 than, you know, that's what that promotes. 18 know, a punch in the eye because they're
19 If they're able to provide a -- a good 19 trying to improve their product and save
20 product for -- that gives them a financial 20 money doing so, no. But my suspicions are
21 advantage, then that's, again, what our 21 is that every one of these manufacturers
22 business -- that's what the country is 22 are doing the same thing. Making their --
23 based upon. 23 if they can make their product cost less
24 Now, to say that dollars themselves 24 and still perform the same, then that's
25 is the sole motivation, I mean, that was 25 kudos to them.
Page 332 Page 333

2 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 2 wished it had.
3 Nonresponsive. 3 Q. And it's the same in the Darius
4 Q. Are you giving kudos to a company who 4 Williams instance; correct?
5 developed the 4-inch ET-Plus? 5 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
6 A. I'm not giving -- I'm giving kudos to 6 THE WITNESS: I think there may be a
7 any company that has -- 7 little bit difference with the Williams
8 Q. My question was, are you giving kudos 8 crash, because I think higher speeds were
9 to the company, this being Trinity Industries, 9 involved, if I recollect correctly.
10 that these lawyers represent over here, are you 10 BY MR. MACLEOD:
11 giving kudos to them for making modifications? 11 Q. Let me go back to this. Do you think
12 A. No. I'm giving -- what I'm saying 12 that a company like Trinity should get kudos
13 is, is that, whether you like it or not, our 13 for making modifications to what became the
14 country is a capitalist country, and companies 14 4-inch ET-Plus even if they lie about those
15 that can make products that deliver for -- that 15 changes?
16 cost less, cost them less to bring to the 16 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the
17 market, ends up winning. That's the nature of 17 form.
18 the capitalist environment. 18 Q. Or do you think that they should be
19 MR. MACLEOD: Objection. 19 fair and honest with the general public and
20 Nonresponsive. 20 say, look, we made these changes?
21 BY MR. MACLEOD: 21 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
22 Q. Earlier you told me that the 4-inch 22 THE WITNESS: I absolutely believe
23 ET-Plus failed and hurt Jay Traylor; correct? 23 they should be fair and honest and follow
24 A. In that specific crash it did not 24 the process.
25 perform the way we would have expected -- 25 Q. Do you think that they did that?
84 (Pages 330 to 333)

Page 334 Page 335
2 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form. 2 Q. If Trinity was willing to replace the
3 THE WITNESS: I do not fully know if 3 4-inch ET-Pluses that exist in North Carolina
4 they did or not. That's, you know, 4 with the 5-inch ET-Plus -- strike it. I'll
5 that's, again, what the court case is all 5 start again.
6 about, the other court case. 6 If Trinity was willing to replace the
7 Q. Is the 5-inch ET-Plus currently an 7 existing 4-inch ET Plus end terminals in North
8 approved product in North Carolina? 8 Carolina with one of their own products, you
9 A. Well, it was at one time, and we've 9 would agree with me it wouldn't cost the
10 not, to my knowledge, said that we're not going 10 taxpayers anything; correct?
11 to allow anybody to use it. And I'm sure 11 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
12 there's some out on the roadway. In fact, I'm 12 MR. MACLEOD: What's the basis?
13 certain there are some on the roadway. 13 MR. GALLAGHER: It's an incomplete
14 Q. What about the Safe-Stop? 14 hypothetical.
15 A. I don't know if we have any of those 15 BY MR. MACLEOD:
16 on the highway at this time. 16 Q. All right. Assume that Trinity
17 Q. Do you know if they're approved? 17 actually stepped up and tried to do what was
18 A. I haven't -- I haven't looked at the 18 right here and wanted to replace the 4-inch
19 list lately. 19 ET-Plus with either their 5-inch ET-Plus or the
20 Q. Are you aware of any issues with the 20 Safe-Stop, it wouldn't cost the taxpayers
21 5-inch ET-Plus or Safe-Stop? 21 anything; correct?
22 A. No. 22 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to form.
23 Q. Isn't the Safe-Stop approved under a 23 THE WITNESS: That's not 100 percent
24 more stringent standard, the MASH standard? 24 correct, because someone has to pay the
25 A. Yes. 25 contractors to do it. Someone has to pay
Page 336 Page 337

2 the folks to inspect it. So, I mean, 2 Do you remember that?
3 there would be some cost to it. But, you 3 A. Yes.
4 know, if you're getting at the point would 4 Q. You said something about they miss
5 DOT accept replacement with, you know, 5 the important details and that they're usually
6 especially the MASH compliant guardrail 6 just selling commercial time.
7 ends, absolutely. We would love -- we 7 Is that your testimony?
8 would take donations all the time. 8 A. No. What I said is that they, the
9 Q. Would DOT allow Trinity to replace 9 media, you know, nothing's free. The news, the
10 the existing 4-inch ET-Plus with either the 10 6:00 o'clock news has to, just like the daily
11 5-inch ET-Plus or the Safe-Stop? 11 paper has to have eyeballs in order for them to
12 A. Would we allow them to go out and do 12 continue to be in existence. What I'm saying
13 it if they volunteered to do so? 13 is that the media frequently does miss a lot of
14 Q. Yes, sir. 14 details. Sometimes they get things wrong and
15 A. I don't know why we would say, "Let's 15 sometimes they occasionally do get things right
16 go do the 5-inch." But the Safe-Stop would be 16 too. But it's -- you should not rely solely
17 a MASH compliant, more modernized piece of 17 upon what you read in the paper or see on the
18 hardware. So, yes, we would take that one, you 18 news as -- as factual information.
19 know. We'd take it from you too if you're 19 Q. Would you agree with me there are
20 willing to pay for it. 20 some times that the media is the only group
21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I need to change 21 that's actually willing to share the truth with
22 the tape in about two minutes. 22 regard to some issues?
23 Q. Earlier you were asked about whether 23 A. And I agree that the media has a very
24 or not you rely on the statements in news 24 important role. I think I said that when you
25 articles. 25 were asking me about it. They have a very
85 (Pages 334 to 337)

Page 338 Page 339
2 important role in highway safety. 2 Q. Mr. Lacy, if I understand what you
3 Q. And do you think it's important for 3 were saying earlier correctly, if a company can
4 the media to tell the general public about 4 make a product cost less, but it performs the
5 these modifications that were made to the 5 same or better, you've got no problem with
6 4-inch ET-Plus that Trinity refused to do? 6 that?
7 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection to the 7 A. No.
8 form. 8 Q. And the 4-inch ET-Plus, based on your
9 THE WITNESS: I think it's important 9 review of the Federal Highway Administration's
10 to know, yes. 10 analysis, has it been tested to the same
11 BY MR. MACLEOD: 11 standard and passed all the same tests that the
12 Q. Someone needs to tell that story if 12 5-inch ET-Plus passed?
13 Trinity's not, right? 13 MR. MACLEOD: Objection to form.
14 A. Absolutely. 14 Lacks foundation.
15 MR. MACLEOD: Pass the witness. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. Based upon
16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Can I change the 16 Federal Highways.
17 disk? 17 Q. And your data and your analysis
18 MR. GALLAGHER: Sure. 18 doesn't suggest that there's any difference in
19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record at 19 performance between the 4-inch and the 5-inch
20 4:49. 20 that preceded it; right?
21 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 21 A. That's what I concluded.
22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Start of tape 22 MR. GALLAGHER: Nothing further.
23 five. Back on the record 4:53 p.m. 23 Thank you for your time, sir.
24 FURTHER EXAMINATION 24 FURTHER EXAMINATION
25 BY MR. GALLAGHER: 25
Page 340 Page 341

2 BY MR. MACLEOD: 2 4:56 p.m.
3 Q. Just a follow-up to that last 3 (Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the deposition was
4 question. In your review, how many of the 4 concluded adjourned.)
5 5-inch ET-Plus end terminals impaled people or 5
6 entered into people's cars? 6
7 A. Again, I couldn't tell you. It's 7
8 possible that one of the -- these things have a 8
9 long life if no one hits them, but any time 9
10 after the ET-Plus was installed on the roadway, 10
11 any of those that after that time period, it's 11
12 completely possible. 12
13 Q. No. What I'm asking is, we know that 13
14 at least four -- we know of at least two, 14
15 Darius Williams and Jay Traylor, those both 15
16 involved 4-inch ET-Pluses; correct? 16
17 A. Yes. 17
18 Q. Do you have any crash data that 18
19 suggests that on any one of the crashes listed 19
20 on -- in your dataset involved a 5-inch 20
21 ET-Plus? 21
22 A. No. I don't have one that disputes 22
23 that it was or was not. 23
24 MR. MACLEOD: No further questions. 24
25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off record at 25
86 (Pages 338 to 341)

Page 342 Page 343
1 1
2 2 Case Name:
CERTIFICATE
3 Deposition Date:
3 NORTH CAROLINA
4 Deponent:
4
5 Pg. No. Now Reads Should Read Reason
5 I, the undersigned authority, hereby 6 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
6 certify that the foregoing transcript, page 1 7 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
7 through 341 is a true and correct transcription 8 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
8 of the deposition of James Kevin Lacy taken 9 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
9 before me at the time and place set forth on 10 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
10 11 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
the title page hereof.
11 12 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
I further certify that said witness
13 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
12 was duly sworn by me according to law.
14 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
13 I further certify that I am not of 15 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
14 counsel to any of the parties to said cause or 16 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
15 otherwise interested in the event thereof. 17 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my 18 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
17 hand and affix official seal this 4th day of 19 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________
18 April, 2017. 20
19 _____________________________________ _____________________
20 21
RANDI GARCIA, COURT REPORTER, RPR
21 Signature of Deponent
NOTARY PUBLIC
22
22
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME
23
23 THIS ____ DAY OF __________, 2017.
24 24 ____________________
25 25 (Notary Public) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:__________
Page 344
1 FURTHER CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 203 TRCP
2 The original deposition was/was not returned to the
3 deposition officer on __________________, 2017;
4 If returned, the attached Changes and Signature
5 page contains any changes and the reasons therefor;
6 If returned, the original deposition was delivered
7 to ____________________, Custodial Attorney;
8 That $__________ is the deposition officer's
9 charges to the Defendant for preparing the original
10 deposition transcript and any copies of exhibits;
11 That the deposition was delivered in accordance
12 with Rule 203.3, and that a copy of this certificate was
13 served on all parties shown herein on and filed with the
14 Clerk.
15 Certified to by me this __________ day of
16 ____________________, 2017.
17
18
___________________________________
19 RANDI GARCIA
20
21
22
23
24
25
87 (Pages 342 to 344)

Page 1
A 25:23 33:9 277:18 311:14 219:2 220:13,21 57:23 58:20 68:23

A&M (1) accepting (1) adjourned (1) 221:6 227:21 73:23 74:14 75:9
142:17 272:20 341:4 231:13 236:6,8 76:9 78:3 79:8
a.m (6) access (1) Administration (16) 270:7 279:20 86:22 87:20 89:10
2:10 7:10 42:20,23 308:19 26:11,17 27:2,9 32:10 284:25 308:2 329:6 91:3,24 93:4 127:12
64:18,21 accident (22) 32:15,19 35:5 37:19 329:8 335:9 337:19 127:20 128:12,16
a/k/a (1) 11:8,11 12:2 15:9 40:4 41:8 217:3 337:23 169:11 170:2
259:15 44:14 57:18 58:14 289:18 291:3 agreed (1) 181:16 211:21
AASHTO (26) 80:14,15,18 171:17 294:21 325:6 282:3 222:16 253:6
32:20 35:6 36:2 37:18 172:20 216:2 Administration's (5) agreement (3) 256:23 277:16
40:3 41:8 87:8 232:25 248:11 25:25 32:6 33:2,17 161:14 299:25,25 289:16 290:18
109:6,10 111:8,15 249:4 288:16,18 339:9 ahead (5) 293:8 299:15 300:9
113:15 174:16,17 289:3 295:4,5 administrator (1) 79:18 198:14 203:8 302:17 320:21
180:6,8 216:14 297:19 17:6 246:22 251:16 325:5,9,24 326:3
247:23,24 256:6,7 accidents (7) advance (1) aid (4) 339:10,17
256:15 268:2 44:5 73:25 141:23 318:8 9:10,10 113:2 151:4 analytical (1)
289:17 291:3 142:6 289:19 advanced (4) allegation (1) 13:2
294:21 312:22 314:4 10:18,20,21 13:15 23:10 analytics (1)
able (7) accurate (9) advances (3) allegations (1) 16:12
74:12 84:21 149:22 72:18 117:15,19 221:13 222:8,9 23:8 analyzed (1)
150:6 209:8 308:18 123:21 152:8,20 advantage (1) alleged (1) 57:21
330:19 156:8 170:5 305:4 330:21 23:5 analyzing (3)
abnormal (1) accurately (3) advertised (1) allow (16) 21:4 52:16 91:9
136:6 116:5,11,15 249:16 28:5 31:8,24 90:6 anchor (2)
abnormalities (1) accusations (1) advice (1) 111:7 163:21 121:16 163:4
136:15 195:18 161:25 182:15 205:15,16 and/or (3)
abnormality (1) accusing (2) advise (1) 213:19 254:20 27:23 29:13 319:16
137:17 178:17,21 29:12 270:9 327:16 Angelo (5)
absolute (1) acquaintances (1) advised (5) 334:11 336:9,12 116:21,22 117:6
97:17 146:16 86:15,19,19 265:9,10 allowance (3) 118:6 243:25
absolutely (23) act (5) advocating (1) 245:15 252:10,12 angle (13)
59:8 101:5 110:2 130:10 158:7 161:14 302:7 allowed (9) 55:14,18 79:9 100:7,9
112:9 163:16,20 191:9 273:21 affiliated (3) 24:12 44:4 60:5,6 177:2 226:15
183:23 185:6 198:7 acting (1) 245:21,22 246:5 164:15 204:23 284:22,24 294:24
205:4 207:20 235:3 161:12 affix (1) 248:8 259:19 307:9 295:5,13 317:24
237:12 253:3 action (5) 342:17 allowing (1) angles (1)
284:14 299:6 29:13 63:15 137:20 afford (1) 251:9 284:17
300:12 301:19 215:18 234:17 285:9 alternative (2) answer (46)
320:25 321:21 actual (21) afternoon (1) 190:23 321:5 85:13,22,24 86:4
333:22 336:7 63:13 68:4 80:10,13 237:25 America (1) 102:14,17 103:6,7
338:14 85:11 91:9 144:17 agencies (2) 72:7 103:12 107:14
absorb (1) 144:18 155:19 160:15 178:11 American (1) 109:5 118:16
221:8 166:12 174:21 agency (11) 32:20 119:16 127:23
absorbing (3) 178:5,8 193:10 91:12 116:6 119:2 amount (2) 137:22 146:10
38:17,18 327:24 216:25 217:6,16 148:17 164:14 34:14 211:17 149:11 156:10
academic (3) 246:23 274:22 175:14,22 178:5,8 analogy (1) 157:12 161:19,24
261:14,17,21 278:8 312:9 215:16 284:15 233:14 174:8 175:16
accept (3) added (5) ago (4) analyses (2) 183:23 185:5 197:5
25:10 244:21 336:5 15:20,25 17:5 306:20 17:4 183:3 244:20 159:13,22 198:4,5 201:21
acceptable (9) 327:12 304:16 analysis (61) 204:15,16 207:9
185:9 186:8 228:9 addition (3) agree (30) 11:13,15,17 12:17 211:6,18 217:20
260:3,13 268:24 27:8 164:2 301:3 38:19,25 39:16 13:15,19 14:2,5 223:13 224:9
274:14,19 275:8 additional (6) 120:12 164:11 15:9,14 16:8 19:20 233:16 265:16
acceptance (1) 27:17 73:22 76:12,15 167:4 169:19,25 19:25 30:25 32:18 267:18 268:9 274:2
280:13 76:24 215:17 170:7,10 205:25 35:8 38:13 44:17 287:18 298:8
accepted (3) address (1) 213:15 218:15 46:18 51:20 56:20 300:11 330:13

Page 2
answered (6) 285:21 299:17 27:18 35:2 95:12 115:24 123:25 176:12 186:22 284:9
104:6 192:6 268:19 approvals (1) 171:21 239:3 129:6 137:2 160:5 attest (2)
272:2 286:18 25:12 252:23 331:17 171:21 174:21 169:17 307:25
319:13 approve (22) areas (2) 185:14 197:5 attested (2)
answering (3) 24:11 25:14 27:13 12:14,20 199:21 206:23 269:10,10
101:20 197:20 206:22 34:6,22,24 105:15 argue (2) 217:19 229:15 attesting (1)
answers (3) 105:19 147:8 254:18 275:14 232:21 238:12 128:22
102:22 305:13 314:25 148:23 151:13 argument (3) 256:12,15 271:9 attorney (19)
Anthony (5) 182:7,10,12 228:13 253:21 261:25 262:2 273:25 274:16,21 7:23 67:18,20 83:10
5:11 121:2 125:6 228:16,17 255:19 arises (1) 275:5 276:2,15 83:22 84:5,6,7,24
131:22 134:14 266:9 270:22,25 28:7 278:4 299:24,25 84:25 85:3,12 86:3
anybody (10) 272:15 Arizona (1) 300:2 314:19 86:7 102:3,4 149:11
29:7 69:3 91:19 98:10 approved (73) 35:15 315:19,24 317:17 252:24 344:7
99:8 203:12 205:16 5:25 19:14,15,19 Arnold (1) 319:21 337:25 attorney-client (1)
245:22 300:13 21:22 22:2 23:15 3:2 340:13 161:6
334:11 24:5 26:11 28:4 art (1) aspect (1) attorneys (14)
anymore (2) 57:5 58:3,23 77:25 56:19 84:12 3:2,9,14 60:23 80:23
114:24 250:6 105:23 106:13,20 article (11) aspects (1) 83:17,19 84:16 85:7
anyway (2) 106:21,22 121:22 5:20 98:7 184:21 20:6 85:9 86:10,12,15
307:6 313:13 147:14 178:14 188:12 193:2 224:8 asphalt (4) 149:17
apart (1) 182:9 183:6 198:22 281:20 311:24 20:10,11,14,16 attributed (1)
276:3 201:10 212:19 315:15,20 316:18 assembly (1) 38:2
apologies (1) 233:11 245:11 articles (4) 97:23 August (4)
248:5 247:3 259:6,10,11 96:22 316:6,12 assertion (1) 17:20 58:12 307:8,21
apparently (4) 259:17,24 260:6,16 336:25 95:8 auspices (2)
208:17 239:25 248:24 260:16,20 271:2,6,7 Artimovich (5) assessments (1) 32:25 33:16
279:14 271:10 277:18 146:13 152:12 157:13 109:6 authoring (1)
appear (2) 279:16 280:11 175:15,21 assistant (2) 155:3
54:14 201:13 282:25 283:8,10,24 Asheville (1) 125:19 176:5 authority (6)
APPEARANCES (1) 286:2,3 301:11 233:18 assisting (1) 29:9 88:20 262:21,23
3:1 304:10,13,21,25 aside (1) 256:17 263:11 342:5
appeared (1) 305:8 306:12,23 310:22 associate (2) authors (2)
78:12 307:12,19,20 308:6 asked (45) 14:14 302:24 311:20,22
appears (6) 308:14 309:17 36:13 84:16 87:20 associated (1) automobile (1)
126:12 148:11 154:18 310:7 320:2 324:24 98:22 106:8,9 149:8 181:17 48:21
226:14 268:23 326:22 334:8,17,23 153:22 178:4,7 Association (1) automotive (2)
314:17 approving (5) 192:6 203:17 32:21 219:5 222:9
applying (1) 19:22 25:4 105:24 209:24 232:13 assume (2) availability (1)
318:17 228:18 254:15 243:24 244:23 228:22 335:16 252:11
appreciate (1) approximate (1) 249:6 255:15 258:8 assuming (2) available (13)
262:12 156:25 268:19 271:4,25 173:25 176:16 23:21 40:8 74:4 75:2
approach (2) approximately (2) 286:17 299:14 assumption (4) 76:24 119:15
213:15,17 2:9 7:10 301:25 302:16 166:17 205:14 273:10 179:16 192:16
approaching (1) April (12) 303:4,11 305:11 273:13 212:12 231:10
258:3 1:14 2:9 5:12 7:9 310:24 311:2,9 assumptions (4) 262:6 301:23 313:2
appropriate (4) 15:16 131:9,13 312:19,23 313:25 166:21,23,24 167:3 average (1)
137:22 236:15 260:5 133:18,24 134:8,8 317:6 318:2 319:23 attached (4) 172:8
318:12 342:18 321:8,15 322:6 121:24 138:15 311:7 aware (75)
appropriately (1) AR (1) 323:19 325:11 344:4 21:10 23:3,8,13 33:13
124:14 174:18 328:7 336:23 attachment (3) 40:25 56:2 80:20
approval (18) arbitrary (1) askew (1) 154:24 305:12,18 93:18,22 97:4 114:2
19:13,17 25:4 26:17 170:22 274:2 attempt (1) 128:25 131:22
27:2,5 29:10 32:4 Archdale (2) asking (42) 77:11 139:20 141:6
61:25 144:20 147:2 137:8,10 75:25 76:6 87:18 attended (3) 144:25 145:4,9
151:2 152:3 179:2 area (12) 89:16 101:15 67:7,8 82:17 147:22 151:6,21
242:16 272:21 10:8,11,14,15,19 102:23 109:13 attention (3) 152:4,9,14 155:23

Page 3
167:18 176:14,21 192:25 228:7 182:18 183:2,4,25 best (7) 207:18

177:22,25 178:3 banning (2) 184:19,22 185:17 67:13 192:16 196:2 bottom (7)
179:15 183:11 212:7 320:10 186:9 187:9,20,24 232:4,4 237:18 121:9 138:21 152:22
227:7 239:18 244:3 barrier (9) 189:22 318:18 235:8 314:15 315:5
247:5,17,18 248:22 45:14,24 54:23 beam (2) Beth (7) 324:13
248:22,23 252:13 130:11 191:9 220:7 22:16 143:15 67:17 160:24 161:9 box (1)
252:23 253:10,15 220:9 259:7,8 bear (1) 161:10,12 252:6,6 310:18
253:15 258:21,23 barriers (1) 153:25 better (21) Brad (2)
264:24 266:11,13 46:10 BECK (1) 86:2 102:22 154:22 245:17,20
266:17,19 267:12 BARTLIT (1) 3:10 169:20 170:11,21 Bradley (5)
267:19 276:7,8 3:10 beef (1) 172:7,11 198:15 5:14 150:18,24
279:13 283:4,6,7,9 based (53) 279:18 221:21 231:14 151:18 152:11
289:21 302:7,13 11:17 30:20 31:14,18 beginning (1) 232:12 256:14 break (6)
303:3 309:23 313:5 38:4 41:7,13 42:12 2:9 262:5 272:10 60:20 64:15,24
322:23 323:2,5,8 44:20 53:15 54:15 begins (1) 274:10,12,15,18 145:16 178:10
334:20 56:20,25 57:9 58:20 293:2 330:17 339:5 241:9
awful (2) 68:7 75:13 79:24 behalf (2) beyond (2) Breakaway (1)
267:21 298:23 87:24 97:9 103:19 2:10 7:20 75:5 91:9 193:3
131:23 148:7 belief (2) big (2) breakdown (1)
B 156:21 161:25 105:21 257:24 91:12 279:18 162:10
B (1) 165:17 166:5,11 beliefs (1) bigger (1) Brian (2)
319:14 200:12 205:20 92:12 138:23 210:7 256:25
Bachelor (2) 211:3,17,21 217:15 believe (58) Bill (1) bridge (3)
10:3,5 220:21 223:16 12:8 18:7 22:4 34:15 246:7 48:3 184:4 187:8
bachelor's (1) 224:9 250:24 35:21 65:24 67:2,19 Billie (1) brief (6)
17:25 258:25 260:7 68:14 69:20 79:14 138:5 18:10 42:21 64:19
back (37) 268:21 271:20 79:15 86:9 87:8 billion (1) 153:16 241:12
13:19 15:4,6 17:23 274:19 275:8 90:7 95:22,24 96:18 202:23 338:21
42:22 43:11 58:18 288:23 319:12,19 97:21 99:12,16 Biomechanic (1) bring (5)
58:18 63:8 64:21 325:17,23 328:2 101:6,17 103:16 276:22 83:9 99:8 129:9
69:20 70:10 81:3 330:23 339:8,15 106:24 108:12 bit (12) 176:13 332:16
96:24 115:6 116:5 basic (2) 115:2,3 123:20,23 8:16,23 42:2,3 63:8 brought (4)
120:2 125:15 34:12 78:21 124:10 132:24 96:22 139:14 238:7 92:4 176:12 186:22
133:18 143:14 basically (8) 148:17 155:6,19 243:4 262:14 264:14
148:8 153:18 158:5 12:13 13:23 15:18 167:10 181:11 269:18 333:7 Brown (1)
158:21 173:21 16:18 33:7 90:3 206:15,16 234:9,12 Blake (1) 246:5
178:25 186:6 187:12 229:14 236:14,17 248:7 86:7 bruises (6)
209:10 216:15,17 basing (1) 251:7,10 253:17 blaming (1) 48:16,23 49:21,25
241:13 244:14 216:24 264:14 282:19 164:13 50:11,17
264:21 277:8,24 basis (15) 289:23 296:4 311:8 blunt (5) brush (1)
333:11 338:23 61:11,21 104:7,9 312:25 318:12 184:3 193:23 200:2 241:2
background (2) 106:17,19 123:5 321:22 322:5 260:19,23 Bucky (2)
8:17 21:13 261:14,17 285:6,12 329:10 333:22 blunt-end (2) 290:11,14
backtrack (1) 285:15 286:11 believed (4) 187:7 200:2 building (2)
58:5 298:7 335:12 92:3 133:17,24 blurring (1) 86:19 246:3
backwards (3) Bates (3) 250:25 187:6 bumper (6)
43:25 61:2 111:21 45:10 153:25 324:9 bell (2) BMW (1) 55:8 56:14 79:4
badgered (1) BC (1) 248:12,16 223:9 226:16 289:8,9
204:17 184:2 belt (5) Bolton (2) bunch (1)
badgering (4) BCT (14) 220:14,16,23 221:3 3:17 7:11 313:25
101:25 102:9 198:3 183:13 186:7 192:11 226:25 boots (1) buried (2)
199:14 193:9 194:4,22 belts (1) 92:19 259:15,19
ban (5) 195:4,5,10,13,14 222:10 boss (4) Burnette (1)
193:11 234:10,13 236:21 260:15 Bennett (8) 175:21 262:15 263:13 138:5
267:3,4 262:4 124:9 244:6,8,8,9,12 324:20 bury (5)
banned (2) BCTs (12) 244:17,22 bother (1) 259:20 260:2,3,11,12

Page 4
bus (1) 199:17 275:19 276:4 229:13 308:10,25 309:8

26:8 career (5) 283:13 284:5 285:7 center (4) 310:3,9 319:4,9
business (3) 10:17 11:24 17:17 287:11 290:15,17 3:15 14:12 289:8,9 326:20
59:25 115:7 330:22 18:25 19:8 299:17 301:4 certain (18) changes (24)
butt (1) careful (1) 304:10,14,25 39:6 64:25 66:20 13:25 15:11 21:11,16
283:3 147:7 306:11 307:18 86:20 109:15 21:20,25 22:4,18
buy (3) caretakers (1) 310:13 312:14,16 141:15 146:23 144:14 219:3
165:13 201:10 249:13 255:18 318:17 321:11 179:17 182:20 227:11 273:20
buying (7) Carolina (193) 322:24 323:2,16 183:6 184:5,5 202:9 280:7,9,16 309:4,21
250:2,22 251:2 1:13 2:6,8 3:14,15 7:9 324:25 326:6,19 245:4 264:24 308:2 310:11 318:25
278:23 279:7,25 7:23 8:8,12,22,23 327:5 328:6,10,16 323:7 334:13 319:3 333:15,20
285:8 9:2,4 10:6 14:13 328:19 329:3 330:9 certainly (5) 344:4,5
buys (1) 15:22 17:13 18:4 334:8 335:3,8 342:3 82:13 132:12 141:18 changing (4)
242:22 19:16 21:3 23:16,19 Carolina's (5) 198:8 265:15 143:6 181:5 212:8
24:7,10,13 25:5,23 58:4,24 120:4 184:24 certainty (2) 309:18
C 27:5,11 28:6 29:7 265:6 35:18 297:15 channel (2)
cabinet (1) 31:25 36:11,16 Carrier (3) certificate (6) 24:4 189:5
263:7 40:13,14 41:19 140:23 141:3 314:5 5:23 241:24 242:2,19 channels (5)
cabinet-level (1) 42:10 43:6 46:5 Carrier's (1) 342:2 344:12 269:16,25 271:23
284:14 48:9 49:19 51:5 141:6 certificates (2) 283:2 311:19
cable (10) 53:17 54:23 61:13 cars (13) 242:6,13 Chapel (1)
41:3,17,25,25 42:8 63:21 65:4 66:16 196:13,21 205:19,21 certification (2) 14:13
189:12 190:13 68:19 71:10,15,20 223:4,7,8,22,24 241:23 344:1 Charbonneau (1)
193:3 220:7 244:20 72:3 73:4,24 74:13 226:2 227:2 281:4 certifications (1) 208:13
call (13) 77:19 79:13 80:17 340:6 308:9 charge (2)
12:12 25:13 28:15 82:12 84:25 85:8,11 case (22) Certified (1) 216:19 254:15
35:20 63:6 81:18 87:18 88:19 91:8 20:23 29:14 36:20 344:15 charged (1)
206:3 228:18 92:12 93:10,15,24 76:14,23 77:6 115:3 certify (4) 21:4
245:14 246:14 94:19 96:25 101:4 149:7 156:23 112:21 342:6,11,13 charges (1)
267:13 270:16 110:3,11 117:8 171:13 227:8 chain (3) 344:9
300:15 120:13,14 122:11 236:17 303:10 131:23 145:16 178:10 Charles (2)
called (12) 122:19 124:3 305:6 308:5,16,16 chair (1) 139:15 176:8
11:8 14:16 15:7 16:18 136:17 137:18 314:5 329:10 334:5 124:10 Charlotte (1)
17:8 18:19 21:8 140:5 141:12,17,19 334:6 343:2 challenged (1) 189:7
32:20 172:3 193:2 142:23 148:8 cases (19) 159:5 chart (4)
263:8 294:2 160:25 163:13 36:17 49:18,22,24 challenges (1) 203:19 206:16 228:23
callous (4) 168:13,20 170:6,14 50:2,16 55:4,14,17 171:14 281:6
202:19 203:20,21 171:5,13,25 172:2 73:18 76:11 96:21 chances (1) charts (1)
204:24 173:24 174:14,22 97:15 121:19 56:7 232:14
capabilities (1) 175:5 177:8 182:11 172:14 176:15 change (35) check (2)
331:5 186:10 190:3 193:5 193:22 201:13 23:6,6,11 35:13 60:4 35:22 233:21
capita (2) 194:12 196:12,21 227:10 66:12 90:13 121:21 checked (1)
71:15 72:5 197:6,8 199:25 cash (1) 148:10,15 173:23 310:18
capitalist (3) 200:3,10 201:7 51:9 212:6 254:6 274:17 chemical (1)
330:15 332:14,18 203:16 208:19,23 casual (1) 274:17 279:9,11,13 276:22
caps (1) 209:8 213:24 146:16 287:9 300:19 Chicago (2)
189:8 214:14,24 215:5,19 catastrophic (3) 305:21 306:2,8,15 3:11 268:3
captured (1) 217:2,11 218:3,17 141:22 142:6,13 307:2,7,21 308:7,15 chief (20)
312:10 228:6,25 232:2,3 cause (6) 309:12,13,20 17:5 29:12 59:9 62:18
car (14) 234:3,24 237:13,14 1:3 100:15,21 230:2,3 310:16 336:21 62:19 63:10 67:16
48:20 50:12 55:7,18 237:17 242:7 342:14 338:16 88:13,13,25 89:7
130:17 192:3 245:10,24 247:9,12 caused (1) changed (19) 262:25 264:2,5,14
203:23,24 225:21 248:8,20 250:23 200:25 22:20 57:3 106:4,7 266:20 279:15
225:23 240:5 278:2 256:20 259:6 265:4 causing (2) 117:12 118:12 284:8 324:20
288:19 296:11 266:8 268:13,22 121:18 167:6 221:8 276:8 281:2 326:11
care (1) 271:6 272:17 caveat (1) 303:13 304:16 choose (2)

Page 5
223:22 284:12 clip (5) 160:13 213:7 279:19 100:13 141:2 48:18 71:21
chose (1) 126:14 127:7,14 318:24 198:24 240:9,9 concerning (10)
10:24 129:9 311:8 commentary (1) 253:25 66:15 72:3 145:10,14
Chou (2) clips (1) 199:10 competition (1) 145:15,19 149:6
208:14 280:21 311:10 comments (4) 131:11 153:3 185:17
chute (3) close (1) 155:17 179:10 190:16 complaint (4) 298:19
22:14,20 35:16 71:12 329:17 132:22 159:2,5 258:6 concerns (15)
circumstance (2) closely (1) commercial (3) complaints (3) 38:15 62:22 92:12,15
298:23 309:12 297:6 313:17 316:16 337:6 68:9 122:2 152:4 97:2,5 98:16 112:10
circumstances (9) Coast (2) COMMISSION (1) complete (2) 114:3 138:25
265:19 295:4,17 17:21,22 343:25 254:23 298:6 149:13 158:6 180:3
298:2,11 300:10 coincidence (1) commissioned (1) completed (9) 180:16 327:23
313:8 317:22 142:8 95:23 13:13 14:17 29:19 conclude (3)
323:10 coincidences (1) committee (21) 73:19 80:15 86:22 31:14 53:14 323:19
cited (1) 141:24 82:10,18 83:4 84:3,3 116:11,15 117:2 concluded (3)
121:20 collaborated (1) 124:11 174:18 completely (8) 325:23 339:21 341:4
citizen (1) 68:22 180:7,8 244:19 88:21,23 156:11 concluding (2)
205:24 collected (4) 247:15,22,22,23,24 180:21 194:25 54:12 285:6
citizens (4) 46:13 51:4 110:20 256:6,7,16 257:5 240:5 265:17 conclusion (13)
11:17 90:8 181:12 223:20 258:3 290:18 340:12 34:4,5 70:11,16,20
318:13 collecting (1) common (2) compliance (8) 292:13,15 293:20
civil (2) 171:23 26:3,6 5:23 104:13 220:6 325:3,16,22 326:19
10:5 277:2 collection (1) communication (2) 241:24 242:7,14,19 327:2
claim (2) 172:5 150:16 161:6 250:13 conclusions (5)
23:13 302:14 collective (1) communications (2) compliant (5) 62:9 211:11,13,13,17
claimed (1) 251:4 146:22 166:8 185:24 191:4 195:25 condition (2)
321:3 college (4) companies (4) 336:6,17 174:7 187:3
claims (2) 8:25 9:8,11 11:2 115:6 191:14 330:16 component (8) conditions (15)
176:12 312:7 collision (15) 332:14 19:10 25:20 32:4 38:21 39:2,5,8 174:8
clarified (1) 55:12 74:8,15 80:19 company (19) 90:10 93:9 261:12 181:3 183:6 224:3,5
58:19 99:11 173:19 174:6 115:22 116:12,16 261:21 308:25 260:5,7 317:23
class (4) 217:24 226:8,10,11 119:8,12 144:19 components (5) 319:14 322:8
10:21 292:10 293:22 286:4,6,9,10 146:5 208:19 17:5 27:22,23 90:4 323:14
294:22 collisions (10) 246:24 301:6,9 107:16 conduct (2)
classes (2) 75:17 77:17 78:5 318:3,5 330:5 332:4 Compound (1) 152:6 172:22
10:21,22 94:16 166:13 332:7,9 333:12 85:14 conducted (8)
classification (1) 168:12 170:3 339:3 compressing (1) 11:14,16 33:7,21
13:10 220:10 226:7 company's (1) 240:9 34:24 74:17 75:4
classify (2) 286:13 115:7 compression (1) 199:15
48:25 72:23 combined (3) comparative (1) 253:24 conducting (1)
classwork (1) 45:13 46:8 49:12 181:20 concept (5) 13:4
10:12 come (13) compare (3) 42:25 219:12,13,20 conducts (1)
Clay (3) 37:8 98:2 122:20 174:11,23 238:16 308:24 215:16
104:23,24,25 127:6 129:9 158:21 compared (8) concern (34) conferences (1)
clean (1) 166:16 199:18 175:3 218:22 222:4 12:14 19:22 20:14 257:12
161:18 238:2 264:8 327:12 223:3 240:2 281:2 28:12 29:20 34:13 confidence (1)
clear (11) 327:14,17 284:16,21 51:23 52:2 59:15 232:5
24:3 47:13 219:12,13 comes (6) comparing (2) 62:25 67:5 84:11 confident (1)
219:20 253:3 25:8 107:15 173:21 224:11 274:4 87:25 89:24 92:3 300:8
295:16 306:22 203:3 255:14 comparison (5) 97:17 98:4,9 99:3,5 confidential (8)
308:19 311:3 308:13 94:2 254:24 272:8 124:7,15 133:17 252:5,16,18 253:2,6
331:11 comfortable (1) 312:2,5 134:2,8 144:4 253:11 265:7
clearly (3) 173:4 comparisons (2) 149:16,19 150:2,4 266:10
162:18,25 285:13 coming (3) 95:15 225:18 156:8 160:24 conflict (1)
Clerk (1) 132:12 204:20 244:14 compartment (9) 248:23 279:12 178:19
344:14 comment (4) 52:10 53:21 78:9 concerned (2) conjunction (2)

Page 6
32:19 35:6 contractor (2) 18:21 22:6 41:11 51:2 228:13 230:20 course (17)
connection (1) 13:24 242:22 57:22 58:16 61:13 232:10 233:12,13 16:5 23:22 25:6 26:5
110:4 contractors (2) 64:6 65:5 72:12 234:21,22 237:11 27:20 51:16 88:23
consciously (2) 23:23 335:25 73:20,21 75:11 237:19 251:15,23 89:2 97:14 124:6
231:16,18 Contracts (1) 76:16,19 81:9 82:14 254:16 256:4 155:21 221:19
consider (3) 83:19 82:18 83:8 84:23 259:18 260:17,18 222:20 234:16
50:2 127:17 222:18 contribute (1) 86:24 89:21 91:24 260:21 263:15 284:11 312:15
consideration (2) 36:11 92:8 93:6,10,17,18 270:23 271:7,13 319:21
273:2,4 contributed (1) 94:21,22 95:2,3,7,9 273:8,16 274:5,7 court (14)
considerations (1) 221:14 104:5 105:6,10,11 275:16,21,22,24,25 1:2 7:12 45:8 96:21
296:24 contributing (3) 105:15 106:16 276:20 277:20 97:14 157:24
considered (9) 53:19 70:14 278:10 108:18,24 109:3,16 283:4,17,25 288:2,6 166:25 176:24
36:17 72:11 143:17 control (6) 109:20,21,24 110:6 288:9 290:20 227:8 313:6 330:2
144:2 222:19,23 15:24,25 37:12 111:20 112:7 113:5 305:22,23 306:13 334:5,6 342:20
228:8 318:9 321:16 223:14,14 224:10 113:6,10,11,16 306:16,19 307:4 Cox (1)
considering (2) controlled (1) 114:19 116:17,18 308:8 315:17 317:4 159:10
211:14 217:3 156:16 117:4 118:3,5,9,14 323:14 324:21 Cox's (1)
consist (1) controversy (1) 118:15 120:2,6,25 325:2,25 327:7,8,10 158:23
162:11 281:24 124:19 128:8,13,14 329:9,21 332:23 crash (139)
consisted (1) convenient (1) 130:6,7,12 132:8,15 333:4 335:10,21,24 11:13,15,16 12:18
73:17 230:9 132:16 133:4,5,15 340:16 342:7 13:19 25:11,25
consistent (1) conversation (6) 134:10 136:6,8,13 correctly (6) 26:10,14,16 27:10
150:12 155:12 245:7,9 264:4 136:14 138:9,10 126:16 163:8 227:15 30:5 32:13,24 33:4
constraints (1) 264:23 269:21 141:20 148:19,25 312:18 333:9 339:3 33:7 34:14,19 37:6
292:21 conversations (4) 149:4,5 150:19,21 correspondence (6) 38:20 39:2,12 44:25
construction (5) 86:5 264:6,16,19 152:21 153:10,11 128:6,10 152:10 47:2,9,24 48:4,8,9
30:21 42:12 157:7 converse (1) 156:6,17,18,20 206:6 207:2 246:12 48:11,14 50:5,20
212:21 242:25 72:14 157:18 159:2 cosmetic (1) 51:11,12 55:24
consultant (2) convert (2) 162:12,16,17 309:3 57:12 58:9 70:23
240:22 302:24 180:22 250:4 163:22,23 164:5,6 cost (15) 73:11,14 74:16 82:5
contact (1) converting (1) 164:25 165:2,8,9 181:7 255:16 285:4,5 90:16,19 91:5,6,9
114:25 250:11 168:21,22,25 169:3 300:22 301:3 329:3 100:24 101:11
contained (3) convince (5) 169:8,9,14 170:15 330:17 331:23 104:10 112:22
46:3 61:10 126:22 206:19,20,22 299:20 172:14 175:18 332:16,16 335:9,20 137:10 141:5 152:8
contains (1) 302:10 176:18 181:9,21 336:3 339:4 155:18,19 156:16
344:5 convinced (1) 182:13 183:14,24 counsel (15) 156:20 165:4 168:6
context (1) 301:13 184:20 185:7 7:14 65:8 86:8 93:13 170:20,23 171:4,5
237:6 Coon (4) 186:10,11,17,18 127:13 148:21 171:22,25 175:12
continually (1) 257:9,13 282:17,20 189:22 190:5 161:25 198:7 199:5 178:11,12,12 188:6
239:4 Cooperative (1) 191:10,18 192:3,13 252:19 265:15,17 189:13 194:3,5
continue (21) 14:20 192:21 194:16,18 266:4 286:19 201:19 203:15
21:6 23:25 31:8,24 copied (2) 194:23 195:7,11 342:14 208:17 214:24
34:22,23 61:25 90:6 208:11 209:23 205:5,7,10,13 count (1) 216:25 217:6,10,11
174:15 182:15 copies (1) 206:13,18 208:8 255:17 217:16,18,22 221:9
198:13,18,20 344:10 209:9,15,16,17,18 counting (1) 226:20,23,24 227:3
213:20 214:17 copy (5) 210:22 211:3,7 254:19 230:13,17,19
245:10 249:13 123:18 188:14 241:18 212:16 213:13,23 country (8) 231:11 232:7
266:9 268:23 290:5 344:12 213:25 214:11 36:4 68:25 260:23 234:15,17 240:2,3
279:17 337:12 core (1) 215:6,9,20 216:20 330:8,15,22 332:14 248:24 253:7
continued (5) 232:21 218:9,13 219:10,11 332:14 255:12,14,20,25
6:1 34:6 60:5 228:7 corner (5) 219:17,18,24 220:4 County (5) 256:23,23 268:22
280:12 56:13 289:18 294:24 220:12 221:17,24 1:3 139:16 184:18,19 270:6 274:19 275:8
continues (3) 295:5,13 222:13 223:11 328:11 280:8,8 281:25
249:17 256:3 286:3 Corp (1) 224:22,23 225:2,3,6 couple (4) 288:10,22 295:25
continuously (1) 140:16 225:7,11,12 226:11 35:10 55:14 56:6 296:9 297:3 298:2
203:18 correct (261) 227:16,19,20 62:23 298:25 307:11

Page 7
312:5,6,8,11,13,24 criticized (1) Daniel (1) dates (3) 284:6 286:11 301:5
313:3 317:16,17 166:19 315:16 12:6 229:6 308:14 318:13 328:20
321:16 322:7,10 cross (1) Darius (5) Dave (2) decision-making (1)
324:16 332:24 20:10 137:5 167:13 286:24 121:2 290:10 15:14
333:8 340:18 cross-median (1) 333:3 340:15 David (5) decisions (9)
crash-reporting (2) 220:10 data (123) 179:24 248:6 256:2 83:20 113:4 159:13
170:18,19 curiosity (1) 34:18 36:2,11,25 37:7 256:12 290:11 159:22 180:23
crashes (106) 95:12 43:7,15 44:3,9,18 day (16) 216:24 217:4,15
11:20,21 14:25 29:4 current (8) 45:13 46:2,4,13 60:17,18 105:14 316:2
30:7,10,17 36:3,7 18:14 114:25 239:11 50:22,24 51:3,3,6 173:11 199:4 201:5 decline (1)
36:15 38:5 39:12 263:13 264:5,11 51:13,21 52:16 54:3 223:5 224:4 231:24 218:18
44:21,24,25 45:14 326:4 327:3 54:8,21 55:22 56:8 235:20 254:14,17 decrease (5)
45:23 46:9,13,16,19 currently (11) 56:20,25 57:9,10,21 270:20 342:17 170:25 218:16 221:15
46:20,23,23,24,25 23:15,18 24:5 174:13 58:9,12,20 59:23 343:23 344:15 231:3 270:14
47:2,3,6,15,18,21 179:25 180:18 61:9,15 63:4,4 64:6 day-to-day (1) decreased (1)
47:22 49:5,6,7,9,10 212:21 259:24 68:22 69:3,3 74:4 113:4 218:7
50:21 52:4,5,12,19 264:12 285:23 76:12,15,20 77:17 DC-14-01965 (1) decreasing (3)
53:3,9,20,20 54:15 334:7 79:20 80:22 82:5 1:3 53:6 234:18 325:20
54:16,17,19,22 cushion (1) 87:12,23 110:20 De (4) dedicate (1)
55:23 56:21 57:17 130:11 111:23 112:2 116:21 117:6 118:6 185:19
61:17 64:10 70:23 Custodial (1) 128:12,23 165:4 243:24 deemed (4)
70:25 71:2 73:16 344:7 166:11 170:19,20 deal (2) 252:15,25 253:14
135:7,12,21 156:15 cuts (6) 170:20,23 171:4,5 299:18 300:17 263:7
168:24 169:13 48:15,23 49:20,25 171:15,17,22,23,25 dealership (1) defective (2)
170:6,14 171:17 50:11,17 172:5,7,7,8,10,13 261:9 23:12 261:11
174:15 197:12 cutting (2) 180:10 182:5 dealing (1) defend (2)
201:6,12,17 202:5 192:11 198:5 197:15 206:9 83:17 299:15 300:11
218:4,6,17,19,23,23 211:10,12,15,18 deals (1) Defendant (2)
219:17 221:13,23 D 214:16,22 216:7,8 15:22 2:3 344:9
222:2 223:17,18,20 D (1) 216:25 217:6,10,16 Dean (1) defendants (2)
224:21 225:10,20 4:2 217:18,22 226:21 258:15 1:10 7:18
225:20 226:7 229:2 D.D (1) 230:6,7,13,19 death (1) defined (1)
229:12 235:12 290:11 231:10,14,18 232:3 141:7 318:8
263:24 270:13 dad (3) 232:5,7,12,17 deaths (2) definitely (3)
280:24 281:3 312:9 206:5,9 207:3 234:15,17,25 236:6 71:9 201:2 20:9 72:21 164:10
319:15,20 325:19 daily (1) 251:20,21 253:7 December (1) degrade (1)
340:19 337:10 254:10 281:11 17:14 204:20
crashworthy (1) Dallas (2) 298:19 325:17,24 decide (5) degrading (1)
188:7 1:3 208:15 339:17 340:18 24:11 113:7 232:18 319:16
create (1) damage (8) database (9) 233:19 300:23 degree (10)
111:23 48:23 49:21,25 50:17 49:18 50:16 51:11,12 decided (5) 10:2,23 17:13,17,23
created (2) 50:20 91:9 141:4 94:20 163:21 164:7 48:13 81:13 177:14 17:25 35:18 96:20
58:7 164:7 156:14 214:24 217:11 285:2 301:4 291:24 302:10
credibility (1) damaged (8) dataset (4) decides (1) degrees (7)
257:24 43:21 189:12 296:12 47:5,17 214:22 239:6 10:18,20 100:10,10
credible (1) 296:15,20 297:4,8 340:20 deciding (1) 100:10,17 101:4
257:21 297:13 datasets (2) 27:12 delineation (1)
criteria (8) dangerous (21) 75:15,15 decision (29) 15:23
100:24 113:14 170:18 5:18 90:5,7 181:11 date (15) 61:22,25 64:5 87:24 deliver (1)
176:21 270:6 182:21 184:17 18:8,22 28:19 40:22 88:3,4 89:8 90:12 332:15
272:12 317:13 186:23 187:3 57:15,16 60:4 66:9 115:4 133:12 delivered (3)
318:7 192:12 204:24 67:25 124:21,22 168:15 177:12 285:23 344:6,11
critical (2) 213:18 227:14 128:11 129:19 194:22 195:21 delivering (1)
19:9 93:9 236:15,18 238:11 193:16 343:3 231:22,24 266:9 309:21
criticisms (2) 261:22,23 262:3 dated (1) 279:9,10,14 280:10 demonstrate (2)
96:5 158:11 286:8 300:24 330:7 118:3 280:17 283:14,23 242:24 280:7

Page 8
demonstrated (2) deputies (1) 159:14,23 160:8 differ (1) disclosure (1)
250:18 285:13 264:3 272:14 142:22 86:20
demonstration (1) deputy (8) determine (16) difference (4) discovered (1)
269:20 62:19 63:10 67:15,19 19:21 35:11 55:18 54:4 258:14 333:7 184:16
dented (1) 84:7 88:13 264:5 56:10 89:11,19 339:18 discuss (4)
50:12 279:15 152:7 232:23 differences (7) 65:2 160:24 266:2
department (83) described (5) 233:10 249:10,15 266:18,20,22 267:7,8 302:20
3:14 8:9 9:4,18,25 55:17 75:16 128:17 251:6 276:6 291:22 267:10,11 discussed (10)
12:15 15:4,15 18:4 131:3 294:23 296:10,25 different (17) 65:8 66:21 68:4 84:13
19:2,18,20 20:8 description (2) determined (5) 20:6 22:8 27:21,22 84:15,20 97:5
21:3,17 25:3 29:6 5:4 95:6 35:17 48:13 151:2 76:6 91:15 170:18 128:13 150:17
51:25 62:10 69:13 deserve (2) 254:5 295:18 170:18 184:6 212:7 260:8
71:20 72:4 73:5 237:16,20 determining (4) 238:8 240:5 278:18 discussing (2)
74:13,20 77:19 design (27) 169:21 253:8 318:8 296:5 300:19 307:4 62:24 312:6
80:25 82:12 85:2,10 20:14,24 21:12 39:3,9 321:14 316:15 discussion (20)
86:11,13,16,17,23 122:12 125:14 deterministic (1) differently (3) 62:12 66:10,12,13,15
87:20 88:4,20 90:14 138:25 143:6 211:18 57:7 298:10 321:25 81:20 89:25 90:3
93:10,25 97:21 147:20 148:5 149:9 develop (4) difficult (2) 148:9 153:21
98:22 122:11,19 174:17 176:6 221:7 13:2 209:20,25 299:5 318:18 161:21 173:22
124:16 136:17 228:4 257:6 260:9 258:16 Digest (1) 176:16 178:25
137:19 140:5 260:13,14 275:10 developed (6) 290:10 180:14 191:6
180:21 189:4,5 275:11 277:11 12:12 178:13 191:18 dimensions (1) 231:15 232:6,15
194:12 195:19 278:14,16 305:21 193:25 277:10 21:11 235:24
204:19,24,25 321:5 332:5 direct (5) discussions (17)
215:11 237:17,20 designed (4) developing (4) 88:24,25 89:2 194:21 65:22 66:4,24,25 67:8
251:14 263:5 265:4 38:22 121:18 201:11 143:24 144:9 209:21 210:4 69:17,20,25 84:2
266:8 268:13 268:8 232:14 directed (1) 149:22 155:7,8
275:19 276:4 designers (1) development (2) 189:11 166:10 174:20
279:11,13 283:13 270:18 16:6 313:11 direction (10) 177:10 254:12
284:2,4 285:7 designing (1) device (18) 71:5 168:14,17 286:25
287:12 303:17,21 39:11 25:8,18 26:4 28:5,7 204:22 233:21,23 disk (1)
303:22 306:11 desirable (3) 40:24 41:3 42:15 234:4 252:19 338:17
317:7,12 330:7,9 50:13 72:22 225:25 73:6 143:12 188:7 270:12 300:3 disparage (1)
331:6 desire (1) 254:16 261:25 directions (1) 318:10
department's (1) 177:15 268:24 269:4 270:13 disputes (1)
195:21 desired (1) 274:23 293:15 directive (1) 340:22
departure (2) 48:25 317:18 88:11 disseminated (1)
14:24 46:24 despite (3) devices (18) directly (3) 219:15
depend (1) 108:17 112:10 281:4 19:14 34:18 36:9 24:17 130:18 149:8 district (6)
272:23 detail (9) 39:23 42:5 43:19 director (11) 1:2,4 125:20,20 243:2
depending (3) 38:9 41:22 179:7 67:5 68:21 109:6 8:13 12:3 16:22,24,25 263:17
28:11 31:7 58:10 228:5 269:18 110:15,16 164:8,20 18:19 24:22 63:12 division (16)
depends (5) 277:24 278:14 180:19 219:10 67:17 157:7 262:23 8:14 16:5,17,20 17:8
137:21 146:22 157:22 280:6 289:20 227:13 234:11 disagree (6) 24:17 51:7,10 91:14
160:14 182:22 detailed (3) 270:23 212:23 213:2,11 125:20 210:4
Deponent (2) 14:5 90:19 91:3 diagram (2) 214:4 236:9 300:4 256:24 263:19,20
343:4,21 details (11) 295:11,23 disapproving (2) 263:21 303:23
deposed (1) 79:3 248:24 249:7 diameter (3) 19:22 254:15 divisions (1)
14:8 271:11 313:10 228:2 309:18 310:3 disciplines (2) 27:25
deposition (20) 316:13,19 317:16 die (5) 276:19,20 divulge (1)
1:16 2:2 7:4,8 114:9 318:15 337:5,14 196:18 204:3 205:19 disclose (4) 84:22
149:7 154:14 determination (6) 238:6,10 84:17 227:18 265:10 DMV-349 (1)
179:18 200:22 110:4 145:25 168:2 died (2) 265:12 51:8
210:14 241:3 341:3 249:21 252:3 141:4 195:9 disclosed (4) docket (1)
342:8 343:3 344:2,3 272:19 dies (2) 21:19 227:12 310:13 330:2
344:6,8,10,11 determinations (4) 203:12 297:22 319:3 document (21)

Page 9
45:10,12 74:11 19:10 20:3 68:20 123:21 125:22 effect (1) embankment (2)
107:9 108:18 187:18 126:9 127:3 128:6 297:17 50:10 259:21
114:13 117:3 doubt (2) 128:10 131:10,23 effectiveness (2) emphasis (3)
140:10 143:15 271:15 288:9 138:16 140:3,4,13 97:3 112:12 157:16 160:6,10
157:9 162:7 189:6 dozen (1) 150:13,15,24 effects (1) employed (1)
200:13 222:21,23 68:16 151:19 154:18,20 13:13 63:21
252:14,21,21 253:5 dozens (2) 154:23 156:21 efficacy (5) employees (2)
290:13 314:4 184:16 311:16 176:3,13 208:12 65:7 75:21 93:16 94:2 86:13 132:18
documentation (1) Dr (13) 209:3,23 210:16,20 175:4 employs (1)
323:22 257:8,9,13 258:2,6 216:16 227:6 effort (3) 175:15
documents (12) 282:17,17,19,20,21 267:22 298:13,17 13:18 291:2,21 end-terminal (2)
70:8 91:24 92:8 95:17 301:25 302:8,23 305:11 310:25 eight (4) 221:23 263:23
164:2 252:4,8 dramatically (2) 313:23 314:10,11 34:2 239:20,21,22 ends (26)
256:10,13 265:5 221:7,8 314:16 315:3,6,15 eighth (4) 27:16 29:4 30:6,13
290:25 308:19 drawing (1) 315:20 324:3,8,14 104:14,20 105:4 38:18 41:20 42:2,6
doing (50) 73:18 325:4,15 326:3 281:25 60:3 61:20 71:4
12:10,13,17 14:14 drawings (4) 327:6,21 Eimers (4) 108:14 110:18
16:8 27:15,17 39:13 56:19 74:3 76:11 e-mails (6) 248:14,15,15 249:5 180:19 184:3,4
59:25 60:3,4 70:21 165:7 123:24 140:6,12,19 Eirvin (1) 185:23 191:5 250:4
75:9 76:9 89:25 drawn (1) 311:8 314:20 139:4 250:11 259:19
91:3,19 97:7 103:10 211:11 earlier (60) either (20) 260:19 280:25
105:22 111:17 drive (6) 17:15 40:20 41:4 12:9 31:8 55:13 62:18 281:22 332:17
112:5,5 127:20 3:3 132:7 145:22 42:25 53:5 72:10 66:7 78:13,16 79:21 336:7
128:16 132:25 201:5 203:23 75:8 78:2 89:18 88:17 92:25 114:24 energy (4)
148:11,15 173:23 328:17 93:3,8 95:21 104:15 224:3 229:9 257:9 38:17,17 221:9
179:25 180:4,9,10 driven (3) 109:12 130:4 136:5 257:11 261:12 327:23
180:11,14 182:4 131:12 132:24 202:24 148:20 155:7 164:3 266:24 330:2 enforcement (2)
196:5 201:13 212:8 driver (3) 168:19 169:23 335:19 336:10 12:20 51:6
215:6 236:3 247:5 49:20 258:20,25 172:12 173:16 elaborate (1) engineer (80)
256:18 315:23 drivers (5) 178:9 181:10 168:18 8:15 12:6,8,22 15:17
317:16 318:11,16 172:24 197:8 199:24 200:12 209:13 element (1) 15:21 17:3,5 18:16
329:24 331:20,22 200:9 269:6 211:20 214:21 275:11 19:5 29:12 37:8
dollar (1) driving (5) 218:9 219:7 221:20 elevated (1) 59:9 62:19,19 63:11
330:3 139:5 190:14 223:9 228:15 237:2 18:15 63:24 67:16 68:19
dollars (4) 223:10 233:23 243:24 251:3,15,25 eligibility (2) 69:9 73:24 75:20
238:3 285:16 330:4 dropped (1) 256:2 260:20 112:20 147:9 76:8 88:13,14,18,25
330:24 121:15 263:25 269:10,11 eligible (27) 89:7 93:20 101:16
donations (1) drove (1) 270:21 273:14 24:2,19 25:15,18 105:3 115:13,16,17
336:8 132:10 279:8 282:4,15 26:12 105:9 106:11 115:25 116:3 123:3
door (2) due (4) 286:20 288:16 106:21 120:7 124:2 125:20 126:6
203:25 226:13 48:7 164:9 176:11 297:16 302:16 147:14 148:24 128:5 133:3,4
DOT (40) 254:25 311:9 312:19 151:3,14 178:15 134:18,24 145:21
8:12 11:2,25 18:12 duly (2) 317:25 318:24 182:6 187:10,11 152:25 157:14,17
24:10 27:12 29:7 8:2 342:12 319:11 332:22 198:23 201:11 158:15 159:4,11
46:5 51:5,16 63:21 Durham (1) 336:23 339:3 244:24 249:12,25 160:11 173:5
68:19 69:6,18 79:13 183:14 early (6) 250:20 270:10 174:11 176:6
80:17 83:16 85:8 dying (2) 33:14 58:14 133:24 272:19 301:21,21 181:19 184:24
86:10,16 87:19 91:8 203:13 204:6 183:19 185:4 187:7 Elmers (1) 189:10 196:11
97:2,18 120:13,14 easy (1) 248:14 197:6 200:21 201:3
124:3 160:25 197:6 E 299:2 Elmers' (1) 210:25 241:5
212:24 215:14,25 E (3) Eccentric (1) 248:10 262:25 263:19
228:7 290:15 4:2 5:15 154:19 193:4 else's (1) 264:5 267:23
303:23 310:13 e-mail (60) edge (1) 88:4 271:21 275:15,17
312:16 328:19 5:15 62:14 69:17,20 78:13 email (8) 276:16,18 277:6
336:5,9 69:25 81:19 120:21 edges (2) 5:11,12,13,14,16,17 279:15 282:21
DOTs (4) 121:23 123:17,19 187:11,12 5:21,22 284:8 324:20

Page 10
326:11 53:10 54:6 56:24 332:5,23 333:14 exact (7) 281:6,15,16 289:23
engineering (21) 58:2,23 59:6 65:7 334:7,21 335:4,19 12:6 33:23 57:15 79:3 289:25 290:4
9:19 10:2,6,13,15 65:10,11 66:18 335:19 336:10,11 129:19 253:19 298:15 303:5,5,10
13:7,8 16:25 17:25 78:11 81:8 88:21 338:6 339:8,12 283:14 303:11 305:11
20:18 56:19 160:8,9 89:23 90:2 92:13 340:5,10,21 exactly (5) 310:22,23 311:7
219:4,5 250:17 93:16 94:3,3,9,10 ET-Pluses (6) 44:13 158:24,25 313:22,23 314:3
276:19,21,24 277:2 95:10,15,16 97:3 181:8 209:7,15 195:23 228:11 324:4,5,8,14 325:4
282:16 98:6 99:12,17 101:6 287:13 335:3 examination (8) 325:15 326:18
engineers (22) 101:17 103:16,22 340:16 4:4 8:4 60:12 198:18 exhibits (7)
13:4 68:25 87:10 104:2,15 107:14 ET2000 (21) 288:13 326:15 5:2 153:23 154:2,3
92:11,11,15,18,21 108:9 113:21 114:4 162:20 163:2,7,7,11 338:24 339:24 266:13,14 344:10
149:18 158:8,9,12 118:13 119:20 165:24 166:14 Examine (1) exist (5)
159:15,24 182:3 121:16,21 122:13 174:25 181:18 199:12 5:19 186:17 310:15
216:18 240:10 129:23 131:15 258:16,19,24 examined (1) 313:5 335:3
241:7 264:2 282:13 133:25 135:13 284:17 293:23 8:3 existed (1)
282:16,18 143:10,12 147:23 306:2,12,17,23 example (9) 258:22
entailed (1) 148:5 149:9 151:3 307:3,7 323:10 56:10 74:6 250:15 existence (1)
217:13 151:22,24 152:3 ethical (1) 289:7 298:9 301:12 337:12
enter (1) 155:5 165:13,14,25 199:19 314:5 322:14 existing (4)
100:12 165:25 166:13,20 ethically (1) 331:11 181:2 327:14 335:7
entered (4) 168:3 169:8 174:11 199:13 exceed (1) 336:10
139:18 141:2 163:5 174:24 175:5 ETs (1) 201:15 expand (1)
340:6 176:19 177:7,12 328:23 exception (3) 170:24
entering (1) 181:17 196:22 evaluate (3) 41:16 85:17 160:17 expect (11)
53:21 197:8 199:24 200:8 32:10 54:3 247:11 exchange (5) 132:21 201:16,18
entire (1) 200:18 205:13 evaluated (4) 310:25 313:23 314:11 255:12 261:9
231:10 206:18 208:16 41:19 248:10 319:10 314:12 324:8 282:12 298:25
entitled (3) 212:13 213:8 319:11 excuse (3) 299:4,13 310:17
45:13 102:7 305:13 224:17 227:22,23 evaluating (3) 48:10 178:14 280:11 320:19
entrusted (1) 238:17,17,20 13:13 21:4 44:15 executive (5) expect- (1)
145:21 249:21,24 250:2,19 evaluation (23) 262:23 290:22,24 116:7
environment (1) 252:14 256:4 5:8,9 13:12 28:9,13 292:23 294:7 expectation (7)
332:18 264:20 265:12,18 28:16,21,24 43:2,4 exempt (1) 100:22 115:10 116:2
errant (2) 265:21 266:2,10,18 43:8,12 44:3 50:23 263:9 116:10 132:18
191:12 193:21 266:20 269:12,15 109:20 110:5 111:7 exhibit (105) 277:12,13
especially (5) 271:18,24 273:7,8 111:18 114:17 5:4,6,7,8,9,11,12,13 expectations (2)
47:24 97:13 123:13 273:15,16,21,22 118:2,25 205:9 5:14,15,16,17,18,20 150:7 201:15
309:16 336:6 274:24 278:23 303:6 5:21,22,23,25 6:2,3 expected (4)
ESQ (5) 279:7 280:25 283:2 evaluations (3) 6:6 45:3,4,5,9,18,20 100:15,21 297:9
3:4,7,12,12,16 283:10,16,24 28:10 109:8,14 45:21 46:4 50:22 332:25
estimate (4) 284:16,20 285:3,22 event (5) 51:14 57:11,24 expecting (3)
157:9 186:2,14,24 286:5,7,16 288:6,8 59:11,12 72:24 73:9 58:21 61:4 70:10 63:6 212:6 277:5
ET (15) 291:9,23 292:8,17 342:15 73:15 75:10,17 expense (1)
153:10 154:25 166:2 293:14 299:16 events (6) 107:3,4,8 114:8,10 236:19
175:4,17,18 181:18 300:23 302:8,11 38:20 73:3 91:4 117:20,22 120:9,20 expensive (4)
196:6 214:14 304:13,17,24 305:7 135:10 200:16 125:2,3 126:22 110:21,24 111:5,14
215:20 216:3 253:9 305:21 306:3,16,17 306:22 127:13 137:24 experience (1)
283:8 285:20 335:7 306:20 307:3,8,9,19 everybody (5) 138:3 150:9,14 239:3
ET-Plus (215) 308:5 311:5,10 13:21 37:5 67:10 154:14,15 162:3,6,7 experienced (2)
5:7 21:8 22:8,25 23:7 312:3 313:4,17 174:3 241:2 175:24 184:7 218:3 298:23
23:15,18 24:4 28:14 316:4 317:14 evidence (6) 188:11,15,17 208:2 expert (1)
28:23 29:9,17 31:4 318:25 319:25 281:21 286:7 291:22 208:4 210:10,14 96:19
31:16 32:7,11 33:15 320:22 321:4,23 292:8 293:13 211:9,12 214:23 EXPIRES (1)
36:8 37:22 38:6 322:11 323:6 327:18 216:15 218:12 343:25
40:2,15 41:5,18,23 324:24 326:6 327:5 evolved (1) 222:17 229:4 explain (3)
42:10 44:16 52:24 328:20 329:20 26:25 241:18,20 251:19 24:25 144:6 280:6

Page 11
explained (1) 28:25 31:15 37:3 300:13 federal (64) FHWA's (1)
319:19 54:18 68:11 74:22 fan (1) 16:11 25:12,17,25 272:18
explaining (1) 81:14 84:6 122:8 208:7 26:11,17,25 27:9 fiducially (1)
265:5 130:8 132:10 far (26) 32:6,9,14,19,25 237:21
explanation (2) 141:16 145:5 149:4 40:23 43:18 48:17 33:2,10,16 34:6,21 field (6)
154:7 262:13 169:5 181:9 198:21 49:17 50:12 53:6 35:4 37:18 40:4 13:4 92:10,11,14,18
explanations (2) 222:9 225:16 69:2 70:21,24 76:9 41:7 87:13,14 92:21
102:25 103:4 234:20 252:9 78:13 91:2,17 97:16 104:21 105:9 106:6 fifth (4)
exploring (1) 271:20 280:15 215:19 220:9 240:8 106:11 108:12 71:15 72:5 143:3
151:23 296:23 299:4 305:8 245:5 247:13 112:20 113:2,2 155:21
exponentially (2) 314:11 334:12 256:19 257:3 258:2 144:20 146:18 figure (4)
220:8,24 factors (10) 263:25 288:19 147:9 148:24 151:4 71:19 134:20 295:12
expose (1) 152:7 206:14 221:14 289:5 300:16 155:22 175:11,20 330:16
181:12 222:8,11,14,18,19 fashion (1) 178:14,15 181:25 file (2)
expressed (1) 222:22 224:11 103:10 183:5 187:9 217:2 77:10 160:25
97:2 factual (2) fast (1) 239:8 240:19 filed (2)
extend (1) 131:12 337:18 100:4 245:14,15 248:4 161:22 344:13
291:25 fail (9) fast-forward (1) 249:17 254:12,20 files (1)
extends (1) 104:17 145:6 239:24 189:3 255:17 270:8 159:4
164:19 254:8,11,12 313:12 fatal (32) 280:13 282:9 filled (2)
extensive (1) 318:9 328:5 14:16 44:24 45:13 289:17 291:2 116:5 157:4
42:14 failed (8) 46:9,18 47:8,14,21 294:20 325:6 339:9 final (3)
extensively (1) 178:4 186:7 227:18 48:5 49:4,5,10,22 339:16 89:8 281:25 324:22
40:2 247:17 288:8,10 50:14 52:12,19 53:3 feel (6) financial (2)
extent (1) 313:4 332:23 53:9,20 70:14,24 170:12 173:4 190:14 302:2 330:20
140:8 failing (9) 74:16,17 218:6,16 198:15 273:19 financially (1)
external (1) 126:15 127:8,15 222:2 224:20 225:9 281:5 302:9
226:16 128:19 129:10,17 228:25 230:2 feeling (1) find (17)
extra (1) 129:24 131:14 280:24 325:18 138:22 29:20,25 53:4 59:12
188:14 133:25 fatalities (14) feet (1) 59:18,19,23 178:4,7
extreme (3) failure (1) 30:13,15 71:4 72:6 137:15 182:20 184:25
78:17 288:19 289:5 143:17 100:15 135:14 fellow (2) 211:21,22 247:7
extremely (1) fair (8) 201:9 202:6 221:16 179:20,22 249:6 257:19 318:2
190:24 82:17 141:19 145:23 221:23 223:25 fellow's (1) finding (3)
extruding (7) 209:2 254:22 230:3 278:10 69:15 36:25 213:17 227:13
39:18 176:11 291:16 272:16 333:19,23 319:18 felt (1) findings (10)
292:2 294:14 false (4) fatality (2) 250:17 34:13 62:3,9 97:14
295:18 322:18 118:18 119:3 195:2 121:19 223:3 fender (1) 213:12 216:3
eye (1) 279:4 father (2) 139:18 222:22 251:13,22
331:18 familiar (43) 210:21 298:14 fewer (1) 327:22
eyeballs (1) 21:7,13 22:12 24:14 fault (2) 53:8 fine (9)
337:11 24:15 26:15,19 196:2 236:24 FHWA (41) 60:21 138:7 170:13
32:13,17 33:5 38:10 faulty (2) 5:7 105:5,15,18,22 188:24 198:7
F 43:3 79:12 82:13 166:24 167:3 106:4 107:14,16,18 207:15 236:7,7
F150 (1) 90:20 109:9 121:5 favorite (1) 107:24 108:7 316:15
223:10 122:2,8 125:16 20:13 120:14 121:22 finish (3)
face (2) 137:5 139:8 143:18 Fayetteville (1) 133:9 144:20 145:3 198:4 203:7 251:16
44:22 46:25 143:22 144:17,21 2:5 145:8 147:7 148:18 finished (2)
faces (1) 144:23 145:5 fear (1) 148:24 149:3 77:14 201:22
130:24 146:12 192:24 102:20 150:17,18 151:2,6 FIRM (1)
facility (1) 193:6 219:13 244:5 features (1) 151:11 152:3,25 3:6
47:25 244:7 246:17 48:21 175:8,14 216:13,14 first (50)
facing (1) 258:19 259:7,12,16 February (9) 228:9,13 239:21 8:2,20 11:4,6 25:9,23
78:17 280:20 289:16 5:13,16,21 121:14 249:12,24 250:20 32:4,4,24 35:22,22
fact (32) 301:15 302:5 122:9 152:2 186:9 275:24 307:12 45:3 46:7 52:7,11
9:20 17:16 21:16,21 family (1) 189:2 208:12 325:10 65:23 66:3 93:14

Page 12
95:25 99:7 110:11 15:12 20:6 21:18 128:21 129:12,20 305:8 316:24 337:13
114:2 116:20 37:12 65:15,19 129:25 131:16,24 former (1) front (8)
119:17 125:16 67:11,21 69:6 96:7 134:3,12 135:5,15 262:15 55:20 61:6 78:17,21
131:8 132:22 97:20,22 98:2 158:6 135:24 136:7,19 forms (6) 79:4,5 108:18
149:17 155:8 156:2 165:5 174:16 139:9,22 140:7 114:21 119:18 279:4 139:18
185:22 188:13 177:11 180:20 141:10 142:2 303:4,7 310:15 frontal (10)
204:11 213:20 228:19 247:6 143:20 145:12 Fort (1) 126:15 127:9,15
219:25 232:3 236:9 253:21 254:13 146:8 149:12 3:7 128:19 129:11,17
239:6 264:13 271:3 257:4,7 336:2 150:20 153:4 forth (4) 129:24 131:15
271:5 279:22 follow (3) 157:19 159:17 69:21 291:6 331:9 133:25 311:11
281:18 285:18 60:10 179:21 333:23 160:12 161:3 342:9 full (14)
287:2 291:7 303:16 follow-up (3) 165:15,18 167:8,21 Fortunately (2) 43:8,12 58:9 77:10
304:9 321:13 305:25 306:7 340:3 168:5,8 169:2,16 323:15,17 83:16 158:17
324:13 followed (1) 170:8 171:7 172:16 forward (7) 223:19 227:6
fit (1) 32:8 172:25 173:10 43:14 92:5 111:22 255:12 256:12
181:2 following (3) 175:9,19 177:9,24 112:2,6 138:24 285:2 292:24,25
Fitzpatrick (2) 190:7 247:6 314:15 181:23 182:14 264:14 294:12
3:12 7:17 follows (3) 186:19 189:23 forwarded (3) full-time (3)
five (13) 8:3 24:10 157:3 190:6,25 191:19 121:23 140:14 325:5 11:5,6 18:3
33:22 141:4 200:14 force (23) 192:5,14 193:14 found (12) fully (1)
202:5 225:9,14,20 6:2 32:18 35:11,20 194:17,24 196:7,23 22:5 29:24 30:4 31:10 334:3
229:3,12,22 265:7 36:2,12 37:18,19 197:9 202:15 31:17 78:3,4 252:2 function (2)
266:11 338:23 38:8 83:8 216:8,12 212:25 214:3 215:8 252:7 278:19 279:3 130:19 297:9
five-minute (1) 289:18 290:5,19 215:21 216:5 217:8 293:21 functioning (1)
102:25 291:14 292:7,14 218:21 220:17,25 foundation (10) 132:14
fix (5) 293:9 294:12,20 225:5 228:14 39:20 123:7,14 fund (2)
236:20 261:7,10,12 295:11,18 231:20 235:15 200:24 295:8 14:17 255:5
261:13 forced (2) 237:3 238:23 297:11 298:4 322:3 funded (1)
fixed (4) 22:17 165:5 239:15 255:2 322:21 339:14 16:13
48:2 49:2 130:23,24 forces (2) 257:22 258:18 four (5) funding (7)
fleet (4) 35:3 41:8 259:3 267:16 17:22 200:14 202:12 112:19,21 164:9,12
223:21 272:9 274:9 Ford (1) 268:18 269:7 224:19 340:14 164:15 185:20
293:23 205:18 271:14 272:22 four-inch (1) 254:25
flies (1) foregoing (1) 273:9,24 277:21 196:22 funds (1)
17:11 342:6 278:11,24 280:3 fourth (1) 188:4
flip (5) forget (1) 283:5,19 285:10 155:20 funny (2)
121:4 138:4,4 143:2 174:18 287:6,14 288:3,11 fractures (1) 199:5,8
147:16 forgivable (1) 291:10,18 292:5,11 141:3 further (18)
floor (3) 220:9 292:18 293:17,24 frame (2) 12:15 60:9,12 137:19
83:16 85:7 139:6 form (200) 294:18,25 295:7,21 18:23 38:5 212:18 215:3
Florida (1) 5:8,10 38:24 39:19 296:2 297:10 298:3 frank (1) 231:12 288:13
139:16 40:5 41:9,12 66:19 302:4,12 303:2,17 149:22 289:14 326:14,15
focus (7) 70:18 71:23 72:20 303:17,20,23 frankly (1) 338:24 339:22,24
10:8 19:2,8,8 20:6 73:7 75:24 76:17 304:11 305:5 202:19 340:24 342:11,13
47:20 89:9 78:24 83:2 91:11,25 307:14,23 308:11 free (1) 344:1
focused (3) 94:4 98:19 99:15 308:23 309:5,16,25 337:9 future (3)
49:4 66:11 168:20 100:19 101:9,19 310:5,20 313:19 Freedom (1) 164:3,5 212:22
focusing (1) 105:12 107:20 314:23 317:3 322:2 266:16
15:12 108:3,11 109:2 322:20 323:11,18 freeway (1) G
FOIA (1) 110:7 111:2,10 329:4,12 330:11 48:15 Gabler (3)
154:4 112:14 113:18,22 333:5,17,21 334:2 freeze (1) 104:23,24,25
folded (1) 114:18 115:15 335:11,22 338:8 327:16 gain (1)
240:6 116:9 117:17 118:2 339:13 frequency (5) 302:9
folder (1) 118:20,25 119:5,11 formal (2) 53:6 71:3 222:2 gaining (1)
158:22 122:4,14,22 123:4 77:18,21 319:20 325:18 126:13
folks (25) 126:19,25 127:21 formally (1) frequently (2) Gallagher (212)

Page 13
3:12 4:6,8,10 7:16 269:7 271:14,25 88:17 262:15 266:17 277:9 301:9 310:14 Goldstein (2)
7:16 8:5 37:16 272:22 273:9,23 305:17 318:14 333:11 314:22 315:16
39:15,24 40:11 277:21 278:11,24 Gibson's (2) 336:12,16 good (14)
41:10,15 42:18,24 280:3 283:5,18 155:4 305:13 goal (2) 8:6 9:24 60:14,15,19
45:2,7 47:12 49:16 285:10 286:17 girls (7) 37:7 297:22 85:21 103:20 174:3
60:7 66:19 70:18 287:6,14 288:3,11 183:12 192:11 194:22 goes (4) 192:20 198:16
71:23 72:20 73:7 288:14 289:22 195:9,14,20,23 139:2 189:9 246:7 199:19 208:10
75:24 76:17 78:24 290:3 296:8 307:16 give (20) 264:18 269:21 330:19
83:2 85:14 91:11,25 310:21 313:21 12:6 102:14 146:7 going (132) Googled (1)
94:4 98:19 99:14 318:23 324:7 155:14 158:20 8:18 19:21 22:7 25:10 179:12
100:18 101:9,19,24 326:13 329:4,11,16 172:9 199:5,25 25:11 26:3 34:22 Gotcha (1)
102:7 105:12 330:10 333:5,16,21 204:16 207:13 35:2 38:20 39:7,8 216:15
107:19 108:2,10,25 334:2 335:11,13,22 209:9 233:13 258:8 43:14 45:2 49:2 gotten (3)
110:7,25 111:9 338:7,18,25 339:22 258:9 278:22 279:6 53:23 55:23 56:7 10:22 79:19,21
112:14 113:17,22 Galloway (14) 279:25 282:10 58:8 61:2 68:10 government (1)
115:14,20 116:8 5:11 121:2 179:24 330:12 331:17 69:24 70:7,23,25 20:4
117:16 118:19 180:5 247:14,21 given (13) 83:13,15 84:21 governor (3)
119:4,10 121:7 248:6 249:6 256:3 16:21 42:9 81:2 85:20 91:2 93:3 89:2,5 284:13
122:4,14,22 123:4,6 256:18 290:10,12 123:13 168:14,18 96:24 100:4,5 graduate (1)
123:11 124:5 290:14 318:2 252:19 253:11 101:24 102:18,20 10:22
126:18,24 127:18 Galloway's (1) 266:15 298:2 103:6 114:22 graduated (1)
127:21 128:20 256:13 302:19 321:19 120:19 134:20 17:16
129:3,5,12,20,25 gap (2) 323:13 138:16 144:10,10 graduating (1)
131:16,24 134:3,11 143:8 188:21 gives (1) 144:11 146:6,9 10:25
135:4,15,23 136:7 Garcia (4) 330:20 147:19 148:9 151:8 granted (1)
136:19 139:9,22 2:6 7:13 342:20 giving (9) 152:10 153:9 119:16
140:7 141:9 142:2 344:19 102:22 160:7 262:12 154:13 161:19,24 great (3)
143:20 145:12 general (10) 332:4,6,6,8,11,12 170:13 177:18 38:9 239:2 289:20
146:3,8 149:12 24:16 41:21 42:6 glad (1) 181:12 185:19,20 greater (1)
150:20 153:4,20 61:18 67:20 84:7 267:20 185:21,25 186:13 156:15
157:19 159:17 97:23 220:22 gleaned (1) 187:3,23 188:3,23 greatly (1)
160:12 161:3 162:5 333:19 338:4 293:8 190:4,19 191:16 220:9
165:15,18 167:8,21 general's (3) glimpse (1) 194:13 197:17,18 Green (1)
168:5,8 169:2,16 7:23 67:18 252:24 158:20 198:13,19 202:17 5:15
170:8 171:7 172:16 generally (10) globally (1) 203:20 204:5,16 Greene (13)
172:25 173:10 28:4 44:17 53:7,8 65:11 206:7,11 207:8,12 62:20 63:9,11 64:2
175:9,19 177:9,24 56:5 65:10 69:21 GM (1) 209:10 213:14 67:16 81:16 138:6,7
181:23 182:14 83:17 237:13 259:7 214:18 216:15 140:14 150:25
184:9 186:19 299:21 go (53) 222:24 225:24 151:19 152:11
188:19 189:23 generic (1) 8:25 11:2 16:12 25:24 233:16 238:6 240:8 154:19
190:6,25 191:19 163:5 26:10 42:17 44:14 241:19 242:5 243:5 Greg (4)
192:5,14 193:14 gentleman (7) 61:2 63:3 64:16 247:19,20 254:18 140:18 243:6,8,10
194:17,24 196:7,23 125:16 137:7 146:13 79:18 81:3 82:4 254:20 255:15 Gregory (1)
197:9,17,25 198:10 150:18 175:15 93:12 94:25 117:10 256:8 261:7,10 140:16
198:17 199:9 244:5 246:4 125:15 131:8 135:2 262:11 270:9,14,15 grew (2)
202:15 206:24 gentlemen (8) 143:2,7 144:12 270:15 272:14,18 8:22 19:6
207:8,17,21 210:16 63:17 65:18 120:24 153:12 179:19 272:23 273:7 ground (2)
212:25 214:2 215:7 124:8 199:22 187:19,22 198:14 274:13 275:9,13 92:20 260:11
215:21 216:5 217:8 246:10 257:10 203:8 206:12 227:5 277:7 278:17 group (21)
218:20 220:17,25 268:12 227:6 229:6 231:11 281:19 284:23 12:25 13:11,12 16:18
228:14 231:20 Geo (1) 233:18 234:5 291:14 296:6,25 16:19 18:19,20
235:15 237:3 143:17 236:19 241:8 313:12 317:17 19:24 20:5,20 25:3
238:22 239:15 getting (5) 246:22 249:20,23 318:10 325:10 32:20 47:17 83:7
255:2 257:22 70:10 144:20 223:13 250:7 251:16 328:20 329:12 150:8 159:5 251:24
258:18 259:3 324:23 336:4 255:11 263:10 330:12,13,14 272:11 282:2
267:16 268:18 Gibson (4) 264:17 274:11 331:17 334:10 303:25 337:20

Page 14
groups (1) 331:12 336:6 handled (2) heard (5) 184:24 185:19
15:20 guardrail's (1) 278:15 318:5 72:10 98:3,24 286:24 187:9,13 188:3
Grover (4) 80:10 handling (1) 321:13 189:24 208:10
140:15,18 315:6,8 guardrails (25) 242:13 hearing (2) 212:19 215:4 217:3
grown (1) 5:18 22:14 75:21 Hannah (4) 106:3 168:10 219:4 234:15
220:8 105:15,19 107:15 248:10,14,15 249:4 heavily (1) 236:25 244:13
grunt (2) 107:17 110:13 happen (14) 175:10 254:21 255:4
9:12,22 130:5,10 131:2 73:4 74:22 95:12 held (3) 260:24 280:14
guard (3) 148:23 164:21,22 136:16 204:21 7:8 62:23 81:14 281:22 289:17
17:22,22 163:11 184:17 187:8 189:7 286:14 296:16,22 help (5) 291:2 294:20
guardrail (147) 191:8,18 208:16,18 322:17,25 323:5,8,9 9:22 20:17 37:10 312:10 325:6
20:24 22:15 24:11 219:21 221:16 323:10 49:12 208:25 334:16 338:2 339:9
25:5,9 26:4,4 27:6 281:2 327:4 happened (10) helped (2) highways (32)
27:13,16 28:8,16,17 guess (13) 137:9,11 139:14 13:2 258:16 24:2 25:13 33:10 34:6
29:4 30:6,10,13 10:12 40:6 65:2 87:17 287:24 295:24 hereof (1) 34:21 68:13 87:13
36:8 38:18,22 39:3 97:19 100:5 120:24 296:14,25 322:23 342:10 87:15 108:13
39:11,14,18 40:19 157:11 166:5 323:2,15 hereunto (1) 146:19 155:23
41:3,6,20,25,25 232:20 240:12 happening (1) 342:16 175:12,20 178:14
42:2,6,8,11 43:8,17 263:16 304:12 232:17 HERMAN (1) 178:16 182:2 183:5
43:24,24 44:6,16,22 guessing (1) hard (2) 3:10 184:6 186:10 239:8
44:22,23 45:24 200:22 50:4 328:15 hey (3) 240:19 245:14
46:24,25 47:2 48:2 guidance (1) hardware (9) 171:19 225:17 287:4 248:4 249:17
48:14 49:20 50:7 190:8 107:17,25 108:9,23 Hibbs (5) 254:13,20 255:18
52:6,10 55:11,12 guide (2) 109:8 113:8,9 220:3 5:14 150:18,24 258:4 270:9 280:13
60:3 61:19,20 71:4 24:4 260:14 336:18 151:18 152:11 282:10 339:16
78:8 82:10,17 83:4 guy (3) hardwares (1) high (8) Hill (1)
84:3 91:10,16 93:2 240:22 314:22 315:16 113:14 17:16 28:15 35:17 14:13
94:20 95:11 99:24 guy's (1) Harman (5) 40:18 99:25 163:6 hire (2)
108:14,15 109:23 95:24 97:19,19 269:17 226:5 319:15 9:11,20
110:17,17 118:13 guys (2) 275:2 276:10 high-level (3) hired (3)
124:11 126:14 92:19 176:16 hazard (6) 109:19 111:17 205:8 96:16,18 240:22
127:8,15 128:18 182:25 219:22,23,24 high-speed (1) hires (1)
129:10 130:16,20 H 250:25 251:10 47:25 9:19
130:22 131:4 half (2) hazardous (7) higher (4) historically (1)
135:21 137:13 192:12 330:3 29:21 50:9 130:14,15 10:23 53:19 181:12 110:20
138:24 139:5,17 halt (1) 130:25 191:13 333:8 history (4)
140:25 141:2,24 215:15 219:16 higher-performing ... 40:21 42:9 43:11,12
142:7 143:15 155:5 halting (1) hazards (1) 219:9 hit (25)
157:2 166:12 215:19 219:20 higher-speed (1) 46:10 48:2 49:2 50:9
176:11 179:12 Hamrick (3) head (12) 185:22 52:6 67:13 74:9
180:18,25 185:23 126:4,5 127:5 15:6 139:7 148:5 highest (2) 79:4 180:25 182:24
191:4,11 192:2,8 Hancock (1) 149:9 162:21 71:16 72:5 191:2 195:14,17
193:22 200:3 157:6 182:24 202:10 highway (75) 196:18 198:25
212:13 213:8 hand (7) 256:25 269:16 1:8 3:9 7:6 11:15 223:5,10,18,22
215:14 218:5 222:5 120:19 154:13 170:10 270:2 271:23 282:9 12:11,19 14:11,15 224:22 225:21
223:5,19,23 225:22 170:12 207:22 head-on (7) 14:20 16:11 17:6 226:2,15 240:6
226:3,9 234:20 324:3 342:17 55:11,17 141:23 19:9,12 25:16,17,19 246:2
240:6 244:19,21 handed (5) 142:6 294:24 295:5 25:25 26:11,13,17 hits (13)
246:20 248:25 45:8 61:4 107:7 295:13 27:2,9 32:6,9,15,19 45:15,24,25 48:14
250:4,11 257:5 210:17 290:4 heading (3) 32:21 33:2,10,16 52:14,19 53:25 54:5
260:2,3 280:24 handful (3) 233:21,22 294:7 34:8 35:5 37:19 225:10,22 229:9
281:22 291:16,24 33:23 172:4 263:2 headlight (1) 40:4 41:7 71:9 80:6 230:2 340:9
292:2 294:14 Handing (1) 56:13 93:8 104:21 106:7 hitting (4)
295:19 321:18 150:13 hear (4) 108:22 113:2,2 39:13 47:7 196:18
322:10,18 324:16 handle (2) 70:16 78:6 262:9 116:20 118:24 226:13
325:19 326:5 38:23 39:4 286:19 151:4 152:24 172:3 hold (3)

Page 15
9:8 12:3 214:13 117:23 120:10 331:2 19:13 57:12 104:11 154:24 161:2,22
Holder (6) 125:4 137:25 implications (1) included (7) 162:15 163:4
263:14,16,22 284:11 150:10 154:16 217:4 36:7 51:14 57:15,17 191:15 208:15
324:15,19 162:4 175:25 184:8 important (19) 57:21 58:15 308:24 224:25 239:6
Holder's (1) 188:16 208:5 12:24 25:19 93:6 including (7) 241:25 283:2 332:9
267:12 210:11 241:21 123:2 128:16 108:9,23 109:15 industry (5)
hole (2) 281:17 290:2 324:6 132:13 167:25 222:8 293:22 326:6 101:10 121:11 144:23
309:19 310:3 identified (6) 171:23 200:20,23 327:5 219:3 222:9
holes (1) 135:2 162:18,25 278:8 316:13,19 incomplete (2) infield (1)
228:3 294:13,21 296:15 317:2 337:5,24 316:20 335:13 16:5
home (1) identify (1) 338:2,3,9 inconclusive (1) inform (1)
237:25 12:13 impose (1) 216:10 296:14
Honda (1) Illinois (1) 251:10 increase (7) information (58)
140:24 3:11 impressions (1) 49:12 218:4 221:2 20:18 31:19 36:5,25
hone (1) illustrates (2) 79:24 229:8,25 231:4,5 41:14 44:4,5 56:3
69:24 295:12,12 improve (1) increased (7) 59:10 61:23 74:5
honest (2) imagine (3) 331:19 30:7,10 220:14,23 76:20,24 87:5,14,16
333:19,23 71:19 81:15 82:16 improvement (17) 221:3,4,7 114:25 115:5
honestly (2) immaterial (1) 11:16 12:11 16:10,11 increases (1) 117:11 119:3
206:23 277:19 309:3 185:19 188:4 268:6 319:18 121:16 122:21,25
hope (3) immediately (3) 268:11,16 269:25 increasing (1) 124:4,19 132:20
92:4 142:24,25 134:20 212:17 215:2 270:17,19 271:2,4 30:17 133:11 138:13
hour (2) impact (31) 271:24 272:5,9 incumbent (1) 148:7 150:5 151:24
39:12,13 47:22 54:17,18 55:3,6 improvements (3) 273:19 163:22 166:6
hours (2) 55:9,10,20 56:12 226:25,25 227:2 independent (7) 170:25 172:3,10
10:23 141:5 78:13 79:9 100:7 improving (4) 27:12,15 28:9 93:15 209:9 210:7 212:12
Houston (1) 101:12 104:12,13 234:21 235:2,5 239:5 282:2,6 214:17 216:9 217:2
3:3 137:13 226:7,8,11 319:16 independently (1) 231:12 232:4 249:8
Howerton (7) 226:12 273:6 in-depth (1) 182:2 251:5 255:19
125:12,13 131:10 274:24 276:6,13 288:23 INDEX (1) 256:15 266:16
133:2,16 138:11 288:18 289:4,7,10 in-house (1) 5:2 268:21 282:7
140:14 289:19 295:6,13 84:25 indicate (3) 288:17 293:2
HSIS (1) impact's (1) in-service (20) 59:20 173:25 212:12 303:12 317:2
172:5 277:7 28:10,13,15,21,24 indicated (4) 318:19,20 337:18
Hubbard (1) impacted (1) 43:2,4,8,12 44:2 52:5,9 109:18 154:2 informed (1)
3:11 273:20 109:7,14,19 110:5 indicates (3) 134:15
huge (1) impacting (1) 111:7,18 152:6 57:4 63:4 291:13 informing (2)
208:7 159:22 176:9,10 205:8 indicating (2) 122:10 280:16
hundred (4) impacts (21) inaccurate (1) 59:24 212:5 initial (6)
46:13 47:6,18 201:6 78:5 100:16 101:3,8 316:23 indication (3) 55:10,20 66:10 78:12
hurt (6) 101:18 103:17,24 inappropriate (3) 53:18 57:6 70:13 99:19 215:15
37:13 190:24 191:4 104:4 126:15 127:9 199:11 234:10 287:16 indicator (1) initially (2)
195:23 236:24 127:16 128:19 incapacitating (1) 234:2 21:19 308:6
332:23 129:11,18,24 48:10 individual (7) initiate (1)
hypothesize (1) 131:15 134:2 inches (7) 24:18 34:17 130:18 124:15
278:17 172:20 201:12 22:20,21 253:18 225:19 237:11 injured (9)
hypothetical (2) 294:24 311:11 254:2,2,3,6 244:22 245:2 137:14 195:19,24
25:7 335:14 impaled (8) incidence (2) individuals (4) 229:10 297:19,22
197:8 199:24 200:9 53:19 54:5 138:8 181:25 257:3,5 297:23 298:24
I 258:24 269:5 incidences (1) indulged (1) 300:14
I-40 (1) 327:19 328:5 340:5 94:6 197:21 injuries (21)
233:17 impalement (2) incident (1) Industries (25) 30:12 48:24 70:15
idea (3) 80:11 167:7 233:7 1:8 2:4 3:9 5:24 7:6 71:3 100:15 135:14
267:9 310:10 315:11 impaling (3) incidents (4) 96:16 116:16 121:6 196:3 201:2,9 202:6
identification (19) 196:14,20 258:20 52:18 224:20 322:7,9 121:15,17 130:8 221:15,22 222:4
45:6 107:5 114:11 implication (1) include (3) 138:15 144:19 223:25 230:3 235:9

Page 16
278:10 281:4 insulted (2) 28:17,17 40:20 43:17 250:19 257:25 95:1 96:1 97:1 98:1
297:25 319:18 204:18,19 43:19,24 44:11,12 258:4 259:22 264:6 99:1 100:1 101:1
321:20 integral (1) 94:19,21 109:23 264:13,20 265:9,14 102:1 103:1 104:1
injury (32) 75:9 111:19,22 205:7 265:22,25 298:19 105:1 106:1 107:1
30:15 44:24 45:14 Intelligence (1) investigate (2) 300:17 331:8 108:1 109:1 110:1
46:9,19 47:9,15,21 16:3 203:10 296:24 issued (1) 111:1 112:1 113:1
48:5,8,9,11 49:5,8,8 intended (9) investigating (1) 62:10 114:1 115:1 116:1
49:22 50:13,21,21 101:7,18 103:17,23 176:9 issues (18) 117:1 118:1 119:1
52:12 53:3,9 70:24 104:3 130:10,22 investigation (5) 10:9 13:16,17,17,20 120:1 121:1 122:1
121:18 218:6 222:2 212:14 213:9 12:15 59:11 74:17 16:7 19:3 38:2 67:3 123:1 124:1 125:1
223:2,2,16 224:21 intent (2) 91:8 93:5 83:13 113:21 126:1 127:1 128:1
225:10 229:2 50:6 327:15 investigations (1) 122:12 176:14 129:1 130:1 131:1
inquiry (1) interest (7) 13:5 208:24,24 247:8 132:1 133:1 134:1
209:22 10:16 126:13 145:17 involve (5) 334:20 337:22 135:1 136:1 137:1
inserted (3) 178:10,19 237:18 46:20 47:14 201:9 item (14) 138:1 139:1 140:1
269:16 270:2 271:23 302:2 265:12 266:2 40:25 69:2 70:4 99:6 141:1 142:1 143:1
inside (1) interested (2) involved (47) 126:12 132:3 144:1 145:1 146:1
135:22 176:9 342:15 24:18 37:11 48:12,14 155:25 209:11 147:1 148:1 149:1
insignificant (1) interesting (1) 62:20 64:8 65:24 226:4 256:9 265:9 150:1 151:1 152:1
309:3 138:22 66:10 74:16 78:5 265:11 274:10 153:1 154:1 155:1
inspect (3) intern (3) 83:20 94:16 95:23 285:17 156:1 157:1 158:1
185:25 186:13 336:2 9:15,16,17 138:8 147:23 155:9 items (18) 159:1 160:1 161:1
inspection (1) intern-like (1) 155:20 158:6 15:2 26:5 36:19 83:18 162:1 163:1 164:1
90:16 9:14 166:13 170:3,6 84:15 86:20 97:12 165:1 166:1 167:1
inspectors (1) internal (5) 173:19 174:19 103:3 110:19 168:1 169:1 170:1
242:25 121:21 140:4 141:4 201:19 202:5 130:25 149:14 171:1 172:1 173:1
install (3) 212:11 314:11 221:23 222:8,11,13 180:24 204:24 174:1 175:1 176:1
108:22 113:8 220:2 internally (1) 222:14 223:25 252:17,24 255:25 177:1 178:1 179:1
installation (3) 122:19 226:7 232:24 233:3 312:24 316:17 180:1 181:1 182:1
186:8 220:8 301:22 Internet (1) 233:6 241:3 243:16 Itkin (1) 183:1 184:1 185:1
installations (1) 311:18 257:2 265:19 3:2 186:1 187:1 188:1
192:23 interpret (2) 280:19 316:9 320:4 189:1 190:1 191:1
installed (10) 230:10 310:2 320:7 324:23 333:9 J 192:1 193:1 194:1
23:19 24:12 30:10 interrupt (1) 340:16,20 J (336) 195:1 196:1 197:1
43:20 120:8 143:12 238:24 involves (2) 2:6 7:1 8:1 9:1 10:1 198:1 199:1 200:1
163:12 164:17 interrupting (3) 265:18,21 11:1 12:1 13:1 14:1 201:1 202:1 203:1
234:12 340:10 197:19,22 199:15 involving (21) 15:1 16:1 17:1 18:1 204:1 205:1 206:1
installing (1) intersection (1) 14:25 29:3,4 30:5 19:1 20:1 21:1 22:1 207:1 208:1 209:1
120:5 11:20 44:24 45:23 47:22 23:1 24:1 25:1 26:1 210:1 211:1 212:1
instance (5) interview (1) 53:20 56:21 64:25 27:1 28:1 29:1 30:1 213:1 214:1 215:1
20:10 39:10 76:22 185:12 71:4 135:13 141:23 31:1 32:1 33:1 34:1 216:1 217:1 218:1
319:17 333:4 interviewed (2) 142:7 150:16 35:1 36:1 37:1 38:1 219:1 220:1 221:1
instances (5) 92:10,14 168:13 170:3 39:1 40:1 41:1 42:1 222:1 223:1 224:1
27:19 139:3 168:24 interviews (1) 224:21 225:10 43:1 44:1 45:1 46:1 225:1 226:1 227:1
201:14 225:9 133:22 280:24 286:4 47:1 48:1 49:1 50:1 228:1 229:1 230:1
Institute (5) intimately (1) Iowa (1) 51:1 52:1 53:1 54:1 231:1 232:1 233:1
33:19 34:10 104:16 174:19 193:4 55:1 56:1 57:1 58:1 234:1 235:1 236:1
143:10 239:22 intricacies (1) issue (37) 59:1 60:1 61:1 62:1 237:1 238:1 239:1
instituted (1) 277:11 29:2,8 31:9,16 36:24 63:1 64:1 65:1 66:1 240:1 241:1 242:1
331:13 introduce (1) 59:6 62:2 96:23 67:1 68:1 69:1 70:1 243:1 244:1 245:1
instruct (2) 7:14 99:7 105:17,20 71:1 72:1 73:1 74:1 246:1 247:1 248:1
102:2 198:3 introduced (3) 134:25 137:21 75:1 76:1 77:1 78:1 249:1 250:1 251:1
instructed (3) 52:24 53:10 54:6 138:23 156:8 79:1 80:1 81:1 82:1 252:1 253:1 254:1
85:12 86:3 149:10 intrusion (2) 158:10,20 164:10 83:1 84:1 85:1 86:1 255:1 256:1 257:1
instructions (1) 34:15 253:17 180:3 193:24 203:3 87:1 88:1 89:1 90:1 258:1 259:1 260:1
198:9 inventory (14) 210:5 243:17 91:1 92:1 93:1 94:1 261:1 262:1 263:1

Page 17
264:1 265:1 266:1 264:17,18,19 keep (8) 159:1 160:1 161:1 325:1 326:1 327:1
267:1 268:1 269:1 Jimmy (8) 61:12 168:10 190:4 162:1 163:1 164:1 328:1 329:1 330:1
270:1 271:1 272:1 125:23,24,25 126:2,4 194:13 198:5 199:6 165:1 166:1 167:1 331:1 332:1 333:1
273:1 274:1 275:1 126:5 127:5 128:5 249:25 285:8 168:1 169:1 170:1 334:1 335:1 336:1
276:1 277:1 278:1 job (11) keeping (2) 171:1 172:1 173:1 337:1 338:1 339:1
279:1 280:1 281:1 1:25 15:16,18 18:12 180:12 207:5 174:1 175:1 176:1 340:1 341:1 342:8
282:1 283:1 284:1 102:23 106:10,12 Ken (4) 177:1 178:1 179:1 key (1)
285:1 286:1 287:1 201:13 235:20 125:23,24 127:5 180:1 181:1 182:1 34:20
288:1 289:1 290:1 236:3,3 128:5 183:1 184:1 185:1 keyword (1)
291:1 292:1 293:1 jobs (1) kept (2) 186:1 187:1 188:1 69:23
294:1 295:1 296:1 9:8 82:23 253:5 189:1,10 190:1 killed (8)
297:1 298:1 299:1 Joel (5) Kevin (345) 191:1 192:1 193:1 183:13 194:22 202:13
300:1 301:1 302:1 125:12,13 138:11 1:16 2:2 7:1,4,25 8:1 194:1 195:1 196:1 229:10 248:18
303:1 304:1 305:1 140:14 308:21 9:1 10:1 11:1 12:1 197:1 198:1 199:1 249:2,4 278:5
306:1 307:1 308:1 John (3) 13:1 14:1 15:1 16:1 200:1 201:1 202:1 killing (1)
309:1 310:1 311:1 3:12 7:17 155:22 17:1 18:1 19:1 20:1 203:1 204:1 205:1 192:12
312:1 313:1 314:1 join (1) 21:1 22:1 23:1 24:1 206:1 207:1 208:1 kind (16)
315:1 316:1 317:1 66:16 25:1 26:1 27:1 28:1 208:13 209:1 210:1 24:11 44:6 50:4 61:2
318:1 319:1 320:1 Joined (1) 29:1 30:1 31:1 32:1 211:1 212:1 213:1 68:22 69:23 83:7
321:1 322:1 323:1 17:21 33:1 34:1 35:1 36:1 214:1 215:1 216:1 102:18 106:3
324:1 325:1 326:1 joint (1) 37:1 38:1 39:1 40:1 217:1 218:1 219:1 151:17 181:2 196:2
327:1 328:1 329:1 291:2 41:1 42:1 43:1 44:1 220:1 221:1 222:1 242:6 312:2 323:9
330:1 331:1 332:1 joking (1) 45:1 46:1 47:1 48:1 223:1 224:1 225:1 323:21
333:1 334:1 335:1 63:7 49:1 50:1 51:1 52:1 226:1 227:1 228:1 knee (1)
336:1 337:1 338:1 Jon (8) 53:1 54:1 55:1 56:1 229:1 230:1 231:1 139:19
339:1 340:1 341:1 62:20 63:9,10,23 57:1 58:1 59:1 60:1 232:1 233:1 234:1 knew (3)
jackass (1) 67:15 81:15 88:17 61:1 62:1 63:1 64:1 235:1 236:1 237:1 158:25 270:24 280:15
202:21 279:14 65:1 66:1 67:1 68:1 238:1 239:1 240:1 know (398)
James (8) Joseph (4) 69:1 70:1 71:1 72:1 241:1 242:1 243:1 9:12,21,22 10:9 11:5
1:16 2:2 7:4,25 244:6 116:21 117:6 118:7 73:1 74:1 75:1 76:1 244:1 245:1 246:1 11:18 12:22 13:14
244:7 264:9 342:8 243:24 77:1 78:1 79:1 80:1 247:1 248:1 249:1 13:14,25 14:24 15:7
January (3) Josh (1) 81:1 82:1 83:1 84:1 250:1 251:1 252:1 15:13 16:18 17:10
18:6 118:3 119:2 97:19 85:1 86:1 87:1 88:1 253:1 254:1 255:1 19:4,7,19 20:3,5,10
jargon (1) journalism (1) 89:1 90:1 91:1 92:1 256:1 257:1 258:1 20:11,17 21:24
147:13 159:19 93:1 94:1 95:1,25 259:1 260:1 261:1 23:21 26:7,7,9
Jay (29) judgment (1) 96:1 97:1 98:1 99:1 262:1 263:1 264:1 27:20,23,25 29:24
1:5 7:21 60:23 78:10 20:19 99:4 100:1 101:1 265:1 266:1 267:1 29:25 33:20 34:19
90:16,19 99:11 JUDICIAL (1) 102:1 103:1 104:1 268:1 269:1 270:1 35:7,25 36:18 37:4
124:9,11 133:12 1:4 105:1 106:1 107:1 271:1 272:1 273:1 37:5,7,9,10,11 38:2
137:3 156:20 167:7 Julius (2) 108:1 109:1 110:1 274:1 275:1 276:1 39:7,10 41:23 43:18
173:19 205:23 3:17 7:11 111:1 112:1 113:1 277:1 278:1 279:1 43:20 44:4,13 48:6
210:21 226:10,19 jumped (1) 114:1 115:1 116:1 280:1 281:1 282:1 48:6,17,21 49:8
240:3,3 244:8,9,12 195:14 117:1 118:1 119:1 283:1 284:1 285:1 50:5,9 52:3 54:9,10
244:16 286:4,14 June (1) 120:1 121:1 122:1 286:1 287:1 288:1 54:12,13,14 56:2,3
287:19 332:23 5:17 123:1 124:1 125:1 289:1 290:1 291:1 56:15,18 57:2 58:11
340:15 jury (13) 126:1 127:1 128:1 292:1 293:1 294:1 59:12 61:16,21
Jeff (11) 65:18 74:12 84:19 129:1 130:1 131:1 295:1 296:1 297:1 62:11,23 66:11
5:22 140:15,18 109:18 128:4 132:1 133:1 134:1 298:1 299:1 300:1 68:15,22 71:7,9,14
210:22,25 216:17 137:16 172:18 135:1 136:1 137:1 301:1 302:1 303:1 74:21 76:5,22 77:3
217:14,23 315:6 199:22 205:11 138:1 139:1 140:1 304:1 305:1 306:1 77:3,7,11,18,21
328:8,8 206:14,19,21,22 141:1 142:1 143:1 307:1 308:1 309:1 78:15 80:5 81:13,18
JeffGrover@Grego... Justice (5) 144:1 145:1 146:1 310:1 311:1 312:1 83:10,11 86:17 87:3
315:2 3:14 85:10 86:11,14 147:1 148:1 149:1 313:1 314:1 315:1 87:12 90:9 91:14,18
Jersey (1) 86:18 150:1 151:1 152:1 316:1 317:1 318:1 92:17 94:5,7,24
259:8 153:1 154:1 155:1 319:1 320:1 321:1 95:10,22 96:11,13
Jim (3) K 156:1,3 157:1 158:1 322:1 323:1 324:1 96:15,21,22 97:6,7

Page 18
97:8,8,12,18,21,24 279:16 280:15 171:9 254:23,25 171:1 172:1 173:1 337:1 338:1 339:1,2
98:2,3 99:4,4,7,18 282:6,20,20 287:8 Lacking (1) 174:1 175:1 176:1 340:1 341:1 342:8
100:12 104:23,25 294:2 296:13,15 44:12 177:1 178:1 179:1 ladies (2)
115:2,7,21 116:22 297:14,24 298:9 Lacks (7) 180:1 181:1 182:1 65:17 199:22
117:6 118:18 299:21,24,24 300:2 39:20 295:8 297:11 183:1 184:1 185:1 lag (1)
120:23 121:3,11 300:4,13,16 301:8 298:4 322:3,21 186:1 187:1 188:1 58:8
123:10,12 124:4,7 301:10,10,24 339:14 189:1,10 190:1 Lake (1)
125:18,24,25 302:22 304:3,16 Lacy (347) 191:1 192:1 193:1 139:15
128:24 130:25 305:7,19,20,20 1:16 2:3 7:1,4,24,25 194:1 195:1 196:1 lane (2)
132:13,23 134:7 308:23 309:2,3,11 8:1,6 9:1 10:1 11:1 197:1 198:1 199:1 14:23 46:24
135:8 138:12,13,14 309:16,22 310:2,9 12:1 13:1 14:1 15:1 200:1 201:1 202:1 large (6)
140:18 141:18 312:14,15,25 313:7 16:1 17:1 18:1 19:1 203:1 204:1 205:1 47:5,16 54:11 130:23
146:15,17,18,19 313:10,14,15 315:8 20:1 21:1 22:1 23:1 206:1 207:1,2 208:1 211:17 219:16
149:21 153:8 154:5 315:18 316:14 24:1 25:1 26:1 27:1 208:13 209:1 210:1 larger (4)
157:4,9,11,15 317:11,19,21,22 28:1 29:1 30:1 31:1 211:1 212:1 213:1 169:14,15,20 170:11
162:21 165:17 318:4,6,13,14,16,18 32:1 33:1 34:1 35:1 214:1 215:1 216:1 Lastly (1)
167:5,17,22 169:7 318:19 320:9,16 36:1 37:1 38:1 39:1 217:1 218:1 219:1 234:9
170:23 171:12 321:2,6,7,8 322:17 40:1 41:1 42:1 43:1 220:1 221:1 222:1 late (7)
173:8,14 174:8 322:22 325:9 44:1 45:1 46:1 47:1 223:1 224:1 225:1 13:19 14:10 33:14
176:8 177:20 326:23 327:17,20 48:1 49:1 50:1 51:1 226:1 227:1 228:1 183:18 185:3 225:4
180:15 182:25 328:8,14 329:19,23 52:1 53:1 54:1 55:1 229:1 230:1 231:1 320:13
186:23 187:2 330:13,18 331:3,3 56:1 57:1 58:1 59:1 232:1 233:1 234:1 lately (2)
193:13,15,17 194:9 331:18 334:3,4,15 60:1 61:1 62:1 63:1 235:1 236:1 237:1 179:14 334:19
194:9 197:11,13 334:17 336:4,5,15 64:1,23 65:1 66:1 238:1 239:1 240:1 laughing (4)
200:17,21,24 202:8 336:19 337:9 67:1 68:1 69:1 70:1 241:1 242:1 243:1 199:7,9 329:14,16
202:11 204:2,7 338:10 340:13,14 71:1 72:1 73:1 74:1 244:1 245:1 246:1 law (5)
205:17,18 207:10 knowing (8) 75:1 76:1 77:1 78:1 247:1 248:1 249:1 3:6 12:20 51:6 160:4
208:21 209:5,22 57:2 177:4 186:6 79:1 80:1 81:1 82:1 250:1 251:1 252:1 342:12
213:16 215:25 191:15 193:13 83:1 84:1 85:1 86:1 253:1 254:1 255:1 Lawrence (3)
216:6,18 217:19 298:22 300:10 87:1 88:1 89:1 90:1 256:1 257:1 258:1 3:6,7 7:20
223:7,12 224:4,8,17 309:17 91:1 92:1 93:1 94:1 259:1 260:1 261:1 laws (2)
224:24 226:2,11,15 knowledge (15) 95:1 96:1 97:1 98:1 262:1 263:1 264:1 142:22 158:14
226:18 231:9 232:4 23:20 27:17 75:14 99:1 100:1 101:1 265:1 266:1 267:1 lawsuit (6)
232:4,16 233:23 128:17 156:19 102:1 103:1 104:1 268:1 269:1 270:1 57:13 149:25 151:21
235:12 237:12,22 181:20 220:22 105:1 106:1 107:1 271:1 272:1 273:1 161:2,21 208:15
238:5,10 240:25 258:25 267:6,10 108:1 109:1 110:1 274:1 275:1 276:1 lawyer (7)
241:4,6 242:2,14 271:11 276:15 111:1 112:1 113:1 277:1 278:1 279:1 109:12 161:13,15,15
243:5,6,10,11,12,13 328:2 329:21 114:1 115:1 116:1 280:1 281:1 282:1 161:17 208:17
243:16 244:9 245:5 334:10 117:1 118:1 119:1 283:1 284:1 285:1 218:9
245:9,20,22,25 known (6) 120:1 121:1 122:1 286:1 287:1 288:1 lawyer's (1)
248:24 249:8 250:7 8:14 109:7 156:11 123:1 124:1 125:1 289:1 290:1 291:1 25:16
250:9 251:4,7 259:15 267:19 126:1 127:1 128:1 292:1 293:1 294:1 lawyers (7)
253:25 255:11,13 331:7 129:1 130:1 131:1 295:1 296:1 297:1 23:4 60:10 320:7,17
255:14,20,21,23 knows (1) 132:1 133:1 134:1 298:1 299:1 300:1 321:3,6 332:10
256:8 257:12,14 48:6 135:1 136:1 137:1 301:1 302:1 303:1 laying (1)
260:10,25 262:5,10 kudos (6) 138:1 139:1 140:1 304:1 305:1 306:1 13:24
262:19 263:6 264:3 331:25 332:4,6,8,11 141:1 142:1 143:1 307:1 308:1 309:1 lead (1)
264:25 265:3,14,18 333:12 144:1 145:1 146:1 310:1 311:1 312:1 15:21
265:19 266:22 147:1 148:1 149:1 313:1 314:1 315:1 leading (6)
267:4 268:8 269:11 L 150:1 151:1 152:1 316:1 317:1 318:1 12:25 15:13 103:3
269:12 270:3,4,5,16 L (1) 153:1 154:1 155:1 319:1 320:1 321:1 187:11,12 299:15
270:21 271:10 156:3 156:1 157:1 158:1 322:1 323:1 324:1 learn (4)
272:8,9,11,12 274:9 labeled (1) 159:1 160:1 161:1 325:1 326:1 327:1 20:15 21:15 129:17
274:11,24 275:2,2,4 7:3 162:1 163:1 164:1 328:1 329:1 330:1 152:16
276:14,22 277:4,12 lack (7) 165:1 166:1 167:1 331:1 332:1 333:1 learned (5)
277:15,19,23 279:9 123:14 164:9,12,15 168:1 169:1 170:1 334:1 335:1 336:1 21:17,19 201:18

Page 19
273:18 279:22 10:22 28:12,15 40:18 340:19 87:23 90:18 91:15 269:14 270:5 281:9
Leatherwood (1) 50:21 144:22 lists (3) 91:17 94:25 97:25 289:2 292:7 299:21
2:4 260:10 284:8 46:8 189:6 272:21 99:5 111:21,22 326:17
leave (3) 319:15 literally (4) 135:2 138:18,20 looks (3)
191:16 204:24 234:11 license (1) 110:16 130:17 192:11 148:22 151:16 13:21 46:12 114:14
leaves (1) 160:21 194:20 155:14 171:18 lose (2)
192:3 licensed (6) literature (4) 187:19,22 188:11 235:23 236:2
leaving (2) 88:18 143:11 159:11 95:14,19 257:17,20 188:13 193:19 lost (6)
236:16 261:23 159:15,24 282:16 litigation (6) 202:20 207:14,17 137:3 202:12,21
led (4) licensing (1) 23:4 153:24 154:6 210:15 211:9 217:6 287:11,20
13:18 15:18 176:15 160:18 207:4,19 321:2 220:19 225:15,19 lot (49)
320:21 lie (1) little (10) 225:20 229:3,6,12 9:12,20,21,21 12:16
Lee (2) 333:14 8:16 24:9 63:8 139:14 231:4,11,17,18 13:15 14:5,7,7
245:17,20 lieu (2) 165:7 206:16 238:7 232:2,16,16 233:20 15:10,13 20:15
left (4) 165:24 328:22 243:4 262:14 333:7 234:24 235:8 21:18 29:23 54:16
236:23 250:15 296:20 life (3) live (1) 236:10 238:7 83:25,25 93:4
297:8 60:17,18 340:9 237:13 239:13 247:20 102:23 103:3 119:9
leg (2) lifetime (1) lived (1) 249:23 251:21 128:2 171:20
139:19 235:14 201:18 328:10 258:12 278:8,16 180:23 181:5,7
legal (6) light (1) lives (4) 279:24 287:5 206:12 216:8,8
14:7 84:12 106:24 215:12 287:10 328:9,12 291:14 292:22 224:10 226:6 227:3
147:13 228:19 limbs (1) 331:14 305:10 310:14 254:19 255:3 256:8
265:21 287:10 LLC (3) 315:5 318:15,16 256:23 257:23
legally (1) limit (1) 1:8 3:9 7:7 333:20 264:23 267:21
159:10 100:6 Loader (1) looked (37) 282:15 285:4,5
legislative (3) limitations (16) 193:4 28:20 29:3 30:8,18 289:21 299:19
246:3 252:10,12 39:17,22 291:8,15,23 lobbyist (2) 34:12 36:2,6 41:2 312:5 316:12,13
legitimate (5) 291:25 292:9 293:7 117:7 245:25 41:20 42:2 44:18,20 319:21 337:13
132:22 133:9,17 293:14,20,21 294:8 local (3) 46:15,22 52:3,20 lots (6)
134:2,8 294:13,19,23 280:21 311:18 312:12 53:2,24 57:10 61:16 110:18 201:17 276:19
legs (8) 295:20 located (2) 74:5 79:14,16 91:15 276:20,25 277:2
137:3,14 196:5 199:6 limited (1) 209:17 214:20 165:4 169:12 170:2 love (2)
202:12,21 217:6 293:14 location (1) 178:24 201:17 260:22 336:7
287:20 line (4) 94:25 206:9 229:14 231:9 low (4)
lessen (1) 176:17 187:6 281:13 locations (3) 250:16 251:20 101:12 284:17,22,24
194:2 300:20 11:14 12:13 189:6 253:8 267:23 low-angle (9)
lessened (1) lineup (1) lock (1) 334:18 100:16 101:3,8,18
194:5 146:18 143:13 looking (61) 103:17,24 104:4,11
let's (28) list (39) long (11) 36:18 37:19,23,24 104:12
25:6 32:24 37:9,10,11 21:22,24 31:21 57:5 29:5 42:4 44:19 38:6 43:10 44:23 low-impact (1)
63:3,8 64:5,9,10,10 59:3 63:16 66:2,8 102:21 119:16 45:23 47:4 50:22 177:2
73:6 81:19 87:23 68:7 81:11,12 89:12 145:7 204:17 52:4 54:7,9,15 lower (1)
135:2 153:12 166:8 89:21,23 114:24 233:24 264:6 55:10 56:5 59:9 201:12
203:6 208:2 209:20 115:9 147:9 168:4 330:13 340:9 61:16,17,18,19 luck (1)
230:18 232:16,16 212:20 215:23 longer (9) 63:14 70:22 73:14 199:19
232:17 235:8 243:4 233:12 245:11 119:13 183:5 185:24 73:16 94:7,14 112:2 lucky (1)
278:2 336:15 283:8,11,17,25 186:7 187:10,11 112:6 116:19 121:7 139:17
letter (6) 285:21 286:3 189:22 230:16 135:9 140:6,12,13 lull (1)
112:19 183:10 207:12 301:11 302:11 260:16 142:17 149:3 173:5 229:23
277:17 307:9 304:15 306:13,24 look (85) 180:14 185:20
320:14 307:18 310:7 320:2 12:7 14:21 34:17 37:8 200:14 221:11 M
letters (1) 320:23 328:25 43:25 49:6,11 50:6 223:16 224:6 ma'am (1)
147:3 334:19 50:24 52:16,17,22 226:21,23 231:25 158:3
letting (1) listed (7) 54:16 56:4 63:3 235:6 236:5,12 machine (1)
210:15 57:11 75:17 118:7 64:6,9 66:9 73:10 237:18 247:16 17:10
level (9) 290:11,13 291:7 74:11,12,23 82:4 254:10 265:13 Macleod (262)

Page 20
3:4 4:7,9,11 7:19,19 220:20 221:5 205:22 217:15 market (7) 301:6 303:22
36:22 37:14 38:24 224:12,14 231:21 263:8,9 273:13 30:19,22 42:13 53:15 308:14 312:23
39:19 40:5,9 41:9 234:6,8 235:16 286:11 316:2 321:6 60:2 321:24 332:17 318:11 320:18
41:12 42:17 47:10 237:7 239:19 241:8 329:17 330:6 marketing (2) 326:23 327:13,15
49:14 59:17 60:13 241:15,22 259:4 331:22 332:11 116:25 244:13 330:25 336:2
60:22 64:22 66:22 262:11 265:23 333:13 marking (2) meaning (7)
71:8 72:2 73:2,12 266:4,6 269:2 Malcolm (4) 15:23 324:4 100:16 101:4 165:11
76:4 77:13 79:7 271:16 273:12 96:9 193:2,12,16 married (1) 183:19 187:18
83:5 85:18 91:21 281:18 285:19 malfunctioning (2) 17:21 234:15 279:7
92:6 94:11,13 98:12 286:19,22 288:12 212:15 213:10 MASH (8) means (3)
98:14 99:9 100:3 291:10,18 292:5,11 man (2) 180:17,22 250:5,13 56:17 160:20 188:7
101:2,13,22 102:3 292:18 293:17,24 267:14,20 284:24 334:24 meant (4)
102:12 105:13 294:18,25 295:7,21 man-hours (1) 336:6,17 248:15 304:3 308:24
107:2,6,22 108:5,16 296:2 297:10 298:3 164:23 MASH-compliant (1) 309:11
109:4 110:10 111:4 302:4,12 303:2 manage (1) 250:11 measure (2)
111:12 112:18 304:11 305:5 172:6 MASH-required (1) 208:22 209:6
113:19,24 114:7,12 307:14,23 308:11 management (2) 250:4 measured (1)
115:18,23 116:13 310:5,20 312:19 15:8 151:21 Mass (1) 79:23
117:20,24 118:22 313:19 314:2,9,19 Managing (1) 215:14 measurement (1)
119:7,19 120:11 314:23 315:14,18 16:10 Massachusetts (1) 79:9
121:9,12 122:7,17 316:22 317:3 mandate (1) 215:11 measurements (2)
122:24 123:5,8,16 318:21 322:2,20 189:14 match (2) 95:7 253:19
124:17,25 125:5 323:11,18 326:16 manner (4) 44:4 231:7 measures (1)
126:20 127:4,19,22 329:14,18 332:2,19 163:5 178:18 213:6 material (2) 234:14
129:15,21 130:3 332:21 333:10 273:22 309:13,20 mechanical (2)
131:5,7,20 132:6 335:12,15 338:11 manufacture (1) materiality (1) 276:24 282:21
134:6,16 135:11,19 338:15 339:13 130:9 308:25 media (25)
136:4,9,20 138:2 340:2,24 manufacturer (8) materials (4) 14:7 59:11 67:4 68:8
139:12 140:2,11 Macleod's (1) 25:7 28:19 115:12 90:17 154:3 162:19 97:6,13 98:17,24
141:13 142:3 144:3 323:20 116:2,20 151:22 163:2 133:22 166:7,9
145:13 146:4,11 Mail (1) 310:17 327:13 matter (5) 184:16 208:8,9
149:15 150:11,22 3:15 manufacturer's (1) 7:5 68:4 166:7 220:23 209:22 232:25
153:6,12 154:9,12 maimed (1) 327:14 226:8 264:7 312:21
154:17 157:20 278:6 manufacturers (4) Mayhew (2) 315:24 316:9 337:9
158:4 159:20 maintain (12) 36:10 115:19 309:24 210:8 256:25 337:13,20,23 338:4
160:22 161:7 77:12,23 92:25 94:19 331:21 McKay (5) median (2)
165:16,21 167:12 94:20 108:22 manufacturers' (3) 67:18 160:24 161:9 232:25 331:12
167:23 168:9 169:4 110:12,21 111:6 115:17 326:5 327:4 161:10,12 meet (6)
169:18 170:9 126:24 326:4 327:3 manufactures (1) McWhirter (2) 143:25 244:14 257:15
171:11 172:17 maintained (3) 246:24 246:7,8 298:18 299:7,13
173:3,13 175:13 214:25 252:4 299:17 March (1) mean (48) meeting (47)
176:2 177:3,21 maintaining (2) 15:6 9:16 26:5 55:6,23 62:8 63:3 64:4,8,12
178:6 181:24 25:4 113:9 mark (7) 80:24 84:2 85:5,6 64:25 65:6,15,19
182:17 184:10,13 maintains (2) 45:2,3 107:2 114:8 89:5 92:19 94:6 66:15 67:23 68:3,5
186:20 188:8,10,22 49:19 51:11 281:15,21 289:22 106:2 110:2 136:10 81:4,7,14,17,21
190:2,9 191:7,21 maintenance (1) marked (31) 136:21 137:3 82:7,21,22,24 83:4
192:9,18 194:6,19 257:7 6:6 45:5,9 107:4,7 145:20 166:5 83:10,21 84:3,14,20
195:3 196:9 197:3 major (1) 114:10 117:22 168:19 180:19 86:5 87:9 89:19
197:14,24 198:6,15 164:10 120:9,20 125:2,3 190:19 191:24 138:9 150:7 160:23
199:2,17,20 201:24 majority (4) 127:12,13 137:24 194:20 223:3 230:7 161:12,16,20
202:2 203:5 206:24 50:15,19 178:11 150:9,14 154:14,15 230:18 231:6 233:10 244:4 287:3
207:6,10,20,23,25 316:10 162:3 175:24 184:7 232:11 235:17 287:3 298:25
208:6 210:12,18,19 making (21) 188:15 208:4 239:17 242:18 319:24 320:4,6,13
213:4 214:6 215:10 83:11 149:3 151:10 210:10,13 241:20 247:4 253:12 320:21
215:24 216:11 160:7 173:6 194:21 281:16 289:25 257:14 267:2 meetings (11)
217:12 218:25 195:18 202:18 298:15 303:5 324:5 277:19 283:22 62:4,24 82:11,11,18

Page 21
84:9 86:8 89:10 million (1) 227:19 271:12,13 4:2 152:5 305:25 306:7
90:23 112:11 287:2 331:13 271:17 273:7,15,17 name (15) NCHRP (6)
meets (2) millions (4) 274:23,25 276:6 7:11 60:22 69:15 5:25 14:22 26:19
84:4 270:8 110:16 201:4,4 277:20 278:8,9,20 95:25 158:23 101:11 152:5 219:7
MELT (1) 202:23 279:5,23 329:9 196:14,16,19 241:2 nearly (1)
187:10 mind (2) 330:6 332:11 245:3,6,17,19 282:5 139:6
member (1) 254:6 287:9 333:13 338:5 343:2 necessary (1)
300:13 minor (2) modified (6) named (11) 250:21
members (4) 48:24 50:20 12:11 193:3 275:11 125:17 140:23 146:13 need (32)
65:2 97:23 113:15 minority (1) 280:2 326:24 150:18 154:24 30:2 43:7 44:3 64:13
184:15 182:12 329:20 175:15 243:6 244:6 74:22,24 99:4,6
memo (1) minute (5) Monday (1) 246:4 314:22 102:24 127:6
62:14 32:3 61:3 82:21 206:8 1:14 315:16 134:19,22 136:16
memorandum (1) 207:13 money (15) Nance (8) 189:8 202:7,8
113:13 minutes (3) 110:23 130:9 181:7 62:20 63:9,10,23 219:21 225:17
Memorial (1) 82:22,23 336:22 190:12,18,20,22 67:15 81:15 88:17 242:20 253:5
3:3 mischaracterizatio... 194:16 237:22 279:15 256:11 266:10
memorialize (1) 140:10 285:4,5 329:23 narrative (4) 268:9 270:22
153:21 Misrepresents (1) 331:4,10,20 73:17 76:10 102:18 285:14,17 286:14
memory (1) 314:24 monitor (5) 104:10 287:5,10 300:15
296:7 missed (2) 28:24 174:15 214:17 narratives (2) 308:3 336:21
mentality (1) 183:21 185:5 256:3 297:5 95:5 165:6 needed (6)
204:13 missing (1) monitoring (6) narrow (2) 12:14 81:14 252:4
mention (3) 43:16 164:4,5 180:3,5,10 201:20 226:3 300:24 301:5,13
41:24 95:6 302:20 Missouri (16) 256:13 narrowed (1) needs (3)
mentioned (19) 69:5,7,9,13 95:22 month (1) 47:16 137:18 239:7 338:12
26:14 32:5 40:19 41:4 212:10,24 213:3,17 58:11 narrowly-asked (1) negative (2)
41:17 42:25 53:5 213:19 215:6,25 months (1) 204:21 71:7 281:13
61:15 95:21 155:7 302:17,21,23,25 250:10 nation (1) neighborhood (1)
173:16 181:10 Missouri's (3) Moore (1) 126:13 158:7
217:17 234:17 212:18 213:15 215:3 2:4 national (11) neither (2)
251:3 279:8 282:15 misspoke (1) morning (6) 14:20 25:15,19 26:13 199:9 266:23
313:11 319:11 212:4 8:6,7 60:14,15 102:15 33:10 34:8 187:12 NET (1)
met (12) mistakes (1) 132:11 189:24 218:18 255:10
96:12 97:10 146:17 188:18 motivation (1) 254:21 280:14 network (1)
207:11 243:22,25 Mitchell (3) 330:25 nationwide (3) 12:13
244:18 246:2 243:7,8,10 motor (3) 135:7,10,13 Nevada (2)
257:11,13 270:6 mix (1) 51:8,10 198:24 nature (12) 65:25 66:7
272:12 223:21 motorists (2) 20:15 43:22 73:10,14 Nevada's (1)
Metro (1) mobility (5) 191:12 192:2 73:16 90:14 98:8,25 66:5
143:17 8:14 12:3 18:19 24:22 move (1) 155:18 225:21 never (12)
Michael (1) 25:3 243:4 245:8 332:17 93:15,25 124:18
324:15 mode (2) moved (3) NC (2) 182:9 207:11
middle (7) 144:2 204:6 8:23 16:16,19 248:6 306:11 215:18 225:2
56:14 126:11 143:3,7 model (4) moving (2) NCDOT (32) 239:12,13 243:22
151:17 195:16,17 28:19 65:14 274:6,6 112:2 138:23 101:16 105:4 110:12 243:25 299:25
Mike (7) models (1) multiple (5) 111:25 113:12,20 new (19)
208:13 263:13,16,22 274:4 35:12,23 141:3 145:2 120:15,23 132:19 25:8 133:11 159:19
264:3 267:12 moderate (1) 145:6 133:2,12 151:20,22 180:18 189:20
284:11 50:21 multiples (1) 151:25 156:19 190:11 192:23,23
miles (1) modernized (1) 137:18 161:15,23 164:13 193:25 194:4,15
202:23 336:17 Mustang (1) 164:15 165:5,11,12 239:11 326:23
miles' (2) modification (1) 205:18 167:18 168:11 327:12,13,14,17
208:22 209:7 278:16 194:21 225:2 328:12,16
military (2) modifications (24) N 242:12 252:15 newer (1)
17:17,17 224:16,25 225:6 N (2) 264:11 281:22 262:5

Page 22
newest (1) 40:13,14 41:19 notes (2) 235:10,18,21 189:23 190:6,25

195:25 42:10 43:6 46:5 82:2,6 237:10 270:10 191:19 192:5,14
news (21) 48:9 49:19 51:5 nothing's (1) 324:9 193:14 194:17,24
98:8 131:11,14,19 53:17 54:23 58:3,24 337:9 numerous (1) 197:9 198:2,17
132:23 258:7,9 61:13 63:21 65:4 notice (5) 168:24 199:2 201:24
280:21 311:24 66:16 68:19 71:10 128:9 198:12 203:9 202:15 212:25
312:12,12 314:17 71:14,19 72:3 73:4 211:4 269:15 O 214:2 215:7,21
314:21 315:15,20 73:24 74:13 77:19 notification (1) o'clock (1) 216:5 217:8 218:20
316:6,17 336:24 79:13 80:17 82:11 21:23 337:10 220:17,25 224:12
337:9,10,18 84:25 85:8,8,11 notified (2) object (18) 228:14 231:20
newspaper (1) 87:18 88:19 91:8 81:17 124:14 48:2 49:2 94:4 101:25 234:6 235:15 237:3
316:18 92:11 93:9,14,24 notifying (1) 131:16 196:7,23 239:15 255:2
NHS (1) 94:18 96:25 101:4 279:11 197:17 198:11 257:22 258:18
220:6 110:3,11 117:7 novel (1) 202:17 203:16 259:3 267:16
Nicholas (1) 120:4,13,14 122:11 102:19 238:22 262:11 271:14,25 272:22
146:13 122:19 124:3 November (2) 268:18 269:7 273:9,23 277:21
Nick (14) 136:16 137:18 14:11 107:12 323:11 329:11,12 278:11,24 280:3
146:15,22 147:6,11 140:5 141:12,16,19 nuance (1) objecting (3) 283:5,18 285:10
147:25 148:18 142:23 148:8 106:25 102:10,10 198:12 286:17 287:6,14
149:8 150:16,24 160:25 163:13 nuances (2) objection (204) 288:3,11 291:10,18
151:20 152:11 168:13,20 170:6,14 128:2 277:6 36:22 37:14 38:24 292:5,11,18 293:17
157:13 175:15,21 171:5,13,25 172:2 number (96) 39:19 40:5,9 41:9 293:24 294:18,25
Nick's (2) 173:24 174:13,22 7:3 14:8,25 15:2 30:6 47:10 49:14 66:19 295:7,21 296:2
146:25 152:19 175:5 177:8 182:11 30:9,12,16 33:23 70:18 71:23 72:20 297:10 298:3 302:4
Nickelston (7) 184:24 186:10 36:3 45:10,21 46:8 73:7 75:24 76:17 302:12 303:2
121:5,11,14,15 122:3 190:3 193:4 194:12 46:22,23,24 47:14 78:24 83:2 85:14,21 304:11 305:5
122:9 138:15 196:11,21 197:6,8 49:7 52:4 53:6 54:9 91:11,25 94:11 307:14,23 308:11
night (2) 199:25 200:3,10 62:4 70:11,22,25 98:12,19 99:14 310:5,20 313:19
132:11 224:4 201:7 203:16 71:11 73:15 75:17 100:18 101:9,19 314:23 316:22
nine (2) 208:19,23 209:8 87:4 96:4,21 97:20 105:12 107:19 317:3 318:21 322:2
10:23 54:22 213:24 214:14,24 107:3,8 114:8 108:2,10,25 110:7 322:20 323:18
noncapacitating (1) 215:5,19 216:25 117:21 120:20 110:25 111:9 329:4 330:10 332:2
48:10 217:11 218:3,17,23 125:2 126:22 135:8 112:14 113:17,22 332:19 333:5,16,21
nonresponsive (19) 228:6,25 231:25 135:10 136:2,21,23 115:14,20 116:8 334:2 335:11,22
36:23 37:15 40:10 232:2 234:3,24 136:25 138:3 139:2 117:16 118:19 338:7 339:13
47:11 49:15 59:17 237:13,14,16 242:7 139:3 140:22 119:4,10 122:4,14 objective (2)
94:12 98:13 129:4 245:9,24 247:8,11 149:14 150:14 122:22 123:4 124:5 211:12,17
131:6 188:9 199:3 248:7,20 250:22 153:25 154:14 126:18,25 127:18 objectively (2)
201:25 224:13 256:19 259:6 265:3 155:24 156:7,10,25 127:21 128:20 211:6 217:21
234:7 262:12 265:5 266:7 268:13 157:10 162:6,7 129:3,12,20,25 objects (4)
318:22 332:3,20 268:22 271:6 163:7 183:18 184:9 131:5,24 134:3,11 130:23,24 219:16
norm (1) 272:17 275:19 184:10 185:2 135:4,15,23 136:7 226:3
83:24 276:4 283:13 284:5 188:12 202:9,14,25 136:19 139:9,22 obscures (1)
normal (2) 285:7 287:11 208:3 210:14 211:9 140:7 141:9 142:2 317:2
130:19 131:3 290:15,17 299:17 216:16 218:5 143:20 145:12 observation (1)
normally (1) 301:3 304:10,14,25 219:16 222:4,17 146:3,8 149:12 53:14
86:12 306:11 307:17 223:19,24 241:18 150:20 153:4 observations (1)
North (200) 310:13 312:14,15 247:14 248:3 157:19 159:17 212:11
1:13 2:5,8 3:14,15 7:9 318:17 321:10 266:14 280:24 160:12 161:3 observed (1)
7:23 8:8,11,22,23 322:24,25 323:16 281:3 286:13,21 165:15,18 167:8,21 216:25
9:2,4 10:6 14:12 324:24 326:6,19 287:4,8,9 289:23 168:5,8 169:2,16 obsolete (3)
15:22 17:13 18:4 327:5 328:6,10,15 294:7 305:18 170:8 171:7 172:16 261:24 262:2,4
19:16 21:3 23:16,19 328:19 329:3 330:9 320:10 325:12 172:25 173:10 obtained (2)
24:7,10,13 25:5,23 334:8 335:3,7 342:3 326:18 175:9,19 177:9,24 17:24 154:4
27:5,11 28:6 29:7 Notary (3) numbers (9) 181:23 182:14 obvious (1)
31:25 36:11,16 2:7 342:21 343:25 30:14 174:18 229:13 186:19 188:8 48:11

Page 23
obviously (19) 326:10 342:17 one-page (1) organization (1) 147:17 151:17
22:5 63:5 76:22 84:11 officially (5) 45:10 20:4 154:23 156:2
98:4 99:20 106:24 305:25 306:8 307:3,7 ones (16) organs (1) 184:14 227:5
124:20 133:20 307:20 47:7 61:18,19 67:22 141:4 290:13,21 292:22
190:19 193:24 officials (2) 89:7 105:7 113:3 oriented (3) 294:6 295:10
194:8 195:15 32:22 238:10 182:3 200:12,18 12:16 14:6 16:7 314:15 315:5
200:12,17 212:4 offset (2) 250:8 252:18 original (12) 324:13 325:15
263:11 266:13 289:10,11 257:21 269:13 117:12 118:12 147:20 342:6,10 344:5
270:7 Oh (3) 270:22,24 209:23 303:13 pages (1)
occasionally (1) 141:14 142:15 171:14 online (1) 304:4,8,17 308:10 173:6
337:15 Ohio (1) 179:16 344:2,6,9 paid (6)
occasions (2) 95:22 operate (3) originally (2) 96:16 235:25,25
86:14 325:12 okay (93) 99:21 112:25 181:21 304:19,24 236:3 302:24 329:2
occupant (1) 58:6 60:22 63:20,23 operated (2) originated (1) paint (1)
51:25 64:4 65:6,11 66:13 99:12,17 98:16 50:12
occupants (1) 69:10,23 70:10 Operating (1) outcome (13) PALENCHAR (1)
48:17 73:13,22 74:25 75:3 264:15 35:22 38:10,12 48:25 3:10
occur (4) 77:16 78:10 81:12 operation (2) 50:3,13 72:22 82:4 panel (2)
39:5 49:7 201:7 288:4 85:22 86:21 87:2 131:3 163:12 177:14 212:7 34:15 79:5
occurred (9) 103:8,15 104:7,19 operational (2) 225:25 270:3 paper (5)
11:20,21 57:18 66:5 105:14 106:8,17 13:17,17 321:16 98:7 185:11 253:13
123:15 136:3 288:5 108:21 109:12 operations (3) outcomes (3) 337:11,17
307:8 312:11 111:17 112:4 16:19 63:12 67:17 50:18 179:11 270:5 paperwork (2)
occurring (1) 116:14,19,24 opine (1) outdated (2) 20:21 308:17
319:15 118:10,18,23 120:4 193:12 189:8 190:14 paragraph (7)
occurs (7) 123:25 124:25 opinion (17) output (1) 227:7 291:20 292:25
47:25 156:16 203:9 125:10,15 126:7 103:22 106:23 133:6 34:18 292:25 293:4,6
203:10 231:25 129:16 131:21 238:4,9 250:17 outset (1) 294:12
236:12 287:9 134:25 136:18 258:14 268:10 323:20 paraphrase (1)
October (7) 140:22 145:18 272:3 274:17,18 outside (10) 165:19
114:5 124:23 139:16 146:12 147:22 275:6,7 285:20,22 38:21 39:3,5,8 85:3,4 paraphrasing (2)
151:18 156:9 324:9 149:6,20 162:2 286:10 317:5 85:5 91:13 98:6 115:5 237:5
327:7 182:10 184:12,23 opinions (3) 331:8 part (20)
offer (5) 185:18 186:6 20:18 149:19 257:20 overall (6) 13:20 19:18,19 35:25
80:21 81:2 165:11,12 188:23 190:3 opportunity (1) 46:16 49:7 217:4 51:18 58:14 64:12
299:11 192:10 199:21 300:14 222:4 223:17 224:6 68:10 75:9 99:20
offered (2) 200:7 208:11 209:2 opposed (6) overnight (1) 100:2 148:16 155:3
69:3 165:24 209:5,19,21 211:5 46:19 47:21 55:7 328:17 155:11,20 158:18
office (13) 216:15 218:2,15 56:13 140:9 292:17 oversight (1) 168:14 232:15
7:23 42:12 67:19 224:24 227:5 opposing (4) 33:3 240:5 258:6
74:24 133:24 134:9 228:12,21 231:2 65:7 93:13 127:13 oversized (1) partially (1)
146:21,25 157:7 232:13 233:15 148:21 16:15 65:2
166:8 189:11 234:23 235:4 236:8 opposite (1) overweight (1) participated (1)
252:24 254:9 242:23 263:4 136:11 16:16 38:11
officer (12) 275:23 276:12 opt (1) owe (1) particular (15)
47:7 48:6,11 52:5,9 277:14 279:20 112:21 300:12 10:8 28:18 29:15
55:24 56:16 95:4,9 281:8,9 282:22 option (4) 52:22 56:24 99:7
165:6 264:15 344:3 old (3) 263:12 301:14,18 P 120:16 121:8
officer's (5) 15:9 56:6 180:25 328:22 p.m (6) 143:16 217:21
44:21 74:2 76:10 older (2) Orange (2) 153:15,19 241:14 242:15 309:12
170:15 344:8 55:23 163:6 184:18 328:10 338:23 341:2,3 310:25 325:16
officers (5) once (4) order (5) page (34) 329:13
51:7 73:18,19 171:10 97:25 144:12 192:2 43:7 44:2 202:7 4:4 5:4 121:4,8 particularly (2)
217:25 273:18 242:18 337:11 126:10,11 131:8 10:14 95:11
official (6) oncoming (1) ordinary (1) 138:5,18,21 142:14 parties (3)
18:8 51:4,18 323:22 220:10 51:15 142:16,19 143:3,4,7 2:11 342:14 344:13

Page 24
partly (2) 230:4 performed (9) 246:10,14 plan (1)

75:10 222:17 people (55) 87:21 178:19 298:10 photographs (4) 43:13
parts (1) 19:6 21:23 26:6 37:10 311:11 313:16 167:15,19 288:24 plant (1)
314:4 38:10 92:25 97:16 317:8,12,24 321:25 289:2 198:11
pass (23) 120:15,22 124:13 performing (17) photos (3) pleasant (1)
104:16,18,20 105:4,5 128:23 130:12,13 57:7 101:7,18 103:16 36:4 79:22 80:5 300:16
144:11,13,14,15 131:21 132:5 103:23 104:3 phrased (1) please (5)
176:22 177:6,23 144:22 145:22 121:18 149:23 285:15 7:14 24:25 155:16
192:20 239:3,4,24 148:18 172:6 180:2 174:3 178:12 193:9 phrases (1) 165:22 203:8
254:7,11,11 288:12 182:10 190:14 212:14 213:9 72:9 plethora (2)
318:9 319:12 191:9 195:16,24 221:21 249:16 physical (1) 172:10 238:2
338:15 196:14,17,20 201:4 251:8,9 230:16 plot (1)
pass/fail (1) 202:11,13,24 204:4 performs (1) physically (1) 281:12
253:22 204:6,7 205:19 339:4 94:25 plus (14)
passed (10) 222:10 235:18 period (17) physics (1) 44:19 152:5 162:20
48:7 104:22 105:7 236:23 238:9 29:5 30:8,16 42:14 142:22 163:7,11 175:4,18
138:14 178:3 240:17 243:5 44:19 94:8,9 119:23 pick (10) 181:18 196:6
180:19 239:25 244:19 247:25 119:25 218:19 134:19,21,23 146:17 214:15 215:20
240:12 339:11,12 255:9,25 257:15 221:12 228:5 252:5 230:7,8,11 255:22 216:4 285:21 335:7
passenger (6) 268:8 278:5,6 265:7 296:21 301:9,10 Plus.doc (1)
52:10 53:21 78:8 282:10,12 299:23 306:10 340:11 picks (1) 154:25
141:2 198:24 327:19 340:5 periods (2) 223:6 point (12)
253:24 people's (1) 77:2 269:5 pickup (1) 105:22 122:18 129:13
passes (1) 340:6 permit (1) 139:19 129:16 135:3 142:9
250:5 peoples' (1) 16:16 picture (1) 147:7 250:15
passing (2) 196:4 perpendicular (1) 78:16 288:18 289:3
144:2 285:23 perceived (1) 55:15 pictures (3) 306:16 336:4
patent (2) 59:5 person (11) 37:2 90:21,24 pointed (2)
147:23 149:7 percent (9) 48:7 127:11 153:7 piece (2) 203:18 276:10
patented (1) 42:13 162:14,15 157:17 160:7,10 253:13 336:17 points (1)
143:10 174:9 220:15,15,16 210:3,3 236:9 243:6 pieces (2) 279:9
patrol (2) 254:4 335:23 280:19 242:20,20 pole (1)
12:19 80:7 percentage (4) personal (7) pier (1) 226:4
Patterson (1) 163:6 208:22 209:7 75:14 90:15 235:23 48:3 police (12)
176:8 209:14 258:25 267:6 Pike (1) 73:17,19 165:7
pavement (1) Perfect (1) 276:15 328:2 139:15 170:15 172:14,19
15:23 103:13 personally (10) Pinckney (1) 173:5 230:20,24
pay (5) perfectly (1) 96:12,14 99:11,16 139:4 232:10 234:15,18
237:23 238:3 335:24 236:7 165:12 243:13 place (17) policies (3)
335:25 336:20 perform (7) 247:10 258:21 64:25 67:24 110:4 13:3 20:5 331:9
pedestrians (1) 13:14 31:12 43:7 277:19 297:18 112:10 121:8 policy (4)
204:3 51:20 297:15 persons (2) 128:10 152:15 77:16,18 90:14 263:9
peers (1) 331:24 332:25 130:5 249:2 160:6,9 204:11 policy-level (1)
149:19 performance (35) perspective (3) 205:4 213:21 267:5 263:8
penetrated (5) 28:25 31:4,15 39:17 98:11 300:2 331:15 285:18 318:20 policymaking (1)
52:10 78:8 198:23 39:22,25 40:15 43:9 pertain (2) 320:4 342:9 263:2
248:25 322:10 44:15 65:3,12 91:16 75:16 252:19 placed (1) pooled (2)
penetrating (8) 152:8 169:8,12 PET (1) 157:16 14:17 255:5
51:24 52:13,19 53:24 176:10 193:3 255:10 placement (2) poor (2)
54:5,16 130:16 201:15 215:13 Pg (1) 58:3,23 159:18 171:8
323:9 291:8,15,23,25 343:5 places (3) population (2)
penetration (9) 292:9,20 293:7,13 phenomenon (1) 164:18 219:22 257:12 223:17 224:6
54:24 56:22 74:9 293:20 294:8,13 159:19 plaintiff (4) portion (3)
224:21 225:10 295:19 297:2 phone (8) 1:6 3:2 7:20 227:11 52:9 78:10 314:14
229:9 230:2 240:7,8 309:14 321:17 69:22 81:18 134:19 plaintiff's (1) portions (1)
penetrations (1) 339:19 134:21,23 245:6 23:4 35:10

Page 25
pose (2) prescribed (1) 40:24 41:2,3,5 118:11,12,24 119:9 181:13 187:15
212:14 213:10 287:8 46:16 69:21 78:13 119:13,14 120:7,16 192:23 193:19
position (19) present (7) 88:11 92:22,24 143:24 144:9,15 194:2 195:25
8:11 9:14,16 11:4,6,7 2:10 3:17 65:20 83:23 158:22 179:20 146:2 148:12 149:4 196:15,17 198:22
12:2 16:24 17:7 84:7,8 149:18 245:4 256:14 268:4 150:6 173:25 174:6 201:10,16 212:20
18:14 97:9 157:22 presentations (2) 284:7 174:9 177:16 215:23 227:2 228:2
261:18 263:17 81:22,24 problem (16) 181:11,15 182:5,13 228:13,16 254:24
268:5,15 272:17 presented (1) 20:2 29:24,25 56:24 186:23 194:4 196:5 254:25 255:4,10
279:22,24 251:22 59:13,18,24 63:5 196:12,14,19 259:6 261:5 262:6
positions (4) presenting (1) 193:12 211:22 197:13 200:5 212:8 272:11 282:25
63:18 89:5 263:3,8 315:23 232:18,23 258:13 212:18 213:18,18 283:11 284:23
possession (1) preserve (1) 292:16 316:3 339:5 215:3 225:23 228:4 286:3 292:9,17,21
252:15 37:7 problems (7) 228:8,9 232:19,24 293:22 294:3,22
possibility (2) presume (2) 37:21 101:7,17 232:24 233:3,6,11 300:23 301:20
191:3 299:23 156:3 273:5 103:16,23 104:3 233:11 234:13 304:15 312:3
possible (16) pretty (11) 208:20 236:16,18 238:11 326:21 327:17,24
36:16 75:5 78:25 79:3 30:21 35:17 48:5,11 procedures (2) 242:16,22 245:11 328:25 332:15
80:4 101:3 134:13 71:18 72:15 135:8 32:9 39:6 249:14 250:5,22 335:8
183:21 185:4 255:23 269:21 proceed (4) 251:6 253:9 255:14 professional (19)
221:15 243:20 302:9 304:5 60:19 154:10 207:7 259:18,24 260:21 2:7 63:24 133:3
245:18 282:14 prevalent (2) 241:16 261:22 262:4 157:13,17 158:8,12
326:22 340:8,12 42:11,15 process (22) 267:11 270:4,6 158:15 160:11,19
possibly (3) prevent (2) 24:10,14,15,23 25:2 271:2 272:10,19,21 210:25 216:18
58:12 79:23 226:16 204:4 205:21 25:14,24,24 27:10 272:21 274:19 241:4,7 250:17
post (3) prevented (2) 32:5,6 143:24 275:8 277:10,18 275:15,17 282:13
82:20 221:21 228:3 164:13 297:25 144:18 148:23 278:2,6,7,18 279:17 282:18
posts (1) previous (1) 179:2 212:6 251:13 280:12 283:8,17,25 professionalism (1)
110:18 278:18 251:18 253:7 284:9 285:8,9,24,25 204:20
potential (3) previously (9) 255:24 278:15 291:9 297:25 301:4 professionals' (1)
84:11 114:3 122:12 259:6,10,17 260:16 333:24 301:7,11,15,16 159:12
potted (1) 260:20 296:12 processes (1) 302:3,11 303:6,12 professors (4)
198:11 297:3,7,13 20:21 303:12,13 304:9 240:11,16 241:7
practice (1) price (1) produce (1) 306:18,24 307:4,18 282:15
170:11 165:13 207:18 308:9,15 309:8 profit (1)
practices (3) primarily (5) produced (7) 313:11,17 319:4,9 330:6
13:3 148:10 170:19 66:11 86:16 87:23 153:24 154:6 207:3 319:25 320:10,23 profited (1)
preceded (2) 165:6 222:25 214:22 252:22,22 321:4,10,24 327:15 191:15
57:8 339:20 primary (4) 252:25 330:20 331:19,23 program (14)
predecessor (1) 15:12 89:4 272:13,13 product (191) 334:8 339:4 5:8,9 11:16 12:11
259:8 printed (1) 5:8,9 19:19,23 20:25 product's (2) 14:21 16:11,14
prefer (9) 123:18 21:2 22:9 23:11 112:22 327:12 114:17,21 118:2,25
28:2 103:4,5,7,9 prior (17) 24:2,19,19 25:22 products (87) 151:4 188:4 331:12
166:2 203:12,13 59:9 112:11 139:20 26:3 28:12,21 29:8 1:8 3:9 7:7 20:9,19 progression (2)
270:14 141:7 144:19 29:15,20 30:18,20 21:22,25 23:23 11:24 193:19
preferred (1) 156:20 174:4 30:22 31:8,18 33:8 27:21 28:11 31:21 prohibiting (1)
100:11 192:24 194:8 198:4 34:7 35:12 38:3,15 36:6 37:24 41:7 212:21
prelude (2) 223:4 225:15 305:9 38:16,17,21 40:7,16 48:19 57:5 59:3 prohibitive (1)
8:17 329:13 307:10 308:15 41:17,18 42:7 43:13 63:16 66:2,8 68:7 255:16
prepared (3) 314:24,25 53:16,18,21 57:3 70:15 81:7,11,12 project (3)
51:15 323:22 324:3 private (2) 61:12 62:25 65:25 84:2 89:20,23 96:2,5 242:15
preparing (1) 262:24 318:5 66:6,12 68:7,12 104:11 106:22 projects (13)
344:9 proactive (6) 70:13 83:22 87:24 109:15 114:23 13:13 15:3 16:6,9,10
prerogative (1) 212:16 213:23 214:10 88:9 89:11 90:5,6 116:21 118:7,24 183:18 184:2,3,5
283:21 214:11,12,13 90:13 98:4 104:12 146:23 149:23 185:3 212:20,22
prescribe (3) probably (20) 114:17 115:8 168:4 174:2 177:18 307:10
107:25 108:8,13 13:21 17:4 36:17 40:7 117:11,12,25 178:13 180:15 promoted (5)

Page 26
12:5,8,21 13:6 50:7 114:20 119:17 175:17 177:17 306:6 315:13,20 290:10
15:17 191:8,11,25 192:7 185:10 191:20 reading (9)
promotes (1) 233:9 238:13 196:8,24 197:10,20 R 123:17,18 139:21
330:18 291:21 316:15 201:20 202:16 rail (1) 140:16,17,19 141:7
promotion (1) 320:20 203:17 204:15 222:5 314:14,21
118:8 purposes (2) 206:25 213:19 raised (7) reads (3)
prompted (5) 50:23 302:25 217:9 221:18 67:4 97:20,22 98:10 151:8 314:3 343:5
65:18 66:24 67:3 68:3 pursuant (1) 233:16 238:23 99:2 112:11 319:2 ready (4)
68:11 113:12 239:16 242:5 247:2 raises (1) 154:10 207:7,23
proper (1) pursue (1) 251:17 265:16,24 138:25 241:16
25:11 10:24 268:9,19 269:8 raising (2) reaffirming (1)
properly (1) purview (2) 274:2,3,15 277:22 158:5 215:13 245:15
143:12 256:24 303:24 278:12 279:2 Raleigh (4) real (4)
property (5) put (17) 285:11,15 287:16 1:13 2:5 3:15 7:9 58:5 64:16 230:18
48:23 49:21,25 50:17 45:22 62:5,15,16,17 291:7 292:15 Randi (4) 320:19
50:20 69:12 71:14 76:19 300:21 303:11 2:6 7:12 342:20 real-world (1)
protect (9) 87:6 148:12 150:7 304:6 305:18,18,25 344:19 156:15
37:9 130:6,11 145:22 157:10 187:25 306:7 308:17 311:6 random (1) realize (7)
191:9 192:4 193:20 193:22 281:11 319:9,13,24 320:22 223:8 113:20 197:4 235:17
204:9 216:19 303:18 304:14 323:21 329:13 randomly (1) 235:22 276:12,18
protruding (1) 332:8 340:4 35:14 287:19
135:22 Q questionable (1) range (1) really (9)
proven (2) QPL (1) 297:13 18:22 9:15 83:12,15 144:6
143:6 261:22 320:11 questioning (2) ranged (1) 268:24 279:18
provide (11) qualification (2) 300:20 314:24 42:13 298:7 314:21
20:18 37:11 87:14 26:2 27:10 questions (37) rare (2) 317:15
108:13 145:2,3,7,7 qualified (11) 8:18 19:13 60:9,11 83:19 285:16 reason (21)
154:7 172:23 59:3 63:16 66:2 68:7 85:13 86:4 98:22 rarely (1) 31:18,20 59:2,3 105:2
330:19 81:11,12 89:20,23 102:23,24 109:13 84:4 121:20 123:20,23
provided (18) 215:23 304:15 155:4,24 204:21 rate (11) 132:24 145:15
73:17 80:6 81:22,24 328:25 206:23 207:16 30:15 49:2 71:3 99:25 148:15,16 228:6
86:23,25 87:7,8,11 qualifying (1) 211:6 215:13 218:16,18 220:16 254:22 261:3 266:7
119:2,14 155:17 31:20 217:21 256:8 291:7 222:3 223:2,16 300:7 320:19
167:18,19 209:12 quality (4) 300:11,14 302:2,16 238:7 321:22 322:4 343:5
216:7 217:2 293:3 170:20,20,25 232:8 305:13,14 310:24 rates (2) reasonable (2)
providing (4) quantifiable (2) 311:2 312:16 224:11 226:5 145:25 201:16
115:8 119:8,13,20 208:21 209:6 313:25 314:20 Ray (5) reasonably (1)
public (14) quarter (1) 315:14,19 317:6 96:9,11 193:2,12,16 193:9
2:7 70:5 87:4 159:14 79:5 319:2,22 340:24 re- (1) reasoning (1)
159:23 193:20 question (105) quick (2) 115:11 189:18
216:19 243:18 21:2 28:7 58:19 62:11 58:5 64:16 reach (2) reasons (3)
252:11 268:14 62:12 64:13 76:7 quickly (1) 68:19 176:7 109:22,25 344:5
333:19 338:4 81:10 85:20,23,25 153:20 reached (2) rebuild (1)
342:21 343:25 89:14 100:20 quit (2) 169:6 249:3 13:18
published (4) 101:21 102:14,15 23:22 90:5 read (30) rebuilt (1)
92:7 96:2 219:8 224:8 103:2,7,14,15,20,21 quite (9) 9:17 38:7 69:11,14 13:23
pull (1) 104:6 106:9 107:13 8:23 42:2,3 68:24 95:17,20 96:4,19,21 recall (58)
303:7 109:5 110:8 112:15 96:22 202:19 96:22 98:23 102:18 33:24 34:3,13 36:14
pulled (4) 113:23 122:5,15 255:16 269:17 126:16,21 133:14 38:14 57:14 67:12
46:5 128:23,25 127:25 131:17,25 299:5 138:22 155:13 69:8 70:3 75:18
152:17 134:4,5 139:10,23 quote (4) 163:8 212:24 76:3 78:19 79:2,16
punch (1) 140:8,9 143:21 71:11 281:23 309:8 227:15 243:13,15 80:5 81:2,25 82:3
331:18 149:11 154:22 315:15 243:18 257:16 89:13,25 91:19
purchase (1) 156:10 157:12 quoted (2) 290:8 309:15 314:3 100:8 135:16 157:8
42:9 165:20,23 167:9 159:21 315:14 330:2 337:17 343:5 226:14 240:7
purpose (12) 170:17 171:21 quoting (3) Reader's (1) 243:20 244:4 245:3

Page 27
253:23 261:4,6,8 12:17,18 14:4 80:14 regard (13) 275:24 316:5 216:3 219:16
264:22 282:8 285:2 80:18 91:6 172:20 73:25 74:14 77:17 336:24 337:16 236:20 247:20
292:13,19 296:3 reconstructions (2) 99:10 129:24 169:6 relying (2) 283:16 320:11
300:25 302:18 171:18 216:2 169:7 214:14 249:4 175:8 277:8 Renee (4)
311:12 313:24 record (23) 253:6 254:7 274:22 remain (9) 208:14,20 209:5
314:7,9 317:9 319:6 7:15 42:17,19,22 337:22 58:3,23 63:17 168:3 280:21
322:12 323:24 64:17,21 77:8,8 regarding (10) 233:11 266:10 renumber (1)
328:11 329:2 132:8 153:13,14,18 43:18 58:2,22 66:5 285:21 320:23 188:24
receive (5) 153:22 161:19 80:15 92:13 97:2 324:24 repair (3)
80:21,22 128:9 238:25 241:9,10,13 146:22 162:11 remained (1) 93:2 243:2 261:10
134:17 280:12 313:6 331:7 338:19 271:11 105:9 rephrase (2)
received (11) 338:23 340:25 regardless (2) remarks (1) 59:22 221:18
68:9 81:18 124:18 records (10) 65:12 320:20 54:13 replace (18)
128:7 133:11 46:5 51:4 70:6 75:6 regards (1) remember (22) 180:25 181:8 183:7
134:14 140:15 77:5,9,10,23 267:22 151:24 33:23 62:13 67:22,23 186:3,15,25 187:3
155:23 162:19 308:20 regional (1) 69:15 75:13,23 76:2 189:19 190:10,19
163:2 209:3 recruiting (1) 126:5 79:17,18 82:9 194:14 250:8 285:9
recertification (9) 9:23 registered (3) 147:11,13 158:5,10 300:22 335:2,6,18
5:8,10 114:17,21 recycle (1) 2:6 117:7 245:24 159:7 211:23 212:2 336:9
118:2,25 225:5 97:13 regulate (3) 212:3 240:25 replaced (6)
279:4 303:7 redirect (1) 107:16,24 108:8 245:18 337:2 43:20 189:8 277:25
recess (5) 143:13 reimbursement (30) remembers (1) 285:17 301:7,14
42:21 64:19 153:16 reduced (1) 25:15,18 26:12 33:9 13:22 replacement (2)
241:12 338:21 30:14 34:7 105:10,24 remind (1) 285:3 336:5
recognize (2) reduces (1) 106:12,20,21,22 324:19 replacing (2)
45:18 316:11 220:10 144:21 147:2,10,15 reminds (1) 181:14 188:5
recollect (1) reducing (1) 148:24 151:3,14 86:6 report (38)
333:9 30:16 178:15 182:6 removal (3) 6:2 26:20,23 33:11
recollection (2) refer (5) 198:23 201:11 66:5 89:20 259:12 37:6 38:7 51:7,9
288:24,25 22:7,9,24 256:13 228:17 245:16 remove (39) 55:25 62:2 64:11
recommend (5) 309:7 249:13,25 250:21 5:19 29:21 30:2,3 69:12,14 96:17 98:7
29:14 59:14 111:8 reference (8) 270:10 272:20 31:10,18,20,21 57:4 159:11 162:19
326:4 327:2 121:25 218:9 292:24 280:14 59:2,4 63:15 68:6 163:2 170:15
recommendation (19) 293:7 304:8,9 related (4) 81:7,8,10 87:24 172:14,19 215:13
29:16,18 31:3,6,24 305:20 311:7 10:9 90:16 160:8 88:5,6,9,23 89:22 219:8 230:17
57:25 58:22 59:7,8 referenced (1) 256:11 115:9 177:15 184:3 232:10 289:11
61:12 63:2 109:10 206:25 relates (1) 187:15 189:11 290:5,25,25 294:11
173:7 252:2 283:23 referencing (1) 234:19 195:22 215:22 295:11 314:18,21
299:16 323:23 309:6 relation (1) 219:23 234:14 317:13 323:21
326:8,9 referred (2) 60:3 249:18 251:11 326:10,12 327:21
recommendations (1) 65:8 260:20 relationship (1) 252:11 261:13 reported (2)
160:7 referring (11) 265:6 283:24 301:4 36:3 47:7
recommended (1) 74:19 92:24 118:13 relatively (5) 302:10 319:25 reporter (8)
280:5 184:19,21 217:7,22 40:18 48:4 49:6,9 removed (18) 2:7 7:12 22:15 45:9
recommending (1) 227:17 312:21 54:8 29:11 65:25 66:8 157:24 166:25
111:16 313:15 314:2 released (2) 68:16,21 89:12 176:24 342:20
recommends (1) reflected (3) 82:22 266:16 183:2 184:4 187:21 reporting (4)
109:6 57:24 75:10 91:23 relevant (1) 195:22 260:7,17,21 96:20 171:9,9 217:25
reconsider (1) reflects (1) 150:5 283:3,7,10 300:24 reports (22)
177:7 206:16 relied (2) 301:5 14:19,22 35:4,7 44:21
reconstruct (4) refuse (3) 148:18 170:13 removes (1) 74:2 80:14 95:4
183:7 187:15,17 161:19,24 287:18 relies (1) 119:15 97:6 165:8 166:19
288:22 refused (2) 120:14 removing (14) 173:5 179:15 210:5
reconstructed (4) 175:16 338:6 rely (9) 59:14,21 66:17 68:12 217:24 230:13,20
187:18,20,23 189:13 refute (1) 76:10 165:6 168:12 114:23 188:5 230:24 231:11
reconstruction (7) 160:2 175:10 272:18 206:17 212:20 234:16,18 312:21

Page 28
represent (3) reshipping (1) 31:7 34:10 48:8 96:3 150:24 151:19 11:21 73:6 81:9 88:22
60:23 235:18 332:10 245:13 141:23 142:6,13 152:11 154:18 120:8 132:14 149:9
representation (1) reside (1) resume (1) Ridgeline (1) 183:14,20 186:24
72:19 86:18 12:7 140:24 189:13 192:3
representations (1) resort (1) retained (1) riding (2) 194:13 195:4,6,15
305:3 28:17 77:5 203:24 205:21 195:16,17 213:20
representative (5) respect (21) retention (6) right (115) 225:22 236:16,23
180:7 244:13 248:9 28:23 29:17 79:9 75:5 77:7,12,16,18,22 9:7 12:5 22:18 46:7 238:6,10 278:3
256:6 290:14 80:18 86:4,21 114:3 retired (4) 53:22 60:19 64:9,23 281:5 328:21
representatives (2) 122:13 131:14 63:22 125:9 175:23 65:14 67:15 70:7,12 roads (25)
122:10 248:3 133:6 146:24 262:25 70:17 71:13,22 72:9 19:16 23:19 24:13
represented (7) 153:22 166:19 returned (3) 76:14 78:6,17,18,20 27:14 29:11 31:9
120:24 161:8 280:9 171:15 174:22 344:2,4,6 79:5 81:3 88:7,8 58:4,24 61:13 109:7
290:17 314:10 237:19 292:14 revamping (1) 89:17 91:22 92:7,20 113:8 132:8,11
320:16,17 296:9 297:2 307:17 21:22 98:17 102:4 103:10 145:22 148:5
representing (2) 319:8 review (35) 103:12 105:2 106:5 174:13,23 177:8
7:17 161:10 respective (1) 5:7 16:5,6 29:19 110:22 113:15 187:19,22 199:24
represents (1) 2:11 33:17 40:14 41:14 118:8 120:21 201:5 202:24
248:6 respects (1) 41:21 62:3 69:4 124:22 126:9 275:21 313:18
reputation (1) 279:21 76:20 90:19 107:14 130:21 133:14 roadside (20)
267:13 respond (3) 116:4 124:15 137:3 138:11,17 31:22 38:16 39:23
request (7) 115:6 151:23 153:9 132:21 167:15,25 139:18,21 140:20 41:2 42:4,7,16 59:4
11:19 15:12 70:6 responded (4) 174:17 176:18,20 142:4,11,15,20 66:18 107:16 109:8
154:4 256:12,12 14:6 22:3 309:25 179:19 212:11 147:4 148:5 151:9 110:15 113:14
262:18 331:16 249:20,23 251:13 154:10 158:16,24 146:19 164:20
requested (6) responding (1) 251:17 253:7 162:14 163:10 174:16,17 176:6
32:14 33:5 86:25 87:3 151:19 256:11 288:17,23 166:18 181:9 183:9 219:9 260:14
87:15 263:10 response (24) 298:18 324:16 187:16 191:22 roadsides (1)
requesting (1) 103:5 104:8,9 107:18 339:9 340:4 197:16 204:2,16 189:22
87:13 117:15,19 133:8 reviewed (35) 206:10,14 208:11 roadway (24)
requests (3) 134:15,17 151:25 17:7 33:6 34:9 36:15 210:9 216:20 13:16 90:7 100:6
11:17 14:7 87:4 152:8,19,20,20 37:3 40:3,7,17,24 224:17 229:3,4,11 125:13 148:13
require (4) 155:24 186:12 41:22,25 80:9,13 229:23 230:21 176:6 187:16
26:9 28:4 29:10 203:21 209:20,22 90:21 95:13,25 232:9 233:21,22 191:17 200:6
102:17 209:25 210:6 211:4 115:13 166:11 235:18 236:2 203:12,13,14 204:4
required (14) 258:8,9 172:6 179:4,6,8 240:16 246:25 204:25 205:15,17
26:16,25 33:8 51:7 responses (1) 182:3,4 240:11,14 247:4,13 259:20 205:22 206:18
112:20 157:23,25 209:11 240:14,15,17,17 262:16 282:5,23 224:4 257:6 261:2
158:3 159:10 responsibility (3) 289:21 294:15 297:20 303:9 304:7 334:12,13 340:10
160:20 207:19 204:8,10 275:18 301:21 303:21 304:23 306:6,8,24 roadways (10)
219:9,15 220:2 responsible (9) 325:18 307:24 308:12 164:20 182:16,19
requirement (4) 113:9,13 116:2 205:2 reviewing (13) 314:22 315:16 183:3,8 185:22
27:4 101:12 160:4 236:11 237:21 74:2 111:24 133:10 320:2 321:20 204:3 216:4 297:23
227:13 240:19 242:13 163:25 175:12 322:15 326:17 319:14
requirements (6) 257:3 214:16 221:13 328:7 329:19 Roger (6)
107:25 108:8,14 rest (1) 240:20 247:16,21 335:16,18 337:15 124:8,9 176:3,5,13
160:18 220:6 326:2 256:7 263:23 338:13 339:20 244:14
239:11 restrict (1) 282:11 right-of-way (1) role (9)
research (14) 46:17 revision (1) 83:18 24:21 25:2 123:13
14:12,14,14,21 15:3 result (8) 35:24 ring (2) 124:2 160:14
33:19 34:10 96:2,5 34:4 50:14 57:23 revoke (1) 248:12,15 208:10 263:23
104:16 166:23 194:20,21 219:20 29:9 risk (3) 337:24 338:2
193:25 215:17 321:19 322:7 Ricky (14) 181:12 212:14 213:10 Ron (4)
239:22 resulted (2) 5:15 62:20 63:9,11 risks (1) 157:6,6 264:4,4
researchers (3) 54:24 135:14 64:2 67:16 81:15 181:17 room (1)
166:21 282:2,6 results (7) 138:6,7 140:14 road (27) 77:10

Page 29
roughly (3) 28:7,9 29:2,8 31:9 109:6 112:19,21,25 seal (1) 312:15 315:5
18:16,18,23 32:11 41:2 48:21 113:7 116:21,24 342:17 324:11,17 325:7,16
round (8) 51:21 59:5,14 62:22 117:4,5,11,14 Sean (5) 337:17
33:15 65:22,23 66:4 62:25 67:5 87:25 118:11,11,17 3:12 7:16 154:9 210:8 seeing (6)
66:23,24 67:2,7 90:10 93:9 107:17 121:13,14 125:19 256:22 79:17 80:5 169:7
routinely (1) 107:25 108:8 113:7 125:22 126:10,11 seat (6) 224:10 234:3 247:7
146:21 113:14,14 114:3 131:9,11 136:17 220:14,16,23 221:3 seen (25)
RPR (1) 146:20 159:13,22 138:21 139:13,14 222:10 226:25 79:25 82:10 95:5
342:20 160:9 172:3,23 141:22,25 142:4,5,5 second (36) 107:9 114:13
rubric (1) 174:24 179:13 142:12,21 143:8 35:2 36:12 37:18 52:8 133:21 154:20,23
19:12 184:24 188:4 147:19 148:24 52:12 53:23 65:22 162:8 196:12
Rule (2) 208:10 216:19 149:3 150:25 151:2 66:23,24 67:2,7 222:17 239:12
344:1,12 219:4,9 234:19 151:16,17,20 68:5 81:4 82:24 242:3 290:5 311:4,9
rules (3) 250:19 257:2 152:19,21,22,25 109:5 121:4 126:10 311:14,17,23 312:2
102:8 199:13 207:19 268:14 279:12 156:2,7,13,24,25 138:5,9,18,21 312:20,21 313:3
run (1) 280:18 303:25 159:4,9 162:10,14 148:22 154:23 327:18 328:4
50:9 316:3 331:7 338:2 162:18,25 163:3 155:9,11,14,19 sees (1)
run-off-road (3) sale (1) 184:23 185:2,11 160:23 184:14 71:21
14:23 46:22 61:17 302:3 186:5 188:2 189:4 227:6 233:9 287:3 select (2)
running (4) salesperson (1) 190:10 208:13 292:24 294:12 145:2,8
30:5 94:6 208:25 245:5 209:19 212:10,15 319:8 325:14 selected (2)
209:20 sample (10) 214:8 215:2 216:17 secret (1) 35:14 224:2
runs (1) 49:12 54:11 169:15 216:24 223:8 207:5 sell (1)
225:21 169:20,21 170:11 227:10 244:12 secretaries (1) 165:24
Russell (1) 170:24 201:20 249:12,24 257:20 264:2 selling (4)
246:4 223:8 294:5 258:10 275:5 secretary (15) 174:3 316:16,17
Ryan (4) save (1) 281:22,23,24 29:13 86:9 88:24 89:6 337:6
3:4 7:19 60:22 153:22 331:19 282:24 283:2 306:7 97:10,11 263:6 send (2)
saved (2) 327:2 264:11,12,22 115:5 138:16
S 329:23 331:14 scale (2) 266:19 267:2,3 sending (2)
Sabrina (2) saw (12) 56:17 255:12 284:11 324:23 151:19 287:13
140:23 141:6 31:19 53:8,10 90:24 scans (2) section (4) sends (2)
safe (25) 98:6,7 99:3 123:14 80:9,22 11:21 24:16 117:10 87:7 131:10
23:7 120:16,17 146:2 163:25,25 226:6 scenario (6) 118:11 senior (2)
146:23 148:6,11,17 319:17 88:12 130:14 131:2 see (66) 10:12 139:4
149:4,10 153:10 saying (37) 191:13 250:3 14:22 28:25 35:15,23 sensationalized (1)
173:7,20 174:6 97:17 98:20 99:3 295:13 37:25 45:16 52:17 316:25
175:18 190:14 105:23 106:6 scenarios (1) 52:22 54:4 56:23 sense (3)
204:13 238:20 111:13 138:12 160:16 57:6 59:2 63:3 66:9 29:23 262:7,10
253:9 273:21 146:6 159:21 scene (4) 72:4 82:6 96:8 sensitive (1)
275:20 281:23 164:14 168:10 36:5 37:6 79:22 194:9 131:9 132:22 299:19
319:5,10 320:23 182:6 191:25 schedule (4) 142:12,17 145:23 sent (7)
Safe-Stop (7) 195:13,21 205:3,23 75:6 77:12,22,24 148:15 173:24 21:22 81:19 116:5
328:21 334:14,21,23 212:3 218:8 222:7 school (5) 186:13,25 187:20 118:24 123:24
335:20 336:11,16 231:2 234:2 242:19 9:9 17:16,18,23 20:12 225:20 228:24,25 280:9 327:6
safely (1) 250:14 254:10 schools (1) 229:3 231:5 232:17 sentence (7)
143:14 261:21 262:8,9 282:16 233:20 238:19 142:5 143:5 147:18
safer (3) 270:25 271:3 272:8 Science (2) 249:10 273:19 156:13 186:12
321:5,9,11 273:14 287:8 10:3,5 278:9 281:12 291:4 326:25 327:9
safety (75) 323:20 332:12 Scott (6) 291:11,17 292:3,23 sentences (1)
8:14 10:9,15 11:15 337:12 339:3 1:5 3:10,16 7:5,22 293:4,10,16 294:9 126:21
12:3,11 13:12,16 says (100) 64:13 294:16 295:14 separate (2)
14:11,15 15:8,13,24 19:18 24:18 25:17 scratched (1) 298:20 300:6 276:2 306:18
16:6,8,11,13 18:20 40:21 55:2 58:7 50:12 303:14 305:15 separately (1)
19:3,5,6,9,12,25 73:5 74:7 104:10 screening (1) 306:4 307:13,15 319:4
21:2 24:22 25:3 107:13 108:18,21 12:14 309:9 310:14 September (1)

Page 30
58:12 30:19,19,22,22 42:14 126:14 127:7 218:12 95:20 102:13 299:19

sequence (2) 53:15 60:2 82:17 325:4 107:10 108:19 six (3)
91:3 306:22 122:21 132:20 shy (1) 114:14 117:13 17:4 200:16 250:9
series (2) 150:6 267:20 266:24 118:4 123:17 size (9)
14:22 305:12 292:10 337:21 Sicking (11) 124:19 125:21 22:13 49:12 54:11
serious (7) shared (4) 257:8,13 258:2,7,15 127:6 137:4 140:12 167:5 169:14
30:12 84:9 202:6 133:23 293:22 325:5 282:17,19,21 142:12,24 143:19 170:11,24 201:21
203:15 221:15 325:10 301:25 302:8,23 145:14 147:17 294:5
224:20 281:3 sharing (1) side (28) 154:11,21 157:21 sketched (2)
seriously (3) 69:2 34:15 54:17,18 55:3,6 159:3,16 162:8,13 55:24 56:16
237:15 297:23 320:24 sheeting (1) 55:7,9 78:5 137:13 166:4 172:12 sketches (2)
serve (1) 255:8 174:13 183:13 179:10 181:10 56:17,18
263:9 Shelly (1) 186:24 195:15 184:11 185:9 186:4 skip (1)
served (1) 86:7 223:8 225:23 226:5 195:11 197:4,18 139:13
344:13 shelter (1) 226:7,8,11,12,13 201:22,23 202:10 SKT (11)
service (2) 26:8 236:16 267:24,24 202:22 203:24 284:20 293:23 301:15
3:15 250:8 shield (5) 288:19 289:5 296:4 204:5,14 205:16 302:3 310:7,11,17
set (13) 50:8 130:5 191:12 296:5 207:10,24 210:2,23 323:12 327:19,24
52:7 82:21 140:6 192:2 219:24 side-by-side (2) 226:10 228:10 328:4
155:8 183:17 184:2 shielding (1) 94:2 95:14 229:11 230:20 SKT-3050 (1)
184:5 185:2 255:6 130:13 sign (3) 231:9,13 235:14,19 177:22
310:22 313:9 342:9 shipped (2) 110:18 196:25 228:3 236:21 237:9 sliding (1)
342:16 285:24,25 signals (1) 238:18 241:16,17 55:13
sets (3) shipping (4) 15:23 242:4 261:19 slope (5)
27:23 211:16 291:6 23:22,25 119:24 Signature (2) 283:12 289:6,15 259:22 260:2,12,12
setting (2) 120:2 343:21 344:4 290:16 291:5 292:4 281:13
113:13 156:16 shoestrings (1) signed (1) 292:12 293:5,11,18 Slusser (6)
seven (2) 181:5 255:8 294:10 295:15 3:16 7:22,22 161:5
17:4 33:22 short (3) significant (3) 298:21 299:9,12 198:8 265:20
severe (33) 13:6 241:9 324:22 30:21 219:3 302:9 303:15 304:2 small (11)
30:15 44:24 46:9,19 shortly (4) signing (1) 313:20 314:8 315:4 12:25 16:17 54:8 83:8
47:9,15,21 48:8 66:7 152:17 244:23 89:8 317:10 323:4 325:8 119:25 135:8,9
49:5,8,22 50:13 245:13 signs (3) 326:14 336:14 201:20 235:10,13
52:12,18 53:2,9,20 shot (1) 15:23 110:18 233:21 339:23 294:5
70:14,24 71:3 67:14 similar (5) sit (21) smaller (2)
100:15 135:14 shoulder (2) 168:24 218:18 292:20 74:10 75:19 76:16 83:7 169:20
201:9 218:6,16 233:4,7 295:24 327:23 84:18 105:2 107:24 smearing (1)
221:22 222:2 223:2 show (20) simple (3) 108:7 123:21 174:5 237:6
223:25 225:9 229:2 74:13 114:7 117:20 72:15 170:17 238:18 178:23 181:19 smirking (3)
235:9 319:18 124:25 128:18 simply (1) 196:10 240:15 199:7,10 207:22
severe-injury (1) 162:6 171:19 175:7 252:13 253:4 Smith (1)
325:19 207:12 210:13 single (8) 258:23 260:22 2:4
severely (2) 222:22,24 227:11 74:11 76:14 199:23 267:7 286:12 300:9 snide (1)
229:10 252:7 234:18 241:19 252:14 253:4 328:3 329:17
severing (1) 270:10 281:14,18 258:24 286:9,10 site (2) society (1)
139:19 312:2,4,5 sir (128) 14:5 16:7 330:16
severity (4) showed (7) 18:2,13,17 21:5,5,9 sites (1) softer (1)
156:14 194:2,5 129:9,23 143:11,16 22:13,22 23:2,9,14 112:17 99:20
321:19 221:20 269:22 23:17 24:6,8,24 sitting (4) sold (2)
shallow (6) 282:22 26:21 27:3,6,7 32:2 102:4,16 200:22 174:2 313:17
100:8 226:15 294:24 showing (1) 33:12 36:21 43:5 288:2 sole (1)
295:5,13 317:23 127:14 45:17 57:19 60:8,15 situation (7) 330:25
shallow-angle (5) shown (4) 60:16,25 67:25 25:7 133:10 152:23 solely (6)
99:23 176:23,25 198:21 296:6 298:13 70:17 74:23 77:23 153:2 212:17 168:12,20 231:23
177:23 289:19 344:13 80:16,20 81:25 82:9 213:23 214:11 272:18,24 337:16
share (14) shows (4) 82:15,19 93:11 situations (1) somebody (5)

Page 31
91:13 253:14 87:17,19 95:13 start (18) 65:10 105:16,17 stepped (1)
287:11 308:18 129:7,8 180:11 7:2 9:3 18:8 64:20 156:9 159:16,25 335:17
315:23 232:13 274:22 70:22 83:11,12 160:2,3 185:15,16 steps (7)
somewhat (1) 294:2 327:25 135:9 153:17 188:2 202:18 212:16 213:23 214:10
145:10 329:25 171:22 185:20,21 212:24 213:3 214:5 214:13 215:15
son (4) specifications (1) 188:4 224:6 226:23 214:7 281:5 291:21 247:10 276:5
217:5 298:24 300:17 13:25 236:11 335:5 293:12 305:24 Steven (2)
320:17 speculating (1) 338:22 statements (6) 3:7 7:19
sophisticated (1) 80:3 started (15) 175:8,11 243:19 stint (1)
255:24 speculation (5) 11:25 12:17 13:12 316:5 317:5 336:24 18:11
sorry (7) 123:7,8,11 298:6 17:15,20 18:3 23:25 states (47) stood (1)
36:22 120:23 127:3 310:6 62:21 97:6 98:10 5:19 14:18 35:15 302:8
166:25 238:23 speed (4) 193:21 230:22 66:17 68:9,11,20 stop (10)
246:22 267:17 49:3 99:25 100:6 245:13 320:8,10 69:18 71:16 72:6 102:2 119:20 197:18
sort (17) 226:5 starting (2) 97:7 108:21 112:25 230:6 247:19
11:10 28:24 62:2,8 speeds (2) 98:6 314:15 113:7 142:23 152:5 250:22,25 261:5
80:17 81:22 93:15 48:15 333:8 starts (1) 168:25 169:5,10,13 287:13 329:14
102:21 111:6 spend (4) 138:24 170:4,17 172:2,4 stopped (1)
122:25 124:3 30:24 190:12 194:16 state (92) 173:12,15,17 119:12
132:20 163:20,22 331:10 2:8 8:15 9:2 10:6 180:13 182:11 stopping (2)
172:22 205:12 spending (1) 11:14 15:17,22 218:24 220:2 212:17 215:2
308:17 285:16 16:13 17:2,13,20 228:16 231:17 stops (1)
southeast (2) spent (3) 18:12,15,25 21:24 232:9 248:2,3,8 119:8
14:16,18 17:22 42:5 190:22 25:10 30:6,20 32:21 254:14,19 255:6,17 stories (4)
southern (1) split (1) 34:20 42:11 51:10 270:22 271:6 68:8 258:7 316:10,14
184:18 17:8 65:3 68:12,18,25 283:15 290:25 story (11)
Southwest (4) spoke (3) 69:8 73:23 75:20 302:10 320:10 97:25 98:23 106:4,7
33:18 34:10 104:16 38:10 133:9 156:3 76:8 93:20 101:16 states' (2) 158:17 208:14,25
239:22 spoken (2) 105:3 112:13,21 170:20 231:18 209:19 258:9
span (1) 257:8,9 115:25 120:5 123:2 statewide (3) 312:13 338:12
229:22 spot (1) 124:2 128:5 134:18 183:18 185:3 331:14 story's (1)
speak (1) 16:13 134:24 145:20 static (1) 316:11
83:8 spread (1) 159:4 169:14 195:15 straightforward (2)
speaking (3) 164:24 170:22 171:4,14,16 stating (1) 258:5 304:5
53:8 69:8 218:13 Spurlin (2) 171:19 172:24 326:3 stream (2)
spear (2) 125:17 128:7 173:4,24 174:10 station (2) 223:7 231:10
130:16 230:3 staff (14) 176:5 177:4 178:17 280:21 312:13 streams (1)
spearing (1) 45:22 46:4 51:15 178:21 181:9,19 statistic (1) 34:18
196:13 69:18 76:19 78:3 185:21 189:10 71:21 Street (3)
spears (1) 125:8 126:6,7 196:11,13 197:5 statistics (2) 2:5 3:6,11
196:4 131:22 132:2,18 200:9,21 201:3 166:16 226:20 stretch (1)
special (3) 243:3 252:22 203:15 205:24 status (3) 184:18
67:19 84:7 224:2 stand (5) 213:16 232:7 326:4,20 327:3 strike (7)
specialties (2) 96:20 159:16,25 234:12 237:15 statute (1) 85:20 99:19,24 218:4
276:25 277:3 182:5 190:16 241:25 242:17 160:4 265:2 329:5 335:4
specialty (1) standard (15) 244:25 252:8 stay (2) strikes (1)
10:4 26:23,24,24 163:6 255:13,24 256:19 174:19 213:20 222:5
specific (17) 177:19 180:18 257:4 271:21 stayed (1) striking (7)
11:13 12:23 14:5 16:8 189:20,21 190:11 276:16 298:17 262:23 30:13 44:21 45:25
19:17 41:23 43:13 194:15 220:3 301:13 302:17,25 staying (1) 49:19 130:18 222:3
67:25 94:24 112:17 272:20 334:24,24 328:5 331:3,15,16 319:16 234:19
168:6 187:17 339:11 state's (1) stems (1) stringent (1)
215:14 226:23,24 standards (3) 172:10 208:16 334:24
227:3 332:24 133:3 270:8 331:9 stated (2) step (6) strong (1)
specifically (15) Standing (1) 198:17 307:6 148:22,22 238:16,18 331:6
28:22 38:6 65:9 69:6 258:3 statement (20) 250:22 271:5 stronger (1)

Page 32
struck (14) 48:16 72:11,17 93:7,14 116:4 45:13,22 46:7,21 90:10 114:16 135:6
43:21 44:7,14 51:25 136:11,12 127:24 128:25 47:14,20 52:8,11,13 137:22 138:12
55:8 61:18,19 78:11 successes (1) 133:13 142:11 53:23 55:2 61:9 150:13 161:5
78:22 99:24 121:19 136:16 144:8 149:3 151:11 94:8,14 164:2 162:11 171:22
140:25 296:11,19 successful (6) 163:9,24 171:24 211:15 231:7 235:7 173:15 178:9 179:3
structure (1) 50:3,5 72:23 73:3,9 172:9 175:22 202:4 tables (7) 184:15 191:23
197:2 282:3 233:22 238:24 46:3 52:7 61:14 62:5 197:22 210:4,5
stuck (1) successfully (1) 250:12 254:4 260:4 62:7 91:24 211:16 216:13 226:19,22
147:20 307:11 275:20 282:9,21 take (44) 230:4,19 231:6
students (4) succinctly (1) 310:8 334:11 25:6 32:3 60:20 63:15 235:9,11,11 236:4
9:12,19,19,20 103:10 338:18 64:9,15 82:2 88:21 236:13 251:4,12,19
studied (7) suffered (1) surprised (1) 99:4 105:17,20 251:25 275:10
20:12 40:3 41:6,19 141:3 258:22 119:9 135:2 166:8 278:13 317:24
227:23,25 228:2 sufficient (1) surveying (1) 183:20 186:2,14,25 320:8
studies (7) 172:22 185:22 188:13 190:20 talks (4)
11:9,11 12:2 152:6 suggest (4) susceptible (1) 198:9 203:15 208:7 139:4 140:23 227:7
198:20 255:6 37:21 56:23 293:13 51:24 210:15 213:16 294:11
302:20 339:18 suspect (1) 228:23 234:14 tangent (1)
study (23) suggested (1) 323:13 235:19,22 237:14 176:10
14:16,16,17 31:3,7,12 87:22 suspected (1) 238:16 241:9 tape (5)
31:15 46:14 51:18 suggests (2) 320:18 250:21 255:10 7:3 64:20 153:18
51:21 95:24 152:6 80:2 340:19 suspending (1) 261:9 273:4 299:10 336:22 338:22
159:6 168:14,20 Sullivan (1) 29:22 305:10 320:21,24 task (26)
170:5,13 172:13,22 155:22 suspicions (1) 328:20 336:8,18,19 6:2 32:18 35:3,10,20
294:15 302:22,23 summarize (1) 331:20 taken (23) 36:2,12 37:18,19
323:23 54:20 sworn (5) 2:3 10:20,21 42:21 38:8 41:8 83:8
stuff (7) summarized (1) 8:2 75:8 175:16 64:19 67:24 79:22 216:7,12 289:18
146:20 157:6 205:14 326:2 342:12 343:22 80:10 95:7 153:16 290:5,18 291:14
227:3 231:25 255:7 summary (7) synonym (1) 215:15,19 219:22 292:7,14 293:9
269:22 51:13 157:2 290:22 228:18 238:18 239:13 294:12,20 295:10
subcommittee (1) 290:24 292:23 synonyms (2) 241:12 247:10 295:18 300:15
87:9 294:7 324:16 106:20,23 267:5 272:17,25 tasked (4)
subject (7) sunshine (1) system (36) 300:20 338:21 209:21,24 232:14
36:18 57:12 68:4 252:8 20:20 21:8,12 25:16 342:8 268:14
89:13,18 220:22 supervised (1) 25:19 26:13 28:5 takes (2) Tata (2)
324:15 13:11 29:22 30:2 33:10 137:19 190:18 97:11 266:17
subjective (1) supervisor (6) 34:8 110:3,12 111:6 talk (21) tax (1)
211:13 11:7 13:7,7,8,9 112:10 113:3 157:3 8:16 32:3,24 40:12 238:7
submission (6) 263:18 163:21 172:5,6 61:3 69:6 70:8,9 taxes (1)
117:12 118:13 303:13 suppliers (1) 187:13 189:25 72:10 83:13,15 237:23
304:4,8 308:10 162:16 205:4,20 212:19 147:25 164:3 165:3 taxpayers (2)
submit (1) support (4) 215:4 244:21 206:8,11 208:2 335:10,20
239:7 204:23 225:16 234:16 246:25 251:10 226:24 259:5 team (1)
submitted (7) 249:17 254:21 255:4 262:14 287:4 308:22
116:12 217:24 304:21 supported (3) 274:14 280:15 talked (16) tech (2)
304:25 307:19,20 121:23 216:3 281:6 301:22 309:18 27:8 57:25 68:24 9:10 240:23
308:6 supports (1) 321:18 92:16 93:4 104:15 technician (3)
SUBSCRIBED (1) 206:17 systematically (1) 173:16 206:5,13 11:7,12,25
343:22 supposed (9) 188:5 222:25 228:15 technicians (1)
subsequent (1) 48:20,22 85:13 102:9 systems (6) 244:22 247:14 92:23
89:10 172:23 195:22 15:8 16:4 20:24 251:15 256:2 tell (73)
subset (2) 206:15 259:21 108:23 172:4 260:15 8:20 19:6 20:11 44:13
52:13 214:23 297:15 309:17 talking (45) 65:17,23 67:6,7,10
substantial (1) sure (34) 22:24 62:21 65:13 67:11 70:3 74:10
71:18 36:13,16,17 42:18 T 76:23 77:4 78:2 76:14 84:8 87:5
success (5) 76:13 83:11 89:15 table (18) 81:5 83:22 85:10 91:18 94:15 98:15

Page 33
100:9 102:6,8 297:2,8,24 326:20 89:18 112:8 175:16 331:22 244:14

106:10,13 120:15 329:24 330:4 202:3,4 211:10,23 things (29) thought (5)
127:6 128:6 129:19 terminals (42) 234:23 237:2 9:21 14:15 20:22 29:7 136:23 151:7
132:2 133:16,19 5:25 20:24 24:12 25:5 243:25 250:24 37:20 84:19 97:9 278:22 279:6
147:18 163:10,16 39:18 44:16 46:20 259:23 261:15 120:5 129:2 148:10 thousand (3)
163:18 166:14 50:24 51:22 65:3 286:6 337:7 149:2 163:24 46:16 201:6,8
167:14 168:11 88:21 94:15 100:14 testing (74) 195:17 206:12 thousands (3)
189:16 196:2,3,6 109:15 112:12 25:11 26:2,10,15,16 238:2 257:25 77:9 234:11 255:5
199:19,22 200:11 146:24 152:7 26:23 27:10,16 272:25 273:3,4 THP-000303993 (2)
203:20 204:18 162:12 163:11 32:14,25 33:4,8,11 292:6 299:23 310:3 5:6 45:11
205:11 206:4 164:17 168:13 33:15 34:4,11,24 312:17 313:9 314:6 THP00303990 (2)
207:11 209:14 174:12,23 176:11 39:6 93:16 101:11 325:23 330:17 6:3 324:10
217:13 231:17 189:12 190:13 104:10,13 144:18 337:14,15 340:8 three (2)
233:2,5,8 240:15,15 193:4 200:23,25 145:24 174:22 think (100) 12:23 156:25
244:18 246:23 218:17 221:21 176:19,20 177:5,13 10:22 12:24 13:9,9 Throckmorton (1)
247:25 260:22 225:18 237:19 178:5,8,20,24 179:5 14:10 15:5 16:2,23 3:6
265:15 268:25 275:20 291:16 179:7,8 180:17 17:8 18:7 21:17 thrown (1)
278:21 286:13 292:2 294:15 186:7 192:20 23:24 25:16 30:8 216:9
310:4 321:9 327:11 295:19 296:19 205:12 225:17 33:25 35:10,14 37:4 tie (1)
328:3,4 338:4,12 322:19 335:7 340:5 239:5,7,9,10,11 63:12 65:21 69:12 184:4
340:7 terminology (1) 244:23 247:17 69:19,25 70:19 Tim (3)
telling (19) 22:11 249:9,11,20,23 71:13 75:19 82:3 121:14 122:3,9
64:24 121:24 137:16 terms (4) 250:5,16,18 254:23 83:21 85:16,16 90:4 time (93)
149:18 172:18 25:16 65:9 169:21 255:21 268:23 95:24 96:12 97:24 13:6 17:6,10,11 18:22
186:16 198:2 180:4 272:12 274:20 114:23 124:22 18:23 21:18 29:5
202:22 204:14 territories (1) 275:9 278:15 280:8 128:15 133:9 30:9,16,25 34:21
217:14 230:22 108:22 281:25 284:24 135:16 137:14 38:5 42:6,14 44:19
231:8 237:9 238:19 Terry (6) 294:4 312:8,24 142:15 147:6 47:24 52:21 54:18
267:22 275:12,13 88:17 155:4 262:15 313:3 317:8,13,16 155:17,23 158:11 58:8 60:8 62:19
329:9 330:7 264:2 305:13,17 318:3 319:13 166:7 167:24 63:11 67:16 68:14
tells (3) TES2 (1) tests (18) 173:18 175:22 68:17 70:21 76:25
63:4 267:21 287:12 13:9 33:20 34:14,16 179:18 183:10,16 77:2 84:4 88:16
temporary (3) test (44) 143:23 144:11 191:5 193:11 90:3 94:8,10 97:11
9:10,16 196:25 34:9,19 104:14,20 145:2,3,6,8 175:12 203:19,20 204:12 102:21 111:21,23
tends (1) 105:4 143:9,16,19 180:13 270:8 277:8 208:9 212:3 217:17 114:22 119:23,25
84:10 144:16 146:6 285:24 313:8,12,16 227:17 238:18 124:9 128:4 129:13
Tennessee (5) 155:18 176:21,21 339:11 248:8 253:4 254:3 132:4 147:11
247:5,18 248:19,21 176:23 177:18,23 Texas (11) 256:7 258:5 260:19 156:11 157:8 161:8
249:3 178:12 179:15 3:3,7 142:17 143:9 263:6,10 269:24 177:20 187:14
Tennyson (1) 182:4 239:4,4,8,20 227:7 243:17,19 271:21 273:25 188:6 189:20
97:11 239:21,22 251:2,3,3 259:14,23,25 260:9 278:7 282:20 190:11 191:17,17
terminal (47) 253:17,20 255:7,12 thank (5) 287:15,17 288:16 192:25 194:4,15
21:8,12 22:9 27:13 255:14,25 268:9 60:7 188:24 266:4 294:5 297:16 201:17,17 204:7
28:8 38:22 40:2 270:6 281:25 282:4 326:14 339:23 298:14 300:12 220:2,24 221:12
41:6 43:9 44:6,13 289:11,12 317:18 therefor (1) 304:5 321:10,18 230:19 237:24,25
45:25 47:23 49:20 317:23,24 318:9 344:5 322:14 324:2 239:13 248:13
54:24 55:8 56:21 tested (8) thereof (1) 327:20,22 329:25 252:5 258:24 262:5
78:11,23 94:24 95:6 100:23 104:12 182:2 342:15 330:5 331:16 333:6 269:5 279:16 280:5
132:14 166:12 220:3 228:4 307:11 thin (1) 333:8,11,18,25 281:10 296:21
167:5 172:21 173:7 317:19 339:10 164:24 337:24 338:3,9 306:10,21,23
173:8,18 177:5 testified (4) thing (14) thinking (1) 307:10 316:11,16
196:20 197:7 8:3 221:19,25 288:16 20:13 34:20 49:8 85:19 320:12 334:9,16
199:23 200:8,9 testify (1) 93:12 110:23 third (2) 336:8 337:6 339:23
215:14,16,20 75:20 139:14 155:13 155:20 292:25 340:9,11 342:9
222:12 286:8 testimony (19) 236:12 255:20 Thomas (6) timeline (2)
291:24 296:11 61:9 75:8 76:5 84:19 283:15 329:6,7,19 124:8,9 176:3,4,5 12:24 308:3

Page 34
times (11) tomorrow (1) 276:16 277:5 Traylor's (22) 128:18 129:10
14:8 54:17 97:20 283:22 trailing (2) 57:12,18 58:13 60:10 130:8 143:11
120:13 197:21 tone (1) 182:23,24 78:10,22 79:10 144:19 146:5 149:9
247:15 297:17 203:16 Training (1) 156:20 207:3 154:24 157:2 161:2
299:19 312:5 Tony (1) 171:9 226:10,20 240:3 161:22 162:15
316:12 337:20 134:14 transcript (2) 286:14 288:15,19 163:4 165:10,23
timing (1) tool (2) 342:6 344:10 295:4,25 296:9 191:14,23 208:15
156:21 9:23,24 transcription (1) 298:14 321:3,16 224:16,25 227:18
TIP (1) tools (3) 342:7 322:15 239:6 241:24
16:9 13:19,23 14:3 transfer (1) TRCP (1) 243:11 244:7,10,10
tire (1) top (11) 262:19 344:1 244:13,18,23
79:24 45:13 46:3 143:5 transferred (4) treading (1) 245:21,23,25 246:5
title (7) 147:18 150:23 251:14 262:18,20,22 159:12 264:25 265:6
16:21 17:2 63:13 162:21 184:24 transitions (1) treatment (6) 271:12,17 278:21
67:20 116:24 118:7 235:6 282:8 290:24 187:8 118:14 212:13 213:9 278:22,22 279:6,25
342:10 325:4 transportation (59) 246:21 260:4 280:6 282:25
titled (1) topic (8) 8:9,13 9:5,10,18 325:19 287:12 309:25
281:22 12:16 14:6 16:7 10:13 11:7 13:8 treatments (8) 326:7 327:6 328:21
today (45) 152:18 264:7 15:5 16:4,9,25 18:4 36:9 126:15 127:8,15 329:2,8,20 330:5
8:19 12:4 15:19 36:18 300:25 324:3 19:2 32:21 69:14 128:19 129:10 331:17 332:9
36:19 59:25 63:18 326:11 71:20 72:4 73:5 222:6 234:20 333:12 335:2,6,16
70:8 74:10 76:16,23 topics (1) 74:20 77:20 80:25 tree (3) 336:9 338:6
77:4 84:18,22 300:19 82:12 85:2 88:20,24 14:24 48:3 226:4 Trinity's (5)
102:21 107:24 total (5) 89:6 92:23 93:10,25 trees (1) 109:12 117:7 155:4
108:7 112:3,9 46:23 47:6 54:21 122:11,20 136:17 14:25 218:9 338:13
123:22 132:12 70:25 89:25 137:19 140:5 143:9 trend (28) Trogdon (2)
149:10 178:23 track (5) 189:4,5 194:12 45:23 52:23 56:23 264:9,20
184:17 191:6 27:22 164:7,16 205:6 215:12 237:17,21 59:23 71:7 169:22 Troy (2)
196:11 203:23,24 205:17 238:3 264:13 265:4 203:3,9,10,19 210:8 256:22
207:16 208:25 tracked (1) 266:8 268:14 206:10,10,11,16 truck (2)
209:20 212:9 40:19 275:19 276:5 218:12 221:20 139:6,19
225:24 235:23 tracking (11) 283:13 284:2,5 225:13,16 226:21 true (30)
241:3 250:15 110:3,12 111:6 285:7,16 287:12 229:8 230:2 234:19 65:4 90:15 91:7 93:24
252:13 258:23 112:10,16 163:21 306:12 317:7,12 234:20 235:2,5 111:5 112:23
266:15 284:8 171:16 180:10 330:9 236:6,11 281:9 114:18 118:23
286:12 288:2 205:4,20 214:21 Transportation's (1) trending (3) 146:21 157:21
300:21 302:2 trade (1) 74:14 71:5 226:22 234:4 163:15,18 166:18
328:19 19:5 Transportations (1) trends (17) 166:22,24 169:10
Todd (2) traffic (55) 330:8 29:3 30:5 44:23 52:18 175:7 185:15,16
125:17,18 8:15 10:9,13,14,15 traveling (1) 52:20 53:3,5 57:2 219:19 220:7
told (42) 13:17 15:8,17,21,24 55:19 61:17 148:14 224:18 260:25
5:19 44:5 62:6 63:9 15:24,25 17:2 18:15 Traylor (40) 173:24 203:11 261:3 269:3 283:12
68:2 76:2,9 81:4,5 19:4,5,6 37:12 1:5 5:22 7:5,21 36:20 206:12 234:3 305:3 326:17,18
104:2,5 106:14 68:18,25 69:9 73:23 60:23 80:11,22 236:10 270:11,12 342:7
128:4 130:4 133:19 75:20 76:8 87:9 90:16,19 91:8 99:11 trial (3) truth (1)
134:9 136:5 138:6 93:20 101:16 105:3 137:3 167:7 173:20 147:23 148:2 243:19 337:21
148:20,21 153:8 115:25 123:3 124:2 205:23 206:2,3 tried (1) try (4)
164:4 168:19,23 126:6 128:5 134:18 210:21,22,25 335:17 102:23 127:24 192:2
172:12 206:8 134:24 143:14 216:17 217:5,14,23 Trinity (87) 192:3
208:17 209:13 145:20 158:8 159:2 236:14 240:3 1:8,8 2:3 3:9,9 5:24 trying (24)
217:5,22 219:7 159:5,11 160:8 277:17 286:5 7:5,6,17 21:11 22:3 27:22 62:13 63:12
225:2,5 238:14 174:11 181:19 287:19 297:18 23:22,24 53:16 69:15 78:16 79:16
265:11,25 270:21 189:10 196:11 298:22 299:2,14 96:16,18 116:16,20 85:16 98:15 145:21
273:14 275:23 197:6 200:21 201:3 300:10 320:14 118:24 119:20 158:7,14 168:2
280:23 328:12 220:11 223:7 328:8,9 332:23 120:22 121:17 189:15 202:20
332:22 256:25 271:21 340:15 126:14 127:8,14 204:19,23 206:19

Page 35
206:20,21 218:11 typically (5) 37:21 291:23 292:8 316:21 337:5 version (13)
252:20 264:22 49:5 82:20 242:21 292:16 utility (1) 268:6,7,16,17 269:15
299:20 331:19 312:4,11 unit (17) 226:4 271:22 280:2
TTI (1) 11:9,11 12:2 15:6,8,9 290:10 304:24
143:23 U 16:16 30:21 47:3,8 V 316:4 317:20 321:4
TTI's (1) Uh-huh (4) 51:24 125:14 valid (1) 321:23
143:15 61:5 126:8 159:3 140:25 180:3 156:8 versions (3)
Tuesday (1) 305:16 256:25 257:2,6 value (1) 22:8 35:12,23
255:22 ultimately (3) unit's (1) 212:5 versus (15)
turf (1) 70:11 88:2 265:20 16:4 variable (1) 7:5 90:12 94:3 95:10
159:12 unable (1) United (4) 155:18 95:15 155:18
turn (6) 56:9 14:18 71:16 72:6 variables (1) 162:23 163:17
290:21 294:6 295:10 unacceptable (1) 218:24 223:15 166:2 181:18,18
313:24 325:3,14 203:11 units (12) variations (1) 261:23 272:9 274:6
turndown (4) unauthorized (1) 121:17 141:24 142:7 35:16 281:10
259:14,24,25 260:9 158:13 155:5 157:2 163:4 variety (1) vertical (1)
turned (1) Under-reporting (1) 218:5 222:3 242:25 61:22 130:24
260:10 171:8 307:9 326:5 327:4 various (11) video (11)
turning (2) undersigned (1) universe (1) 28:11 36:5 84:2 94:16 126:14 127:7,14
130:16 196:4 342:5 47:16 95:17 96:7 129:2 128:18 129:9 143:8
Turnpike (3) understand (32) university (6) 164:17 177:11 311:2,4,5,8,10
262:20,22 263:11 22:23 30:24 31:2 37:5 9:2 10:7 14:12 18:11 285:23 301:20 videographer (16)
turns (1) 37:17 60:24 62:6 142:18 318:4 vary (1) 3:17 7:2,12 42:19,22
304:23 83:6 89:15 101:14 unrepaired (3) 28:13 64:17,20 153:14,17
TV (2) 127:24 132:7 296:12,20 297:8 vast (3) 241:10,13 336:21
133:22 311:18 141:14 144:13 unsuccessful (2) 50:15 178:10 316:10 338:16,19,22
two (32) 151:11 171:24 321:17,19 VDOT (9) 340:25
12:22 22:7 54:10 231:7 236:2 240:4 update (2) 176:8,18 177:23 videos (12)
58:11 85:17 86:10 250:13 258:15 118:11 303:12 178:20 179:12 129:23 311:14,20,22
89:4 112:11 126:21 261:6 277:6 279:20 updated (1) 239:9,10 282:24 311:25 312:8,9,20
135:7 155:7 173:6 287:22 292:6 295:3 157:10 283:7 312:24 313:4,14,16
178:2 183:12 295:17,24 300:4 updating (1) veered (1) videotaped (3)
192:11 194:22 312:18 339:2 210:6 236:25 1:16 2:2 7:3
195:9 200:14 203:2 understanding (28) upper (1) vehicle (30) viewing (1)
229:19,21 232:22 26:22 35:9 38:5 61:8 151:20 48:18 52:6 54:25 37:25
274:4 279:8 286:24 66:14 73:15 75:7 usage (5) 55:20 56:22 72:6 violated (1)
294:7 303:4 305:18 81:6 89:17 107:23 220:14,16,23 221:2,3 78:11,14,18,22 90:13
318:25 330:3 108:6 112:23 120:3 use (35) 79:10 99:21 100:2,4 violating (1)
336:22 340:14 129:22 135:20,25 19:15 23:16 24:7 26:8 135:22 140:24 158:14
two-page (2) 137:12 151:5,10 26:12 27:14 28:2 143:14 167:20 violent (1)
230:20 232:10 161:11 183:17 29:22 31:25 34:7 205:15 221:6 48:4
type (15) 210:24 273:6 51:11 108:14 109:7 223:21 224:3 226:5 Virginia (17)
11:18 20:22 50:17 276:17 284:22 151:24 184:17 248:25 261:8 176:15 177:4,11
55:12 83:20 97:9 293:19 299:22 188:3 192:22 288:20 289:5 296:4 178:18,22 240:23
109:13 121:17 311:3 212:18,22 215:3,15 322:10 328:5 241:25 242:17
164:16 172:21 understood (2) 215:20 226:25 vehicle's (1) 247:17 249:9,20
173:8 295:19 70:12 315:22 228:7 234:10,13 100:12 250:16 282:24
312:16 316:17 undertaken (1) 250:6 255:15 vehicles (9) 283:15 317:7,11
322:18 32:10 274:13,14 275:22 30:5 39:13 51:8,10 318:11
types (11) underway (1) 304:14 318:18 191:16 198:25 Vision (1)
9:17 12:16 28:2 39:17 152:6 321:11 334:11 205:17 218:4 203:15
44:25,25 50:20 unfortunate (2) uses (1) 234:19 volunteered (1)
174:7 184:6 208:18 141:7 205:25 272:13 vehicular (1) 336:13
294:14 unfortunately (3) usually (7) 156:14 vs (1)
typical (1) 201:6,8 261:2 37:4 58:10 77:24 verbal (1) 1:7
9:17 unique (4) 102:16 311:24 81:23 vulnerable (1)

Page 36
100:2 wasn't (13) welds (1) 70:19 71:24 72:21 333:6,22 334:3
9:15,16 17:18 22:6 276:8 73:8 75:25 76:18 335:23 338:9,15
W 94:9 124:11 139:17 welfare (1) 78:25 83:3 85:15 339:15 342:11,16
W-beam (8) 192:19 297:21 216:19 91:12 92:2 94:5 woman (1)
22:16 45:14,24 46:9 303:24 307:19 went (17) 96:19 98:20 99:16 140:23
291:16 292:2 327:15 329:16 11:5 14:11 17:23 100:20 101:10,20 word (5)
294:14 324:16 watch (1) 30:14 58:25 71:2 101:25 102:10 150:25 169:22 211:24
Wake (1) 269:19 80:7 93:13 124:8 107:21 108:4,12 290:9,9
184:18 way (23) 184:23 226:17 109:3 110:8 111:3 words (2)
walk (5) 56:12,16 59:25 94:23 232:6 233:20 111:11 112:16 193:8 292:15
11:23 48:15 72:11,16 99:13,17,19,21 262:24 269:17 115:16,21 116:10 work (25)
136:11 163:16 203:17 280:25 283:22 117:18 118:21 8:8 9:13,22 11:2,5,10
walked (1) 233:19,20,24,25 weren't (1) 119:6,12 121:10 14:4,8 15:24,25
203:25 251:8 266:25 272:4 158:8 122:6,16,23 124:6 16:8 17:10 18:3
walking (2) 298:24 299:20 West (1) 127:2 128:22 40:12 51:16 86:11
136:13 204:4 309:15 310:2 317:2 3:11 129:13 130:2 86:13,15 132:19
want (61) 332:25 wheel (7) 131:18 132:2 134:5 158:15 174:16
24:9 27:20 32:3 60:7 ways (3) 78:14,18 79:6 99:19 134:13 135:6,16,25 237:24 249:11,22
60:20 64:15 71:6 151:23 223:14 233:24 226:17 288:20 136:8 139:11,24 263:23
76:13 81:3 87:3 we'll (10) 289:4 141:11 143:22 worked (13)
93:12 116:15 21:6 26:8 30:24,24 wheelhouse (1) 146:9 149:13 10:17 12:19 14:13,15
123:10,10,12 124:6 35:19 70:9 114:8 242:11 150:21 153:5 14:19,23 15:2,3
127:25 145:3,8 115:7,8 279:17 WHEREOF (1) 154:11 158:2 18:12 86:10 125:10
171:18 174:5 we're (38) 342:16 159:18 160:13 146:19 147:2
188:13,20 199:18 19:18,19,21 25:9,9 whim (1) 161:4 165:19 167:2 workers (1)
202:3 204:15 27:15,17 47:4 52:4 263:10 167:10,22 168:6 92:23
206:14 213:6 223:5 65:13 70:7,7 76:23 width (3) 169:3,17 171:8 working (15)
228:20,22,22,22 91:12 94:14 102:20 22:19 35:16 309:18 173:2,11 175:10,20 9:3 13:3,24 26:6,7
230:6,7,8 233:18 112:16 114:16 William (1) 176:25 177:10,25 61:23 70:21 78:4
234:4 236:19 116:19 118:10 246:8 182:15 188:17,20 132:3 160:15
238:24 244:6 135:6 137:21 140:6 Williams (6) 189:24 190:7 191:2 179:21,22 180:20
245:14 246:16 146:6 148:8,9 137:6 167:13 286:24 192:7,15 193:15 208:14 244:10
249:16 259:5 178:25 221:11 333:4,7 340:15 194:18,25 196:25 works (6)
262:14 265:14,17 234:3 247:8 251:12 Williams' (1) 197:11,19 198:3,19 56:19 125:13 146:18
265:19 267:2 273:25 277:8,24 167:20 199:12,16 202:17 150:25 256:24
270:11 271:10 279:25 287:25 willing (8) 207:15,24 213:2 280:21
280:2,2 288:15 306:21 334:10 198:9 298:18 299:7 214:4 215:9,22 world (3)
297:5 302:15 we've (21) 300:9 335:2,6 216:6 217:10 20:13 186:22 231:3
310:23 311:3 28:20 29:19 40:17,25 336:20 337:21 218:22 220:18 worried (1)
313:22 325:14 41:20,21,25 42:2,5 Wilmington (2) 221:2 237:4 239:17 83:14
wanted (12) 57:24,24 83:25 233:19,24 255:3 257:23 worry (1)
69:3 74:21 110:22 86:15 87:4 127:12 win (2) 267:17 268:20 149:24
124:4 127:17 209:5 148:12 150:16 235:23,25 269:9 271:15 272:3 worrying (1)
211:6 217:20 300:3 326:22 windfall (1) 272:23 273:10,25 83:12
232:22 256:10 327:11 334:9 301:6 277:23 278:13,25 worse (3)
265:24 335:18 weaker (1) winning (1) 280:4 283:6,20 171:4,6 274:18
wanting (2) 227:22 332:17 285:12 286:20 worth (4)
43:11 245:9 wearing (1) wish (7) 287:7,15 288:4,12 3:7 59:21 208:22
wants (2) 222:10 168:18 231:8 287:23 291:19 292:12,19 209:7
102:5 208:21 weather (1) 297:18,21,21,22 293:18,25 295:2,9 worthiness (3)
warrants (1) 224:4 wished (2) 295:22 296:3 26:2,15 112:22
12:12 weld (5) 99:22 333:2 297:12 298:5 302:5 worthwhile (3)
was/was (1) 227:21,22 277:7,14 witness (174) 302:13 303:3 59:21 211:23,25
344:2 283:3 2:3 3:14 4:3 22:16 304:12 305:6 wouldn't (14)
washer (1) welding (1) 36:24 38:25 39:21 307:15 313:20 145:23 166:7 171:18
309:19 227:25 40:6 41:13 66:20 322:4,22 330:12 187:2 225:13,16

Page 37
261:11,12 296:13 yeah (25) 1 (33) 120 (1) 19 (5)

297:9 305:4 328:17 17:9 18:9 34:5 37:23 5:6 7:3 16:25 35:20 5:11 5:16 6:2 289:24,25
335:9,20 50:19 55:9 56:15 45:3,4,5,9,18,20,21 121586 (1) 290:4
WRAL (2) 58:17 64:15 106:2 46:4 50:22 51:14 1:25 1984 (1)
208:17 280:20 121:9 147:19 57:11,24 58:21 61:4 125 (1) 17:21
WRAL's (1) 155:16 158:25 70:11 73:15 75:10 5:12 1986 (1)
208:14 230:6,12 239:23 75:17 125:20 13 (5) 17:21
wreck (5) 245:12 248:22 127:13 211:9,12 6:6 44:19 121:14 1990 (3)
74:8 77:4 203:4 204:7 269:17,22 288:21 214:23 218:12 122:9 188:17 218:3 219:4 221:8
204:11 298:5 308:13,21 222:17 229:4 13- (1) 1990s (1)
wrecking (1) year (14) 251:19 281:6 342:6 71:12 220:24
203:14 12:22 17:12 45:14 1,300 (1) 137 (1) 1993 (2)
wrecks (2) 46:8 54:10 139:16 71:12 5:13 9:6 219:8
202:25 205:19 152:2 201:7 202:24 1:14 (1) 14 (5) 1994 (10)
write (5) 230:8 250:10 153:19 5:13,20 44:19 188:12 17:14,14,25 18:5
96:17 224:8 245:19 262:24 281:10,10 10 (9) 188:15 183:10 186:7
277:17 280:6 year-old (1) 5:16 17:18 68:15 14-year (1) 192:19,22 194:8
writing (1) 139:15 100:10 162:3,6,7 30:8 220:15
125:22 years (34) 235:12 263:6 140 (1) 1997 (1)
written (8) 5:19 8:24 12:23 15:11 10,665 (1) 331:13 143:16
62:2,3,8 81:23 96:6,8 15:20 16:15 17:4,15 163:4 1400 (1) 1998 (2)
257:17 315:16 17:19,22 30:11 10/28/14 (1) 71:12 189:14 219:25
wrong (6) 44:20 54:10,21 56:6 58:7 14TH (1) 1999 (7)
142:14,19 197:23 77:6,7 183:3 192:17 10:05 (2) 1:4 30:8 50:24 54:21
204:22 233:20 193:25 200:5 2:10 7:10 15 (10) 224:15,19 230:23
337:14 206:15 217:18,18 10:46 (1) 5:21 44:19 54:21 77:6 234:25
wrote (7) 225:15 229:23 42:20 100:17 206:15
159:9 193:2 216:16 235:11 244:20 10:55 (1) 208:3,4 235:11 2
228:10,11 298:14 265:7 266:11 42:23 325:17 2 (19)
320:13 304:15 310:12 100 (6) 15-plus (2) 5:7 6:2 12:22 13:9
WSOCTV.COM (1) 316:10 325:17 174:9 202:23 223:4,6 217:18,18 38:8 64:20 107:3,4
5:20 Yep (2) 254:4 335:23 150 (1) 107:8 121:8 227:5
Wyatt (9) 211:8 216:21 100-mile (1) 5:14 289:18 290:5,13,19
121:2 125:6,6 131:10 yes-or-no (1) 39:11 1505 (1) 292:7,14 314:15
131:22 132:25 170:17 100-miles (1) 3:15 315:5
133:8,20 134:14 you-all (1) 39:13 154 (1) 2's (1)
Wyatt/Dave (1) 329:9 107 (1) 5:15 295:11
5:11 young (4) 5:7 157 (2) 2:42 (1)
183:12 195:9,19,23 11 (4) 162:18,22 241:11
X YouTube (2) 5:17 125:20 175:24 16 (8) 2:59 (1)
X (3) 311:18 313:2 263:7 5:22 162:15 210:10 241:14
1:11 4:2 242:20 11:21 (1) 210:14 216:16 20 (9)
X-LITE (8) Z 64:18 298:15 307:8,21 6:3 16:23 324:4,5,8
246:16,17,19 247:11 Zealand (2) 11:25 (1) 162 (1) 324:14 325:4,15
248:18 249:11 328:13,16 64:21 5:16 326:18
256:3 274:9 zero (9) 114 (1) 17 (3) 200 (1)
54:10 100:16 203:15 5:8 5:23 241:18,20 257:15
Y 228:24,25 229:18 117 (1) 175 (1) 200-some-odd (1)
Y (1) 229:18,18,20 5:9 5:17 132:4
242:20 zone (5) 12 (11) 18 (5) 2000 (3)
y'all (2) 15:24,25 219:12,13 5:18 10:23 77:7 5:21,25 208:12 14:10,11 33:14
286:25 287:2 219:20 107:12 184:7,10 281:15,16 2000s (2)
Y2K (1) 202:11 254:6 184 (1) 183:19 185:4
13:20 0 263:17,20,21 5:18 2002 (9)
yaw (1) 12:57 (1) 188 (1) 15:5,6 74:7,9 75:5
55:13 1 153:15 5:20 77:4 224:15,19

Page 38
228:23 1:14 2:9 7:9 77:5 220:5 289:11 336:10 338:6 339:8 6
2003 (5) 342:18 343:23 317:13 339:19 340:16 6 (11)
228:23 229:7,15,18 344:3,16 3D (2) 4:49 (1) 5:12 101:4 125:2,3
230:7 203 (1) 80:9,22 338:20 126:23 253:18
2004 (5) 344:1 3rd (1) 4:53 (1) 254:2,3 292:22
15:16 16:24 18:16 203.3 (1) 7:9 338:23 310:23 311:7
229:7,18 344:12 4:56 (2) 6-inch (2)
2005 (15) 208 (1) 4 341:2,3 240:7 253:23
21:10 52:23 53:4 54:5 5:21 4 (13) 40 (3) 6:00 (1)
143:9 152:3 174:4,4 210 (1) 5:9 22:21 117:21,22 135:17 242:20,20 337:10
200:7,13 221:21 5:22 118:3,11 156:9 41 (1) 60 (1)
225:2 229:18 24 (8) 175:17 186:9 295:10 4:7
280:25 305:9 5:12 131:9,13 133:18 271:22 303:5,11 420 (1) 6009 (1)
2006 (3) 133:24 134:8,8 310:22 3:6 3:3
16:2 220:14 229:19 139:15 4-inch (130) 434 (1) 60654 (1)
2007 (5) 241 (1) 22:10,24 23:11 24:4 2:4 3:11
16:2,23 18:18,21 5:23 31:16 32:11 37:22 45 (1)
148:11 25 (1) 40:2,15 41:5,17 5:6 7
2008 (1) 100:10 44:16 52:23 53:10 4th (1) 7 (8)
140:25 26 (1) 54:6 56:24 57:7 342:17 5:13 137:24 138:3
2009 (1) 203:2 58:2,22 59:6 65:7 294:6 295:12
228:24 27699 (1) 65:13 88:21 92:13 5 313:22,23 314:3
2010 (16) 3:15 93:16 94:3,9,10 5 (7) 75 (1)
17:9 21:21 22:4 139:3 28 (3) 95:15 97:3 99:12 5:11 22:20 100:10 42:13
225:8,14 229:2,19 5:17 114:5 327:7 135:13 143:12 101:4 120:9,20 76102 (1)
231:4 232:22,25 281 (1) 148:4 149:8 153:10 290:21 3:7
233:3 235:4,4,6 5:25 162:23 163:17 5-inch (51) 77007 (1)
269:4 288 (1) 165:13 166:2 167:6 22:10 57:8 65:13 94:3 3:3
2011 (6) 4:8 167:11 168:3 95:16 162:23
158:5 159:2 229:20 289 (1) 173:18 174:11,24 163:17 165:14,25 8
233:6 307:9,21 6:2 175:4,18 177:7 166:9,13 167:6 8 (7)
2012 (2) 2nd (1) 181:8,17 196:6 175:4 181:18 4:6 5:14 150:9,14
229:20 244:15 151:18 197:7 199:23 200:8 209:15 227:23 253:17,20 254:3
2013 (19) 205:13 206:17 238:17 267:24 81 (1)
5:12,13,17 30:9 118:3 3 209:15 214:14 268:6,17 271:24 220:15
119:2 121:14 122:9 3 (13) 215:20 216:4 273:7,15,22 274:6,8 84 (2)
131:10,13,18 1:14 2:9 5:8 114:8,10 227:22 238:16,20 276:9 278:23 279:7 17:16 162:14
133:18,24 134:9 117:10 140:22 249:21,24 250:2,19 280:2 283:2 284:20 854 (1)
151:18 156:9 142:16 153:18 253:9 256:4 267:24 293:23 298:10 162:25
220:15 225:4 254:2 303:5,10 268:5,16 269:14,15 305:2 317:19 321:4 87 (1)
229:20 310:22 269:16,25 271:22 321:12,23 323:6 220:15
2014 (28) 324 (1) 271:22 273:8,16,21 328:22 334:7,21
5:16,21 30:9 33:14 6:3 274:6,23 276:9 335:4,19 336:11,16 9
50:25 54:22 57:14 326 (1) 277:14 283:3,8,16 339:12,19 340:5,20 9 (5)
57:18,20 58:9,14 4:9 283:24 285:3,20 50 (3) 5:15 154:14,15 189:5
107:12 114:6 338 (1) 286:5,7,15 287:13 42:13 170:17 173:12 305:11
124:23 208:12 4:10 288:5,8 291:9,24 500 (4) 90s (5)
225:8,15 229:3,16 339 (1) 293:14 298:11 14:19,21 27:20,22 13:19 183:4,18 185:3
229:20 231:4 4:11 299:16 300:22 500s (1) 187:7
234:25 235:5,6 341 (1) 301:13 302:8,11 14:22 92 (2)
269:5 320:13 324:9 342:7 305:2 307:21 308:7 53 (1) 6:3 324:10
327:7 350 (14) 312:3 316:4 317:14 189:6 94 (2)
2015 (7) 26:20,23 28:4 33:11 320:22 321:10 54 (1) 194:11,11
33:14 71:10 183:12 100:24 101:11 322:11 324:24 3:11 95 (2)
186:9 189:2,3 268:2 104:13 121:17 328:20,22 332:5,22 58 (1) 12:9 18:6
2017 (8) 163:5 188:6 219:8 333:14 335:3,7,18 220:16 96 (1)

Page 39
12:9
97 (2)
230:15,17
98 (2)
230:14,17
99 (1)
230:11

Deposition of J. Kevin Lacy - NCDOT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deposition of J. Kevin Lacy - NCDOT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deposition of J. Kevin Lacy - NCDOT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT

13 Raleigh, North Carolina

16 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JAMES KEVIN LACY

25 Job No: 121586

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

12 Exhibit 7 February 14, 2013 email 137

17 Exhibit 11 June 28, 2013 email 175

22 Exhibit 15 February 18, 2014 email 208

Page 100 Page 101

Page 104 Page 105

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Page 108 Page 109

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Page 112 Page 113

29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Page 116 Page 117

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

Page 120 Page 121

31 (Pages 118 to 121)

Page 124 Page 125

32 (Pages 122 to 125)

Page 128 Page 129

33 (Pages 126 to 129)

Page 132 Page 133

34 (Pages 130 to 133)

Page 136 Page 137

35 (Pages 134 to 137)

Page 140 Page 141

36 (Pages 138 to 141)

Page 144 Page 145

37 (Pages 142 to 145)

Page 148 Page 149

38 (Pages 146 to 149)

Page 152 Page 153

39 (Pages 150 to 153)

Page 156 Page 157

40 (Pages 154 to 157)

Page 160 Page 161

41 (Pages 158 to 161)

Page 164 Page 165

42 (Pages 162 to 165)

Page 168 Page 169

43 (Pages 166 to 169)

Page 172 Page 173

44 (Pages 170 to 173)

Page 176 Page 177

45 (Pages 174 to 177)

Page 180 Page 181

46 (Pages 178 to 181)

Page 184 Page 185

47 (Pages 182 to 185)

Page 188 Page 189

48 (Pages 186 to 189)

Page 192 Page 193

49 (Pages 190 to 193)

Page 196 Page 197

50 (Pages 194 to 197)

Page 200 Page 201