Opinion ID: 203443
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: FedEx's Investigation into the Contents of the Package

Text: At the time of the initial security interview, neither Pérez nor Contreras, the two security specialists, had a copy of a police report or a lab report identifying the contents of the package as illegal drugs. Pérez testified that, prior to questioning Soto, he had been briefed by Contreras, who told him that the package had been stopped by law enforcement in Orlando because allegedly it had a drug alert and they did some testing and whatever. Later the same day, Pérez sent an email to Medina, the station manager, stating that the package contained approximately one kilogram of cocaine. The email also stated that Pérez had made a call to investigate further and learned that not only was there a K-9 alert, a field test conducted but, the contents were analyzed by the FDLE (Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement). [6] Medina forwarded this email to his supervisor, Managing Director Roby Brown, and Maruchi Torres, the acting manager of human resources. Some time after the interview, Pérez also telephoned John Matlock, a FedEx security specialist assigned to Orlando, asking for further documentation regarding the incident. On June 13, Matlock faxed a copy of the incident report filed by the sheriff's office in Orange County, Florida to Pérez. The incident report, which was admitted at trial to show what FedEx knew  rather than for its truth  states that a K-9 alert identified the package as containing narcotics. The police officer then obtained a search warrant and opened the package. Inside, the officer found a 30 cc syring [sic] bottle with a white substance in it. The officer stated that he did a field persumptive [sic] test on the substance and the test resulted positive for the presence of cocaine. It is now clear that the package Soto shipped did not have cocaine in it. At trial, the judge admitted a lab report indicating that the 30 cc bottle taken from Soto's package tested negative for cocaine. [7] The report, completed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), is dated June 25, 2002-twelve days after Soto's termination, but while the company's GFTP review of that decision was ongoing. When the plaintiffs sought to introduce the FDLE lab report into evidence during their case in chief, FedEx objected on the basis that there was nothing to link the report to Soto's package. The trial judge observed that FedEx had the lab report throughout the lengthy discovery period in the case, and had filed numerous motions in limine as to other evidentiary concerns, but had never before raised the linkage issue. As a result, the trial judge allowed the plaintiffs time to request a document linking the lab report to the police officer's incident report and then allowed the plaintiffs to introduce that document, along with the lab report, as rebuttal evidence after one of FedEx's witnesses testified about the initial K-9 alert and field presumptive test. [8] In sum, the evidence indicates that the package Soto shipped was stopped by law enforcement personnel after field testing indicated the presence of cocaine. A subsequent lab report revealed that the package contained no illicit drugs. There is no evidence to suggest that FedEx was aware of the existence of this lab report prior to the commencement of Soto's litigation. There is also no evidence to suggest that anyone at FedEx ever specifically asked for or tried to locate the FDLE lab test results at any time prior to the commencement of litigation.