# STRUCTURED DEPOSITION ISSUE MATRIX **Source note:** The deposition transcript is the primary source. Only the segment expressly identified as **PAGE: 42:8-42:24** has a reliable page:line citation in the supplied record. For other testimony, the matrix uses **Citation limitation** rather than reconstructing a citation. No missing citations have been estimated. | ISSUE | PAGE:LINE | TESTIMONY / EVIDENCE | CLASSIFICATION | EVIDENCE BASIS | CROSS-REFERENCE | POTENTIAL CONFLICT | VERIFICATION STATUS | NOTES | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **1. Whether Daniel Ortiz engaged in protected internal reporting concerning altered delivery records.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified Ortiz first mentioned concerns about delivery records being changed after shipments had left the facility during a team meeting in **late June**. She further testified that he came to her office in **early July** and reported that several delivery records had been changed after trucks left and that he believed the changes were intended to make the division appear to have fewer late deliveries. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION; ISSUE-RELEVANT TESTIMONY** | Witness expressly describes Ortiz communicating concerns about altered delivery records and identifies approximate timing and substance of the report. | **PRIOR WITNESS STATEMENT — LAURA BENNETT:** Bennett previously stated she first learned of Ortiz's concerns "**in August 2024**." **PLEADING SUMMARY:** alleges Ortiz reported suspected manipulation of delivery records. | **CROSS-DOCUMENT INCONSISTENCY:** deposition places awareness/reporting in late June/early July; prior statement places first knowledge in August. | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | Whether the reporting qualifies as "protected" is not determined here; the testimony establishes the reported subject matter and timing as stated by the witness. | | **1. Whether Daniel Ortiz engaged in protected internal reporting concerning altered delivery records.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified she did **not** conduct a formal investigation, but she reviewed several delivery records herself. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Witness expressly acknowledges personal review of records following the reported concern. | Supporting document: **July delivery report** containing entries showing revised delivery-status fields after listed shipment dates. | NOT APPLICABLE | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | The supplied testimony does not identify the exact records reviewed beyond the later statement concerning two records. | | **1. Whether Daniel Ortiz engaged in protected internal reporting concerning altered delivery records.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified that **two records she reviewed showed changes after the shipment date**. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Witness directly acknowledges post-shipment changes in two reviewed records. | **SUPPORTING DOCUMENT — July delivery report:** several entries reportedly show revised delivery-status fields after listed shipment dates. | NOT APPLICABLE | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | The relationship between the two records personally reviewed by Bennett and the supplied July delivery report should be confirmed from the underlying exhibit. | | **2. Whether management took adverse employment action against Daniel Ortiz after his complaints.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified that after her conversation with Ortiz, she **recommended that he be reassigned from the route-management project** because she thought the situation was becoming disruptive. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Witness expressly acknowledges making a reassignment recommendation and provides her stated reason. | **PLEADING SUMMARY:** alleges reassignment and later reduction of responsibilities after reporting suspected manipulation. | NOT APPLICABLE | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | The transcript establishes a recommendation, not independently whether the reassignment was ultimately implemented or what later responsibility changes occurred. | | **2. Whether management took adverse employment action against Daniel Ortiz after his complaints.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified the reassignment recommendation was made **after** Ortiz complained about the delivery records. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Witness expressly places the recommendation after the complaint. | **PLEADING SUMMARY:** alleges reassignment after reporting. | NOT APPLICABLE | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | Temporal relationship is established by the witness's testimony; ultimate characterization or legal significance of the action is not determined. | | **2. Whether management took adverse employment action against Daniel Ortiz after his complaints.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified that when Ortiz came to her office, she told him he should be careful about making accusations without having all the facts. | **ISSUE-RELEVANT TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Witness acknowledges the response she gave to the employee's complaint. | **PLEADING SUMMARY:** reporting-related allegations. | NOT APPLICABLE | **NO IMMEDIATE VERIFICATION FLAG** | Relevant to the circumstances surrounding management's response to the report. | | **3. Whether the stated performance reasons for the adverse action were legitimate and supported by contemporaneous records.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified there had been **some disagreements with coworkers**, but stated she would **not characterize Ortiz's work as generally poor**. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION; ISSUE-RELEVANT TESTIMONY** | Witness acknowledges workplace-performance/conduct concerns while expressly limiting the characterization of overall performance. | **JULY 18 EMAIL:** refers to refusal to follow direct routing instructions and repeated disputes with supervisors. | NOT APPLICABLE | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | The testimony does not identify the number, dates, nature, or documentation of the coworker disagreements. | | **3. Whether the stated performance reasons for the adverse action were legitimate and supported by contemporaneous records.** | **42:8-42:24** | Asked whether the July 18 email stated that Ortiz had refused a direct instruction, Bennett answered **yes**. Asked what instruction he refused, she stated she **did not remember the specific instruction**. Asked whether documentation showed the refusal, she stated, **"Not that I recall."** | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; UNANSWERED POINT; ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | The witness confirms the assertion in the email but cannot identify the instruction and does not recall documentation supporting the refusal. | **EMAIL EXCERPT — JULY 18, 2024:** "The concern is his refusal to follow direct routing instructions and his repeated disputes with supervisors." | **CROSS-DOCUMENT EVIDENTIARY TENSION:** email asserts refusal; witness cannot identify the specific instruction or recall supporting documentation. This does not establish that the email was false. | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | **Partially answered / insufficient to determine** the underlying refusal allegation from this testimony alone. | | **3. Whether the stated performance reasons for the adverse action were legitimate and supported by contemporaneous records.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified Ortiz had **not received a formal disciplinary warning** as of the July 18 email. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Witness expressly denies existence of a formal disciplinary warning at that time. | **JULY 18 EMAIL; HR REQUEST EMAIL — JULY 22, 2024.** | NOT APPLICABLE | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | Whether other contemporaneous performance documentation existed remains unresolved. | | **3. Whether the stated performance reasons for the adverse action were legitimate and supported by contemporaneous records.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified HR asked for documentation supporting the recommendation and that she **sent HR the July delivery reports**. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Witness acknowledges HR requested support and identifies the material she provided. | **HR REQUEST EMAIL — JULY 22, 2024:** requests documentation supporting the performance concerns in the July 18 email. **July delivery report:** contains revised delivery-status entries. | **POTENTIAL SOURCE-RELEVANCE ISSUE:** supplied record does not establish, without examining the underlying documents, that the July delivery reports substantiate the specific performance concerns stated in the July 18 email. | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | The transcript identifies what was sent to HR but does not establish that the records document the claimed refusal to follow routing instructions or coworker/supervisor disputes. | | **4. Whether Laura Bennett or other managers had knowledge of the delivery-record issue.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified Ortiz raised the issue in a late-June team meeting and then privately with her in early July. She personally reviewed delivery records and observed post-shipment changes in two records. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Multiple express acknowledgments establish Bennett's stated knowledge and personal review. | **PRIOR WITNESS STATEMENT — LAURA BENNETT:** first knowledge stated as August 2024. **July delivery report:** revised delivery-status fields after shipment dates. | **CROSS-DOCUMENT INCONSISTENCY:** deposition testimony and prior written statement differ concerning when Bennett first learned of the issue. | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | The transcript does not independently establish when other managers learned of the issue. | | **4. Whether Laura Bennett or other managers had knowledge of the delivery-record issue.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified she did **not** conduct a formal investigation but did review records herself and identify changes on two records. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Express acknowledgment of direct review and findings. | **July delivery report** is relevant to the records Bennett says she reviewed, subject to exhibit-level verification. | NOT APPLICABLE | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | "No formal investigation" does not establish that no other inquiry or review occurred. | | **5. Whether the July 18 management email accurately described Daniel Ortiz's performance history.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified she **prepared the July 18 management email** referring to Ortiz as a "performance concern." | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION** | Witness expressly accepts authorship of the email. | **EMAIL EXCERPT — JULY 18, 2024.** | NOT APPLICABLE | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | Authorship is admitted; factual accuracy of the email remains for source comparison. | | **5. Whether the July 18 management email accurately described Daniel Ortiz's performance history.** | **42:8-42:24** | Bennett confirmed that the email stated Ortiz had refused a direct instruction, but she could not recall the specific instruction and did not recall documentation showing that refusal. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION; UNANSWERED POINT; ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | The witness confirms the email's asserted fact while lacking the underlying detail/documentation in her recollection. | **EMAIL EXCERPT — JULY 18, 2024:** identifies refusal to follow direct routing instructions and repeated disputes with supervisors. | **CROSS-DOCUMENT EVIDENTIARY TENSION:** witness testimony leaves the factual basis for the email's refusal assertion unresolved. | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | **Partially answered / insufficient to determine** accuracy of the refusal statement from supplied testimony alone. | | **5. Whether the July 18 management email accurately described Daniel Ortiz's performance history.** | Citation limitation | Bennett testified Ortiz had some disagreements with coworkers but that she would not characterize his work as generally poor; she also testified he had no formal disciplinary warning at the time. | **MATERIAL TESTIMONY; ADMISSION; ISSUE-RELEVANT TESTIMONY** | Direct testimony supplies contextual facts relevant to how the July 18 "performance concern" characterization should be evaluated against the record. | **JULY 18 EMAIL; HR REQUEST EMAIL — JULY 22, 2024.** | NOT APPLICABLE | **ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED** | The supplied testimony does not resolve whether the email accurately summarized all relevant performance/conduct history. | ## KEY APPARENT CONFLICTS AND EVIDENCE GAPS **1. Timing of Bennett's knowledge — material cross-document inconsistency.** The deposition places Bennett's first awareness in **late June / early July 2024**, while her prior written statement says she first learned of Ortiz's concerns **"in August 2024."** The record supplied here does not resolve the discrepancy. **2. July 18 refusal allegation — underlying basis remains unresolved.** Bennett confirms that the July 18 email said Ortiz refused a direct instruction, but she cannot identify the specific instruction and does not recall documentation establishing the refusal. This is an evidentiary gap, not a credibility determination. **3. Performance justification versus contemporaneous support.** Bennett acknowledges some coworker disagreements but expressly says Ortiz's work was not generally poor. She also confirms there was no formal disciplinary warning as of July 18. At the same time, the July 18 email identifies refusal to follow routing instructions and repeated disputes with supervisors. The supplied record does not yet establish the underlying documentation for those assertions. **4. July delivery reports as support for performance concerns.** Bennett says she sent HR the July delivery reports in response to HR's request for documentation supporting the performance concerns. The supplied July delivery report concerns revised delivery-status fields after shipment dates. The current record does not establish whether those reports were intended to substantiate the specific performance assertions in the July 18 email, or whether additional performance records existed. ## ATTORNEY VERIFICATION REQUIRED The most significant verification points are the **June/July versus August knowledge discrepancy; the actual timing and implementation of the reassignment; the specific routing instruction allegedly refused; any contemporaneous documentation of that refusal; the underlying basis for the "repeated disputes with supervisors" statement; and the relationship between the July delivery reports and the performance concerns cited in the July 18 email.** No credibility, ultimate factual, or legal determination has been made.