into a shipment that constitutes the COGSA package. On the contrary, the COGSA package will generally be the largest individuated unit of packed cargo made up by or for the shipper which is delivered and entrusted to the carrier. Id. at 142. A witness designated by Fujitsu Ten, the owner or consignee of the goods at issue in the instant case, testified at deposition that the skids in question were packaged by Fujitsu Ten. See Depo. of Brian Scott Grissom, Ex. A. to Decl. of Erich P. Wise in Supp. of Def.’s Mot for Summ. J. at 18:1-24. Plaintiff also relies on a number of cases from the Eleventh and Second Circuits. It is not clear that any of these cases support the result sought by plaintiff. See, e.g., Sony Magnetic Products v. Merivienti O/Y, 863 F.2d 1537, 1542 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Vegas v. Compania Anonima Venezolana De
holding that where bill of lading stated both the number of palletized master cartons and the number of smaller cartons inside the palletized master cartons the smaller cartons were the cogsa packages because the palletized master cartons were analogous to shipping containers holding that 30 pallets were the cogsa packages where the bill of lading stated that there were 30 packages holding that the parties designated the number of packages in the bill of lading when they filled in the numbers 18 103 and 165 under the column heading no of pkgs holding that bill of lading issued as to two containers was binding as to third container which was stolen and as to which no bill of lading issued provided that the bill of lading in evidence was the standard form bill of lading that carrier always used holding that where bill of lading indicated 1320 cartons but did not indicate that the cartons were consolidated onto 52 pallets the 1320 cartons were the cogsa packages