Stratienko v. Chatanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 2009 WL 2168717 (E.D. Tenn. July 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? objections to magistrate?s finding that sanctions were warranted (including a possible adverse inference) where defendants delayed production of relevant notes for four years and where, despite a duty to preserve based upon specific requests for the hard drive at issue, defendants re-imaged the drive rendering the information thereon unavailable, and where the information stored on defendants? network was also unavailable

Nature of Case: Action arising from physical altercation resulting in plaintiff’s suspension from work

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.