On 1/26/06, Nolene Sherman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> One of the attorneys posited that a business record is what the company
> says is a record ... that a company can unilaterally say that XYZ is not
> a record (or is a non-record, or a transitory record), and therefore has
> no obligation to retain. Does this fly from a litigation standpoint?
> From a regulatory standpoint?

Gee this is like the attorney who told me one day "well since our
records retention schedule and policy were published on x date we'
weren't required to keep any records or documents prior to that time."
That statement sent my head spinning. This particular attorney
actually wanted to state that in court!

and like DougA I wish this attorney good luck in their future career.
There is just too much case law out there related to what is a record.
You might want to purchase a copy of Skupsky and Montana's book "Law,
Records and Information Management: The Court Cases". Although
published in 1994 it contains much information that would change your
attorney's opinion.

Here is one example "In Hill v Joseph T. Ryerson & Son the court
concluded that a number painted on a piece of pipe by a warehouse
employee was admissible as business record of the employer..." Page 25

Many regulations define exactly what information must be retained, but
not the format in which it is to be retained.

If the company properly defines their business processes they will be
able to identify the records that the process creates, uses and
maintains.

--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
Richmond, Va

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance