The reason there are so few actual court cases on this subject is
because the veracity of e-mail has rarely been questioned. This may
change in the future, but for now many firms do not have e-mail
archiving capability in the native format so printouts are the norm.
When paper versions of electronic records are questioned the focus is
usually on process and procedure rather than how cutting edge your
software is. The best evidence rule still applies.
Wm Creamer
New York NY
WF&G
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Brent Reid
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Email Retention
Unless you are using a certified Document Management system; how can you
prove, in Court, that the paper copy of an email that you present to the
Judge, is IDENTICAL To the original email?
Anyone in the industry knows how easily documents can be manipulated
between time of receipt and time of printing to show what the
Organization wants to be shown.
How would You like to be facing a Judge with a Printout of an email
against a Defendant that had an electronic trail of the email to show in
Court, which proves your client did some thing wrong?
CYA
That is what Records Management is all about.
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Roach, Bill J.
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Email Retention
>>From what I have been reading lately, courts have been less likely to
accept printouts of email and require the "native format". What are the
comments about this?<<
Wouldn't surprise me if both the electronic and paper copies existed.
Electronic copy would probably be best evidence. However, if the only
copy is paper and it is in the files, and standard practice is to print
emails that are records and store them as paper copies, and you do it in
the regular course of business, I don't think the court would even
question it.
However, once there is notice...or reasonable anticipation...I would
recommend the delete switch be turned off.
Bill R
Bill Roach, CRM
Enterprise EDMS Coordinator
State of North Dakota
ITD/Records Management
701-328-3589
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
***********************************************************************
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is a limited liability partnership organized in the United States under the laws of the State of Delaware, which laws limit the personal liability of partners.
***********************************************************************
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
