We have not changed the retention schedule per se. The schedule still
has retention based on content.
What we are doing in our Information Asset Program (formerly "records
management") is adding a few columns on the schedule that document:
- where content resides in data/computer systems, (we even include
nebulous, but somewhat helpful, terms like "possibly on individual hard
drives" and its paper equivalent: "possibly in individual desk files")
- what software(s) the content needs to be read
- how long content is backed up
- how long to keep on active and inactive systems
- assigning business owners to content/data sets (That is, an Office of
Record for the data). We are putting it on the business owners to ensure
that electronic information can be discovered in a timely manner and
that it has a legitimate veracity to satisfy the rules of evidence. I am
educating the business owners on their responsibility and working with
them to determine retention periods, but it is up to the business owner
to work with IT to ensure that IT is keeping their data for right time
and that it is accessible when needed. I mediate between the two groups
when necessary.
- documenting which role (job description and current name) in IT is
responsible for which data/computer system
- documenting which role (job description and current name) in IT is
responsible for backing up which data/information sets that relate to a
business owner
In essence the retention schedule is now an inventory, or road map, of
responsibility, location(s) and retention. Should we need to find
something and ensure that we looked "everywhere" we hope to use this
"map.
We are currently trying to determine the benefits of keeping reports out
of systems versus retrieving data from the original system to meet
ediscovery needs. An example, budget - do you pdf the spread sheet of
the 2006 budget and keep it for 6 years or do you ensure that over the
next 6 years you can run a query of the budget system and it will
return a report that shows the exact data.
Chuck Piotrowski
CVPS
www.cvps.com
This computer runs on Cow Power!
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Reginald Barrientos
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RM] Amendments to FRCP Rules Regarding Electronically Stored
Information (ESI)
Hello All,
I am on a project working with our Librarian and IT Director to research
and ensure our firm policies are compliant with the new proposed
amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I work at a law firm
with five offices and 110 attorneys. The underlying project is to
incorporate our firm's separate E-Mail Policy with the Document
Retention/Disposable Policy to create one comprehensive Retention
Policy.
With the amendments to the FRCP concerning the discovery of electronic
information, have any of you had to re-address or change any major parts
of your retention schedules? I realize it is a broad question, but I am
interested in feedback from firms who have had to modify their schedules
to be compliant with the FRCP amendments.
Please respond on list, or if this a redundant question from past months
posting please feel free to contact me off list. Thank you.
Reggie
Reginald Barrientos
Records Manager
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200
Cerritos,CA 90703
Direct Ph.: (562) 653-3589
Direct Fax: (562) 653-3780
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
==================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain privileged and confidential
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message. Thank you.
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
|
