Hi Graham,
I think that's the case regardless of how the information is stored - as a
previous thread indicated, it's about what you keep and how you keep it. An
audit trail isn't required by most legislation, but it's a great way to
demonstrate that stuff was stored when it was supposed to be, for as long as
it was supposed to be, and that it wasn't changed (or if it was, here's who
and how).
IT has learned the importance of documenting what changes are made to their
systems so if something bad happens as the result of an upgrade they can
back out the changes. It's the opposite side of this coin. Eventually you
would have to make changes to migrate from e.g. Wordperfect 4.2 or older 1x
CDs to the current flavors - and documentation would demonstrate why those
changes were made and what precautions were taken to ensure no or minimal
loss of date, who did the change, the verification if any, etc.
Good processes and procedures are at least as important as technology, if
not more so - documentation of the systems is part of a good process.
My tuppence on an unsettled Colorado morning,
Jesse Wilkins
CDIA+, LIT, ICP, edp, ermm, ecms
IMERGE Consulting
[log in to unmask]
(303) 574-1455 office
(303) 484-4142 fax
CDIA+ comes to Dallas and Houston in September! Visit
http://www.imergeconsult.com/CDIA.html for details and to register.
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Graham Kitchen
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 11:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Retention Schedule and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
This all point out that it is VERY IMPORTANT to have proper systems
documentation that will prove that changes were not and could not be made.
Is this right or wrong?
GT
Graham Kitchen
Corporate Records Manager
Unified Western Grocers
5200 Sheila Street
Commerce, California 90040
Telephone: (323)264-5200 Extension 4560
Cell: (323)243-1865
email: [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Records Management Program
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A.Khramtsovsky
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:01 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Retention Schedule and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
>
> > ... I recall several years ago we were able to convince
> opposing counsel
> > that reports they were going to generate for the litigation
> would be
> > successfully challenged as not being created at or near the
> time of the
> > incident in question. If I recall our counsel's statement,
> you cannot
> > introduce records you created for the litigation as
> evidence of for the
> > litigation. <
> >
> > Bill R
>
> I would like to "throw in" a couple of quotes from the famous AIIM
> TR-31
> Reports:
>
> "2.2.4 ... In rejecting the defendant's argument that the computer
> printouts in question were records prepared for litigation (hence not
> business records), the Sanders court pointed out that although the
> printouts themselves may have been made in preparation for litigation,
> the data contained in the printouts were the results of business
> transactions that were neither added to nor modified after the
> transactions took place. The court concluded that "[i]t is not
> necessary that the printout itself be ordered in the ordinary course
> of business, at least when the program that calls forth the data only
> orders it rather than sorting, compiling or summarizing the
> information." [Emphasis added.] United States v. Sanders, supra, at
> 198.
>
> "The courts have recognized the irrationality of requiring that
> computer printouts must be made "at or near the time" the business
> record input is transmitted by a person with knowledge. See United
> States v.
> Hutson, 821
> F.2d 1015, 1240; United States v. Sanders, supra, at 198, citing
> United States v. Russo." (ANSI/AIIM TR 31 Part 1, 1992)
>
> "3.8.7 ... Records produced within a short period of time after an
> event, tend to be more readily accepted as accurate than records
> produced much later. However, a challenge to acceptance of a later
> produced record can be overcome by a showing that the time lapse had
> no effect on the record's contents. For example, a computer printout
> of a statistical report produced annually in the regular course of
> business can be shown to be simply a consolidation of data compiled
> throughout the year as the events occurred."
> (ANSI/AIIM TR 31-2004)
>
> With best regards,
>
> Natasha Khramtsovsky
>
> 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
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
