Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:37:28 -0400 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="utf-8" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
This isn’t an early April 1 post. I have a serious question and wonder if
any of you folks seen the following. We have and it’s worked. But it only
works in companies where Legal has very strong control over the RM
function. The idea is to define “documents under legal hold” as records.
Here’s how it looks:
The company groups its information into two general categories: Records
and Non-Records. A Record can be either a Business Record or a Legal
Hold Record.
Business Records include any information that belongs to a category in
the Business Records Retention Schedule. Typically operational or
regulatory in purpose, a Business Record is information which was
created or received by the company that should be preserved for
business or (non-hold!) legal reasons. Once the required retention period
has elapsed, the Record should be destroyed unless it is are under Legal
Hold. So far not crazy, right? But wait….
Legal Hold Records include any information that is subject to a Legal
Document Hold and must be maintained in accordance with the Legal
Document Hold and Document Production Policy. A Legal Hold Record can
also be a Business Record, but it need not be. It could be a Non-Record
that has become subject to a Legal Document Hold. Information in either
of these two categories (Business Records and Non-Records) is
potentially discoverable and may become a Legal Hold Record. All
information under Legal Hold must be maintained and not destroyed for
the duration of the Legal Hold, even if the information’s retention period
has expired.
This arrangement has made things easier for the company’s Legal and IT
groups to get greater control over both documents under hold and
garden-variety records. They are using the same general approach and
technologies to manage their “records” whether they are of the first or
second type. It also makes sense if you step out of the box and see it
through really fresh eyes: a trigger event is just an event, right?
So this approach seems to make great pragmatic sense in certain
situations. But ironically, current trends might make it no longer useful in
even these special situations. Managing ESI in place is declining while the
trend is to manage such content by copying it into a dedicated hold
repository. That special repository approach has many advantages –
particularly that your normal retention schedule and purging policies can
roll merrily along without concern for spoliation. In other words, the trend
is to always treat ESI under hold differently than garden-variety records.
So for pragmatic reasons the deep conceptual differentiation between
Records and ESI-under-hold may be with us for a long time.
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
|
|