In the examples Wright gave, both the make-a-decision and reliance on a
system setting failed (based upon the result of the court's ruling). As I
recollect, the Supreme Court overruled the lower courts for imparting bad
motives to the make-a-decision process used by Anderson. The problem was
created by not consistently enforcing the policy.
If you have a policy that is reasonable and you make reasonable efforts to
enforce them, I think it less likely you would be subject to an adverse
ruling. While use of the broad policy seems to be easily assailable by
the courts.
Kevin Tisdel
Director of Corporate Compliance
Shaw Industries Group, Inc.
pakurilecz <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
09/25/2008 07:36 AM
Please respond to
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
To
[log in to unmask]
cc
Subject
E-mail, Instant & Text Message Record Destruction
Sent to you by pakurilecz via Google Reader: E-mail, Instant & Text
Message Record Destruction via Electronic Data Records Law | How to Win
E-Discovery by Benjamin Wright on 9/24/08
Spoliation in Electronic Records Law
In records management one school of thought says employees should be
expected to examine each of their e-mail, instant and text messages and
make records retention decisions. Under this school, the decisions are
1. do we keep this message or allow our IT system to destroy it
quickly, and 2. if we do keep this message, do we keep it in retention
category A, category B or category C. I'll call this the
make-a-decision school of thought. See the good discussion.
Generally speaking I am skeptical of the make-a-decision school of
thought. The reason is that ? in this Age of Information ? few
employees have the time, talent or disposition to make good decisions.
The growth in the number of digital messages touching employees is
accelerating. The growth will continue to accelerate.
Cases show the legal system punishing enterprises for destroying
records too early under the make-a-decision approach.
Arthur Andersen's formal records policy expected its professional
auditors to make lots of records decisions (keep this record, destroy
that record). But AA's auditors were too busy doing their day jobs, so
they procrastinated about making decisions on records related to their
biggest client, Enron. In other words, the digital age had swamped
Andersen's employees with too many e-mails, faxes and papers.
Therefore, they accumulated a backlog of records . . . records that
demanded decisions, boring tedious decisions that employee hate. (Keep
it or destroy it? Keep it or destroy it? Keep it or destroy it). Then,
when crisis rose at Enron, AA's employees deliberated about what to do
with this backlog. They deliberated about how to interpret their record
retention policy in this unexpected situation, and then (with the
involvement of qualified counsel) they made decisions that later looked
bad. . . .
Andersen's employees destroyed records in the good-faith belief that
they were following their policy consistent with advice of counsel. The
legal system proceeded to destroy Andersen.
Another case: In Broccoli v. Echostar Communications Corp., 229 F.R.D.
506 (D.Md. 2005), employee Broccoli complained to management that a
superior was harassing him sexually. Multiple managers discussed this
complaint by e-mail. Later, after Broccoli sued, the employer could not
produce records of the relevant e-mails exchanged among managers. The
employer said its usual policy was to destroy e-mail in 21 days, and it
had just followed its policy. The court sanctioned the employer for
spoliating e-mail records. The court said it may be okay for a company
to destroy e-mail quickly . . . so long as the company suspends
destruction with respect to e-mails related to potential litigation
like that brought by Mr. Broccoli. In effect the court said the
employer should have applied an early litigation hold on e-mails
related to Broccoli's complaint.
So what would the make-a-decision school of thought say about the
Broccoli case? I interpret it to say that managers must be trained to
recognize e-mails that pertain to potential litigation and then to save
those e-mails specially (i.e., put them in category X). To me, that
approach to e-mail retention does not normally work. Managers are
ill-qualified to make such decisions. They don't have time to make
those decisions with respect to the ever-growing deluge of e-messages
coming at them.
I therefore offer a hypothesis: Enterprises will fare better in the Age
of Information if they tilt toward being very generous in their
retention of electronic records . . . and tilt away from expecting
individual employees to make one-by-one, keep-it-or-destroy-it records
retention decisions.
This is a big topic, and it keeps me humble. I do not know everything.
This post does not cover all the issues. I aspire to explore more of
the issues, and I welcome input!
?Benjamin Wright
Mr. Wright is an advisor to Messaging Architects, thought leaders in
e-message management.
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Electronic Data Records Law | How to Win E-Discovery
using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your
favorite sites
**********************************************************
Privileged and/or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are not responsible for delivery of this message to that person) , you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
If you or your employer do not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind, please advise the sender.
Shaw Industries does not provide or endorse any opinions, conclusions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the company or its subsidiaries.
**********************************************************
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]
|
