RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Manago, William M" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 21 May 2009 14:18:31 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (70 lines)
Jesse has done a much better job of describing the issue than I (see
below).  As we think about what the role of records, IT, and legal
should be when it comes to managing ESI.  Who, of the three, is best
suited to manage ESI?  Is the traditional definition of a record
outdated in light of today's requirements iaw FRCP, FOIA, and the need
to preserve ESI needed or potentionally needed for discovery?  I will
put my thoughts together and throw them out for comment. Is it time to
set aside our old traditions and make way for new ones in the ESI world?

Bill Manago, CRM

Director, Records Management Practice
CA, Information Governance
Tel: +1-954.482.2977
[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Jesse Wilkins
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Everything is a record until it is not

I don't think Bill was suggesting that all ESI is a record, rather
seeking
input on the approach of treating all ESI as a record for a short,
specific
period. FOIA is generally very expansive compared to the more
traditional
records series; and in the case of litigation, the records status of
something is irrelevant - it's whether it exists and is responsive that
determines its need for production. Consider that once a legal hold is
implemented, everything response may need to be  preserved for some
period
of time, irrespective of its "recordness" or not, *and* may need to be
preserved for a much longer period than the retention period would
warrant.
Or is that just an "ignorant approach" as well?
I don't know how I feel about the approach yet - gotta think about it
some
more. But to call it "the same ignorant approach" really does a
disservice
to the request and to the other organizations (including, apparently,
the
GAO) who are considering that approach. I certainly don't believe it's
an
"ignorant approach" at all.

-- 
Regards,

Jesse Wilkins
[log in to unmask]
blog: http://informata.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jessewilkins

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]

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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2