On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Manago, William M <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 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?
each of these is a stakeholder along with the business unit creates, uses
and maintains the records (and let us not focus on just ESI), Each "manages"
the records differently. IT manages it from the standpoint of storage and
bandwidth. Legal technically doesn't manage the records.
> 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 outdated in light of today's requirements iaw FRCP, FOIA, and the need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?
Nope preservation for purposes of discovery does not come into play until
their is a hint of litigation on the horizon. How would one manage records
for FOIA? FOIA (or whatever one calls it) does nothing more than define what
a public agency must do when records are requested.
If one is properly managing records one should have no problem with
complying with the requirements of the FRCP or FOIA
> 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]
>
--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
[log in to unmask]
Richmond, Va
Information not relevant for my reply has been deleted to reduce the
electronic footprint and to save the sanity of digest subscribers
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]
|
