> Regardless of whether the court was right or wrong, the case is
> consistent with a trend in 21st Century law: the legal system is
> distrustful of early or aggressive record destruction. The legal  
> system
> is providing enterprises a growing basket of incentives to be more
> generous in retaining records, especially email.


This is quite alarming to me. How does one judge what is "aggressive"  
vs what is normal course of business. Judges who think this way must  
have been on the bench too long and don't really know what goes into  
electronic discovery. Automated searches are not the be all to end  
all. Even after a search has sorted through thousands of messages and  
documents, an attorney (at $400+ an hour) still needs to review the  
search results. Email archives may not take up physical space, but  
they do use up resources.

This part is a hoot:

"Some commentators think the court make a bad decision because it runs
counter to common business practice. They speculate the court suspected
bad faith on the company's part, but couldn’t specifically cite
evidence to support that suspicion."

It reminds me of "I can't define p*rnography, but I know it when I see  
it."  So now the courts can sanction someone because they **think**  
someone did something wrong.

Geez, where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?


Nolene Sherman
[log in to unmask]

Tracking where records are kept is what Tiggers and Records Managers  
do best!


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]