On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Nolene Sherman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>

folks need to go to the original story that Wright is commenting upon where
one finds the following

""[There was] confusion in the court," says Adam Cohen, a senior managing
director with FTI Technology, an e-discovery company. "The case conflates
duty to preserve and retention policy. It’s causing a lot of discussion and
controversy.""

http://shrinkster.com/17uh

that is the key comment. As I see it companies will have to provide better
information on how their records management programs operate and how they
implement holds. Once again it comes down to your business processes.

Would love to see comments from Isaza and Montana

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]