This is going to be real interesting to watch as it unfolds...

We've heard forever that RECORDS must be managed regardless of media, form,
or format and that in reality there are no differences between the practices
used to manage physical format an electronic format records aside from the
technology used.  

We have also said that e-mail is NOT a record series, but that instead it's
a conveyance form for communications.  And based on its content, it is
assigned to an appropriate record series and inherits that retention period.

This current case seems to set some of this aside- it would require
establishing rules above and beyond those for paper based correspondence and
documents that meet the definition of a record SOLELY ON THE BASIS that they
were produced electronically and the information MAY exist.  

You don't have have to retain envelopes for paper correspondence to obtain
the metadata of the sender, the date posted or received, the place of
origin, etc.  There is no method for validating the date on the letter
matches when it was originally "typed" or otherwise written.. and the same
would be true of any collateral attachments.

What's more, the metadata may be limited and/or inaccurate in many cases... 

power outage and a system that doesn't have an auto-updating clock 
staff member preparing correspondence for management
revision of correspondence by second staff member
attachment prepared by consultant or third party
'properties' not correctly configured in system
    computer re-assigned to another staff member
    computer purchased used with software and info not reset
    document sent by employee to finish at home, then returned
    document 'sneaker net' transferred on flash drive or disc
content transferred from one machine to another on hardware upgrade
content transferred (copy) to server for data production 

In some of these cases, metadata WILL change legitimately, but the metadata
may not indicate WHY the change occurred, only that it did.

Personally, up until this point, I never "Met a Data" that I didn't like,
but the AZ Court system, and potentially others, may change this very soon.

This is one of those things that IS NOT addressed in the FRCP, that the
Sedona Principles didn't think about,m that isn't reflected in 36CFR for
Federal Records (except e-mail, to a degree), that the Ninth Circuit Court
hasn't ruled on (but I'm SURE it will)... yet a State court is ready to take
it up.

Larry
[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]