Larry:

Another point that often seems to be forgotten is that there should be
properly documented procedures for the process.  Many times the procedures
will be listed in the discovery notice.  If the organization is not
following their own procedures, the judge will come down hard on them for
that too.

On 8/23/07, Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/07, Steve Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Although it was a very long time ago, I remember one case from about 15
> > or 20 years back that will always stick in my mind. It was Piper
> > Aircraft and the judge called their retention schedule a sham. Some
> > records that met their retention were destroyed and some were not. The
> > judge determined they were selectively destroying records.
>
>
> GREAT point, Steve.
>
> The inconsistent application of a retention schedule can be cited as being
> essentially the same as not having one at all.  This is one of the reasons
> we have approvals of destruction requirements rather than an
> indiscriminate
> application of practice .  I recall this discussion going on a few weeks
> ago, and while it's all well and good to say "RIM should be in the
> process"
> and notified of all legal holds, etc. that's not always going to happen.
>
> SOMEONE needs to make a decision prior to destruction of the records, and
> that someone should be the one identified as the records owner.  Once
> their
> signature releases the records for destruction, then it's not RM that is
> making the decision. In our case at least, that's outside of our
> responsibility.
>
> Something else to think about here is the old "regardless of form or
> format"
> issue with respect to destruction.  There are many organizations that
> manage
> records in both paper and electronic form, even though they generate
> records
> primarily in electronic form now.  If you are destroying your paper
> records
> according to the retention schedule, you should have the capability to do
> the same with your electronic records.
>
> Yeah, yeah, and don't roll your eyes, because in the case of a discovery
> action... if you aren't applying the same retention schedule to ALL FORMS
> OF
> YOUR RECORDS, the same claim of "selective destruction practices" can be
> made.
>
> Larry
>
> --
> Larry Medina
> Danville, CA
> RIM Professional since 1972
>
> 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]