RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bil Kellermann <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:37:59 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (55 lines)
In following up on Peter's post regarding the Zubulake series of
opinions, while they are not binding authority they set forth a
reasonable standard that is sure to be followed.  Next, there are
several legal opinions that, while not directly addressing the issue of
records holds, do hold that a broadcast email is not sufficient to
establish actual or constructive knowledge of the content of the email
in employer-emplyee communications.  In one case the holding was made
even though there was a "read flag" indicating the email had been
opened.  The suggested solution was some sort of reply and
acknowledgement construct to confirm the email was actually read by the
intended recipients.  These opinions are right in line with both the
letter and the spirit of Zubulake: any system to inform custodians of a
hold must affirm actual, not constructive, communication of the hold as
well as actual, not presumed compliance.

William Kellermann, Esq.
Director, Corporate Legal Systems
Summation Legal Technologies
  a CT Corporation Company

www.summation.com

This communication is not intended, nor should it be construed as
providing any specific legal advice.  If you think you need a lawyer,
get one.

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Kurilecz
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Legal Holds

When implementing a records hold notice process be sure to examine some
of the opinions issued by Judge Scheindlein in the Zubulake case.
IIRC in one of the opinions she noted that folks need to be continually
reminded that a hold is in place, a one time notice doesn't do the
trick.

the following link does a good job of explaining the various Zubulake
opinions especially Zubulake V which deals with hold notices

http://www.imakenews.com/iln/e_article000412067.cfm?x=b11,0,w

http://shrinkster.com/6zf
--
Peter Kurilecz
Richmond, Va

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

ATOM RSS1 RSS2