Here's a thought:

Irrespective of what others are doing, there is a serious issue with
respect5 to management of information in this scenario, especially if these
are documented procedures/practices. 

If you have a Records Management Policy and a Retention Schedule that
indicates how long information is retained and that once information meets
its assigned retention it is dispositioned.  Then you have documented
practices/procedures in the IT environment that state you keep some of this
same information until they "...are randomly selected by the system hardware
for re-use; theoretically it could be months, years and longer before the
data on the tapes is written over..." you are at risk of having the
application of your retention schedule called into question.

At minimum, you would be required to search these tapes for information that
MAY EXIST in response to a data request, simply because when you get
involved in providing your data map for ESI, this would come up as a source
of potential information NOT ON YOUR SYSTEM but still in existence, and if
you have a documented practice to retain it, you may have to search it at
your expense.

Nope... not necessarily correct as I'm NOT a Lawyer, don't play one on TV,
and didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night... but this is
what happened in the Rambus v. Infineon case and at least one other that I
recall in the past.

I don't see how any of this data could qualify for protection under "Safe
Harbor" if your documented practices say to keep it until you decide to
re-use the tapes.

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]