On 3/2/2011 2:02 PM, Nolene Sherman wrote:
> OK so here's a scenario ...
>
> Should any business units or IT, in general, be able to get copies of
> documents preserved for litigation for business purposes other than litigation?
If they exist you should be able to use them for whatever business 
purpose they are needed for.  For instance, I have records
under multiple litigation holds; the same records.  Would I restrict the 
users of legal hold #2 from using them because litigation
hold number 1 was first?  Would I tell the auditors that yes I have the 
records you want but you can't see them?  I don't think so in either 
case.  What one might have to do is somehow make a copy of the record 
under hold an "Official Copy" through some verification process but not 
release the
record copy itself.
>
> Should it be allowed only if those documents would otherwise still be available,
> but for some reason were lost or inadvertantly destroyed?  Should it not be
> allowed if the documents would have been destroyed if not for the hold?
> Should it not be allowed at all?
Shouldn't matter.  If you've got them, they are still records in your 
possession.  To my mind, the only question is how you produce an "Official"
copy for the other use.
> My initial concern is that documents past their retention could get back into
> the mainstream records causing us to be out of compliance with policy once
> the hold is lifted and the documents held by legal are destroyed. Or by
> repurposing the records, do they then become new records?
They become new records.  There are many reasons records live past there 
original retention period, audit needs, changes in the law, repurposing, 
etc.
> What are your thoughts?
One idea of records management, to me, is to make our customer's work 
lives as easy as we can.  We are the custodians of the records and not 
the owners.  If we have them and they need them we should expedite that 
transaction not hide behind something like the retention schedule or 
legal hold because it may be inconvenient to produce them.  I'm not 
pointing that at you Nolene but at some in RIM who think their internal 
processes come before the needs of the enterprise.
>
> Nolene Sherman
> [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]
>


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]