I would like to share something that an attorney shared with me as his 
"opinion" although I am not sure that counts as a "case study" per se.  When 
the words "permanent" or "indefinite" are used, it can be argued that the 
decision to retain or destroy the record is subject to criteria that is not 
clearly defined.  Therefore, "if" a decision is made not to retain the 
record, there is no clear definition of the criteria used to determine why 
the record was not retained.  If it is retained, an assumption is made that 
you must have a plan for how the record is to be preserved and made 
available for discovery should the occasion arise to produce it.  So, I went 
through my retention schedule and changed those words to ensure that we were 
making smart, criteria-based decisions and not subjective decisions based on 
"gray area" thought processes.

At the time I sought the opinion, I was working in consumer electronic 
retail records management.  We were being sued by three states who were held 
accountable for an environmental cleanup because of a certain metal that was 
found to be a contaminant in their landfills that was subsequently detected 
in the water table.  They, in turn, filed suit against any and every 
business that sold products containing that metal.  It was claimed that, 
because we sold products containing that metal within the state and those 
products were disposable, we should share in the cost of the environmental 
cleanup.  We set the retention of our product line files for life of product 
+ 30 years.  We were asked to produce both sales records and product design 
files, none of which we had any longer.  We were politely excused from the 
suit.

It was a good lesson for me.

Angela Faers




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paula Sutton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:51 AM
Subject: Case study/articles regarding records retention standards


> Good day,
> I am updating a retention schedule for an highly regulated power company
> who has used *permanent *and *indefinite *liberally throughout their
> retention schedule. In my update I would like to change these to "life of
> asset," "life of plant," "termination + yrs." etc.
>
> They are wanting to see articles and case studies on why the use of 
> *permanent
> *and *indefinite *should be changed.  To jump start my research, I was
> hoping that the esteemed colleagues on the listserv could point me in the
> direction of some recent articles, publications or case studies.
>
> Many thanks!
>
> -- 
> *Paula Sutton, *CRM, IGP
> Records and Information Governance Consultant
> Records Matter LLC
> (970) 776-0285
> [log in to unmask]
> www.linkedin.com/in/paulasutton/
>
> 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]