On 7/31/07, Peter Kurilecz wrote:
"During the destruction authorization process (approval has already been
granted via the retention schedule process) the RM needs to provide
adequate information to the Legal Dept contact such that the
individual(s) can make a valid determination."
Thanks to those who crystallized my point of view for me, and especially
to Peter, who used the word I meant to use. I originally stated
destruction "approval" but meant to use the word "authorization."
Another point of clarification is that my former employer's Legal
department WANTED to see the destruction lists (with descriptions)
before any records were destroyed. They considered themselves an
integral part of the process and so did I. Granted, they didn't have a
good documented legal holds process/procedure in place at the time,
despite my efforts to encourage such a thing. So, maybe that's why they
wanted to review everything. I was just happy to have a good liaison in
Legal; after some time, they came to appreciate me somewhat, too. ;-)
Stephanie McCutcheon, CRM
Denver, CO
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Kurilecz
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Who gives final destruction approval in your company?
On 7/31/07, Diane Carlisle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> While the other points several have made are related, I am really
> focused in on the ultimate responsibility to protect records from
> being destroyed if they are the subject of a hold.
Two problems here as I see it
1. I would suggest that if an organization has an associate/assistant
general counsel in charge of litigation then that individual needs to be
in the loop for the destruction authorization review. Another inhouse
legal counsel may need to be involved also to provide review and
authorization for any records not subject to litigation, audit or
investigatory holds. Trust me even in a large corporate legal department
they rarely talk to folks outside of their "practice" area.
2. The hold notification process needs to be reviewed and upgraded so
that the RM folks are included as part of the process. I would recommend
that regular meetings be held at least once a quarter between the
litigation counsel and the RM folks to review and update the litigation
holds. IMHO RMs should receive a copy of the discovery orders to
understand what is being requested. Become familiar with the FRCP such
that you can recite chapter and verse and know what they mean
RMs should be proactive with regards to litigation holds (or any other
holds for that matter).
Just my thoughts after a long day
--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
Richmond, Va
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]
|
