On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:26 AM, PeterK <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> E-discovery ruling in KPMG case: Brace for 'profound' impact?
> Cott ruled that KPMG has to preserve the hard drive of every potential
> class member. "Prudence favors retaining all relevant materials," Cott
> wrote, pointing to the seminal e-discovery ruling,
> The magistrate judge reasoned that because McMahon, the district judge,
> hasn't yet ruled on class certification in the KPMG audit associate case,
> every entry-level auditor in the opt-in action is a potential "key player"
> under *Zubulake*, whether in the Manhattan class action or in another case
> that could be filed depending on how McMahon ultimately defines the class.
>
>
> Source:
>
> http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=32012&terms=@ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+'ANV<http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=32012&terms=@ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+%27ANV>
>
>
This doesn't sound as if it's an outlandish preservation order. There are a
couple of ways to go about it, in fact, one is used by a former client of
mine routinely for ANY separating employee.

The hard drive of an employee that is under investigation, suspect of any
concerns, or separating for cause or of their own choosing is "mirrored" to
a server and essentially sealed. In the case of an employee under suspicion
of wrongdoing, this is done instantly when an investigation begins to
ensure that employee doesn't alter the contents of their hard drive or
server account or delete content, and if they decide to download or copy
content, that action is recorded as well. This is also done at regularly
scheduled intervals until any investigation is over.

In the case of separating employees, it is done routinely to ensure no
information is lost that could be critical to ongoing work the individual
may have been involved in that was not transferred to another employee on
their departure.  The added benefit is if a suit is brought by that
employee at a later date that calls into question any work they had been
involved in while employed, there is a complete record of their work
product (including any incoming/outgoing email) available for use.

In both cases, these mirrored copies are of value for business continuity.
In the first case, they serve the added purpose of addressing a legal
action. In the second, they help to satisfy retention requirements for
business records that may not have been adequately categorized and assigned
retention periods appropriate for their value.

The client has an item in their retention schedule to ensure these records
are not held for an indeterminate period listed as "Records of Departing
Employees" with a retention period of "3 years following Separation". This
provides adequate time to research and assign retention periods to the
content is necessary.

Even if the requirement is so specific that it requests the ACTUAL hard
drive itself be retained, these are getting to be so inexpensive that
removing and 'vaulting' the drives, then installing new ones isn't an
excessive cost. But it's uncommon that this would be required, given the
accepted software available on the market presently able to capture an
accurate image of all of the content.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

-- 
*Lawrence J. Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972*

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]