> From: Cricket Technologies Case Index:
>
> Summary: On cross motions for review of costs taxed by the clerk under
> Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1), the district court held, among other things
> that the cost of printing and bates numbering electronic documents and
> computer consultant costs incurred to search and review documents are
> not recoverable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, citing Stark v. PPM Am,
> Inc., 2003 WL 21223268 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2003), Gaff's 354 F.3d 666
> (7th Cir. 2004) (outside vendor costs to process e-mails are not
> recoverable costs). In this case the producing party had incurred
> several hundred thousand dollars in non-recoverable discovery costs
> primarily as a result of attempting to produce electronic data in
> printed form and then having to re-produce the data in electronic form
> because the court had ruled that the requesting party was entitled to
> have the data in a searchable format and to have access to the
> metadata.

Would your records management program be able to improve on this
situation?  Do you have the control over the IT records to ensure that
your organization would be prepared in this situation?

There is a fire storm going on in Accounting and Audit firms right now
over the degree of liability they are exposed to in the role as the
client's auditor.  How can audit and records management ever be truly
effective unless they have independent status from the people creating
the records.  It seems backward to me to have records management report
to IT.  But this will probably not change until RM's can be
knowledgeable enough about IT systems to be able to truly control the
records at their genesis within the organization.  But the case above
shows what happens when records are not managed properly.

Hugh Smith
FIRELOCK Fireproof Modular Vaults
[log in to unmask]
(610)  756-4440    Fax (610)  756-4134
WWW.FIRELOCK.COM

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance