Folks,
Maybe I missed something but I thought that Judge Shindler in the Zubalacke (sp?) decision made clear that it was a continuing responsibility of counsel to issue the hold and to monitor it for compliance as long as the litigation continued.  Dumping it on the record holder seems to me to be a "fox guarding the hens" approach.  If the records involved in the hold are ESI shouldn't they be copied and held in secure off-line storage?  How could a record holder of a dynamic data base be expected to "hold" the records over time?  Dick King, Confused in Tucson

________________________________________
From: Records Management Program [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Julie Colgan [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Managing Preservation Hold Orders

Angela, if I were you, I too would be uneasy.  For all the reasons you state.  It isn't less risky ... but it may be easier and cheaper (in the short run).  I suggest you push for a detailed explanation of the argument that it is less risky.  If they are hoping to push culpability to individuals in the event spoliation is found, I doubt they will see a satisfactory result.

Julie

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]