October 16, 2008

Sedona Principles | Record Management Policy

Setting E-mail Retention Policy at a Confusing Time in History

A colleague at Messaging Architects sent me this inquiry:  "I have been doing research on legal issues impacting the government sector. More and More I read about how the Sedona Principles that came out from the Sedona Conference affects a judge's decision in a case. Is there anything you can share on the subject?"  My reply:

The Sedona Conference's statements on e-records are indeed influential with judges (whether federal or state, whether Illinois or North Carolina) because they are thoughtfully conceived.   In professional practice, the statements are most helpful when litigation is pending.

But how valuable are they to someone crafting an enterprise records policy before litigation?  My humble view is The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practice Guidelines & Commentary for Managing Information & Records in the Electronic Age are not very helpful.  The Guidelines are correct in everything they say.  Still, they are vague, and they don't reflect a grasp of the big picture.

What is the big picture?  The legal system is giving enterprises (corporations, nonprofits, government agencies, labor unions) incentive to be more generous in the retention of records like e-mail.  I support that observation with posts like:

Employees Ill-suited to Make E-Record Retention Decisions

and

Legal Hold Risk at Local Transit Authority

and

Litigation Hold Punishment for Little Community College

and

The Second-Guessing of Arthur Andersen

[In support of my big picture observation, more posts are coming.]

However, the Sedona Guidelines do not say anything as direct and insightful as "legal system is giving enterprises incentive to be more generous in the retention of records like e-mail."

The East Carolina University case study I posted recently provides a more practical road map for e-mail policy making than the Sedona Guidelines.

--

Mr. Wright teaches the law of electronic records and investigations at the SANS Institute.

Oct 16, 2008 1:34:26 PM | authority, best practice, e-discovery, e-mail destruction, electronic mail policy, electronic records law, government e-records, guidelines, inquiry, judge, labor union, legal hold, litigation hold, local, record retention policy

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Terminate Employee, Delete Email? Are Layoffs a Reason to Destroy Electronic Mail Records? Departure (dismissal) of an employee does not justify destruction of his e-mail records stored on employer equipment. Those records are not the property of the employee or (normally in the U.S., with some qualifications) the vessel of his privacy. The records are an asset of the employer, showing what the employee did in his capacity as an employee and agent of the employer and how he was supervised. In our changing economy, employers are learning how to get the same productivity with fewer people. As they let some employees go, the email records of those employees are part of the employer's valuable institutional memory. Wasting Manager Time A manager is wasting her time if she paws through a departing employee’s e-mail to decide what to keep and what to destroy (delete). It is better just to keep the e-mail, consistent with the retention and privacy practices generally applicable for all employees. Email is an Asset of the Enterprise E-mail records memorialize intellectual property development by employees...
PREVIOUS POST
Recorded Public Information Erase Government E-mail in 15 Days? Many state government archivists publish record retention schedules for state agencies. Often these schedules (or statements related to them) address e-mail records. Many of the 50 official state schedules for e-mail retention are collected at this LINK. If you study all these schedules, you will hear many conflicting ideas. Let's look at one schedule, picked at random – North Dakota’s General Records Retention Schedule dated 9/3/2008. For e-mail, at 450102 North Dakota says, "Retain in office until the record status is determined, but no more than 15 days, then delete. If the e-mail message is an official record made or received pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of official business, the retention period should be covered by an existing record series." Whoa. That language might easily be interpreted to require really fast destruction as the default. That default would be subject to someone making a decision that an important e-mail is in fact important. If one were to interpret this Schedule to require quick deletion of...

Benjamin Wright

Attorney Benjamin Wright helps others navigate the law of technology.

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments