Rich said:

"All information under Legal Hold must be maintained and not destroyed for
the duration of the Legal Hold, even if the information’s retention period
has expired."

Isn't that ALWAYS the case?  and isn't that the case whether something is a
'record' or a 'non-record' already? If it's related to the legal issue and
a preservation order exists, then it has to be held.

"So this approach seems to make great pragmatic sense in certain
situations. But ironically, current trends might make it no longer useful
in even these special situations. Managing ESI in place is declining while
the trend is to manage such content by copying it into a dedicated hold
repository. That special repository approach has many advantages –
particularly that your normal retention schedule and purging policies can
roll merrily along without concern for spoliation. In other words, the
trend is to always treat ESI under hold differently than garden-variety
records. So for pragmatic reasons the deep conceptual differentiation
between Records and ESI-under-hold may be with us for a long time."

In my experience, it's a common practice to make an independent set of
information responsive to a legal hold and maintain it separately to ensure
it doesn't accidentally get altered, disposed of or otherwise become
compromised during a legal action. In the old 'pure paper days", copies
were made and "Bates stamped" then held aside form the general repository.
You still 'freeze' actions on the primary repository (no destruction while
hold is active) but by having an independent set, you can make copies or
whatever else is needed without having to disturb content in your regular
filing system.

I don't understand how "...your normal retention schedule and purging
policies can roll merrily along..." if there is a hold in place.  If you
discard information that is in your primary repository, you aren't
complying with the spirit of the hold.

I don't see this type of policy being of much value- an organizations
retention policy/practices shouldn't revolve around the possibility of  a
legal action when that is actually an exception rather than the norm for

[log in to unmask]
*Lawrence J. Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972*

List archives at
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]