Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Whos Afraid of E-Discovery? Cautionary Tales Every CIO and Every IT Person Need to Know to Survive into FY08... and Beyond IT Quarterly Forum GSA Central.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Whos Afraid of E-Discovery? Cautionary Tales Every CIO and Every IT Person Need to Know to Survive into FY08... and Beyond IT Quarterly Forum GSA Central."— Presentation transcript:

1 Whos Afraid of E-Discovery? Cautionary Tales Every CIO and Every IT Person Need to Know to Survive into FY08... and Beyond IT Quarterly Forum GSA Central Office Auditorium August 14, 2007 Washington, D.C. Jason R. Baron, Director of Litigation, NARA Jonathan M. Redgrave, Partner, Redgrave Daley Ragan & Wagner, LLP Rachel Spector, Senior Attorney, Department of the Interior Please see notes sections if necessary for more details on images and other non accessible items.

2 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 20072 ITQF Panelists Jason R. Baron (chair) Jason Baron serves as Director of Litigation for the National Archives and Records Administration, and is a frequent lecturer and author on e- records and e-discovery topics. Between 1988 and 1999, Jason held successive positions as trial attorney and senior counsel in the Civil Division of the Justice Department, where he litigated cases involving White House e-mail. He serves as NARAs representative to The Sedona Conference®, where he is Co-Chair of the Sedona Conference® Search and Retrieval Sciences Team and Editor-in-Chief of the Sedona Best Practices Commentary On the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery. Jason also recently has co-authored a law review article entitled Information Inflation: Can The Legal System Adapt?, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 10 (2007), Mr. Baron serves on the Georgetown U. Law Center Advanced E-discovery Institute advisory board, is an Adjunct Professor at the U. of Maryland, and currently coordinates the NIST TREC Legal Track, a multi-year international research project on text retrieval methods.

3 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 20073 ITQF Panelists (continued) Jonathan M. Redgrave Jonathan Redgrave has been involved in litigation and complex litigation management for over 14 years. He served as one of the lead private counsel in several major tobacco lawsuits, including in a Minnesota state case, as well as in the case brought by the Justice Department, US v Philip Morris. Jonathan is a nationally and internationally recognized expert on electronic discovery and electronic information and records management issues. He was one of the original architects and currently serves as Chair of the Sedona Conference Working Group on Best Practices for Document Retention and Production. Jonathan previously was a partner at Jones Day, a Principal at Gray Plant Mooty, and law clerk to the Hon. Gary L. Crippen, Minnesota Court of Appeals. Currently, Jonathan serves as chair of Redgrave Daley Ragan & Wagner LLP. Rachel Spector Rachel Spector is a Senior Attorney in the Division of General Law at the United States Department of the Interior, where she provides legal counsel to the Department in a variety of areas including administrative, appropriations, and information law. Rachel joined the Office of the Solicitor in 2003, after practicing law in the private sector for approximately ten years. Prior to assuming her current position in the Division of General Law, she served as the Assistant Solicitor for the Branch of Trust Reform and Litigation in the Division of Indian Affairs where she served as lead agency counsel in the Cobell litigation.

4 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 20074 Overview Intro remarks PANELIST ROUND 1: Cautionary tales PANELIST ROUND 2: Best practice recommendations (or, Cant lawyers and IT folks just learn to get along?) Q & A (your turn) [Note: The presentations given at the GSA IT Quarterly Forum reflected the speakers own views, not the official views of any government agency. The attached powerpoints represent a combined set of slides presented by all three panelists.]

5 The Statutory + Oversight Environment We Work In FRA FOIA Privacy Act GPEA GPRA E-Gov Act ITRMA (Clinger-Cohen) PDD-63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection) OMB GAO IGs Congress

6 A New Legal Term of Art Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Electronically Stored Information or ESI Electronically stored information: - The wide variety of computer systems currently in use, and the rapidity of technological change, counsel against a limiting or precise definition of ESI…A common example [is] email … The rule … [is intended] to encompass future developments in computer technology. --Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 34(a), 2006 Amendments

7 Common Forms of ESI Email with attachments (all kinds) Text files, powerpoint, spreadsheets Voice mail, instant and text messaging Databases, proprietary applications Internet, intranet, wikis, blogs, RSS feeds (plus cache files, slack space data, cookies) Data on PDAs, cellphones Videoconferencing & webcasting Metadata

8 Common Sources of ESI Mainframes, network servers, local drives (including network activity logs) DVDs, CD ROMs, floppy disks Laptops Backup tapes External hard drives (e.g., flash, Zip, Jazz, ipods) Third party storage

9 The Supreme Court on Record Retention Document retention policies, which are created in part to keep certain information from getting into the hands of others, including the Government, are common in business * * * It is, of course, not wrongful for a manager to instruct his employees to comply with a valid document retention policy under ordinary circumstances. --Arthur Andersen LLP v. U.S., 125 S. Ct. 2129 (May 31, 2005)

10 Digital information lasts forever, or five years – whichever comes first --Jeff Rothenberg, senior computer scientist, RAND (1999)

11 Round1 Cautionary Tales

12 Challenges in Litigation Preserving evidence Retrieving and processing massive amounts of data Providing support to help vindicate claims and defenses

13 Challenges in Litigation Not a simple off switch Ever-changing electronic records Self-purging e-mail systems Dynamic databases Collaborative work spaces Routine recycling of back-up media Easy Button mentality

14 Challenges in Litigation Preservation is not a cost-free operation Preservation is not a foolproof operation Preservation could be crippling Communicating those facts to the Court (Cobell; Jinks-Umstead v. England; Landmark Legal v. EPA; McPeek v. Ashcroft; Pueblo of Laguna; Renda Marine)

15 What Can Go Wrong? Without a plan, everything… Typically, courts look at spoliation of evidence -- an assessment of the loss of relevant evidence and the identification of who, if anyone, should bear a consequence, as well as what that consequence should be. Monetary Sanctions (Prudential; Philip Morris) Exclusion of Evidence (Trigon; Philip Morris) Adverse Inference Instruction (Linnen; Zubulake; MOSAID; Morgan Stanley) Default Judgment (Metropolitan Opera; Keir) Contempt Sanctions (Landmark Legal v. EPA)

16 Anatomy of Failure United Medical Supply Co. v. United States 2007 WL 1952680 (Fed. Cl. June 27, 2007)

17 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200717 Just the facts… In 2001, Plaintiff, supplier to government medical treatment facilities (MTFs), filed (a) two adversarial proceedings against Defense Supply Center-Philadelphia (DSCP) and (b) a series of requests under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2002, Dept. of Justice (DOJ) attorney (on behalf of DSCP) used faulty e-mail list to notify MTF personnel of the litigation and need to preserve relevant information. Response was requested but attorney never followed-up with non-respondents. DOJ attorney sent two more e-mails (including request for response) using same faulty list; attorney again did not follow-up with non-respondents. Result: Relevant information was destroyed because many MTFs claimed they received no notice of the filing of the lawsuit until four to five years* after the filing of the adversary complaint… *emphasis in opinion; final MTF received notice of the lawsuit in August of 2006.

18 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200718 And theres more… The Court found that the DOJ Attorney and paralegal repeatedly misrepresented their actions and demonstrated an attitude perceived as cavalier. When asked about MTFs that had not been contacted, primary case paralegal for the U.S. assertedly replied, [m]y bad. Significant breakdowns in communication were found between DOJ, DSCP and MTFs particularly in regards to document retention and preservation.

19 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200719 And more… Document retention problems were found to be far more extensive than previously disclosed: Boxes of relevant documents were not marked for preservation even after the MTF received notification and thus were destroyed; Some destruction occurred after the Dec. 5, 2005 hearing on spoliation (as late as May 2006); Palletized boxes of documents marked for preservation were destroyed; An MTF rep destroyed relevant documents when she misunderstood a Justice Department attorney to suggest some documents were useless; Many of the found documents should have been destroyed, had current policies been followed; Documents continued to be found after repeated representations by U.S. attorney that all documents had been provided to plaintiff. No steps were taken to communicate relevant case information and preservation notice to successor MTF representatives

20 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200720 Spoliation Question Can you be sanction without a showing of bad faith?

21 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200721 While defendant may be wrong in asserting that it acted in good faith, it most certainly is wrong in thinking that it can recklessly disregard its obligations to preserve evidence without legal consequence. YES!

22 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200722 Yes!! Guided by logic and considerable and growing precedent, the court concludes that an injured party need not demonstrate bad faith in order for the court to impose, under its inherent authority, spoliation sanctions.... These objectives are hardly served if the court, in effect, is constrained to say to the injured partysorry about that, but there is nothing I can do, except to let you present your case, such as it remains. Indeed, while some commentators have asserted otherwise, the history of the spoliation doctrine suggests that it was not designed solely to punish those who consciously destroy inculpatory documents, but also to address the manifest unfairness inherent in the loss of relevant evidence.

23 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200723 Yes!!! The court also used the amendments to Rule 37 as further evidence that bad faith is unnecessary for sanctions: That the Advisory Committee would need to adopt a limited good faith faith exception to the imposition of sanctions belies the notion such sanctions should be imposed only upon a more traditional finding of bad faith.

24 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200724 Sanctions imposed 1. In any trial in this matter, Defendant is prohibited from cross-examining plaintiffs expert to the extent that he or she, seeking to overcome the spoliation that occurred herein, attempts to extrapolate the total amount of diversions that occurred with respect to the requirements contract in question. 2. Defendant shall also be precluded from introducing its own expert testimony …Defendant may examine plaintiffs witnesses and produce its own expert testimony to the extent that the testimony relates solely to documents that are available to plaintiff. 3. Defendant must reimburse plaintiff for any discovery- related costs, including attorneys fees, incurred in pursuing the spoliation matter.

25 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200725 Anatomy of a Failure – Lessons Learned No one – not even the United States government – is above the duty…to ensure, through its agents, that documents relevant to a case are preserved. Have a reasonable, defensible and effective litigation hold program Update and enforce communication and compliance with document retention and preservation policies Follow-up regarding preservation (litigation hold) notices Lessons from Mom: Do your homework Tell the truth Never use the phrase my bad when responding to a question in class (i.e., litigation)

26 The Original Email Case…

27 Armstrong v. EOP (1989) The Crisis: Last minute TRO at end of Reagan Administration start of 7+ years of litigation The Result: Injunctions, restoration of backups at huge expense, plus WH email archiving Takeaways: -- recognized importance of managing e-mail -- WH email archiving with record tagging -- importance of metadata -- legacy issue of backup tapes

28 Public Citizen v Carlin (1998 ) The Crisis: Threat of no delete rule applied government-wide while thousands of records schedules reviewed The Result: GRS 20 upheld on appeal Takeaway: GRS 20 & 24 now allow email and other forms of ESI to be deleted and/or recycled assuming recordkeeping obligations are otherwise met

29 Alexander v. FBI (2000) The Crisis: Missing WH email due to technical issues with email archiving The Result: Huge restoration project for EOP backup tapes + GAO investigation Takeaway: QC measures a must

30 Landmark Legal Foundation v. EPA (2003) The crisis: contempt & sanctions motion filed in FOIA lawsuit after erasure of backups and deletion of email occurred post-injunction to preserve documents The result: motion granted Takeaways: primacy of need for good communication channels between IT & legal

31 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200731 Preservation Order "Documents, data, and tangible things" is to be interpreted broadly to include writings; records; files; correspondence; reports; memoranda; calendars; diaries; minutes; electronic messages; voicemail; E-mail; telephone message records or logs; computer and network activity logs; hard drives; backup data; removable computer storage media such as tapes, disks, and cards; printouts; document image files; Web pages; databases; spreadsheets; software; books; ledgers; journals; orders; invoices; bills; vouchers; checks; statements; worksheets; summaries; compilations; computations; charts; diagrams; graphic presentations; drawings; films; charts; digital or chemical process photographs; video; phonographic tape; or digital recordings or transcripts thereof; drafts; jottings; and notes. Information that serves to identify, locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file folders, indices, and metadata, is also included in this definition. --Pueblo of Laguna v. U.S. 60 Fed. Cl. 133 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

32 Cobell v. Kempthorne 1996- Present Government has managed trust funds for individual Indians and tribes since early 20 th Century. Class action lawsuit brought by individual Indians seeking accounting of trust funds going back 100 years.

33 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200733 Cobell v. Kempthorne E-mail Print and file is standard (most agencies) Recovering messages from back-up tapes is expensive and problematic Electronic archiving of messages may also be expensive and problematic

34 Round2 Best Practices

35 Best practices at the E- records/E-discovery nexus

36 Definition of federal record under 44 USC 3301 …all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency... as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. (Italics added.)

37 Foundational elements of recordkeeping in government + Agency file plans and agency records schedules + Appraisal decisions signed off by Archivist on what constitute permanent records (eventually accessioned into NARA), and what constitute temporary records (stored by agencies during active use and then at offsite federal or other record centers for the duration of the retention period of the records) + Record schedules subject to public notice in Federal Register + General Records Schedules for admin. records See 44 USC 3303, 3303a(a), (d)

38 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200738 Lifespan of Federal Records The definition of what constitutes a federal record (44 USC 3301) allows for tremendous flexibility in what is considered to be record material, spanning from ephemeral records (retained for hours/days) thru to short term temporary (weeks/months), long term temporary (years or decades) to permanent records (forever) Problem: matching up the retention span of various e-records with the working life of information technology

39 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200739 Transitory Email Reg NARA final regulations published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2006 (71 F.R. 8806), modifying 36 CFR 1234.24 Email records appropriate for preservation for less than 180 days may be managed on live email systems and allowed to be deleted as part of automatic processes, without a user further needing to print out or electronically archive. Special legal or compliance obligations may require that additional preservation actions taken

40 Backup tapes General Record Schedule 24, Item 4 treats backups as temporary records that may be recycled in the ordinary course of business A legal hold may require IT staff taking a range of additional actions (e.g. from pulling one days worth of backups to shutting down recycling)

41 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200741 Hot topic: Metadata What is it? Email header information (possibly hidden) Proprietary features of word processing (e.g. summary fields) Embedded & shadow data Deleted keystrokes Tracking info Spreadsheet formulas Format issues and metadata Metadata ethics: inadvertent production

42 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200742 Impact of Technology on E-Records Management: Snapshot 2007 A universe of proprietary products exists in the marketplace: document management and RMAs DoD 5015.2 compliant products However, scalability issues exist Utopia is records mgmt without extra keystrokes Agencies must prepare to confront significant front-end process issues when transitioning to electronic recordkeeping Records schedule simplification is key

43 The Intersection of the Federal Records Act and E-Discovery + As a baseline, the FRA already requires appropriate preservation of all electronically stored information which falls within the federal record definition (44 USC 3301) + Agencies must anticipate demands for preservation of evidence in litigation and compliance/oversight settings that go beyond baseline record retention requirements

44 What do the new Federal Rules mean for agency management of federal records? + Agencies will be confronting requests for initial disclosure of ESI on their electronic systems early on, including for how e-mail is stored, how backups are performed, how other networked applications and databases are preserved + Federal ESI may be subject to production in particular requested formats (native, PDF, TIFF, etc.), with or without metadata + Important that key designated IT and RM personnel know scope of their agencys holdings & retention of records under existing schedules, to serve as trusted reporters

45 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200745 Zubulake V: What weve got here is a failure to communicate

46 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200746 Rosetta Stone Approach

47 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200747 Whats an Agency to do? Best practices at the erecords/ediscovery nexus: * Inventorying for the purpose of obtaining intellectual control over your Agencys electronic systems (network applications, backups & legacy media) * Understanding existing records schedules & retention periods (and updating & simplifying schedules in anticipation of transition to electronic recordkeeping) * Consider appointing Knowledge Counsel in General Counsel and Solicitor offices to act as agents of change, working with CIOs, IT staff, and records officers * Formulating explicit e-records guidance on what constitute records, including guidance on how legal holds will be implemented * Incorporating records mgmt & e-discovery issues in end-user training

48 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200748 Additional E-discovery and RM Resources Title 44 U.S. Code, Chaps 21, 29, 31, 33 36 C.F.R. Part 1234 E-Records Mgmt (comprehensive records management website, with toolkit of best practice white papers, including on transitioning to enterprise electronic recordkeeping; also FAQs on many subjects, including scanning documents, instant messaging, wikis) NARA free courses for IT staff and for lawyers DoD 5015.2 -- mgmt/ mgmt/resources (Sedona Guidance and Sedona Principles, 2d edition white papers, plus many other products)

49 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200749 Best Practices for E-Discovery at Department of the Interior E-discovery teams: Organized by bureau; Composed of one or more attorneys familiar with the bureau, a bureau IT professional, and a records official.

50 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200750 Best Practices for E-Discovery at Department of the Interior Leverage existing capabilities to meet e- discovery obligations; Departmental Enterprise Architecture Repository (DEAR).

51 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200751 The Sedona Principles: Best Practices Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production (Second edition, June 2007) The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practices Guidelines & Commentary for Managing Information and Records in the Electronic Age (Sept. 2005)

52 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200752 The Sedona Conference What is it? A nonprofit 501(c)(3) research and educational institute, dedicated to the advanced study of law and policy in the areas of antitrust, intellectual property, and complex litigation Founded in 1997 by Richard Braman: Director (Lawyer, Entrepreneur) Started as a new form of CLE: small, discussion group settings focused on dialogue not debate Goal to eventually be a think tank Interim evolution to include Working Groups

53 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200753 The Sedona Conference Working Group on Best Practices for Electronic Document Retention and Production Founded in 2002 First Sedona Working Group No talking heads: aim is useable working papers Collaborative discussion, not debate Evolving, continuing, not static Currently more than 600 members, participants and observers; includes representatives from in-house; outside counsel and e- discovery consultants. Observers include judges and people from other branches of government

54 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200754 The Sedona Principles First work product of working group Draft published in 2003 for comment; revised in 2004; first edition published in 2005; second edition published June 2007; annotated version published by Pike & Fisher They are: Important background and roadmap of issues Presumptive guidance on e-discovery issues Flexible They are not: Absolute statements of law Unchangeable

55 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200755 The Sedona Principles What is the impact of The Sedona Principles? Cited by courts (e.g., Zubulake) Cited in the national and local rules process Cited in numerous articles addressing e-discovery Cited in briefs and submissions to courts Used as resource in numerous judicial and legal education programs You need to be aware of the Principles and how they may apply to your case.

56 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200756 The Sedona Principles - 2007 1.Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state law equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.

57 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200757 The Sedona Principles - 2007 2.When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.

58 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200758 The Sedona Principles - 2007 3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each partys rights and responsibilities.

59 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200759 The Sedona Principles - 2007 4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.

60 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200760 The Sedona Principles - 2007 5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.

61 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200761 The Sedona Principles - 2007 6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.

62 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200762 The Sedona Principles - 2007 7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding partys steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.

63 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200763 The Sedona Principles - 2007 8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.

64 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200764 The Sedona Principles - 2007 9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.

65 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200765 The Sedona Principles - 2007 10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.

66 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200766 The Sedona Principles - 2007 11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.

67 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200767 The Sedona Principles - 2007 12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.

68 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200768 The Sedona Principles - 2007 13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.

69 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200769 The Sedona Principles - 2007 14. Sanctions, including spoliation findings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.

70 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200770 The Sedona Guidelines Second work product of working group Draft published in September 2004 for public comment; published in September 2005. They are: Important background and roadmap of issues Link between RIM, IT and Legal Perspectives Flexible, Scalable and Reasonable They are not: Standards or minimum requirements Unchangeable

71 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200771 The Sedona Guidelines 1. An organization should have reasonable policies and procedures for managing its information and records.

72 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200772 The Sedona Guidelines 2. An organizations information and records management policies and procedures should be realistic, practical and tailored to the circumstances of the organization.

73 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200773 The Sedona Guidelines 3. An organization need not retain all electronic information ever generated or received.

74 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200774 The Sedona Guidelines 4.An organization adopting an information and records management policy should consider including procedures that address the creation, identification, retention, retrieval and ultimate disposition or destruction of information and records.

75 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200775 The Sedona Guidelines 5. An organizations policies and procedures must mandate the suspension of ordinary destruction practices and procedures as necessary to comply with preservation obligations related to actual or reasonably anticipated litigation, governmental investigation or audit.

76 GSA IT Quarterly Forum -- Aug 200776 Jason R. Baron, Director of Litigation, NARA tel. (301) 837-1499 Email: Jonathan M. Redgrave, Esq., Redgrave Daley Ragan & Wagner LLP tel. (202) 742-6767 Email: Rachel Spector, Senior Attorney, Dept of Interior tel. (202) 208-6029 Email:

Download ppt "Whos Afraid of E-Discovery? Cautionary Tales Every CIO and Every IT Person Need to Know to Survive into FY08... and Beyond IT Quarterly Forum GSA Central."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google