Four Elements of Defensible Deletion Strategy
Document deletion is good if done right.
November 14, 2010 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
While some companies do get in trouble for not saving documents for the required retention period, most face the opposite problem: Their de facto policy is to save nearly all documents forever. This ongoing accumulation drives up storage costs and increases the risks and costs of discovery in the event of litigation or investigations. Few companies implement ongoing, routine deletion of electronic information, but they should.
Before hitting the delete button organizations need to ensure that their deletion processes are defensible. Simply stated, a defensible process ensures that organizations do not delete documents they need to retain or preserve, and provides some level of protection against legal opponents who down the road may ask pointed questions on why specific documents have been deleted.
Defensible deletion can be broken into four elements.
Element 1: Up-to-date Document Retention and Deletion Policy
Many organizations have document retention policies. Fewer of these policies or the supporting documents discuss deletion. The courts have been clear that ongoing document deletion is a routine business process, but deletion needs to be supported by policy. In Keithley v. The Home Store (2008 WL 3833384 N.D. Cal. August 12, 2008), the court sanctioned the defendant for deleting documents, noting its “lack of a written document retention and litigation hold policy.” Be sure your policy includes both the business justification and process for deleting documents.
Element 2: Defensible Legal Hold Policy and Process
Ongoing litigation and lack of a process for identifying which data is and is not under legal hold gums up the deletion process. Create a clear and consistent legal hold process that clearly delineates data being held, allowing the routine deletion of data not under hold. The more clear and consistent your legal hold process, often the more aggressive you can be in deleting older, non-relevant data.
Element 3: Record Archiving Strategy
Organizations are often reluctant to engage in deletion knowing that some of the data contain some records which need to be retained for a period of time. Identify and retain those records, separating them from the mass of other, non-record related data. Between 5 and 35 percent of e-mails are business records and some of the records exist exclusively in e-mail. In other words, between 95 and 65 percent of e-mails are not records. Put effort into separating the wheat (records) from the chaff (non-record documents), enabling you to throw away the chaff. A good archiving system can greatly aid this process. Again, the better you are at determining what needs really needs to be saved, the more aggressive you can be at deleting the rest.
Element 4: Provide Clear, Intuitive Guidance On What Employees Should Save and Delete
Our surveys indicate that without clear direction, more than 90 percent of employees tend to save more documents than they need. Their reasoning is no one ever got in trouble for not deleting a document. On the other hand, given clear guidance we have found that 80 percent of employees will follow a reasonable, intuitive policy. What is reasonable and intuitive? Don't provide your employees with extremely long or vague document retention schedules. Use a department or level-specific file plan (a subset of the document retention schedule) to clearly communicate which documents need to be saved in which buckets. Also, limit retention periods to no more than five choices. Keep it simple and straightforward. Finally, ensure that your retention schedule takes business value into account in retention. If your policy does not recognize business value, your employees will likely engage in “underground” archiving, saving documents where they should not. On the other hand, keeping documents within control of the record retention strategy enables much easier deletion later when they are not needed.
This is part one of a two part column. Mark Diamond's next column will discuss how to prevent employees from hording documents.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250