E-discovery: How to draft and implement an effective document retention policy
Lots of data can mean only one thing when it comes to litigation: crippling discovery costs.
July 17, 2012 at 04:30 AM
10 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Library of Congress might talk about its 235 terabytes of data, but some U.S. companies already have it beat—try petabytes, literally thousands of terabytes of data. If your company has more than 1,000 employees, you're no doubt in the petabyte world. As the cost of servers and digital memory decreases, the amount of data created and stored by businesses increases at staggering rates.
Lots of data can mean only one thing when it comes to litigation: crippling discovery costs. One of the leading document review tools had a 100 percent increase in the number of documents hosted from 2010 to 2011, from fewer than 5 billion to nearly 10 billion. When faced with this explosion of electronic data, your first and best line of defense in limiting discovery costs is having a well-drafted document retention policy and following it to the letter.
Elements of a good document retention policy
First and foremost, your policy must be tailored to the regulatory regime in which your company operates and also to the needs of your business. Highly regulated industries have very precise standards that they must meet with respect to certain types of documents. Banks, for instance, are required by federal statutes and regulations to maintain customer account data for seven years. Broker-dealers, financial institutions, the health care industry and certain segments of the energy industry, among others, need to pay particular attention to the regulatory requirements of their sectors and tailor their policies to those requirements. All companies should keep tax records in accordance with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) dictates.
If your company does not operate in highly regulated industries, the guidelines are more flexible. Documents should be retained for the duration of their useful life—and no longer. There is no magic formula for determining the useful life of a document. In some companies, emails are useless the day after they are sent (assuming, that is, that the 10 emails required to schedule one meeting were ever “useful”). In other companies, emails may constitute critically important records, necessary for documenting the entity's operations, management and oversight.
As a rule of thumb, documents regarding the corporate form and structure should be retained forever. Contracts should be retained for seven years (the typical statute of limitations for breach of contract). Documents related to a particular contract or project should be retained for the duration of that contract or project, or until the retention period expires for the documents reflecting the agreement. Most other materials, such as drafts, should be retained for a maximum of two years, barring some reason why they should be retained for longer.
Setting retention periods requires extensive discussions with senior management and employees of all levels to understand how and why certain records are used in the company. The policy must allow employees to keep the documents necessary to do their everyday jobs, while getting rid of superfluous documents and data.
The hard part: Following through
A well-drafted document retention policy is only as good as its implementation. Executing the policy requires support from a corporate records management program and a well-trained information technology group. The records management officers (who likely will wear other hats as well, unless the corporation is very large) must conduct regular trainings on the policy and circulate periodic reminders of the need to dispose of records as they reach the end of their useful life. A successful program will have records managers who do not scold employees for retaining more documents than necessary, but rather partner with them to determine what to keep and what to dispose of.
The information technology group must provide technical support, including monthly email purges and regular data deletions. To effectively perform this function, you must have a comprehensive data map of all of the company's data, including both active data and data archived on backup tapes or other media. The retention period is defined by the content of the data, not the storage device. In other words, if an email should have been deleted years ago, it should not be retained for longer simply because it resides on a backup tape.
Benefits and challenges
The single greatest benefit to having, maintaining and following a document retention policy is that you will have fewer documents to review and produce in the event of litigation. If you do find yourself in litigation and relevant documents reached the end of their retention period and were disposed of, courts are unlikely to impose spoliation sanctions. The need to manage documents and data is almost universally recognized as a valid reason for destroying documents —provided the destruction was carried out in accordance with a well-documented, regularly followed program and was not done for the sole purpose of eliminating relevant evidence.
The single greatest challenge is knowing when to suspend routine document destruction in light of pending litigation. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, their state analogs and the Zubulake line of cases all make clear that when a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it has a duty to suspend regular document destruction and retain relevant data. This objective standard can be triggered even before a complaint has been filed. Failure to issue a litigation hold can result in exactly the spoliation sanctions you were seeking to avoid.
Establishing and maintaining an effective corporate records management policy is not a glamorous undertaking, but it is a necessary one. There are not many instances where the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is literally true, but in this area failure to manage your documents efficiently can break your litigation budget.
The Library of Congress might talk about its 235 terabytes of data, but some U.S. companies already have it beat—try petabytes, literally thousands of terabytes of data. If your company has more than 1,000 employees, you're no doubt in the petabyte world. As the cost of servers and digital memory decreases, the amount of data created and stored by businesses increases at staggering rates.
Lots of data can mean only one thing when it comes to litigation: crippling discovery costs. One of the leading document review tools had a 100 percent increase in the number of documents hosted from 2010 to 2011, from fewer than 5 billion to nearly 10 billion. When faced with this explosion of electronic data, your first and best line of defense in limiting discovery costs is having a well-drafted document retention policy and following it to the letter.
Elements of a good document retention policy
First and foremost, your policy must be tailored to the regulatory regime in which your company operates and also to the needs of your business. Highly regulated industries have very precise standards that they must meet with respect to certain types of documents. Banks, for instance, are required by federal statutes and regulations to maintain customer account data for seven years. Broker-dealers, financial institutions, the health care industry and certain segments of the energy industry, among others, need to pay particular attention to the regulatory requirements of their sectors and tailor their policies to those requirements. All companies should keep tax records in accordance with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) dictates.
If your company does not operate in highly regulated industries, the guidelines are more flexible. Documents should be retained for the duration of their useful life—and no longer. There is no magic formula for determining the useful life of a document. In some companies, emails are useless the day after they are sent (assuming, that is, that the 10 emails required to schedule one meeting were ever “useful”). In other companies, emails may constitute critically important records, necessary for documenting the entity's operations, management and oversight.
As a rule of thumb, documents regarding the corporate form and structure should be retained forever. Contracts should be retained for seven years (the typical statute of limitations for breach of contract). Documents related to a particular contract or project should be retained for the duration of that contract or project, or until the retention period expires for the documents reflecting the agreement. Most other materials, such as drafts, should be retained for a maximum of two years, barring some reason why they should be retained for longer.
Setting retention periods requires extensive discussions with senior management and employees of all levels to understand how and why certain records are used in the company. The policy must allow employees to keep the documents necessary to do their everyday jobs, while getting rid of superfluous documents and data.
The hard part: Following through
A well-drafted document retention policy is only as good as its implementation. Executing the policy requires support from a corporate records management program and a well-trained information technology group. The records management officers (who likely will wear other hats as well, unless the corporation is very large) must conduct regular trainings on the policy and circulate periodic reminders of the need to dispose of records as they reach the end of their useful life. A successful program will have records managers who do not scold employees for retaining more documents than necessary, but rather partner with them to determine what to keep and what to dispose of.
The information technology group must provide technical support, including monthly email purges and regular data deletions. To effectively perform this function, you must have a comprehensive data map of all of the company's data, including both active data and data archived on backup tapes or other media. The retention period is defined by the content of the data, not the storage device. In other words, if an email should have been deleted years ago, it should not be retained for longer simply because it resides on a backup tape.
Benefits and challenges
The single greatest benefit to having, maintaining and following a document retention policy is that you will have fewer documents to review and produce in the event of litigation. If you do find yourself in litigation and relevant documents reached the end of their retention period and were disposed of, courts are unlikely to impose spoliation sanctions. The need to manage documents and data is almost universally recognized as a valid reason for destroying documents —provided the destruction was carried out in accordance with a well-documented, regularly followed program and was not done for the sole purpose of eliminating relevant evidence.
The single greatest challenge is knowing when to suspend routine document destruction in light of pending litigation. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, their state analogs and the Zubulake line of cases all make clear that when a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it has a duty to suspend regular document destruction and retain relevant data. This objective standard can be triggered even before a complaint has been filed. Failure to issue a litigation hold can result in exactly the spoliation sanctions you were seeking to avoid.
Establishing and maintaining an effective corporate records management policy is not a glamorous undertaking, but it is a necessary one. There are not many instances where the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is literally true, but in this area failure to manage your documents efficiently can break your litigation budget.
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
© 2024 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 AllPolicy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
New Merger-Review Process Could Doom Some Deals, Add Headaches, Subjectivity to Others
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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