The Case for a Comprehensive Information Governance Policy
If you're outside counsel and you've been hired because of the possibility of a future lawsuit, you need to seriously consider if your client's preservation obligations have already been triggered.
June 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM
5 minute read
Modern technology has made it easier than ever to hold onto vast amounts of documents and information, and many organizations are doing this without even first considering whether they should hold on to that information. And beyond the storage costs, there can be far greater increased costs. These include the risks of data breaches, recordkeeping compliance penalties, and those difficult to quantify, but ever-present, soft costs associated with so much information, such as increased time spent searching for particular items and increased eDiscovery costs. This article will explore the need for information governance, the basic idea behind it, and conclude with a brief discussion of legal holds.
One of the simplest explanations for why organizations will hold onto so much information—and why an information governance policy is needed—is to understand the individual decision makers within an organization and their motivations. An individual faced with the question of disposing of something or keeping it must decide between one option with potentially large risks and another option with none. If something is disposed of, it could potentially be needed for business, regulatory or other reasons further down the road. To know whether the information is needed for one of these purposes may require a somewhat lengthy investigation or series of emails. Alternatively, the document can simply be kept—a decision that takes almost no time and likely uses a negligible amount of storage space. But now imagine every single person across an entire organization making the same calculus, day after day, and year after year. Simply put, an organization's "policy" should not be based on an individual's fear of being the one who deleted something they shouldn't have.
Organizations need comprehensive information governance programs to combat having too much information. To establish one is an organization-wide initiative that needs to include representatives from all of a company's stakeholders, including business units, IT, legal, HR, records management, and executive leadership. The overall goals are to:
- Decide what can be disposed of, what needs to be kept, where to keep it and for how long;
- Develop procedures to actually put into action those decisions; while
- Be able to respond efficiently and effectively to legal holds, subpoenas, and the unexpected.
As part of developing an information governance program, it helps, at first, to overgeneralize everything into two types of decisions. First, some decisions for what to keep and for how long are straightforward because the decisions are dictated by various regulations. Some apply to every organization, while others can vary considerably depending on the industry. Examples of items in these categories include tax returns, or information required to be maintained under Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA, or the Fair Labor Standards Act. Second, and less straightforward, is information whose retention or destruction is more akin to a business decision, where the decision hinges on balancing the long-term value of information against its potential costs. A more detailed discussion of the factors to consider when making these types of decisions is beyond the scope of this article.
Once a policy is in place, it is important that it be capable of being suspended if a legal preservation obligation emerges—commonly referred to as a legal hold. There is no one-size-fits-all rule that can be applied to determine when the hold obligation is triggered (short of the super-obvious: a lawsuit being filed), but :
- Educating the organization on the standard applied by courts is helpful (more below); and
- There is one decent rule of thumb: if you're in-house counsel and you're considering law firms to hire for a matter, you need to seriously consider if your preservation obligations have already been triggered, or if you're outside counsel and you've been hired because of the possibility of a future lawsuit, you need to seriously consider if your client's preservation obligations have already been triggered. To be clear, this rule of thumb does not override the legal standard.
The legal standard for preservation can kick in before a lawsuit is even filed. The duty to preserve may arise earlier than the commencement of litigation if there is "reasonable anticipation" of litigation or it is "reasonably foreseeable." The standard is objective: would a reasonable party in the same circumstances reasonably foresee litigation (not whether the party itself foresaw litigation).
If you want to read more about information governance and legal holds (and who wouldn't?!), consider these three resources from The Sedona Conference:
- The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Information Governance, Second Edition, 20 Sedona Conf. J. 95 (2019);
- The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Defensible Disposition, Second Edition, 20 Sedona Conf. J. 179 (2019); and
- The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Legal Holds, Second Edition: The Trigger & The Process, 20 Sedona Conf. J. 341 (2019).
Todd Heffner is a construction litigator and eDiscovery specialist with Jones Walker in Atlanta.
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 AllWho Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute read'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
- 2Manufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
- 3Waterbury Jury Awards $2 Million Verdict Against Eversource
- 4Walter Taggart, Villanova Law Professor, Dies at 81
- 5$2.7M Verdict for Whistleblower Exposes Employer to $300M Claim
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