Four Keys for Getting Employees to Change Their Document Retention Habits
Keep your employees from saving everything forever.
July 25, 2010 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Much of the conversation around e-discovery discusses the perils of poorly executed legal hold processes. Yes, companies do get in trouble for not saving the right documents at the right time during litigation. But let's face it, most inside counsel experience more stress over a far different issue: Their employees save nearly everything forever, driving up the cost and risks of discovery. Unmanaged, employees save e-mails, files and other types of electronically stored information nearly everywhere.
Companies do attempt to discourage this behavior, often with little success. Some believe that this packrat mentality is ingrained in employees and unavoidable. Can employees really be made to change their ways?
Yes, but companies need to be smart about it. Good change management programs can be very effective in significantly increasing compliance with document retention, while avoiding “underground” archiving, or employees engaging in rogue retention. Here are some keys to good document retention and deletion change management:
Create Retention Policies That Recognize Business Value: Many organizations base their record retention schedules purely on regulatory compliance, an approach that ignores that some documents have significant business value. Good record retention policies incorporate retention based on business value along with regulatory compliance. Not all documents have business value, only some of them. The key for workable policies is to provide some level of balance in how many and how long documents are kept.
Give Employees an Option, But Make Continued Retention Manual: Capture your documents in an archive that automatically deletes documents after a prescribed period of time. Give employees the option of saving some important documents longer than the stated retention period, but require them to manually override the deletion period. Some will do that for some documents. Most, knowing that they can retrieve older documents, at some point in time will forget. The result will be that most documents are deleted by the system, without the employees engaging in underground archiving. Use employees' inactivity to your benefit.
Sell the Win for Employees: Too often messages on document deletion come across as the legal department dictating from the top of the proverbial mountain, telling employees how saving fewer documents is better (for legal, that is). Employees quickly tune out these messages. Good record deletion strategies do benefit legal, as well as IT, HR, business units and other departments. Perhaps most important, good retention and deletion systems can also benefit employees themselves. One large company, when deploying an e-mail archiving system dictated from the mountain to no avail. But when they changed their messaging, discussing how e-mail captured in the e-mail archive made it easier for employees to search their messages, and how the archive could restore all e-mail even if the employee's desktop computer crashed (not possible previously), the employees tuned in and got on board with the program. There is a win for everyone, not just legal. Your messaging should reflect that.
Measure, Train, and Monitor: First measure. Assess how much compliance there is with the current retention policy and the amount of underground archiving. Next, train employees on compliant retention and deletion. Include in this training some of the messaging discussed previously. Be clear, prescriptive and function-specific. Once the program is launched, then measure again. If your training worked, good; if not, modify the training. Also implement ongoing monitoring. Make sure the right documents are being saved and any given employee is not saving too much beyond the policy. While it is very difficult to monitor everyone, the 80/20 rules applies here. For example, we have found identifying and directly contacting the worst 5 percent of storage “hogs” can sometimes reduce overall file system storage by as much as 40 percent. It is nearly impossible to monitor everyone all of the time, but taking a closer look at the worst offenders can have disproportionately beneficial results.
One last note: Some inside counsel will never be happy, believing that these types of change management programs permit employees to save too much. My response: Give up perfect and go for good.
Read Mark Diamond's previous column. Read Mark Diamond's next column.
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 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
- 1Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 2Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 3Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
- 4Georgia Supreme Court Honoring Troutman Pepper Partner, Former Chief Justice
- 5Insurer Not Required to Cover $29M Wrongful Death Judgment, Appeals Court Rules
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