Uncovering hidden budget to manage long-term legacy data liability
Eliminating the hidden risk resident on legacy backup tapes generally pays for itselfsometimes in mere months.
November 15, 2011 at 08:18 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It is commonplace in this tough economy for corporations to run mean and lean. Many are not investing in the future, but are simply maintaining the status quo until the tides turn. However, corporate legal teams remain responsible for managing liability in today's challenging legal climate. New government regulations, evolving rules of procedure, and the increasing complexity and impact of technology make risk management ever more difficult.
One area of escalating risk and cost to the enterprise is unmanaged information. Whether resident on seemingly self-propagating data archives, forgotten shared drives or mounting stores of legacy backup tapes, unmanaged information not only accounts for an increasingly large percentage of a company's IT budget, it also represents an unknown and seemingly unknowable risk. How can legal teams help their clients proactively manage user data within tight budgets and ensure that corporate information management policies are implemented?
Corporate IT departments consume a large portion of the corporate budget, and they also are the teams that manage all user data. Finding money in these already strict budgets and delivering the tools to enable IT to implement policy can seem like insurmountable challenges. However, by leveraging available technologies, a large component of typical IT budgets can be freed up and used to manage long-term liability. For example, most companies spend a significant amount of money on offsite storage of legacy backup tapes. These legacy tapes are, in fact, a considerable liability as they contain years—and even decades—of unmanaged corporate data.
Just about every company uses backup tapes for disaster recovery, business continuity and even archival purposes. These tapes are routinely shipped offsite for long-term storage. Storage costs can run anywhere from $35 to $50 annually just for a single tape. If your organization stores 20,000 legacy tapes, a surprisingly common number, this adds up to $700,000 to $2.5 million annually! This comprises a significant percentage of any IT budget simply to store legacy data that, in most cases, is not really needed for any business purpose and, in fact, can become a liability down the road.
The bulk of the user data on these legacy tapes can be purged pursuant to your information management policy. Moreover, separating the wheat from the chaff, finding the content that must be retained for legal reasons, is not expensive. In fact, for the annual cost to store these offsite tapes, the tapes can be processed according to policy, needed information identified and recovered, and then destroyed.
Using technology that can scan legacy tapes and index the information on them, it is possible to identify data relevant to an existing legal preservation obligation and quickly extract that data into a more suitable archive for long-term storage. The balance of the data, typically 90 percent or more, can be quickly and permanently purged, eliminating a hidden source of potential future liability. The cost for the technology and labor required to remediate a store of backup tapes and manage long-term liability is less than the cost to store the tapes annually. In other words, eliminating the hidden risk resident on legacy backup tapes generally will pay for itself—sometimes in a matter of months.
For example, imagine a company paying $90,000 per month to store 20,000 legacy backup tapes ($54/tape/year). The total cost of hardware, software and labor to execute a defensible tape remediation project would be in the $1 million range. This sounds expensive, until one realizes that the annual cost of keeping the tapes is as much, or more. That means a backup tape remediation project will actually result in a positive return on investment.
It is not often that the legal department can reduce corporate risk while contributing positively to the bottom line.
It is commonplace in this tough economy for corporations to run mean and lean. Many are not investing in the future, but are simply maintaining the status quo until the tides turn. However, corporate legal teams remain responsible for managing liability in today's challenging legal climate. New government regulations, evolving rules of procedure, and the increasing complexity and impact of technology make risk management ever more difficult.
One area of escalating risk and cost to the enterprise is unmanaged information. Whether resident on seemingly self-propagating data archives, forgotten shared drives or mounting stores of legacy backup tapes, unmanaged information not only accounts for an increasingly large percentage of a company's IT budget, it also represents an unknown and seemingly unknowable risk. How can legal teams help their clients proactively manage user data within tight budgets and ensure that corporate information management policies are implemented?
Corporate IT departments consume a large portion of the corporate budget, and they also are the teams that manage all user data. Finding money in these already strict budgets and delivering the tools to enable IT to implement policy can seem like insurmountable challenges. However, by leveraging available technologies, a large component of typical IT budgets can be freed up and used to manage long-term liability. For example, most companies spend a significant amount of money on offsite storage of legacy backup tapes. These legacy tapes are, in fact, a considerable liability as they contain years—and even decades—of unmanaged corporate data.
Just about every company uses backup tapes for disaster recovery, business continuity and even archival purposes. These tapes are routinely shipped offsite for long-term storage. Storage costs can run anywhere from $35 to $50 annually just for a single tape. If your organization stores 20,000 legacy tapes, a surprisingly common number, this adds up to $700,000 to $2.5 million annually! This comprises a significant percentage of any IT budget simply to store legacy data that, in most cases, is not really needed for any business purpose and, in fact, can become a liability down the road.
The bulk of the user data on these legacy tapes can be purged pursuant to your information management policy. Moreover, separating the wheat from the chaff, finding the content that must be retained for legal reasons, is not expensive. In fact, for the annual cost to store these offsite tapes, the tapes can be processed according to policy, needed information identified and recovered, and then destroyed.
Using technology that can scan legacy tapes and index the information on them, it is possible to identify data relevant to an existing legal preservation obligation and quickly extract that data into a more suitable archive for long-term storage. The balance of the data, typically 90 percent or more, can be quickly and permanently purged, eliminating a hidden source of potential future liability. The cost for the technology and labor required to remediate a store of backup tapes and manage long-term liability is less than the cost to store the tapes annually. In other words, eliminating the hidden risk resident on legacy backup tapes generally will pay for itself—sometimes in a matter of months.
For example, imagine a company paying $90,000 per month to store 20,000 legacy backup tapes ($54/tape/year). The total cost of hardware, software and labor to execute a defensible tape remediation project would be in the $1 million range. This sounds expensive, until one realizes that the annual cost of keeping the tapes is as much, or more. That means a backup tape remediation project will actually result in a positive return on investment.
It is not often that the legal department can reduce corporate risk while contributing positively to the bottom line.
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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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