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
© 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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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