Implement a defensible deletion strategy to manage risk and control costs
Keeping corporate data just in case or because it is hard to dispose of is not a sustainable practice.
July 23, 2012 at 07:06 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Keeping corporate data “just in case” or because it is hard to dispose of is not a sustainable practice. Even in light of big data strategies, if an organization has not been able to make large volumes of content actionable and achieve measurable success, big data may simply end up as a big headache. Organizations need to understand what content exists, develop a reasonable, good-faith plan to manage it and then take action. One of those actions should be regular and defensible disposition of content that no longer presents value to the organization.
Although it may sound easy, the corporate, legal, regulatory and technological landscape of today's business environment is extremely interconnected and complex, making judgments regarding content disposal a daunting task. Traditionally, organizations have made such decisions within a variety of management silos including IT, legal and records management, each with its own perspective on the value of content and its own business agendas. Taking such a splintered approach to the management of enterprise content can put an organization at risk for a variety of undesirable results such as over-retention of content, premature disposition of content and difficulty defending disposition activities to regulators and courts.
By committing to viewing information management from a higher, more strategic perspective, organizations can move from the mere management of information to true governance of information in which overall corporate goals, risks, obligations and budget are properly balanced. From there, they can make decisions as to which specific management tactics to take so that an organization successfully achieves its goals. That way, organizations effectively mitigate risk in accordance with their particular risk tolerance, including how best to dispose of content.
Even with sound policies and procedures in place, simply finding specific content is an enormous undertaking. In most organizations, information is continually created, received, replicated, re-stored and hidden throughout an enterprise. Once you have found the content, understanding it and then applying and enforcing appropriate management principles becomes a huge time-consuming task.
In order to develop a defensible deletion program, organizations must define a methodology. The program must be manageable and achievable. The best place to start is by defining a plan that targets the highest risk data first. Ongoing litigation must be considered in any defensible deletion plan, so understanding the organization's legal and e-discovery requirements and accounting for those in the plan is critical.
The next step is to get a solid understanding of the content the organization is retaining so that valuation can occur. By developing and using a data map, an organization will be able to obtain a strong understanding of what information it has, what information it regularly generates and where that information is stored. Additionally, data maps will offer insight into appropriate risk assessment. Using the insight from the data map, the organization can then develop an overall information governance strategy that defines what a reasonable deletion methodology should look like.
The concept of reasonableness is a key theory for organizations to apply when developing information governance strategies, policies and procedures. Courts do not ask, expect or necessarily reward organizations for perfection. Courts do expect, however, that whatever information management tactics an organization undertakes are appropriate to how that particular entity is situated (size, financial resources, regulatory and litigation profile, etc.).
Further, courts expect that as an organization develops and executes its information management programs that it does so in good faith, without malice or intent to defraud. Defensible deletion has many benefits that increase shareholder value by controlling costs and managing risk. Knowing that hidden data liabilities lurk in corporate networks, desktops, servers and offsite storage vaults keeps many executives up at night, or at least it should. Keeping all data is obviously no longer a strategy; the liability is too costly and risky. By establishing and maintaining a robust information governance program, including a defensible deletion strategy that reduces the size of the organization's overall information universe, the expense and time associated with finding and collecting responsive data when litigation occurs will be dramatically reduced.
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 AllFatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
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