Technology: Defensible disposal should minimize risks and improve litigation readiness
Hanging on to data unnecessarily can be risky and expensive.
May 31, 2013 at 05:59 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Hanging on to data unnecessarily can be risky and expensive. Data that is kept beyond legal or business retention obligations can become subject to a legal hold. The costs associated with preserving, collecting, reviewing and producing this data can be substantial. Increased exposure to compliance risks is another problematic potential result, particularly in business sectors that maintain sensitive customer information.
A “keep everything” approach may have been an effective and prudent strategy in the past; however, the reality going forward is that most companies generate too much data for this to remain a viable approach. While it is true that the cost of storing data is decreasing, most experts agree that the exponential pace of data accumulation will greatly outpace any storage cost savings. If everything is kept, companies facing litigation may be forced to review and address all their data, including data that was stored unnecessarily. In addition to driving up litigation costs and slowing discovery responsiveness, it also may increase the chance that unfavorable evidence that could have otherwise been deleted long ago may fall into the hands of an adversary.
Implementing a good defensible disposal program could have a large positive impact for most companies. Depending on a company's business sector, age, litigation profile and other factors, 40 percent to 70 percent of a company's data may be eligible for disposition.
The challenge, of course, is identifying the eligible data. Companies store data on any number of media, some of which could be antiquated and require outmoded hardware to extract the data. The institutional history associated with the data could be cloudy because employees once familiar with the data may have left the company, transferred or simply forgotten the details. Implementing a defensible disposal strategy is not easy; however, the benefits can be worth the efforts.
Some practical tips to consider when implementing a defensible disposal plan follow:
Make the Case. Get the support of upper management. Present the current costs of storing data. Mention that while data costs are indeed declining, these savings will likely be eaten up by the staggering increase in data. Focus on the litigation risks inherent in storing data unnecessarily, including the increased costs and inefficiencies associated with preserving, reviewing and producing large amounts of unnecessary data that could have previously been destroyed. Note that discovery costs can be substantial—particularly in complex cases. Unfortunately, many large companies probably have an intimate knowledge of the discovery costs associated with litigation, so upper management may not need much persuasion on this topic.
Assemble the team. The right team will likely include legal, records management, IT and business professionals with extensive knowledge of legal hold processes, technology systems and system constraints, business needs, and company policies. Documenting steps taken is critical to a defensible plan. Identify a point person to develop and maintain documentation to track actions and decisions. Don't be afraid to leverage other resources that the company may offer, such as a project management office, to set goals, monitor progress and measure success. Consider whether including external counsel would be helpful to guide overall strategic approach, to provide advice on legal hold and retention requirements, and to advise on process defensibility.
Identify the easiest data first. Typically, certain data can be identified as eligible for disposition because enough information is known to make an informed decision. Consider whether data under review is duplicative of what is stored elsewhere. If yes, it may not need to be preserved.
Document before destroying. Once a population of data is identified for disposition, thoroughly document the reasons why the data can properly be destroyed before disposing the data. Include within the documentation any investigative steps taken, as well as any legal analysis, being mindful of potential privilege and waiver considerations. Once the determination to dispose is made and documentation is complete, use appropriate methods to ensure that confidential or private information is not compromised in connection with any data destruction.
Moving Forward. Promote compliance with company policies. Use clearly documented and easy to follow instructions. Conduct regular oversight to help ensure that policies are being followed. Consider revisiting policies relating to backup media. Finally, consider implementing tools to automate records retention, legal holds, email deletion and archiving.
Data will likely continue to accumulate at an exponential rate for the foreseeable future. Keeping everything is no longer a prudent strategy, and for most organizations, it is not even possible. Storing unnecessary data wastes money and resources, and risks legal and regulatory exposure. Implementing a defensible disposal strategy can help a company's bottom line by reducing costs, and can substantially reduce the company's exposure to potential legal and regulatory risks.
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 AllTrending 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