Craig, If you are still in litigation, this is a bad time to implement the policy. If the opposition does not find what they want and gets a court order for another round of discovery, the implementation of this policy at this time will appear as though the company is trying to hide something. Once litigation is initiated all auto-deletion has to stop anyway. If the lawyers insist that the policy be placed in effect immediately, you could be personally liable for implement. The one way around it would be to set a rolling implementation time frame, one that would allow you to caution your users well in advance that their archives are going away. Theoretically, if you do not know that someone is moving that data elsewhere, you can't discover it. However, you would need to be monitoring your local systems (and file shares) for pst files. I've gone through eDiscovery with two previous employers, both ended up handing copies of everything over and hoped to overwhelm the opposition. I left both employers before litigation completed and was never called to testify, so I missed out on portions of it. One corporate council tried to implement a similar policy and dropped the push after we sat down and talked about what it would look like to the judge to implement something like this in the middle of litigation. Hope that gives you a little bit of ammo to go back to the attorneys and ask for a delay in implementation. James
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Craig Freyman <[email protected]>wrote: > Jack - the ediscovery costs of a current litigation we're in are > astronomical. This is where this reactionary policy is coming from. > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Jack Daniel <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Bill Swearingen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I dont understand why you wouldnt want to comply with policy? >> > The reason the lawyers have made this decision is because of ediscovery. >> If >> > their is a policy (and technical restraints) to not keep stuff past 60 >> days, >> > then they cant be requested to discover email and documents older than >> that. >> > Sounds like you are looking for a good way of being fired! >> > $0.02 >> > >> Good point Bill, but I interpreted the request as trying to cover all >> the bases to help enforce the policy, and framed answers as such. >> >> That said, this is such a bad policy that it will be defeated. People >> are going to do their jobs, in spite of policy- you are much more >> likely to be disciplined or fired for not doing your job than you are >> to be disciplined for not following policy (at least in almost every >> biz I've ever dealt with) >> >> This shows it isn't just us security types who ignore the realities of >> business when crafting policy. The dangers of e-discovery damage would >> have to be insanely high for this to be in the best interest of the >> company as a whole. But, we security types ask for dumb stuff all the >> time, too. >> >> Jack >> _______________________________________________ >> Pauldotcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom >> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pauldotcom mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com >
_______________________________________________ Pauldotcom mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
