Setting the e-discovery record straight

There are two problematic statements in "Next up, e-discovery challenges." First, the statement, "In the absence of specific requirements for retention, however, an agency must use its own discretion," is entirely false. In Michigan – and in the federal government and many, if not all, other states -- a retention schedule is a legal document, not a guideline that agencies follow because they feel like it. The default retention period for a public record is permanent and only a schedule can authorize its destruction. This means that in the absence of a retention schedule, agencies cannot use their own discretion. They must keep the record until they get a schedule to authorize its destruction.

Second, setting e-mail retention schedules at 21 days, 90 days, 120 days or any other time frame is wrong. We don't keep all paper for the same amount of time, and it is absurd to think we should keep all e-mail for one defined time frame. Record retention periods are established based on the content of the record, not its format. If the e-mail relates to a contract, keep it as long as any other contract record. If the e-mail relates to a personnel matter, keep it as long as any other personnel record.

Caryn Wojcik
Michigan Records Management Services

Featured

  • Cybersecurity

    DHS floats 'collective defense' model for cybersecurity

    Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen wants her department to have a more direct role in defending the private sector and critical infrastructure entities from cyberthreats.

  • Defense
    Defense Secretary James Mattis testifies at an April 12 hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

    Mattis: Cloud deal not tailored for Amazon

    On Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sought to quell "rumors" that the Pentagon's planned single-award cloud acquisition was designed with Amazon Web Services in mind.

  • Census
    shutterstock image

    2020 Census to include citizenship question

    The Department of Commerce is breaking with recent practice and restoring a question about respondent citizenship last used in 1950, despite being urged not to by former Census directors and outside experts.

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.