Re: Email Policy Changes

[James Costello <genesiswave () gmail com>]

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 <craigfreyman () gmail com>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 <jackadaniel () gmail com>wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Bill Swearingen <hevnsnt () i-hacked com>
> > 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
> > Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
> > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
Pauldotcom () mail pauldotcom com
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com