HR: Federal rules target e-mail management

| Print |  Email
Archives - February 2007
Thursday, February 01, 2007

MouseEmail.jpgThe numbers are staggering. According to Steven Griffith, author of E-mail Power, a much-lauded book on the subject: “In the U.S., 130 million employees send approximately 2.8 billion e-mail messages daily. U.S. corporations receive approximately 50 million in-bound customer e-mails every day. In a recent survey conducted by the American Management Association, it was reported the 65% of employees polled spent up to two hours a day e-mailing. A full 10% spent more than four hours per day e-mailing. Some research suggests that 80% of business communication is now handled via e-mail.”

And now there are new regulations that affect virtually every organization.

The revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that went into effect on Dec. 1, 2006, require organizations to be able to describe how e-mails are retained and managed within 99 days of the beginning of a legal case, and to begin negotiation on the extent of the electronic discovery within 120.

Additionally, there can be no waiting for an order of discovery. (Discovery is the process by which the other side in a lawsuit has the right to obtain all the documents, messages and materials related to the subject of the lawsuit.) Organizations now must begin searching their e-mail and other electronic data for relevant materials without waiting for a discovery order. These new laws apply not only to e-mail, but also to all electronic media such as instant messaging and text documents that have been exchanged.

This regulation change is likely to drive organizations to establish an e-mail/electronic materials retention policy and the capability to implement it. It will be critical that employees understand how the process works and the role that they must play to ensure that vital e-mails are not discarded or altered so that organizational liability is not increased.

It appears that businesses are not prepared for this task. Recent surveys by Cohasset Associates, which works extensively in this arena, found that nearly 50% of organizations have no e-mail policies or procedures in place and little communication with employees about the vital nature of e-mail retention.

RESOURCES

www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp

www.fortiva.ca/resources/whitepapers.html#e-discovery

www.inboxer.com/wp_frcp.shtml

Action items for companies:

  • Write a policy or process that includes what will be retained, for how long, and using what mechanisms or software. (A good sample of policy content can be found at www.searchstorage.com in an article written by Bill Tolson.)
  • Develop materials that will explain the process and procedures to your employees and outside individuals.
  • Develop an evaluation procedure so the organization can be assured that the system is working the way it is intended.
  • Conduct comprehensive training for those who need to be involved (IT, management, HR, etc.).
  • Establish a method for responding to claims or lawsuits that will ensure protection of the subject materials.
  • Ensure that all the relevant materials can be quickly retrieved. This is likely to require some type of standardized archiving and labeling of files and messages.
  • Ensure that your current IT system has the capacity necessary to retain all the data that must be stored.
  • Periodically evaluate the process and the employee understanding of your policy.

Source: Steptoe and Johnson LLP

LexisNexis Applied Discovery, the nation’s leading provider of electronic discovery services to law firms and corporations, found that even inside legal counsel in larger corporations were not prepared for this shift, learning that only 7% of those surveyed felt their companies could comply appropriately with the new regulations.

Any organization not able to comply with these new regulations runs the risk of fines and instructions to a jury that the company was not responsive with discovery requirements, which could seriously damage the chance of a successful outcome to the case. While the fines might be lower for smaller organizations, we already have some evidence of how critical this process is.

An Alabama Circuit Court fined General Motors $700,000 for delaying the discovery process by 98 days. A jury hearing a case against Morgan Stanley was told that the company failed to locate one year of backup tapes containing tens of thousands of e-mails causing the company to have no choice but to consent to an injunction and a $15 million fine. The penalties are real, and are in addition to the hardships already experienced by being involved in a lawsuit.

When employers think of the numerous business and employee legal actions being brought in today’s litigious environment and the numbers of e-mails exchanged which the employer rarely sees until a legal case brings them to their attention, this new requirement is not a pleasant way to start 2007.

The increasing use of e-mail as the primary method of business communication is causing this spotlight of attention and expectation. Employers are advised to take the obligation of e-mail retention and the need to develop policy and procedure seriously so that they are not the poster child for the adverse consequences of this new regulation.


— Judy Clark, SPHR
CEO, HR Answers
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

More Articles

Reimagining education to solve Oregon's student debt and underemployment problems

News
Thursday, November 13, 2014
carsonstudentdept-thumbBY RYAN CARSON | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

How do we skill up our future technology workforce in a smart way to take advantage of these high-paying jobs? The answer shouldn’t focus only on helping people get a bachelor’s degree.


Read more...

Editor's Letter: Power Play

January-Powerbook 2015
Thursday, December 11, 2014

There’s a fascinating article in the December issue of the Harvard Business Review about a profound power shift taking place in business and society. It’s a long read, but the gist revolves around the tension between “old power” and “new power” as a driver of transformation. Here’s an excerpt:

Old power works like a currency. It is held by few. Once gained, it is jealously guarded, and the powerful have a substantial store of it to spend. It is closed, inaccessible, and leader-driven. It downloads, and it captures.

New power operates differently, like a current. It is made by many. It is open, participatory, and peer-driven. It uploads, and it distributes. Like water or electricity, it’s most forceful when it surges. The goal with new power is not to hoard it but to channel it.

The authors, Henry Timms and Jeremy Heimans, don’t necessarily favor one form of power over another but merely outline how power is transitioning, and how companies can take advantage of these changes to strengthen their positions in the marketplace. 

Our Powerbook issue might be viewed as a case study in the new-power transition. This annual book of lists provides information on leading businesses, nonprofits and universities in the state. Most of the featured companies are entrenched power players now pursuing more flexible and less hierarchical approaches to doing business. Law firms, for example, are adopting new technologies and fee structures to make legal services more accessible and affordable.

This month we also take a look at a controversial new U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring public companies to disclose the median pay of workers, as well as the ratio between CEO and median-worker pay. 

Part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the rule will compel public companies to be more open about employee compensation, with the assumption that greater transparency will improve corporate performance and, perhaps, help address one of the major challenges of our time: income inequality.

New power is not only about strategy and tactics, the Harvard Business Review authors say. “The ultimate questions are ethical. The big question is whether new power can genuinely serve the common good and confront society’s most intractable problems.”

That sounds like a call to arms. Or a New Year’s resolution. Old power or new, the goals are the same: to be a force for positive change in the world. Happy 2015!

— Linda


Read more...

The short list: 4 companies engaged in a battle of the paddles

The Latest
Thursday, December 04, 2014
pingpongthumbBY JACOB PALMER | OB DIGITAL NEWS EDITOR

Nothing says startup culture like a ping pong table in the office, lounge or lobby.


Read more...

Healthcare pullback

News
Thursday, November 20, 2014
112014-boehnercare-thumbBY JASON NORRIS | OB CONTRIBUTOR

Each month for Oregon Business, we assess factors that are shaping current capital market activity—and what they mean to investors. Here we take a look at two major developments regarding possible rollbacks of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).


Read more...

Three problems with Obama's immigration order

News
Wednesday, November 26, 2014

BY NISHANT BHAJARIA | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR112614-immigration-thumb

By now, anyone who knows about it has a position on President Obama’s executive order on immigration. The executive order is the outcome of failed attempts at getting a bill through the normal legislative process. Both Obama and his predecessor came close, but not close enough since the process broke down multiple times.


Read more...

Corner Office: Timothy Mitchell

January-Powerbook 2015
Saturday, December 13, 2014

A look-in on the life of Norris & Stevens' president.


Read more...

Top stories in 2014

The Latest
Thursday, December 18, 2014
10-listthumb

2014 was a year of wild contradictions, fast-paced growth and unexpected revelations.


Read more...
Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02
SPONSORED LINKS