Source: http://legal-beagle.typepad.com/wrights_legal_beagle/2008/10/index.html
Timestamp: 2015-08-02 16:20:44
Document Index: 265649639

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1512', '§1519', '§1512', '§1519', '§1512', '§1512', '§1519', '§1519', '§1519', '§1519', '§1519']

Electronic Data Records Law | How to Win E-Discovery: October 2008
SOX Record-keeping
Arthur Andersen’s Records Management Crime
The US legal system is giving all enterprises (whether public corporations, private LLCs or otherwise) reasons to be more liberal in their retention of records, especially e-mail. One reason is a change in obstruction of justice law.
The traditional obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. §1512(b), punishes anyone who corruptly persuades another person to destroy documents to impair their use in an official proceeding. Under that traditional statute, a criminal court convicted Arthur Andersen for destroying Enron-related papers and electronic records. The jury in Andersen’s trial said Andersen’s internal record management practices violated the statute.
But one month after Andersen’s jury trial, Congress adopted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). SOX modified obstruction of justice law by making it easier to convict people who destroy records. SOX included new 18 U.S.C. §1519, which now punishes anyone who destroys, conceals, or covers up any record to impede or influence a federal lawsuit or an investigation by any federal agency, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case.
Notice the differences between the traditional §1512(b) and new §1519. Under traditional §1512(b) a crime was committed only if the defendant "corruptly persuaded another person" to destroy documents. It might be hard for a prosecutor in a criminal trial to show corrupt persuasion of a second person. Further, the exact words of §1512(b) seem not to apply if the defendant directly destroyed documents. In new §1519, Congress omits the traditional “corruptly persuades another person” element. Further, new §1519 employs expansive language -- “in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case” – to stretch the law to cover destruction of records in any way connected to a specifically anticipated lawsuit or investigation.
Enterprises be aware. The effect of §1519 is powerful. To win an obstruction of justice conviction, the prosecutor does not have to work as hard as he or she did in the Andersen case. The prosecutor no longer has to show the defendant acted "corruptly" to "persuade" someone else to destroy documents. Now, it is enough for the prosecutor to simply show that the defendant intended to destroy records with federal litigation in mind.
With new §1519, Congress emphasized its intolerance of people who mulch records in view of a lawsuit or investigation, even one that is not pending or imminent. Hear how Senate Report 107-146 interprets new 18 U.S.C. §1519: “This statute is specifically meant NOT to include any technical requirements, which some courts read into other obstruction of justice statutes, to tie the obstructive conduct to a pending or imminent matter. It is also meant to do away with the distinctions, which some courts have read into obstruction statutes, between court proceedings, investigations, regulatory or administrative proceedings . . . and less formal governmental inquiries. The intent of the provision is simple: people should not be destroying, altering or falsifying documents to obstruct any governmental function.”
Think about that statement from a record management perspective at a complex enterprise. The statement seems to imply that the enterprise must implement a litigation hold with respect to future (specifically-anticipated) lawsuits/investigations, even though they are not pending or imminent. For an enterprise, it is tough to know what is and is not anticipated somewhere out there in the future. But the risk is that later, after the lawsuit gets going, the court may judge the enterprise's decisions retrospectively, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. The court may determine, "Oh, you could have seen this coming (even though it was not imminent), so you should have implemented a legal hold."
Given that it is now easier to be convicted for destroying records, the logical response for an enterprise is to keep more records longer . . . to give itself a wider margin for error.
SOX’s new contribution to obstruction of justice law should be viewed in the context of recent cases punishing premature destruction of electronic records. In that context, one sees a whole legal system that expects more lavish record retention than in the past.
Mr. Wright teaches cyber security and investigations law at the SANS Institute.
Reference: B. Wright, “Shredding Documents Post-Arthur Andersen: Reforming Corporate Record Retention Policies for the Information Age,” a paper published 2002.
Posted at 09:01 PM in administrative, corporate policy, criminal investigation, e-mail destruction, electronic records law, internal investigation, investigation, jury, litigation hold, LLC, obstruction of justice, prosecutor, record retention policy, regulatory, risk management, Sarbanes Oxley, trial | Permalink
For e-mail, at 450102 North Dakota says, "Retain in office until the record status is determined, but no more than 15 days, then delete. If the e-mail message is an official record made orreceived pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of official business,the retention period should be covered by an existing record series."
Posted at 05:42 PM in archivist, cloud, culling, department, e-mail destruction, educate, electronic records law, employee e-mail, erase email, government e-records, official, Ohio, public resources, publish, record retention policy, records information management RIM, retain 7 years, screen, state government administration, transaction | Permalink
A colleague at Messaging Architects sent me this inquiry: "I have been doing research on legal issues impacting the government sector. More and More I read about how the Sedona Principles that came out from the Sedona Conference affects a judge's decision in a case. Is there anything you can share on the subject?" My reply:The Sedona Conference's statements on e-records are indeed influential with judges (whether federal or state, whether Illinois or North Carolina) because they are thoughtfully conceived. In professional practice, the statements are most helpful when litigation is pending.
However, the Sedona Guidelines do not say anything as direct and insightful as "legal system is giving enterprises incentive to be more generous in the retention of records like e-mail." The East Carolina University case study I posted recently provides a more practical road map for e-mail policy making than the Sedona Guidelines.
--Ben WrightMr. Wright teaches the law of electronic records and investigations at the SANS Institute.
Posted at 01:34 PM in authority, best practice, e-discovery, e-mail destruction, electronic mail policy, electronic records law, government e-records, guidelines, inquiry, judge, labor union, legal hold, litigation hold, local, record retention policy | Permalink
A manager is wasting her time if she paws through a departing employee’s e-mail to decide what to keep and what to destroy (delete). It is better just to keep the e-mail, consistent with the retention and privacy practices generally applicable for all employees. Email is an Asset of the Enterprise
SANS Institute Las Vegas 2015