Folks - For those attending VAGARA, this article is directly related to Tom Tokarz's presentation on Friday morning ("Document Production for Law Suits"). Tom, Assistant County Attorney for Henrico County, jokingly said that he did not know the Virginia Public Records Act inside out (or something to that effect)...I spoke with him afterwards and pointed out that each and every schedule (general or agency-specific) cover sheet, under item 6, deals with investigations and/or legal proceedings. For anyone not familiar with said provision, it reads as follows: "6. All known investigations or court cases involving the listed records must be resolved before the records can be destroyed. Knowledge of subpoenas, investigations or litigation that reasonably may involve the listed records suspends any disposal or reformatting processes until all issues are resolved." In discussion with some after the session, the question was who is responsible for informing about holds? Ought a Records Officer contact legal counsel before any destruction? While the article below deals with electronic records and discovery, it has wider implications - regardless of format. Cheers! Mark G. Mark Walsh Records & Information Analyst Records Management and Imaging Services Library of Virginia (804) 692-3650 -----Original Message----- From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Medina Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 12:26 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: RAINdrip: Advice for Litigation Holds and E-Discovery http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=29351&email_access=on From the article: In Judge Scheindlin's view, it is not sufficient for counsel to simply notify employees that there is a litigation hold and expect that the party will then retain and produce all relevant information. Counsel must take reasonable affirmative steps to accomplish the following: (1) "identify sources of discoverable information"; (2) "put in place a litigation hold and make that known to all relevant employees by communicating with them directly"; (3) reiterate the litigation hold instructions "regularly" and "monitor compliance so that all sources of discoverable information are identified and retained on a continuing basis"; and (4) "call for employees to produce copies of relevant electronic evidence, and...arrange for the segregation and safeguarding of any archival media (e.g., back-up tapes) that the [client] has a duty to preserve." See id. These steps are likely to become the standard of "best practices" for counsel in future litigation. While most of these practices are likely frequently followed, Judge Scheindlin's prescription for regular reiteration of the litigation hold and monitoring compliance probably are not common practices today. Given the notoriety of the Zubulake case and Judge Scheindlin's reputation, these practices will likely be adopted by other courts in evaluating electronic discovery issues and requests for sanctions. Accordingly, firms or counsel in any pending litigation or agency investigation who fail to adopt these practices act at their peril. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Larry Medina ...not all information is created equal !! LLNL Records and Archives Group B-411, Room 1307 2-7628 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance To UNSUBSCRIBE, change options, or subscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-rol.html (If using Netscape, must have version 6.1 or higher to view the above page)