Comments for E-Discovery and Information Management – Bridging the Gap Between IT and the Law – Ledjit Consulting http://ledjit.com Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:37:36 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on The Effective eDocument Retention Program – Policies, Processes and Solutions by Dominic Jaar http://ledjit.com/the-effective-edocument-retention-program-%e2%80%93-policies-processes-and-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-234 Dominic Jaar Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:37:36 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=617#comment-234 Mr Babin, I think sometimes we are forced to agree to disagree. I appreciate the fact that you what to simplify things. However, the reality of most organisations and the way they handle information is, IMHO, better served by creating a distinction, albeit theoretical to certain, between a mere document, that may only be transitory in nature, and a "record", which is declared as such by employees in compliance with a policy. That being said, I would be interested, and so would our readers, to see an example of a retention policy referring exclusively to the notion of "record": can you share a link? Cheers! Dj) Mr Babin,

I think sometimes we are forced to agree to disagree. I appreciate the fact that you what to simplify things. However, the reality of most organisations and the way they handle information is, IMHO, better served by creating a distinction, albeit theoretical to certain, between a mere document, that may only be transitory in nature, and a “record”, which is declared as such by employees in compliance with a policy.

That being said, I would be interested, and so would our readers, to see an example of a retention policy referring exclusively to the notion of “record”: can you share a link?

Cheers!
Dj)

]]> Comment on The Effective eDocument Retention Program – Policies, Processes and Solutions by Alex Babin http://ledjit.com/the-effective-edocument-retention-program-%e2%80%93-policies-processes-and-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-225 Alex Babin Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:19:24 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=617#comment-225 Dominic Jaar wrote that "also cover documents that are not records" It's a pity, but the same issue again. IT people implements new language. Information was recorded, we have documents about this event. But, according to IT, documents are not records. Records it's records. We have working papers, and we have the final document - decision, they are all records. Every thing depends how do you arrange your records, do you keep the final only without background information, or you keep complex of documents pertain ing to the case/ issue / data. Every document is considered records and records retention applies to all documents. Dominic Jaar wrote that “also cover documents that are not records”
It’s a pity, but the same issue again.
IT people implements new language. Information was recorded, we have documents about this event.

But, according to IT, documents are not records.
Records it’s records.
We have working papers, and we have the final document – decision, they are all records.
Every thing depends how do you arrange your records, do you keep the final only without background information, or you keep complex of documents pertain ing to the case/ issue / data.

Every document is considered records and records retention applies to all documents.

]]> Comment on The Effective eDocument Retention Program – Policies, Processes and Solutions by Dominic Jaar http://ledjit.com/the-effective-edocument-retention-program-%e2%80%93-policies-processes-and-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-213 Dominic Jaar Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:27:57 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=617#comment-213 Peter, Thanks for your comments and the references we use on a daily basis. While we agree that the subject of these policies is the retention of records, they often also cover documents that are not records, hence the reference to document retention policy. With respect to your comment about "e", I think we all understand that all documents are subject to discovery. However, the presentations at this conference focused on electronic documents. Peter,

Thanks for your comments and the references we use on a daily basis. While we agree that the subject of these policies is the retention of records, they often also cover documents that are not records, hence the reference to document retention policy. With respect to your comment about “e”, I think we all understand that all documents are subject to discovery. However, the presentations at this conference focused on electronic documents.

]]> Comment on The Effective eDocument Retention Program – Policies, Processes and Solutions by Peterk http://ledjit.com/the-effective-edocument-retention-program-%e2%80%93-policies-processes-and-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-210 Peterk Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:16:16 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=617#comment-210 Puhleeeeeze the correct term is Records Retention program. Why do attorneys persist in calling it a document retention. But Records Retention is but one part of an overall records and information management program It doesn't matter whether the content is electronic, paper or microform they are all records. And the are all subject to discovery. The key is to build a program around standards such as ISO 15489 or those developed by ARMA International (the professional association for records managers) For example you might want to review ANSI/ARMA 8-2005 Retention Management for Records and Information, or ANSI/ARMA 9-2004 Requirements for Managing Electronic Messages as Records or the ARMA International guideline Evaluating and Mitigating Records and Information Risks. These and much more can be found by visiting ARMA International's website www.arma.org and their online bookstore. one final website to visit would be the Institute of Certified Records Managers www.icrm.org Puhleeeeeze the correct term is Records Retention program. Why do attorneys persist in calling it a document retention. But Records Retention is but one part of an overall records and information management program
It doesn’t matter whether the content is electronic, paper or microform they are all records. And the are all subject to discovery.
The key is to build a program around standards such as ISO 15489 or those developed by ARMA International (the professional association for records managers) For example you might want to review ANSI/ARMA 8-2005 Retention Management for Records and Information, or ANSI/ARMA 9-2004 Requirements for Managing Electronic Messages as Records or the ARMA International guideline Evaluating and Mitigating Records and Information Risks. These and much more can be found by visiting ARMA International’s website http://www.arma.org and their online bookstore.
one final website to visit would be the Institute of Certified Records Managers http://www.icrm.org

]]> Comment on Ontario E-Discovery Rules of Civil Procedure Now In Effect by Catching up with the new Ontario E-Discovery Rules of Civil Procedure « e-Disclosure Information Project http://ledjit.com/ontario-rules-of-civil-procedure-on-e-discovery-came-into-effect/comment-page-1/#comment-109 Catching up with the new Ontario E-Discovery Rules of Civil Procedure « e-Disclosure Information Project Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:21:44 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=512#comment-109 [...] not going to be this week, so instead I refer you to the thoughtful and well-hyperlinked commentary Ontario Rules of Civil procedure on e-Discovery come into effect by Ledjit whose Dominic Jaar I hope to see at [...] [...] not going to be this week, so instead I refer you to the thoughtful and well-hyperlinked commentary Ontario Rules of Civil procedure on e-Discovery come into effect by Ledjit whose Dominic Jaar I hope to see at [...]

]]> Comment on E-Discovery Shorty Award by Shorty Award » Current News Trends http://ledjit.com/e-discovery-shorty-award/comment-page-1/#comment-80 Shorty Award » Current News Trends Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:18:07 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=576#comment-80 [...] E-Discovery Shorty Award [...] [...] E-Discovery Shorty Award [...]

]]> Comment on First Neutral Citation by Dawn Urquhart http://ledjit.com/first-neutral-citation/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Dawn Urquhart Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:56:02 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=572#comment-54 I have received a response from CanLII as follows: Dear Mr. Urquhart: Thank you for pointing this out. The correct citation is 2010 ONSC 1. The last element of the citation being a number, it can't contain leading zeros. This is a mistake from the Court and we have alerted them about this. It should be corrected shortly. Best Regards, Frédéric Pelletier Editor in Chief, CanLII I have received a response from CanLII as follows:

Dear Mr. Urquhart:

Thank you for pointing this out. The correct citation is 2010 ONSC 1.
The last element of the citation being a number, it can’t contain
leading zeros. This is a mistake from the Court and we have alerted them
about this. It should be corrected shortly.

Best Regards,
Frédéric Pelletier
Editor in Chief, CanLII

]]> Comment on First Neutral Citation by Daniel Poulin http://ledjit.com/first-neutral-citation/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Daniel Poulin Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:23:47 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=572#comment-53 Dawn, Thank you for you interest in the neutral citation. The way we design the neutral citation, the leading zero have no value (as in a mathematical expression), they can safely be ignored. In one of the documents cited by Dominic (http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/Committee/JTAC/JTAC-Consolidation-of-Standards-2009-04-02-E.pdf), you can read: [31] Use a unique number for each decision, in combination with the year and court identifier. Create a new sequence of numbers for each new year, starting with “1” on January 1st. Avoid internal separators in the number. Please note that the number is to be interpreted numerically, that is to say, “001”, “01” and “1” are the same number for the purposes of the neutral citation. For the rest, I am pretty sure that ONSC and CanLII people will sort out the situation to let you search easily that Kitely's decision. Daniel. Daniel Poulin JTAC and Canadian Citation Committee Dawn,

Thank you for you interest in the neutral citation. The way we design the neutral citation, the leading zero have no value (as in a mathematical expression), they can safely be ignored.

In one of the documents cited by Dominic (http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/Committee/JTAC/JTAC-Consolidation-of-Standards-2009-04-02-E.pdf), you can read:

[31] Use a unique number for each decision, in combination with the year and court identifier. Create a new sequence of numbers for each new year, starting with “1” on January 1st. Avoid internal separators in the number. Please note that the number is to be interpreted numerically, that is to say, “001”, “01” and “1” are the same number for the purposes of the neutral citation.

For the rest, I am pretty sure that ONSC and CanLII people will sort out the situation to let you search easily that Kitely’s decision.

Daniel.

Daniel Poulin
JTAC and Canadian Citation Committee

]]> Comment on First Neutral Citation by Dawn Urquhart http://ledjit.com/first-neutral-citation/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Dawn Urquhart Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:10:59 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=572#comment-52 R. v. Andrew Del Riccio is cited on CanLII as both 2010 ONSC 1 and 2010 ONSC 01. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc1/2010onsc1.html If you conduct a search in the citation field with 2010 ONSC 01 you do not retrieve this case, you have to search on 2010 ONSC 1. Your blog says the cite is 2010 ONSC 01. What is the correct citation format? I have emailed CanLII as well. R. v. Andrew Del Riccio is cited on CanLII as both 2010 ONSC 1 and 2010 ONSC 01.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc1/2010onsc1.html

If you conduct a search in the citation field with 2010 ONSC 01 you do not retrieve this case, you have to search on 2010 ONSC 1. Your blog says the cite is 2010 ONSC 01.

What is the correct citation format?

I have emailed CanLII as well.

]]> Comment on First Neutral Citation by djaar http://ledjit.com/first-neutral-citation/comment-page-1/#comment-45 djaar Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:48:25 +0000 http://ledjit.com/?p=572#comment-45 In Canada, according to the new protocol. In Canada, according to the new protocol.

]]>