Posts Tagged ‘SharePoint’

Over the years, including just recently, I have been asked by potential customers how the Mimosa NearPoint content archive controls the disposition of ESI after it has reached the end of its retention period. Specifically they want to know how the system allows a records manager to approve the deletion of the records. I am constantly amazed at this question.

The Cost of Collection:

Medium to large sized organizations are being driven to lower their overall litigation costs by bringing more of the eDiscovery processes in-house. To do this, organizations need to understand and proactively plan for the eDiscovery process. The most cost effective way to quickly lower eDiscovery costs are to prepare for the collection phase by putting in place an ESI archive to capture and manage those ESI silos that are most requested…Email, File System and SharePoint ESI.

Last week I spoke at the Microsoft SharePoint Conference on records management and eDiscovery. I will make my deck that I used available later this week, however while I was at Las Vegas one of the whitepapers that I worked on was made available on the Mimosa Website. You can actually download the whitepaper on this link.

Today I ran across a report from AIIM which says that 18% of the companies that have SharePoint deployed within their organizations do not know if sensitive documents are actually stored within their SharePoint farm. Many people follow widely published SharePoint governance plans however now that SharePoint is getting more traction and more attention these plans are starting to fall short of preventing some issues.

Most organizations do see the benefit of SharePoint archiving to not only keep the excessive growth of their SharePoint farm in line, but also to ensure that only relevant data remains in the system. What many SharePoint archiving offerings from other 3rd parties do is what many people expect archiving to do. You take the blob out of the SharePoint content database and replace it pretty much with a stub, which sounds like a very plausible and logical thing to do.

The last few weeks I’ve been reading SharePoint governance plans and most plans really go into fine details who needs to be on board to get SharePoint successfully deployed in an organization. Microsoft released a paper recently that gives you a real detailed Internet SharePoint Governance Plan. Stakeholders like the SharePoint owner, server administrator, solution architect, designer and developer are all covered, but everywhere were I look at these plans I’m missing very important stakeholders in the decision processes. Where are HR and the General Legal Counsel?

In choosing an archiving solution for SharePoint, it is important to ask these questions:

Bow Tie Law’s Blog recently had an interesting piece on litigation holds titled “The Holding Pattern: Lessons Learned on Litigation Holds” where insufficient notices or notices crated in bad faith can jeopardize a case because of the possibility of spoliation of ESI.

I have run across this same problem with past customers that didn’t take the litigation hold responsibility seriously.

I ran across a recent blog post the other day in which the writer states that when Archiving 2.0 arrives, archiving products will not only serve SharePoint, but also capture data from other content sources like email and file servers.

Mimosa offers SharePoint archiving 2.0 already. Combining multiple content sources over point solutions that only serve SharePoint makes sense.

In the case Pinstripe, Inc. v. Manpower, Inc., 2009 WL 2252131 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2009), the defendant ran afoul of the litigation hold requirement by relying on a manual form of placing litigation holds, e.g. send litigation hold notices out to affected custodians.

The risk in this process is that 1. you have to send the notice out to all potentially affected custodians and 2. you have to be sure they read and understand the notice.