The Drip Drip Drip...

[Big RR]

You're right about spoliation, most big companies I have worked for take that very seriously. I'm not surprised that Trump didn't; I think he's like Leona Helmsley--those rules are for the little people.

[rubato]

Most big companies have 'record retention policies' which, with their usual humorous use of language, require records to be destroyed on a regular basis so when they are asked for later they can say it was just their policy. Nothing personal.

yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

Any support for that statement? Or does it just "feel" right?

[Big RR]

Most big companies have 'record retention policies' which, with their usual humorous use of language, require records to be destroyed on a regular basis so when they are asked for later they can say it was just their policy. Nothing personal.

yrs,
rubato

Absolutely, continuous purging of files according to a stated policy is SOP in most places. But, even if litigation is only threatened or contemplated, those policies provide that all relevant documents will be retained. Except if your name is Trump.

[rubato]

Any support for that statement? Or does it just "feel" right?

Well, big RR seems to be aware of it.

The only way one would not be is if you have never worked for a large company or known anyone who has.

If your curiosity were greater and your pissyness less you could have googled "record retention policy" with as assortment of company names and found it out for yourself.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

rubato is a man of many parts. In his first post there are two parts: that large companies have a record retention policy that specifies how long records must be kept before being chopped up in little bits; and that companies do this for the sole reason of hiding malfeasance.

Big RR confirms that large companies do purge files on a routine basis but that their own regulations specify that pending or actual litigation requires a change in that procedure.

rubato then parts that up into: first, Big RR has just confirmed rubato's assertion that companies purge files for only one reason; to avoid lawsuits. And second, everyone who's worked for a large company knows it's true.

So, yes CP - he pulled it out of his arse

[Crackpot]

Read RRs last sentance again rubato.

[Big RR]

One of the primary protections that having a retention policy that is adhered to presents is a defense to the claim that you only shred the 'bad" documents to hide evidence of wrongdoing. If the policy says all contract negotiation memos are destroyed after the contract is signed (or a year after it is signed) and it is scrupulously followed, it would be hard to fault the company for shredding something that might have been used to prove wrongdoing. On the other hand, in the absence of a policy, inquiry into why specific documents were destroyed is permissible and can be costly.

When litigation is contemplated or threatened, all documents must be kept to avoid charges of spoliation, which can result in contempt findings and often the presumption that the documents contained information of the wrongdoing alleged.

[MajGenl.Meade]

See! Big RR agrees that all companies are evil monsters who sacrifice to Molok!

yrs
shrubato

[rubato]

rubato is a man of many parts. In his first post there are two parts: that large companies have a record retention policy that specifies how long records must be kept before being chopped up in little bits; and that companies do this for the sole reason of hiding malfeasance.

Big RR confirms that large companies do purge files on a routine basis but that their own regulations specify that pending or actual litigation requires a change in that procedure.

rubato then parts that up into: first, Big RR has just confirmed rubato's assertion that companies purge files for only one reason; to avoid lawsuits. And second, everyone who's worked for a large company knows it's true.

So, yes CP - he pulled it out of his arse

Your rendering of what I said is a stupid lie. I said:

Most big companies have 'record retention policies' which, with their usual humorous use of language, require records to be destroyed on a regular basis so when they are asked for later they can say it was just their policy. Nothing personal.

I said nothing about intent evil or otherwise simply that they will explain destruction of records as being in accordance with policy and this is a defense against an accusation of doing it for other reasons.

Why are you being such an ass?

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

See! Big RR agrees that all companies are evil monsters who sacrifice to Molok!

yrs
shrubato

He described exactly what I said. I apparently drives you into blithering assholery to discover I was correct all along.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

I interpret the words "so when" (as in, so when they are asked for later) as a very clear indicator.

No, they do not have retention policies "so when" too much rubbish has accumulated they have clear policies on how to dispose of records. Not mentioned by you.

And they do not have retention policies "so when" records must be kept for a statutory period everyone is clear in understanding NOT to dispose of same. Also not mentioned.

No, they have retention policies "so when" the government/legal entity/individual tries to dig up dirt, the companies have already covered their butts by destroying evidence of wrong-doing under the protection of a policy. Not even, "so if" but "when". That's the purpose you chose.

Psst! Your animus is showing.

[Lord Jim]

I interpret the words "so when" (as in, so when they are asked for later) as a very clear indicator.

In addition to the obvious fact that the only reason they would be "asked for later" is if some accusation of nefarious behavior relevant to either a civil suit or a criminal investigation were initiated...

Perhaps rube intended to convey that the records might be "asked for later" so the company could be considered for a "Good Corporate Citizen" award from The Chamber Of Commerce...

[rubato]

I interpret the words "so when" (as in, so when they are asked for later) as a very clear indicator.

No, they do not have retention policies "so when" too much rubbish has accumulated they have clear policies on how to dispose of records. Not mentioned by you.

And they do not have retention policies "so when" records must be kept for a statutory period everyone is clear in understanding NOT to dispose of same. Also not mentioned.

No, they have retention policies "so when" the government/legal entity/individual tries to dig up dirt, the companies have already covered their butts by destroying evidence of wrong-doing under the protection of a policy. Not even, "so if" but "when". That's the purpose you chose.

Psst! Your animus is showing.

And you believe that they are unaware of the legal consequences/benefits of destroying records on a regular basis?

Really.

How amazingly oblivious you are.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not at all, old bean. I only object to your characterizing retention policies as being solely for the purpose of avoiding legal consequences. I offered two other reasons, ones that you chose to ignore in preference for the slur against capitalism.

[wesw]

[rubato]

Not at all, old bean. I only object to your characterizing retention policies as being solely for the purpose of avoiding legal consequences. I offered two other reasons, ones that you chose to ignore in preference for the slur against capitalism.

I didn't say that. You are resorting to the wes/LJ tactic of making shit up and pretending others have said it. Again.

Companies destroy records because they perceive it to be in their interests to do so. They are aware that their interests include reducing future liability either civil or legal as well as reducing storage costs.

My thinking is broader and better informed on this subject than yours but my mind is uncluttered by the need to lie about what you have said while your mind is polluted by your own lies.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

LJ tactic of making shit up and pretending others have said it.

Haven't made up a single thing you've ever said rube, not once not a single time...

Are you going to start this again? You are in serious need of mental help...

I know people say that around here jokingly all the time, but after that bizarre display yesterday, it's crystal clear that something ain't workin' right for you upstairs...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not at all, old bean. I only object to your characterizing retention policies as being solely for the purpose of avoiding legal consequences. I offered two other reasons, ones that you chose to ignore in preference for the slur against capitalism.

I didn't say that. You are resorting to the wes/LJ tactic of making shit up and pretending others have said it. Again.

Companies destroy records because they perceive it to be in their interests to do so. They are aware that their interests include reducing future liability either civil or legal as well as reducing storage costs.

My thinking is broader and better informed on this subject than yours but my mind is uncluttered by the need to lie about what you have said while your mind is polluted by your own lies.

Hmm - let's see: you asked me, "And you believe that they are unaware of the legal consequences/benefits of destroying records on a regular basis?"

And I replied,"Not at all, old bean."

Which naturally calls forth from you the ever-modest, "My thinking is broader and better informed on this subject than yours but my mind is uncluttered by the need to lie about what you have said"

Thank you for finally admitting the truth (bold and underlined above). There are at least two reasons, other than exposure to future legal demands, to have retention policies with "do not destroy before" restrictions. You finally have discovered one of those after being told about it.

You began with: Most big companies have 'record retention policies' which, with their usual humorous use of language, require records to be destroyed on a regular basis so when they are asked for later they can say it was just their policy

That is a clear statement that there was only one reason - to avoid producing documents for lawsuits. You wrote it. Not me. I didn't make it up. And I'm not pretending that you did but stating outright what you did,.

I was also pointing out what you did NOT write - i.e. the truth instead of restricting yourself to bigotry. Again.

[Joe Guy]

I didn't say that. You are resorting to the wes/LJ tactic of making shit up and pretending others have said it. Again.