The proliferation of electronic
records imposes a daunting task on organizations to effectively manage their
records retention schedules. The challenge is how to strike a balance between
legal and regulatory requirements and a more manageable retention schedule by
consolidating similar or related record series into a fewer number of retention
categories. A possible solution to this vexing problem is what is referred to
as the “Big Bucket Theory” articulated by Susan Cisco: “Big Buckets for Simplifying Record Retention Schedules.” The premise of the theory is that aggregating record types
into fewer retention buckets may result in a more simplified and accurate
classification scheme. Improved
classification will in turn promote more efficient disposition, thereby
reducing the propensity to retain records too long. From a legal perspective, a
streamlined retention schedule may reduce the risks associated with having to
potentially incur onerous document production costs in the event of a discovery
requests.
On the other hand, the “Big Bucket Theory” requires
application of longer retention periods to records that constitute a larger
bucket. This may result in having to retain records for longer periods than it
may be otherwise required and in increased risk of having to produce documents
pursuant to litigation hold. Some argue that “the disadvantage in more complex
environments is that this type of approach can result in the unnecessary
retention of large amounts of records, as retention “big buckets” default to
the longest retention requirement of their components.”
The potential application and value of the “Big
Bucket Theory” depends on a number of factors.
Susan Cisco cautions that “In the final analysis, organizations need to
weigh the odds of end users properly classifying content against risks of
potentially retaining content longer than necessary. These risks are unique to
each organization and are based on its history of litigation and regulatory
scrutiny, its culture for risk tolerance, and its resourcing constraints.”
