Build a preservation scope log for electronic records
For litigation counsel, records managers and system administrators.
How can a team tell whether the records it intended to preserve are actually being kept?
Give every source an owner, a defined scope and a check that someone else can repeat. A person acknowledging a hold and a system retaining a particular record are two different observations. Record both.
Start with the event and the people who saw it
Write the disputed event in one sentence. Work outward from the people who made or received a decision. Ask where they discussed it, where they stored its attachments and who can change the retention settings. A shared folder, a chat thread and a link inside that thread can lead to three different owners.
For each source, record the account or channel, time period, time zone, material at risk, ordinary deletion setting, preservation decision and reason. Give an unresolved source a named person and a time to report back. Counsel can revise the scope as new people or systems emerge.
Ask for proof at the point of loss
Have the administrator describe what the preservation control covers, when it took effect and how the team can verify it. An export might contain message text but omit edits, attachments or the external file a shared link points to. Keep the export settings and error report with the inventory. Identify what still needs separate preservation.
Record when the setting was checked and who checked it. Read an authorized sample using a working copy, keeping the preserved material intact. When a sample is missing, document the gap, remaining copies and recovery options promptly for counsel.
Keep the federal rule in view
Federal Civil Rule 37(e) addresses electronically stored information that should have been preserved for anticipated or ongoing litigation, was lost through a failure to take reasonable steps and cannot be restored or replaced through further discovery. The rule distinguishes measures to cure prejudice from more serious measures that require intent to deprive. An inventory supports the factual inquiry. Counsel applies the governing forum’s rules and orders to the actual circumstances.
Worked example
Illustrative scope entry. A dispatcher approved a delivery change in a chat channel on May 9. IT confirms a hold on that channel and can read the message in a preserved copy. The linked dispatch sheet belongs to a different workspace. The log records the sheet as pending, names its administrator and sets a same-day check of revision history. The channel can be marked verified while the linked sheet stays open.
Primary sources
Related work at Agentic Attorney
This guide is part of the shared Agentic Attorney resource collection. Agentic Attorney describes its AI consulting and implementation work for legal teams. Explore Agentic Attorney’s approach to AI implementation.