Analyst Report: Osterman Research: File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?


Published on

This analyst white paper discusses best practices for archiving file-based content and offers some recommendations about how organizations should manage the increasing growth of files.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Analyst Report: Osterman Research: File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?

  1. 1. WHITE PAPER File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?ON An Osterman Research White Paper Published December 2012 SPONSORED BY sponsored SPON sponsored by Osterman Research, Inc. P.O. Box 1058 • Black Diamond, Washington • 98010-1058 • USA Tel: +1 253 630 5839 • Fax: +1 253 458 0934 • •
  2. 2. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAlthough many organizations still do not archive email, email archiving has becomean accepted best practice at the majority of mid-sized and large organizations.Because email contains the primary record of communications and collaboration formost organizations, archiving this rich source of content is essential for compliancewith regulatory obligations, legal requirements, data mining and other purposes.Interestingly, however, email is not the primary source of electronic content in mostorganizations. Instead, files – word processing documents, spreadsheets,presentations and a wide variety of user-generated content – are the most pervasivetype of content retained in the typical organization.Volume of Electronic Content in the Typical Organization by Location Email is not the primary source of electronic content in most organizations. Instead, files – word processing documents, spreadsheets, presentations and a wide variety of user-generatedSource: Osterman Research survey, October 2012 content are the most pervasive type of contentKEY TAKEAWAYS• Organizations are at serious risk if they do not archive electronic content in retained in the compliance with regulatory, legal and industry best practices. typical• In some respects, file content is more difficult to archive than email because it organization. can be created and stored in a large number of venues, both within and outside of IT’s control. The Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) phenomenon, coupled with rapid growth in the amount of file content being stored, is exacerbating the problem.• Files, as the largest single source of archivable, electronic content within most organizations should be a top priority for retention in conjunction with email.ABOUT THIS WHITE PAPERThis white paper discusses best practices for archiving file-based content and offerssome recommendations about how organizations should manage the increasinggrowth of files. This document also provides a brief overview of the sponsor of thispaper, EMC, and the company’s relevant solutions.©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 1
  3. 3. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?DRIVERS FOR ARCHIVING ELECTRONICCONTENTWhile the reasons for and benefits from archiving will be different for IT than theywill be for legal, compliance or other functions within an organization, archiving andrelated issues should be top of mind for every function that creates and/or manageselectronic content. For example, IT may not be concerned about the specific legalobligations that an organization has to preserve content, but they must preserve it.Legal may not care about the specific archiving technologies in place, but their focusmust be on the legal reasons behind content preservation. Similarly, users may notcare about the legal obligations or technologies, but they must be involved inpreserving relevant content.LEGAL CONSIDERATIONSVirtually every business will eventually become involved in a lawsuit, either as aplaintiff, a defendant or as an involved third party. According to a survey on litigationtrends by the law firm Fulbright & Jaworskii, more than four out of five US companiessurveyed are involved in litigation, while about one-half as many companies surveyedinitiated at least one lawsuit. Consequently, the likelihood of facing an eDiscoveryrequest is quite high.When litigation is reasonably anticipated, an organization has an affirmative duty An organizationunder the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) to preserve relevant evidence, such has anas emails, files, databases and other content that may be necessary to produceduring the litigation process. This duty to preserve generally commences when a affirmative dutyparty knows, or reasonably should have known, that litigation may be forthcoming. under theWhen a legal hold is necessary, it is imperative that an organization retain all relevantdata, such as all email sent from senior managers to specific individuals or clients, Federal Rules ofword processing documents that may contain corporate policy statements, and so Civil Procedureforth. (FRCP) toSignificant consequences can result from a failure to preserve possibly relevant preserve relevantevidence. Courts have discretion to impose a variety of sanctions, including fines,additional costs for third parties to review or search for data, or even criminal evidence, such ascharges. For example, a court found that Samsung, in its recent litigation with Apple, emails, files,had a duty to impose a legal hold on relevant email beginning in August 2010.However, Samsung did not disable its email system’s auto-delete capability and so databases andwas not able to produce relevant email that Apple had requested, which could have other contentresulted in an adverse inference instruction to the jury in the case. However, theCourt determined that Apple had also acted badly, and so did not provide this that may beinstruction for either party. necessary toAs another example, in the case of Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan produce duringv. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), the court the litigationawarded an adverse inference sanction because a party acted with gross negligence(as opposed to willfulness) in failing to preserve electronic documents. The court process.reasoned that ‘‘contemporary standards’’ of discovery rendered the failure to preserveand collect electronic files ‘‘grossly negligent’’ and therefore worthy of the severesanction of an adverse inference, even without proof of intentional misconduct. At aminimum, an organization that cannot produce data when required will suffer adamaged corporate reputation.Another consideration for archiving electronic content from a legal or regulatoryperspective involves senior management’s and/or legal counsel’s ability to conductmore formal early case assessments in response to concerns about employeebehavior, allegations of wrongdoing, and the like. Having all relevant electroniccontent – files, emails, instant messages, etc. – enables reviewers to investigateissues of concern quickly and easily before the litigation process begins and may savetime and money en route to the situation’s most logical business conclusion – defendor settle.©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 2
  4. 4. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?Similarly, an archiving capability for all relevant electronic content enables thedevelopment of early insight into a case on an informal basis. For example, if anorganization suspects that it might be involved in litigation at some point in thefuture, senior managers, legal counsel or even departmental managers can conduct apreliminary form of early case assessment to determine if there are issues aboutwhich to be concerned. In the absence of a robust archiving capability, conductingthis sort of analysis would be difficult, if not impossible. While many organizationshave an archiving capability that enables this sort of activity for email, fewer have thecapability to do so for files.REGULATORY COMPLIANCEElectronic records that pertain to an organization’s business activity are subject toregulatory compliance obligations, which vary widely by industry and jurisdiction.These regulations require the retention of content like financial documents, email,instant messaging and social correspondence and employee and client records. Infact, the Supreme Courts of both Arizona and Washington State have ruled that evenmetadata must be retained as part of the record of information archived.Among the most heavily regulated industries worldwide is the financial servicesindustry, particularly broker-dealers and investment advisers. In the United States,regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and theFinancial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) require members of nationalsecurities exchanges, brokers and dealers to preserve securities transaction records Consequences tofor a minimum of six years, the first two years in an easily accessible place. The newDodd-Frank regulations related commodities/swaps and hedge funds will create financial servicessimilar content management requirements. firms for failingAs but one example of the need to archive files, NASD Rule 2210(1)(b) requires that to comply withadvertisements and sales literature be filed with FINRA’s Advertising Regulation retentionDepartment – best practice dictates that this content also be archived internally, aswell. Underscoring the importance of retaining this content, the firm Hedge Fund obligations canCapital Partners, LLC and one of its registered principals were sanctioned for, among be severe andother things, failing “to retain institutional sales materials”ii. typically involveIn Canada, records of purchase and sell orders of securities must be retained for the imposition ofseven years, the first two years in an easily accessible location. In the UnitedKingdom, investment service and transaction records must be retained for a minimum significantof five years. financialConsequences to financial services firms for failing to comply with retention penalties.obligations can be severe and typically involve the imposition of significant financialpenalties. For example, FINRA imposed a $700,000 fine on brokerage firm PiperJaffray in May 2010 when the firm failed to produce 4.3 million emails sent andreceived between 2002 and 2008.Brian L. Rubin, a member of the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP and formerFINRA deputy chief counsel for enforcement, expects FINRA to maintain its attentionon brokerage firms’ content retention processes and strengthen its examinationprocess of brokerage firms that fail to follow up on glitches in their retention systems.It is important to note that while much of the attention from regulators focuses onemail and other forms of communication, files that contain business records – such asadvertising literature – are also subject to retention by regulators.Also heavily regulated is the healthcare industry. For example, under the “privacyrule” of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA),health care providers are required to protect patients’ electronic health informationfrom unauthorized users and to retain such information for six years. Noncompliancewith these HIPAA requirements could result in fines of up to $50,000 per violation, orcriminal penalties of $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison for violations based onintent or malice. Here again, files are just as important a consideration for retentionand privacy as emails and other forms of communication.©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 3
  5. 5. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?IMPROVED IT MANAGEMENTAn organization need not have billions of files to experience significant electroniccontent storage growth. Because content growth is increasing at roughly 25% peryeariii, a terabyte of content today will swell to more than three terabytes within fiveyears at this growth rate. This creates enormous problems for IT administrators whomust manage the growth and make the content accessible across the organization,often for long periods of time. Problems in managing such enormous growth ofcontent include more time devoted to storage management, longer backup windows,longer restores after a server crash, and a greater proportion of the IT budgetdevoted to storage and storage management.The rapid growth in storing and managing files has also rendered the simple tapebackup an outmoded method for meeting legal discovery and regulatory retentionrequirements and gaining access to electronic content stored in a typicalorganization’s file system. Moreover, backups are more difficult to manage becausethey require greater IT staff involvement and create long periods of server downtimein the event of a server crash or other technical problem.The costs of sifting through content stored on backup tapes can average $500 to The rapid growth$1,000 per gigabyteiv, which could amount to a six- or seven-figure cost for even in storing andsmall organizations that could generate several terabytes of such data. Reviewinginformation on backup tapes is no easy task. For example, a compressed LTO-3 tape managing filescan hold 750 gigabytes of email, or approximately 56 million printed pages of text. has also renderedGiven these inherent limitations of backup tapes, organizations today require a moresuitable solution for satisfying electronic content retention obligations. the simple tape backup anEND USER SELF SERVICEThe vast majority of IT staff members would agree that end-user requests for outmodedrecovering missing or deleted electronic content is among the least pleasant aspects method forof their work. Other than the difficulty associated with recovering such content, thetime it takes for IT staff to complete those tasks takes away from other tasks that meeting legalthey could be performing to enhance the organization’s productivity. In some cases, discovery andthe job of IT staff is made even more difficult when content is not stored in acentralized repository. During difficult economic times, IT departments are even regulatorymore overworked and have even fewer people to handle these types of requests. retentionA content archiving system that is accessible to end users can help them to recover requirements andtheir own missing content, alleviating IT from this burden and making IT staff more gaining access toproductive. electronicTHE PAINS OF eDISCOVERY FOR IT content stored inSearching and restoring electronic files from various sources (PCs, servers, and a typicalbackup tapes) can be a difficult and cumbersome process. Every time anorganization faces a lawsuit or regulatory request for information, its IT staff must go organization’sthrough multiple steps to preserve and extract electronic content. These steps include file system.initiating a litigation hold, then finding, restoring, cleansing and de-duplicatingelectronic content residing within every content source. These steps must berepeated for every file, backup tape, .PST file, etc. – for each discovery request. Thisis especially burdensome since even a relatively small organization can face one ormore e-discovery requests each month.FILES ARE A GROWING PROPORTION OF MOSTORGANIZATIONS’ CONTENTNEARLY ONE-HALF OF CONTENT IS ON FILE SERVERSAn Osterman Research survey of small, mid-sized and large organizations conductedduring October and early November 2012 found that nearly one-half of the typicalorganization’s electronic content is stored on file servers (used to store electronic©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 4
  6. 6. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?files, such as documents, videos, images, databases, etc.), while another 35% ofcontent is stored in email systems, as shown in the following figure.Distribution of Electronic Content in the Typical Organization While the majority of files in most companies are stored on IT- managed fileFILES ARE STORED IN A VARIETY OF LOCATIONS servers, manyWhile the majority of files in most companies are stored on IT-managed file servers,many files are created and stored “in the wild” – i.e., on devices and in applications files are createdthat are not always under the direct control of IT. These file-generating sources and stored “ininclude company-supplied mobile devices like smartphones and tablets, personallyowned smartphones and tablets, social media sites and the like. Moreover, a the wild” – i.e.,significant percentage of many organizations’ files reside in repositories that are on devices and indeployed and managed by individual users, such as Dropbox,, Skydrive,Google Drive, Google Docs and other cloud-based repositories. For example, an applications thatOsterman Research study of the BYOD phenomenon found that a large proportion of are not alwaysusers employ personally owned mobile devices for work-related purposes, and thatmany employees use cloud-based repositories without IT’s blessing, as shown in the under the directfollowing table and figure. control of IT.Penetration of Cloud-Based Applications by Organization SizeAs a % of Organizations Up to 99 100-999 1,000+ Tools Status of Use Employees Employees Employees Dropbox Used w/IT’s blessing 40% 21% 14% Used w/o IT’s blessing 32% 49% 44% Not used 28% 30% 42% Google Used w/IT’s blessing 24% 12% 10% Docs Used w/o IT’s blessing 19% 39% 42% Not used 57% 48% 48% YouSendIt Used w/IT’s blessing 18% 8% 4% Used w/o IT’s blessing 14% 17% 22% Not used 67% 75% 73%©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 5
  7. 7. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?Use of Personally Owned Mobile Devices for Work-Related Purposesby Organization Size (As a % of Organizations) 62% of organizations permit their users to store content – primarily files –MOST FILES ARE ONLY PARTIALLY MANAGED locally, such asAnother serious problem facing virtually every organization is that many files are only on their desktoppartially managed. For example, an Osterman Research survey conducted inNovember 2012 found that 62% of organizations permit their users to store content – or laptopprimarily files – locally, such as on their desktop or laptop computer hard disk. computer hardHowever, only 33% of these local content sources are backed up to a central location disk. However,where they are accessible to the entire organization on a long-term basis. Otherproblems in managing files include: only 33% of these• In most organizations, there is no practical means to classify files or the content local content within them, meaning that there are few clues available about the relevance or sources are importance of content without searching through each document. backed up to a• Most organizations have not implemented a cost-effective means to sift central location important files from “junk” content. where they are• Most organizations have no or little insight into the number of duplicate items in accessible to the their file repositories. entire• Once important files are identified, there is typically no efficient means of organization. tracking and controlling files moving forward.• While file servers are normally backed up for purposes of restoring their content in the event of an application or hardware failure, only about one-third of organizations actually archives their file content.In short, most organizations do not manage files properly in three critical respects:• Files are not archived so that their content is discoverable for legal, regulatory or other purposes.• Files are not classified so that decision makers can determine their relevance.• Files are not de-duplicated so that storage management can be optimized.©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 6
  8. 8. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?THE RISKS OF NOT MANAGING FILESPROPERLYTANGIBLE CONSEQUENCESeDiscovery requests pose a significant challenge to an organization because the FRCPrequires the production of all relevant electronic records, regardless of howbackdated this content might be. The completeness and availability of requestedrecords and the time required to extract them depends to a large extent on theorganization’s archival capabilities and how they manage storage.Required electronic content can be located in many different places within anorganization, including file servers, desktop machines, laptops and, increasingly, onsmartphones and tablets. The longer it takes an organization’s IT staff to extract therequired content, the longer it takes its legal counsel to access and review thecontent. With less time to get full command of the facts in a particular case, anorganization runs the risk of the court imposing sanctions on the organization formissed deadlines or production of only a portion of the information requested.Any files produced may also have limited evidentiary weight if legal counsel cannotestablish its authenticity. In fact, the litigation costs associated with eDiscovery canbe so great that as many as one in five businesses have settled a case simply to Among the moreavoid searching through and retrieving email. tangible andWITHHOLDING EVIDENCE quantifiableAmong the more tangible and quantifiable consequences of not managing filesproperly is inadvertently withholding evidence because of the inability to find all consequences ofrelevant files and other information necessary to satisfy an eDiscovery order or a not managingrequest during a regulatory audit. This can lead to a number of consequences,including fines, sanctions, reversal of jury verdicts, higher legal costs and other files properly isserious problems. inadvertentlyFour important cases to consider in the context of consequences that can occur if all withholdingrelevant electronic content is not available: evidence because• In the aforementioned case of Pension Committee of University of Montreal of the inability to Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLCv, the Court issued sanctions find all relevant against the parties that were not able to preserve their electronic content in a files and other manner that met the court’s requirements. information.• In another important case underscoring the importance of managing electronic content properly, Green v. Blitz, the Court sanctioned the defendant for a variety of failures, including their representative who did not place a legal hold on relevant data, did not coordinate his work with the defendant’s IT department, and did not perform keyword searches. These actions resulted in relevant documents not being produced. After key documents were not discovered in this case, but were discovered in another case one year later, the judge a) issued a $250,000 civil contempt sanction against Blitz, b) ordered the company to inform plaintiffs from the past two years about the sanction, and c) to include a copy of the sanction memorandum in every case in which it will be involved during the next five years.• In the case of Scentsy v. Chase et alvii, Scentsy followed a policy to delete emails after 60 days, but permitted files on desktops, laptops and shared storage systems to be retained until employees deleted them. Moreover, the company did not have a rigorous litigation hold policy in place, merely requesting that employees not delete potentially relevant content.• In the case of Orrell v. Motorcarparts of America, Inc.viii, the court ordered the forensic examination of a plaintiff’s home computer because it contained information that allegedly had been wiped from the plaintiff’s company-supplied©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 7
  9. 9. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big? laptop computer. As shown in the figure above, while only 2% of corporate content is stored on employees’ home computers, storing files outside of IT’s control can lead to serious consequences.LESS TANGIBLE CONSEQUENCESIn addition to sanctions, fines and other tangible consequences arising from theinability to produce files and other electronic content are a number of less tangibleand more difficult to quantify problems. These include loss of corporate reputationwhen word of sanctions or fines hits the press or the investor community, damage toan organization’s brand, loss of future revenue opportunities, and a general loss ofgoodwill among customers, business partners and others.A SENSIBLE APPROACH TO FILE ARCHIVINGOsterman Research recommends a four-step approach to implementing anappropriate file-archiving capability. As we recommend for email archiving, the initialsteps need to focus on the non-technical aspects of solving the problem:understanding the legal and regulatory landscape, getting advice from legal counsel,and establishing appropriate retention policies. After these steps have beencompleted, we recommend implementing a robust file-archiving capability as Ostermandiscussed below. Research1. UNDERSTAND FILE RETENTION OBLIGATIONS recommends aAll of the key stakeholders in an organization – IT decision makers, recommending four-stepinfluencers, legal counsel, and others – need to stay current on legal decisionsfocused on the organization’s electronic data retention obligations, including the types approach toof electronic records that should be retained, how long such records should be implementing anretained and so forth. While many organizations focus on email archiving, the focusreally needs to be on content archiving – email, files, audio files, video files and any appropriate file-other relevant content that might need to be produced. archivingOrganizations that face a large number of statutory obligations or that are closely capability. As wemonitored by regulators, such as broker-dealers, need to understand their regulatory recommend forretention obligations thoroughly. Financial services organizations operating in theUnited States, for example, must fully comply with SEC and FINRA requirements for email archiving,electronic data retention, supervision of content and other requirements. Energy- the initial stepsrelated companies must comply with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)requirements. Healthcare organizations must comply with HIPAA, Medicare and other need to focus onrequirements. the non-technicalThose with well-coordinated electronic content retention policies will be better aspects of solvingpositioned to weather the storms of litigation with minimal legal risk and harm. An the problem.organization without a coherent and thorough retention policy could find itself payingsignificant penalties during the eDiscovery process if it produces electronic contentlater found to have been altered, or if it destroys information it should have retained.2. MITIGATE RISK THROUGH SOUND LEGAL ADVICEThe next phase in the process of developing an organization’s electronic contentretention policies is for a cross-functional team that includes IT, legal, recordsmanagement, and compliance staff to establish electronic data retention policies andfunctions like indexing, searching, litigation holds and data immutability. IT staff, inparticular, need to establish a dialogue with legal counsel and business functionaluser representatives to determine the latter’s needs.3. IMPLEMENT RETENTION POLICIESEvery organization, regardless of their size or industry, should have as their goal theestablishment of robust and thorough electronic content retention policies. Onerelatively easy way for decision-makers to do this is to establish content retention anddeletion periods for major categories of content that will need to be retained and©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 8
  10. 10. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?managed over several years. Different types of files will be subject to different dataretention periods. For example, when records need only be retained for very shorttime periods, the need to implement and strictly enforce policies to delete thoserecords can be as important as implementing policies to retain them. Therefore,retention periods should be sufficiently granular to accommodate all possibleretention requirements.An organization should set minimum and maximum retention periods for files andother content to avoid over-retention, since preserving data too long can also berisky. To determine these periods, cross-functional teams can define specificmaximum retention periods for each category, or establish a general policy permittingthe deletion of retained data when the minimum retention period expires.After archival retention periods have been established, an organization should clearlycommunicate them to all users of electronic data and retention periods should beexecuted automatically. No matter how well informed users are about retentionperiods, organizations still run the risk of user error in compliance with retentionperiod guidelines and policies. Fortunately, file archiving solutions today are capableof automatically managing content retention periods, with little to no userinvolvement. A well-designedAs a final step, IT and legal counsel should periodically revisit retention and deletionpolicies so they reflect changing regulatory requirements, organizational rules, and classificationuser needs for archival information. system that4. DEPLOY A ROBUST FILE-ARCHIVING CAPABILITY enables users toOsterman Research recommends that any file-archiving solution should have several tag content basedkey capabilities, or at the very least, organizations should be on-track to implement on its sensitivity,these capabilities as their needs warrant: confidentiality or• Classification other parameters All files, emails and other content have varying degrees of sensitivity. Some content is highly sensitive and should never be sent outside of an organization or – or that stored on internal systems without being encrypted or access-controlled, while automatically other information contains no sensitive or confidential information of any sort. All files have a level of sensitivity that should be managed in accordance with does so based on corporate policies. corporate policies A well-designed classification system that enables users to tag content based on – can provide any its sensitivity, confidentiality or other parameters – or that automatically does so organization with based on corporate policies – can provide any organization with a number of useful benefits in addition to just improving archival capabilities: a number of useful benefits. o Accidental leaks of sensitive data can be reduced dramatically. o Users become more aware of corporate policies and their obligations to protect data for purposes of legal or regulatory compliance. o Systems designed to prevent loss of data can operate more efficiently and effectively simply because they have more information to use in classifying files. However, because of the large volume of content that most organizations manage, it is important to use a tagging system that can auto-categorize content in conjunction with users/record handlers tagging content manually.• Tracking It is also essential to be able to track files across their entire lifecycle in terms of who has access to them, where they are sent, where they are stored, how they are modified and the like. Tracking content is important on a number of levels,©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 9
  11. 11. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big? not least of which is the ability to demonstrate how files were changed when presented for purposes of eDiscovery or regulatory compliance.• Control The ability to control file content is also an essential element of any file archiving solution. Both workflow processes and technologies should enable files to be held in place for purposes of legal holds, and/or should enable these files to be moved to a centralized archive for further processing or review.• Disposition Finally, a proper file archiving strategy should include the ability to dispose of superfluous content in order to preserve only what is needed for long term retention. Miscellaneous files, such as temporary drafts, memos that do not contain business records, business records that have reached their retention period and the like should be disposed of in a pre-determined manner. Although the immediate benefit of having the ability to dispose of unneeded content is reduced storage, eliminating older content can also mitigate risk by deleting content that may prove harmful to the organization, and it reduces costs by eliminating content that needs to be searched during future eDiscovery activities or regulatory audits.• Minimize user involvement File creators and users are constantly under pressure to respond to the business demands placed on them. Regardless of how well educated users are about content retention policies, they are prone to error when manually deciding to keep or delete every file with which they interact. That is why an organization should invest in a file archiving solution that automatically manages its content retention policies. The primary benefit of such a capability is that it requires little or no user involvement, thereby increasing end-user productivity and minimizing the opportunity for mistakes and violations of corporate policy.• Tamper-proofing files A file archiving solution must secure stored electronic data with safeguards, such as Write-Once Read Many (WORM) storage and, where required by law or dictated by best practice, encrypting content. It must also be tamper-proof and capable of protecting electronic records from loss, damage or misuse. As noted above, if content from the archive is accessed, the system will ideally provide an audit trail that tracks who accessed the content and when it was accessed.SPONSOR OF THIS WHITE PAPEREMC is the market leader in backup, recovery, and archive transformation helping ourcustomers address their most pressing challenges -- relentless data growth,constrained budgets, compliance, and discovery. We do this through backup andarchiving solutions that help organizations insure recoverability and accessibility of !data, improve resource efficiency, and increase the agility of their backup and archiveinfrastructure. Unlike any of other vendor, EMC offers application solutions to www.emc.comaddress the unique requirements of backup and archiving while enabling our to leverage a consolidated IT infrastructure for their backup and archiveworkloads. +1 866 438 3622 !EMC SourceOne is a highly scalable archiving software platform enablingorganizations to manage the lifecycle of corporate information, inclusive of all contenttypes, according to consistent policies based on the content’s business value. EMCSourceOne solutions are designed to scale to meet large enterprise needs, yet offer asimple footprint for mid-sized customers.Our holistic but modular approach also provides organizations of all sizes a startanywhere - go anywhere solution to address their most pressing archiving anddiscovery challenges – delivering immediate business benefit – and then expanding©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 10
  12. 12. File Archiving: The Next Big Thing or Just Big?over time. EMC makes archiving and discovery actionable by enabling proactive,consistent and repeatable management of retention and disposition policies, and asappropriate, long-term preservation based on the value of the content.Additional information about EMC can be found at www.EMC.comarchiving© 2012 Osterman Research, Inc. All rights reserved.No part of this document may be reproduced in any form by any means, nor may it bedistributed without the permission of Osterman Research, Inc., nor may it be resold ordistributed by any entity other than Osterman Research, Inc., without prior written authorizationof Osterman Research, Inc.Osterman Research, Inc. does not provide legal advice. Nothing in this document constituteslegal advice, nor shall this document or any software product or other offering referenced hereinserve as a substitute for the reader’s compliance with any laws (including but not limited to anyact, statue, regulation, rule, directive, administrative order, executive order, etc. (collectively,“Laws”)) referenced in this document. If necessary, the reader should consult with competentlegal counsel regarding any Laws referenced herein. Osterman Research, Inc. makes norepresentation or warranty regarding the completeness or accuracy of the information containedin this document.THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. ALL EXPRESS ORIMPLIED REPRESENTATIONS, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIEDWARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AREDISCLAIMED, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DISCLAIMERS ARE DETERMINED TO BEILLEGAL.CITATIONSi Source: Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions, Reported for July 2012iii Source: Osterman Research surveysiv to-avoid-death-by-backup/224400402v 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010)vi 2012 WL 4523112 (10/12/12 D. Idaho)viii 2007 WL 4287750 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2007)©2012 Osterman Research, Inc. 11