1. Technical Field
The invention relates to systems for the disposition of data. More specifically, the invention relates to a method and apparatus for handling edge-cases of event-driven disposition.
2. Description of the Related Art
Business organizations retain electronic documents, records and other data in storage for extended periods of time for a number of reasons including easy access, internal policy, and regulation compliance, among other various reasons. For instance, government regulation may require an organization to retain certain securities information for a given duration for SEC compliance. Likewise, some organizations retain electronic records of documents for audit and/or litigation purposes.
Some known data storage systems involve storing data with an associated retention mark. The retention mark indicates a time period for the retention of the data and when the time period lapse, the data is typically disposed of automatically. Currently, a system administrator must manually manipulate the retention for a given datum when the retention is triggered by an external event. Organizations managing a large amount of stored data incur time-consuming and costly expenses in performing the updating and data disposition manually.
Furthermore, an error in data disposition may result in dire consequences. For instance, in cases where data was not disposed of, too much data has been disposed of, or wrong data has been disposed of, an organization may incur unwanted legal and business consequences. Therefore, there is a need in eliminating human factor from data disposition as much as possible.
There is no uniform view on how to manage disposition of data. This needs to be changed to get under control growing storage and legal costs associated with storing unnecessary information.
Different types of data is associated with different retention schedules, i.e. rules describing how long the information should be preserved in a certain data source, what is the event that triggers measuring of the disposition period, and what should be done with the information when the disposition period is due.
The methods of automatic event driven disposition described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/164,468, filed on Jun. 30, 2008, published as United States Patent Publication No. 2009/0328070 and the methods of handling files on hold described in aU.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/164,524, filed on Jun. 30, 2008, published as United States Patent Publication No. 2009/0326969, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,792,945 address the functionality of an Information Lifecycle Management System that automatically disposes of the documents in multiple data sources that may be a subject for a legal hold. However, they do not provide expected results when it comes to:
It would be advantageous to provide a method and apparatus for handling edge-cases of event-driven disposition.
An embodiment of the invention provides a method and apparatus for handling edge-cases of event-driven disposition. In an embodiment, a method and apparatus for managing retention of data and for enforcing data holds, comprises at least one event consumer data source containing data that is subject to a retention schedule that defines rules for the disposition of the data. An enterprise retention management (ERM) application is provided to which the at least one event consumer is coupled. Means are provided for accepting at least one hold request in the ERM. The hold request defines at least a portion of the data that must be held from disposition, thus forming held data. Means are also provided for accepting a disposition request in the ERM. The disposition request comprises an instruction to dispose of at least a portion of the data based on the rules within the retention schedule. Means are further provided for filtering the disposition request, thus forming a filtered request comprising an instruction to dispose of a portion of data comprising the portion of data identified in the disposition request minus the held data. The held data comprises disposition survivor data. Means are also provided for executing the filtered request. Finally, an event-driven disposition mechanism is provided for disposing of the disposition survivor data as soon as possible after the disposition survivor data is released from hold or unlocked.
Business events are uploaded to an Enterprise Retention Management System 105 (hereinafter referred to as an “ERM”). In some embodiments of the invention, the event producer data sources 101, 102 through n push the business event to the ERM 105. In other embodiments, the business event is pulled from one of the event producer data sources 101, 102 through n into the ERM 105. In yet other embodiments, the business event is manually entered into the ERM 105. In some embodiments of the invention, a graphical user interface 175 is provided.
Also coupled to the ERM 105 are one or more event consumer data sources 198, 199 through m. A link is mapped between business events originating in the data sources 101, 102 through n and the data within the event consumers 198, 199 through m. As such, business events are able to affect the retention schedule of the data within the data sources 198, 199 through m.
The process of linking, mapping and propagating disposition request between event producers and event consumers is more fully explained in copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/164,468, filed on Jun. 30, 2008, published as United States Patent Publication No. 2009/0328070, entitled Event Driven Disposition (hereinafter referred to as the “Event Driven Disposition” disclosure), which is incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference thereto.
According to some embodiments of the invention, one or more connectors 150, 151 through p and 152, 153 through q are established for communication between the event producers 101, 102 through n and the ERM, as well as the ERM and the event consumers 198, 199 through m. The connectors 150, 151 through p and 152, 153 through q perform a number of services. Some examples of services include configuration services, polling services, filtering services, parameter resolving services, and hold services. In some embodiments of the invention, the connectors provide reminder services. Although specific examples of services are provided, it will be readily apparent to those having ordinary skill in the art that the connectors perform a wide variety of services relating to retention, storage, holding, disposing, and/or reminder services, among others.
Methods and systems for managing electronic discovery and retention-holds are described in copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/963,383, filed on Dec. 21, 2007, published as United States Patent Publication No. 2009-0165026, entitled Method and Apparatus For Electronic Data Discovery, which is incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference thereto. According to this disclosure, e-discovery collections and hold are performed through an Electronic Discovery Management Application (hereinafter referred to as an “EMA”). The EMA uses a connector coupled to a data source, which exposes a configuration service and a number of other services needed for processing collection and hold requests.
According to some embodiments of the invention, one or more of the event producer data sources 101, 102 through n transmit holds and the connectors 150, 151 through p and 152, 153 through q are capable of managing collections and holds. Documents that are on hold should not be disposed of in response to a disposition request. Therefore, the invention provides connectors that keep track of documents that are on hold and that make sure these documents are not disposed of. Additionally, there may be a situation when certain documents, which should have been disposed of were preserved because they were put on hold (in place) or locked in some other way. Therefore, the invention provides an event-driven disposition solution that disposes of these documents soon after they have been released from hold, or unlocked some other way. Furthermore, the retention schedule for a portion of data may evolve. For instance, a change in tax code may require a business to keep documents for a longer period of time for compliance. For stored taxed documents already on hold, it is important not to dispose of the documents between the time the hold is withdrawn and the time required by the new regulation. Therefore, the invention manages reminders, such that the data are not prematurely disposed of in light of an evolving retention schedule.
The specific setup for managing retention schedules, holds and reminders depends largely on what type of event consumer data source is being considered. In some embodiments, a method of determining what type of data sources are coupled to the ERM is accomplished with a polling step. For example, in the Event Driven Disposition disclosure, a method of determining information about event consumer is accomplished when event consumers are polled by ERM through a configuration service exposed by event consumer connector to return the types of disposition requests they can consume as well as the type of event consumer.
Likewise, according to some embodiments of the invention, a step of polling the event consumers is used to determine what the event consumers understand about holds and collections. In some embodiments of the invention, the polling step occurs when the ERM is configured. In some embodiments, the polling step occurs after the initial ERM configuration and before a hold request is propagated. In yet other embodiments, the information about what the event consumers understand about collections and/or hold is manually configured.
Disposition Survivors
There may be a situation when certain documents, which should have been disposed of were preserved because they resided on hold (in place) or locked in some other way. It would be beneficial for an event-driven disposition solution to be able to dispose of these documents soon after they have been released from hold (or unlocked).
This problem may or may not exist in the data source/connector (hereinafter “Consumer”) depending on Consumer capabilities. Based on these capabilities, Consumers can be classified as discussed below.
Disposition Survivor-Safe
This is a Consumer that can dispose of disposition survivors without external help.
An example of this is a file system connector that is responsible for putting files on hold and stores the list of files on hold in its database. Once such a connector receives a disposition request, it tries to delete all the files matching the request criteria unless they are recorded as being on hold in the connector's database. If a file on hold is identified during the disposition request, the connector persists a current disposition request, or it does not delete the request if it has been persisted, into its own persistence layer (database) and periodically tries to re-execute this request until there are no files matching the request criteria that remain on hold. After that the request is deleted from the database.
A disposition survivor-safe connector can also be implemented on top of a data source that prevents the connector from deleting a document, even if the connector does not know that the document is on hold. For example, an event consumer connector on top of a Documentum™ record management repository tries to delete a document from the repository and fails when the document has been put on hold by a Retention Policy Services module of Documentum™. Once this has happened, the connector persists the current disposition request into its own database and periodically tries to re-execute this request until there are no files matching the request criteria that remain on hold. After that, the request is deleted from the database. This algorithm is a modification of the previous one, except that instead of consulting its own database, the connector consults the underlying data source's hold module to check which documents are on hold.
Disposition Survivor-Unsafe
In other scenarios, the Consumer cannot dispose of disposition survivors. We call such Consumer's disposition survivor-unsafe.
Note that in copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/164,468, filed on Jun. 30, 2008, published as United States Patent Publication No. 2009/0328070, we also classified Consumers into retention-capable, i.e. those who can enforce retention schedules for themselves and require only the knowledge of a disposition triggering event; and simple, i.e. those who cannot enforce retention schedules and require immediate disposition requests to be dispatched to them at the time of disposition. These two classifications are orthogonal to each other, although in real life retention-capable Consumers are likely to be disposition survivor-safe, and simple Consumers are likely to be disposition survivor-unsafe.
Sending Disposition Reminders
Disposition Survivor-Unsafe Consumers
In a response to the reminder, the Consumer re-executes the disposition attempt, and disposes of disposition survivors that were released from hold since the initial disposition request or the previous disposition reminder.
The logic should be informed whether a Consumer is disposition survivor-safe or unsafe. This can be achieved through a response to a configuration service request. In addition to the information returned in a configuration service response described in copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/164,468, filed on Jun. 30, 2008, published as United States Patent Publication No. 2009/0328070, and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/164,524, filed on Jun. 30, 2008, published as United States Patent Publication No. 2009/03266969, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,792,945, the configuration service response may contain any or all of the following parameters:
The ERM can overwrite the default values coming from configuration service, as well as to reset default values.
Although the existence of a configuration service is highly desirable, the same information can be also received by logic through a user interface and configuration files.
For simple Consumers, reminders are sent periodically after the initial disposition request has been issued.
For retention-capable Consumers, the ERM starts sending the reminders after the estimated time of first disposition attempt. The ERM sends a scheduled disposition request immediately after it receives an event. Therefore, it does not control the actual disposition process on the Consumer side.
Retention-capable consumers can initiate the first disposition attempt. But disposition survivor-unsafe Consumers cannot initiate additional attempts. Therefore, they must be reminded to do that by the ERM.
To send a reminder, the ERM calculates the time when the Consumer should have started the initial disposition attempt if it acts according to the retention schedule. Then, the ERM waits for a reminder frequency period and issues a reminder.
Such a consumer is very unlikely ever to exist because, if it is aware of a retention schedule and can perform an initial disposition attempt, most likely it is able to perform subsequent attempts. Or it would be easier to implement such connector as a simple connector.
A disposition reminder request can have the same format as an immediate disposition request. In particular, it may contain all the information necessary to perform the disposition attempt so the Consumer does not need to remember disposition criteria between attempts.
Handling Changing Triggering Event Types in Retention Schedules
If the event type changed in a retention schedule, the ERM:
As described in copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/164,468, filed on Jun. 30, 2008, published as United States Patent Publication No. 2009/0328070, simple Consumers are those who cannot enforce retention schedules and who require immediate disposition requests to be dispatched to them at the time of disposition. Copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/164,468, filed on Jun. 30, 2008published as United States Patent Publication No. 2009/0328070, suggests that the ERM calculate the disposition time for such a consumer and send an immediate disposition request to the Consumer at the time when disposition should be executed.
There may be a situation when a retention period in a retention schedule associated with the route pointing to a simple event consumer has been changed after the event entered the ERM, but before the disposition request has been sent to the Consumer.
In this situation, the ERM should:
To achieve this, the ERM does not try to calculate the disposition dates for simple consumers upfront. Instead, it periodically checks whether the event is ready to be forwarded to the event consumer by comparing the current date time with the date time calculated based on event occurrence date and retention rules. This allows the ERM to change retention rules with ease, without the need to recalculate anything in event tables.
Alternatively, the ERM may calculate the disposition time upfront, but recalculate it each time retention schedule has changed for disposition transaction that refer to this retention schedule.
Handling Changing Disposition Periods in Retention Schedules after Immediate Disposition Request has been Sent to a Simple Consumer
Simple Disposition Survivor-Unsafe Consumer
There may be a situation when the underlying retention schedule changed between the initial disposition request call and a disposition reminder request. It may result in the outcome for a disposition survivor-unsafe consumer that a disposition time has come and the ERM already sent a disposition request. As a result, the connector performed one or multiple attempts to delete the documents. But there are still some documents on hold. So the connector is waiting for disposition reminders to perform more attempts.
In this case, if the new disposition time is in future, the ERM refrains from sending reminders until the new disposition time comes. If the new disposition time is in the past, the ERM continues sending reminders.
Simple Disposition Survivor-Safe Consumer
As opposed to the previous scenario, a disposition survivor-safe Consumer has a built-in mechanism that identifies disposition survivors periodically or on event-driven basis, and that tries to dispose of them without any interaction with the ERM. It is essential to suspend this mechanism for a while when the disposition time shifts to the future. To achieve this, in a response to a configuration service request, a disposition survivor-safe Consumer specifies the maximum disposition transaction lifespan, which is the maximum period after which the Consumer stops the attempts to dispose of remaining disposition survivors. If this period is not specified, it can be treated by the ERM as infinity, or the ERM may impose its own maximum disposition transaction lifespan for the Consumer.
Once a retention time in the retention schedule is changed, and the new time happens to be in future, the ERM identifies all the disposition transactions where disposition survivor-safe Consumers are involved and for which maximum disposition transaction lifespan is in future and an immediate disposition request has already been sent. For example, if on Mar. 2, 2007 the schedule is changed, transaction 123 started on Jan. 1, 2007, and its maximum disposition transaction lifespan is two years, and an immediate disposition request has been sent on Feb. 1, 2007, such a transaction is selected.
Consumers involved in such transactions receive stop disposition message from the ERM, which contains identifiers of disposition transactions that must be stopped. When the new disposition time is due for each of these transactions, the ERM re-issues an immediate disposition request.
Once a retention time in the retention schedule is changed, and the new time happens to be in past, the ERM identifies all the disposition transactions affected by this retention schedule. If no immediate disposition request has been issued within this transaction yet, the ERM issues such a request. Otherwise, it does nothing.
Handling Changing Disposition Periods in Retention Schedules after Immediate Disposition Request has been Sent to a Retention-Capable Consumer
As opposed to simple Consumers, retention-capable Consumers receive scheduled disposition requests immediately after the event is registered by the EMA. As a result, it is highly unlikely (and can be made impossible) that the retention period has been changed after the event is received by ERM but before it has been propagated to Consumer.
Retention-Capable Disposition Survivor-Safe Consumer
This Consumer can store and understand retention schedules and manage the disposition of disposition survivors. When the retention period changes, the ERM propagates the new retention schedule to such a Consumer as fast as possible if the Consumer involved in any disposition transaction whose start time plus maximum disposition transaction lifespan is in the future; and the consumer is expected to act accordingly.
Retention-Capable Disposition Survivor-Unsafe Consumer
When retention period has changed and the Consumer involved in any disposition transaction whose start time plus maximum disposition transaction lifespan is in the future, the ERM:
Routes can be established after the ERM receives events from event producers, presumably because other routes used the same Producers. The ERM can either propagate only the events that entered the ERM after the route has been established, or it can also propagate old events to the newly established route. This behavior can also be dynamically configured on the application level and applies all the routes created afterwards. Or, it can be decided during the route setup by offering the user to propagate old events and even allowing him to choose particular events that must be propagated.
Although the invention is described herein with reference to the preferred embodiment, one skilled in the art will readily appreciate that other applications may be substituted for those set forth herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. Accordingly, the invention should only be limited by the Claims included below.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5313609 | Baylor et al. | May 1994 | A |
5355497 | Cohen-Levy | Oct 1994 | A |
5608865 | Midgely et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5701472 | Koerber et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5903879 | Mitchell | May 1999 | A |
5963964 | Nielsen | Oct 1999 | A |
6049812 | Bertram et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6115642 | Brown et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6128620 | Pissanos et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6151031 | Atkins et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6173270 | Cristofich et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6330572 | Sitka | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6332125 | Callen et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6343287 | Kumar et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6401079 | Kahn et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6425764 | Lamson | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6460060 | Maddalozzo, Jr. et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6539379 | Vora et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6553365 | Summerlin et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6607389 | Genevie | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6622128 | Bedell et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6738760 | Krachman | May 2004 | B1 |
6805351 | Nelson | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6832205 | Aragones et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6839682 | Blume et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6944597 | Callen et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6966053 | Paris et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6976083 | Baskey et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6981210 | Peters et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7016919 | Cotton et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7076439 | Jaggi | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7082573 | Apparao et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7103601 | Nivelet | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7104416 | Gasco et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7107416 | Stuart et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7120914 | Manthos et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7127470 | Takeya | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7146388 | Stakutis et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7162427 | Myrick et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7197716 | Newell et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7206789 | Hurmiz et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7225249 | Barry et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7233959 | Kanellos | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7236953 | Cooper et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7240296 | Matthews et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7249315 | Moetteli | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7281084 | Todd et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7283985 | Schauerte et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7284985 | Genevie | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7292965 | Mehta et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7333989 | Sameshima et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7386468 | Calderaro et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7433832 | Bezos et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7451155 | Slackman et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7478096 | Margolus et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7496534 | Olsen et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7502891 | Shachor | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7512636 | Verma et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7558853 | Alcorn et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7580961 | Todd et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7594082 | Kilday et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7596541 | DeVries et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7614004 | Milic-Frayling et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7617458 | Wassom, Jr. et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7636886 | Wyle et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7720825 | Pelletier et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7730148 | Mace et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7742940 | Shan et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7774721 | Milic-Frayling et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7778976 | D'Souza et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7861166 | Hendricks | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7865817 | Ryan et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7895229 | Paknad | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7912804 | Talwar et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7962843 | Milic-Frayling et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
5875431 | Martin et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
8073729 | Kisin et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
20010053967 | Gordon et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020007333 | Scolnik et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010708 | McIntosh | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020022982 | Cooperstone et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020035480 | Gordon et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020083090 | Jeffrey et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020091553 | Callen et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091836 | Moetteli | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020095416 | Schwols | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103680 | Newman | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020108104 | Song et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020119433 | Callender | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120859 | Lipkin et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123902 | Lenore et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143595 | Frank et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020143735 | Ayi et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147801 | Gullotta et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020162053 | Os | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020178138 | Ender et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184068 | Krishnan et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020184148 | Kahn et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004985 | Kagimasa et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014386 | Jurado | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018520 | Rosenfeld et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018663 | Cornette et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030031991 | Genevie | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030033295 | Adler et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030036994 | Witzig et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046287 | Joe | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051144 | Williams | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030069839 | Whittington et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074354 | Lee et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030097342 | Whittingtom | May 2003 | A1 |
20030110228 | Xu et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030139827 | Phelps | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030208689 | Garza | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229522 | Thompson et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040002044 | Genevie | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040003351 | Sommerer et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040019496 | Angie et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040034659 | Steger | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039933 | Martin et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040060063 | Russ et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040068432 | Meyerkopf et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078368 | Excoffier et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088283 | Lissar et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040088332 | Lee et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040088729 | Petrovic et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040103284 | Barker | May 2004 | A1 |
20040133573 | Miloushev et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040138903 | Zuniga | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143444 | Opsitnick et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040187164 | Kandasamy et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193703 | Loewy et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040204947 | Li et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215619 | Rabold | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040216039 | Lane et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040260569 | Bell et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050060175 | Farber et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071251 | Linden et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071284 | Courson et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050074734 | Randhawa | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050114241 | Hirsch et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050144114 | Ruggieri et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149307 | Gurpinar et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050160361 | Young | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050165734 | Vicars et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050187813 | Genevie | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050203821 | Petersen et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050203931 | Pingree et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050240578 | Biederman et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050246451 | Silverman et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050283346 | Elkins et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060036464 | Cahoy et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060036649 | Simske et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060095421 | Nagai et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060136435 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143248 | Nakano et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143464 | Ananthanarayanan et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149407 | Markham et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060149735 | DeBie et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060156381 | Motoyama | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060156382 | Motoyama | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167704 | Nicholls et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060174320 | Maru et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060178917 | Merriam et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184718 | Sinclair | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195430 | Arumainayagam et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060229999 | Dodell et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060230044 | Utiger | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060235899 | Tucker | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242001 | Heathfield | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070016546 | DeVorchik et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070048720 | Billauer | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061156 | Fry et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061157 | Fry et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070078900 | Donahue | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070099162 | Sekhar | May 2007 | A1 |
20070100857 | DeGrande et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112783 | McCreight et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070118556 | Arnold et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070156418 | Richter et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070162417 | Cozianu et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070179829 | Laperi et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070179939 | O'Neil et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203810 | Grichnik | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208690 | Schneider et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070219844 | Santorine et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220435 | Sriprakash et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070245013 | Saraswathy et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070271230 | Hart et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271308 | Bentley et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271517 | Finkelman et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070282652 | Childress et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070288659 | Zakarian et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080033904 | Ghielmetti et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080034003 | Stakutis et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080059265 | Biazetti et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080059543 | Engel | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080070206 | Perilli | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080071561 | Holcombe | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080086506 | DeBie et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091283 | Balci et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080126156 | Jain et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080147642 | Leffingwell et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080148193 | Moetteli | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080148346 | Gill et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154969 | DeBie | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154970 | DeBie | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080177790 | Honwad | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195597 | Rosenfeld et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080209338 | Li | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080229037 | Bunte et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080262898 | Tonchev et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080294674 | Reztlaff et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301207 | Demarest et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080312980 | Boulineau et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080319958 | Bhattacharya et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080319984 | Proscia et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090037376 | Archer et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090043625 | Yao | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090064184 | Chacko et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090094228 | Bondurant et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090100021 | Morris et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090106815 | Brodie et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119677 | Stefansson et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090150168 | Schmidt | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090150866 | Schmidt | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090150906 | Schmidt et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090157465 | Heathfield | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090193210 | Hewett et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090241054 | Hendricks | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090249179 | Shieh et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090249446 | Jenkins et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090254572 | Redlich et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090287658 | Bennett | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100017756 | Wassom, Jr. et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100050064 | Liu et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100057418 | Li et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070315 | Lu et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100088583 | Schachter | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100250625 | Olenick et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100251109 | Jin et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110106773 | Smith et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110191344 | Jin et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2110781 | Oct 2009 | EP |
Entry |
---|
Human Capital Mangement; “mySAP . . . management”; retrieved from archive.org Aug. 18, 2009 www.sap.com. |
www.pss-systems.com; retrieved from www.Archive.org any linkage dated Dec. 8, 2005, 130 pages. |
PSS Systems, Inc., Atlas LCC for Litigation, pp. 1-2, www.pss-systems.com (Feb. 2008); PSS Systems, Inc., Map Your Data Sources, www.pss-systems.com (Feb. 200*); PSS Systems, Inc., “PSS Systems Provides Legal Hold and Retention Enforcement Automation Solutions for File Shares, Documentum, and other Data Sources.” (Feb. 2008). |
PSS Systems, Inc., Preservation Benchmarks for 2007 and Beyond, www.pss-systems.com, pp. 1-3 (2007). |
PSS Systems, Inc., “Industry Leader PSS Systems Launches Third Generation of Atlas Legal Hold and Retention Management Software”, pp. 1-2, www.pss-systems.com (Aug. 2007). |
PSS Systems, Inc. Litigation Communications and Collections, www.pss-systems.com (2006), retrieved online on Dec. 8, 2010 from archive.org, 1 page. |
Zhu, et al.; “Query Expansion Using Web Access Log Files”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005, vol. 3588/2005, pp. 686-695, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Hedelberg. |
JISC infoNet, HEI Records Management: Guidance on Developing a File Plan. Jan. 1, 2007, 7 pages. |
Cohasset Associate, Inc. “Compliance Requirements Assessment, IBM DB2 Records Manager and Record-Enabled Solutions”, Oct. 31, 2004, Chicago, IL, 54 pp. |
Lewis “Digital Mountin—Where Data Resides—Data Discovery from the Inside Out”, available at http://digitalmountain.com/fullaccess/Article3.pdf accessed Mar. 13, 2012, Digital Mountain, Inc., 2004, 5 pgs. |
Sears “E-Discovery: A Tech Tsunami Rolls In”, available at http://www.krollontrack.com/publications/ediscoverybackgroundpaper.pdf, accessed Mar. 13, 2012, National Court Reporters Association, Apr. 2006, 7 pgs. |
“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”, Microsoft Press, Fifth Edition, 2002, p. 499. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090327375 A1 | Dec 2009 | US |