This issue’s questions:

1. How long should e-mail records be kept? 
2. Should all e-mails be kept for the same amount of time? 
3. What if we get a request for all e-mails sent and received by an employee?

How long should e-mail records be kept?
It depends on the content of the e-mail message. In terms of records retention, e-mail records are no different than any other record that is kept by your office. Most offices will have a different records retention schedule for a memo about handling customer complaints than for a daily news clipping file, even though both are records. The most important thing to remember is that each record, whether on paper or as e-mail, should be evaluated for and identified by its content and not the medium in which it exists. In most offices, employees are just as likely to send or receive e-mail messages concerning break room clean-up as for annual budget projections. Your records retention schedules should not treat both of those records identically. It may help to picture each e-mail message as a paper record rather than an electronic record when evaluating what category of record it falls under.

Should all e-mails be kept for the same amount of time?
No. Just like messages written on paper, all e-mail messages will not be kept for the same amount of time because they will differ greatly in terms of subject matter. As noted in answer (1), each e-mail has to be identified and managed based on its content.

For example, if you received a piece of paper on your desk noting that a meeting will be held at 3 p.m., you could probably discard that paper after the meeting has passed (as long as you have a properly enacted transient¹ records schedule). On the other hand, if you received a paper report on your desk updating all of the office’s current projects, it will probably have to be retained for a much longer period of time because of its content (again, the retention period will be determined by your records retention schedules).

The same is true for e-mail messages. If you receive a simple e-mail reminding you of a meeting, it can probably be quickly discarded as “transient.”  If an e-mail is a notice to staff of a new policy, or serves as the record copy of an order to promote or dismiss an employee, or gives directions regarding an office project or legal case, it would be kept for the period applicable to each type of record.

Always remember, it is the content of a record that determines which records retention schedule applies, and how long it is to be kept.

What if we get a request for all e-mails sent and received by an employee?

A request for “all e-mail” is generally overly broad under the Public Records Act.  The Ohio Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Glasgow v. Jones² reemphasized that the Public Records Act “does not contemplate that an individual has the right to a complete duplication of voluminous files kept by government agencies.” Rather, the requestor must identify the records sought with sufficient clarity.

If a request for “all e-mails” includes sufficient additional information about the content of those e-mails to allow the public office to identify responsive records based on the manner in which its records are organized, the request is not overly broad. However, if the request is ambiguous or lacks enough detail for the office to identify which records are being sought, it may well be overly broad. In that instance, the public office is obligated by law to give the requestor an opportunity to revise the request by explaining how the various records of the office are ordinarily maintained and accessed.³  A set of well-crafted records retention schedules (classified by type of record rather than medium of record) provides that explanation, putting the office and the requestor, literally and figuratively, on the same page.
 

---

¹ A transient records schedule is one that covers telephone messages, drafts and other limited documents which serve to convey information of temporary importance in lieu of oral communication. Those documents are usually kept until no longer of administrative value, then destroyed.
² 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008 Ohio 4788.
³ R.C. 149.43(B)(2)