Runbook: written for the person woken at three in the morning
A runbook that assumes context has none when it is needed. The reader is tired, unfamiliar with the system, and under time pressure — write for that reader.
The notice is evidence of your process. Sent once, unacknowledged and never repeated, it evidences a process that did not work.
A litigation hold notice is the communication that tells specific people to preserve information relating to a matter. It is the operative document of a legal hold: the duty exists whether or not a notice is sent, but the notice is how the organisation discharges it and, later, how it demonstrates that it did.
That evidential role determines how it should be written. It is read twice — once by a custodian who wants to know what to do, and once, possibly years later, by somebody assessing whether the organisation acted reasonably. Those two readers want different things, and a notice that serves only the first tends to fail the second.
A notice sent to a distribution list, unacknowledged, proves that an email was sent. A notice acknowledged by each named custodian proves that each of them received and understood it. Track the acknowledgements, chase the ones outstanding, and record what you did about people who never responded — that record is what turns a gap into a documented follow-up rather than an unexplained silence.
Reissue periodically. Matters run for years, people join and leave the relevant teams, and a notice sent once at the start has decayed by the time discovery begins. A short reminder at intervals, with a fresh acknowledgement, is far easier to defend than a single notice from three years ago.
Custodians are usually not legal staff, and a notice written in the register of a court filing gets skimmed. Say what the matter is about in ordinary words, say precisely what to keep, and say what to stop doing. Where a system deletes automatically, tell them it is being handled centrally rather than leaving them to worry about something they cannot control. Clarity is not just courtesy — a custodian who misunderstands the scope preserves the wrong things.
What matters afterwards is the whole set: the notice as issued, the custodian list as at each issue, the acknowledgements, the reminders and the release. Ettex Docs holds the notice with version history so each reissue is traceable, Ettex Records keeps the acknowledgements and custodian lists per matter, and the wider obligation it implements sits alongside the records retention schedule it suspends.
Plainly: this is documents and records, not legal advice or an eDiscovery product. The content and scope of a notice are matters for counsel; what this covers is issuing it in a way that can be shown to have worked.
The communication instructing named custodians to preserve information relevant to a matter, and the primary evidence that the organisation discharged its preservation duty.
They should. Acknowledgement is what distinguishes a notice that was sent from one that was received and understood.
Periodically for the life of the matter, with fresh acknowledgements, since teams change and a single notice decays.
Enough for custodians to identify what is covered, in plain language, without necessarily disclosing details of the dispute.
A runbook that assumes context has none when it is needed. The reader is tired, unfamiliar with the system, and under time pressure — write for that reader.
The obligation reaches most software companies through customer contracts rather than through regulation — which means the requirement is whatever the contract says.
Approving a change is the easy part. The ECO has to say from when it applies and what to do with the parts already in the building.