Saving paper records may be more expensive than you think
A paper record storage vendor argued that for the average cost of imaging a carton of inactive documents, you could store that same carton with a records management company for roughly 40 years.
October 17, 2011 at 05:00 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A paper record storage vendor argued that for the average cost of imaging a carton of inactive documents, you could store that same carton with a records management company for roughly 40 years.
I think this is misleading. Although actual storage fees are often low, they may comprise a very small portion of the total costs. Storing paper records with offsite records management storage vendors looks inexpensive, but companies are increasingly finding otherwise.
Let's look at an example taken from a quotation one of our clients asked us to review from a storage vendor. Most paper record storage is charged per cubic foot. A standard legal or letter carton is 1.2 cubic feet, and at a monthly storage cost of 19 cents per cubic foot each month, storing 1,000 cartons for three years would cost $8,208.
We are not done. We also need to include fees for:
- The initial move ($3,564)
- Initial move labor ($411)
- Fuel surcharges (about $200)
- Receiving and entering ($2,052)
- Monthly administrative fees ($2,260)
When it is time to get rid of the boxes, there are additional charges for destruction ($2,484) or permanent withdrawal ($3,099).
In this example, storing 1,000 boxes for three years and then disposing them would cost $8,208 for the actual storage, but a whopping $10,971 in additional fees. These prices include box level tracking and management only, and do not include any file level tracking or typical charges related to accessing these records, such as retrieval, refile, pickup, delivery and handling fees, which can add up quickly.
Probably most onerous are the withdrawal and destruction fees, sometimes referred to as “hostage fees.” We know of one case where a company had 126 boxes at an offsite storage vendor and were quoted $14,300 to have their boxes destroyed, which works out to $143.49 per 1.2 cubic foot box. Often companies give up and simply keep paying the lesser monthly storage fees.
So what is a company to do?
First, avoid storing paper in the first place. More than 70 percent of paper records are copies of documents initially created or received electronically. Paper records cost between 20 to 100 times more to store and manage than their electronic counterparts. The default storage should be electronic, with paper storage reserved for records that are created and exist exclusively on paper.
Next, evaluate imaging for those paper documents you would otherwise send to storage. Imaging does not make sense in all cases, but often it has a lower, long-term total cost, especially when the rate of retrieval is high or if there is any likelihood that some of the documents may be accessed for a discovery action.
Prices do vary considerably among vendors and these can be negotiated. When you do work with an offsite storage vendor, carefully review the contract and terms. Get competitive bids. Don't sign the first agreement your vendor sends you. Perform periodic reviews to ferret out hidden cost increases and to ensure that your monthly bill matches your agreement.
Track what you put in boxes, where these boxes are and when the records can be compliantly deleted. One company had thousands of boxes in storage, with no real idea what they contained, and was therefore afraid to get rid of any of them. Don't get caught in this trap.
Finally, consider a paper remediation project. In our analyses of organizations' offsite paper stores, we often find companies are saving and paying for many more boxes of paper than required. Put a project together to retrieve and defensibly delete older paper. Don't get buried under a mountain of paper.
A paper record storage vendor argued that for the average cost of imaging a carton of inactive documents, you could store that same carton with a records management company for roughly 40 years.
I think this is misleading. Although actual storage fees are often low, they may comprise a very small portion of the total costs. Storing paper records with offsite records management storage vendors looks inexpensive, but companies are increasingly finding otherwise.
Let's look at an example taken from a quotation one of our clients asked us to review from a storage vendor. Most paper record storage is charged per cubic foot. A standard legal or letter carton is 1.2 cubic feet, and at a monthly storage cost of 19 cents per cubic foot each month, storing 1,000 cartons for three years would cost $8,208.
We are not done. We also need to include fees for:
- The initial move ($3,564)
- Initial move labor ($411)
- Fuel surcharges (about $200)
- Receiving and entering ($2,052)
- Monthly administrative fees ($2,260)
When it is time to get rid of the boxes, there are additional charges for destruction ($2,484) or permanent withdrawal ($3,099).
In this example, storing 1,000 boxes for three years and then disposing them would cost $8,208 for the actual storage, but a whopping $10,971 in additional fees. These prices include box level tracking and management only, and do not include any file level tracking or typical charges related to accessing these records, such as retrieval, refile, pickup, delivery and handling fees, which can add up quickly.
Probably most onerous are the withdrawal and destruction fees, sometimes referred to as “hostage fees.” We know of one case where a company had 126 boxes at an offsite storage vendor and were quoted $14,300 to have their boxes destroyed, which works out to $143.49 per 1.2 cubic foot box. Often companies give up and simply keep paying the lesser monthly storage fees.
So what is a company to do?
First, avoid storing paper in the first place. More than 70 percent of paper records are copies of documents initially created or received electronically. Paper records cost between 20 to 100 times more to store and manage than their electronic counterparts. The default storage should be electronic, with paper storage reserved for records that are created and exist exclusively on paper.
Next, evaluate imaging for those paper documents you would otherwise send to storage. Imaging does not make sense in all cases, but often it has a lower, long-term total cost, especially when the rate of retrieval is high or if there is any likelihood that some of the documents may be accessed for a discovery action.
Prices do vary considerably among vendors and these can be negotiated. When you do work with an offsite storage vendor, carefully review the contract and terms. Get competitive bids. Don't sign the first agreement your vendor sends you. Perform periodic reviews to ferret out hidden cost increases and to ensure that your monthly bill matches your agreement.
Track what you put in boxes, where these boxes are and when the records can be compliantly deleted. One company had thousands of boxes in storage, with no real idea what they contained, and was therefore afraid to get rid of any of them. Don't get caught in this trap.
Finally, consider a paper remediation project. In our analyses of organizations' offsite paper stores, we often find companies are saving and paying for many more boxes of paper than required. Put a project together to retrieve and defensibly delete older paper. Don't get buried under a mountain of paper.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250