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
© 2024 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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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