Last updated:

Exhibit bundle (stukkenbundel), index and numbering

A paper exhibit gets a stamp, and everyone knows what exhibit 42 is. You cannot stamp a .msg, an .xlsx or a video without changing the file, and that is not allowed: the hash in your report has to stay correct.

The number in the file name

Put a sequence number at the front of the file name and leave the original name behind it:

001 - Quotation revision 3.pdf
002 - RE_ planning week 12.msg
003 - Delivery overview.xlsx

The file name is not part of the content, so the hash stays the same.

  • Put the number first. Every program sorts by name, so the order is the numbering straight away.
  • Use leading zeros. Otherwise exhibit 10 comes after exhibit 1. Three digits are enough up to a thousand exhibits.
  • Start again at one in every folder. If you number continuously across all folders, everything shifts as soon as one exhibit is added to the first folder.

An exhibit is then called, for example, exhibit 03/175: exhibit 175 from folder 03. A lawyer can cite that in their submissions.

Always rename a working copy, never the preserved collection. In PowerShell:

$i = 1
Get-ChildItem -File | Sort-Object Name | ForEach-Object {
    Rename-Item $_.FullName ("{0:D3} - {1}" -f $i, $_.Name)
    $i++
}

Only number once the selection is final. Otherwise you get gaps in the series, or you have to renumber exhibits that have already been referred to.

Two numbers with email

An e-discovery platform gives every document its own control number. Keep it. You use your own exhibit number in the submissions. The control number traces each exhibit back to the culling: which search term produced it, from which batch and from which person it came.

Put the control number in a column of the index. With email it can also go in the file name:

007 - [DOC-0004182] RE_ planning week 12.msg

Folders by origin

Use numbered main folders, one per origin:

01 - Filtered files shared server
02 - Processed tables and charts
03 - Filtered emails
04 - Annexes to the report

Divide by origin, not by subject. Whoever asks where an exhibit comes from then sees it in the path. Do not make subfolders unless you really have to: otherwise it is no longer clear whether the numbering runs per main folder or per subfolder.

An index that adds up

The index gives, per folder, the number of exhibits, with the total at the bottom. Count again on the medium itself, not in your report, and do it before you send:

Get-ChildItem -Recurse -File | Group-Object { $_.Directory.Name } |
    Select-Object Count, Name | Sort-Object Name
(Get-ChildItem -Recurse -File).Count

Make the manifest with the hashes only after the renaming. A manifest with paths that no longer exist is worse than no manifest.

Annexes to the report

Refer to each annex in the sentence it supports, not only in a list at the back. Put the annex number as a watermark on every page of the annex, not only the first. Bundles get printed and scanned again, and a loose sheet without a number then belongs nowhere.

Deliver two versions:

  • one merged PDF with the report and all annexes, paginated continuously, for reading;
  • the loose files in the folders above, for quoting from and to have the original files.

You need both. An .xlsx in PDF shows the values but not the formulas, and a .msg in PDF loses its headers.

Making the merged PDF

A merged bundle is also handy while you work. All exhibits and sources open in one go, in any PDF reader: Acrobat, or simply Chrome or Edge. With loose PDFs that you have to click open each time, the examination gets harder and you lose time.

Putting report and annexes one after another is simple. Continuous page numbers, a table of contents that jumps to the right page and a number on every page are a lot of work. I first did the stamping and numbering with iLovePDF, and that was deadly: if another exhibit comes in between later, you start again. With software made for a bundle of exhibits, the numbering shifts along. I wanted a user-friendly tool that works visually, and in the end I made it myself.

Own product. I made CourtMerge myself and I sell it. I do not pass on licences for my own software to parties, and in an assignment I choose the tool the file calls for. The alternatives are below.

CourtMerge. You choose a folder of PDFs and fill in, per exhibit, the party, the number, the description and the page range. The result is one PDF with a clickable table of contents, bookmarks per party, and on every page a label such as CLAIMANT · exhibit 3 · p. 2/7. You can make one bundle or a separate one per party. The compression is adjustable (resolution, JPEG quality, greyscale), handy for scanned exhibits. Settings and list are saved as a project, so after a correction you make the bundle again without retyping everything. Everything happens locally, without cloud or network traffic. Windows, portable, no installation or administrator rights. €149 one-off, excluding VAT. courtmerge.ronagold.be

CourtMerge works only with PDFs. Renaming and numbering the loose exhibits, the control number, the index and the manifest you still do yourself or with a script.

Alternatives:

  • Adobe Acrobat. Merging, Bates numbering and watermarks are in it, and you probably have it already. For a few dozen exhibits that is enough. It gets cumbersome when you have to keep page ranges per exhibit and redo everything for a new annex.
  • iLovePDF. Merging, stamping and numbering online, one operation at a time. With every change in the order you redo everything. And you upload sensitive PDFs to the cloud without knowing which server they end up on. That is dangerous.
  • Bundling software such as Bundledocs, Opus 2 or TrialView. I have not used them myself. They are aimed at law firms that work with them daily, with subscription prices to match. For British or international arbitration they are probably the better choice.
  • Scripts with pdftk, qpdf or PowerShell. Free and fully verifiable: you can attach the script to the report. You do have to maintain it yourself, and a table of contents with working links is not something you write in an evening.
  • The export of the e-discovery platform. GoldFynch, Purview and most other platforms can export numbered, with a load file. That connects to the culling, but you are tied to their numbering, and it is not made for a Belgian stukkenbundel.

CourtMerge is at the top because it is built for those Belgian habits: numbering per party, stuk n and a label on every page. If you work with other conventions, one of the alternatives fits better.