Keeping Up With the Evolution of Bates Numbering For eDiscovery

Bates numbering is a well-established method of adding unique identification numbers to the pages of produced documents as stamps to help reference them. However, as discovery has moved into the digital sphere, the process has evolved to integrate better with technology. As a legal professional, you need to make sure that your eDiscovery software is equipped to handle these changing processes.

Referring to specific pages in eDiscovery productions is a simple task with Bates numbers.

The simple yet effective system of numbering has been in use since the late 1800s when it was invented by Edwin G Bates, along with a ‘numbering machine’ that could be used to apply the numbers as stamps onto documents. Law firms and courts rapidly adopted the system, the original version of which had numbers ranging from 0000 to 9999. Since then, the process has evolved - for example, we now use ranges of alphanumeric characters instead of a simple four-digit sequence - but its core principle remains unchanged.

Bates numbering handily solves the challenge of identifying specific pages in cases that contain multiple productions.

For example, if you have a production that contains 20,000 pages with content that includes scanned images, documents, graphs, tables, and so on, you will need a way to reference individual pages when you discuss them with your colleagues and collaborators. If you were dealing with a single production, regular page numbers could handle it, with ascending numbering continuing across multiple documents. But when you work with multiple productions, you will end up having the same instances of a page number turning up across many of the productions. However, with Bates numbering, a different alphanumeric series is given to every production, meaning that every page across each of the productions will be given a unique number to identify and refer to it by. You can easily refer to the 15th page (found in the 3rd document) in the 2nd production by sharing its Bates number. The numbering convention used may vary from firm to firm and sometimes from case to case, but in general, the kind of Bates systems that are employed nowadays are flexible and robust enough to manage enormous cases with millions of pages. A firm may, for example, use the formatting: FirmName_ProductionNumber-FirmName_PageNumber. An example of a specific page at a firm “LawFirm” may be LawFirm_0005-LawFirm_0003250

Unfortunately, there are a couple of shortcomings with Bates numbering.

There are inevitable disadvantages to trying to use an analog system that was designed for physical documents in a digital realm. Bates stamping was intended to be on printed pages that could be physically passed over to opposing counsel. However, in the case of eDiscovery, there are other things to take into account, like “native” files that can undermine the idea of a static page number. To illustrate this, consider opening a Word document written using a non-default font that is later opened on a computer with a newly-installed version of Word. The software’s default format and font will be applied to the document, which could potentially alter the amount of content on a page and hence the number of pages in the file. Another example is spreadsheets like Excel files that are not formatted like standard documents, where a single “sheet” may not fit on an individual page, and the pages may not be in a specific order. These kinds of files will need to be converted into an image format (e.g. TIFF) before stamping the converted images. This is not an uncommon practice for attorneys. However, it can be tedious, taking both time and money.

Does a digital solution exist that addresses these problems? “Hashing” is one such example.

As all eDiscovery files are digital, they are, at their core, made up of sequences of numbers - specifically, zeroes and ones. And these numbers can be compared against each other. “Hashing” is a technique of using a digital algorithm to convert the numbers that make up a file to generate a “hash value” for it that is incredibly specific. These values can be calculated extremely quickly, and they are so accurate in representing a file’s data that changing a single character in the file would change the file’s hash value. Owing to this, they can be considered to be the file’s “digital fingerprint” that can be compared against the hash values of other files. If you want to make sure that you’re looking at the same file as someone else, you just need to compare the hash values of the files - if they are an identical match, you’ve got the right file. And hashing works with any sort of digital data - from a string of text to whole files, groups of files, or even a whole hard disk. For example, the phrase “Building cost-effective, hassle-free eDiscovery” has a hash value of 6568ebeb313cd29b53016d6816468e40.?

But hash values can’t solve some of the unique challenges that Bates numbering does.

Hashing is ideal for identifying duplicates, looking for specific files, and determining whether a file has been altered or tampered with. But unfortunately, it is not as suitable for referring to individual pages in a production during a trial or deposition. Where Bates numbering provides ordered, permanent reference points that carry some amount of context with them, hash values are based on the content of the data, leaving no identifiable similarities between the hash values of pages, even if they are closely related (e.g. two sequential pages in the same production.) And when a single change is made to a document, its hash value is completely changed, so if a page of data has any information on it altered (e.g. redactions are added), you can’t easily tell whether you are looking at the same piece of information or not.

What’s the answer, then? One approach is to apply Bates numbering at the file level.

If you are dealing with a lot of data that doesn’t fit the standard sequential-page structure, or are dealing with files that may have their number of pages altered across the duration of the eDiscovery cycle, one option is to avoid stamping the pages, limiting Bates numbering to the files alone, and including them in the file names. When specific sections of files like spreadsheets are needed, images of these files can be created and stamped as separate files, positioned immediately after their relevant source files in the production.

With good eDiscovery software, you will also have expanded stamping options to suit your specific needs.

There are numerous systems of document numbering that are used in litigation across the world, and it’s not uncommon to have to adapt to new ones when the situation calls for it. What’s most important is that you’re prepared in advance with flexible eDiscovery software that can handle diverse scenarios beyond standard Bates stamping. For example, the ability to add labels like “CONFIDENTIAL” that you’ve attached to documents during review as stamps, or custom text. And you should be able to specify where on the pages you want these stamps to be added.?

Looking for software with a robust but easy-to-use production system that makes naming and stamping documents a breeze? Give GoldFynch a try!