How to organize criminal discovery files without losing the source trail

To organize criminal discovery files, preserve each delivery, create a source index, and keep review notes separate from the received material. The index connects a short working reference to the original filename, location, and version. That connection matters when a second delivery includes another file called Report.pdf.

This guide provides an organizational method, not a statement of discovery obligations. Use your firm’s approved storage and access rules. The folder names below do not create access restrictions or determine whether material is privileged.

Start with four places, not dozens of folders

For example, 01 Received / P01 received 2026-10-08 and 01 Received / P02 received 2026-10-12 keep two deliveries distinct. Inside them, retain the original subfolders and filenames. These dates identify receipt, not when the recorded events happened.

One interview may concern several people and several issues. Put those connections in working notes or tags instead of creating competing copies under every person’s folder. Keep attorney notes in the firm’s appropriately restricted working area.

Build an index that survives a handoff

For every item, record a working reference, production identifier, original relative path, file type, and version or receipt reference. Add page count or duration when known. Keep document date and event time in separately labeled fields if you need them.

Use distinct fields for readable, processed, and reviewed. A file that opens is not necessarily searchable. A transcript that exists is not proof that someone reviewed the recording. If a quantity or date is unknown, leave it unknown and assign the follow-up.

The 2019 discovery review strategies memo hosted by the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of North Carolina separates organization from review and emphasizes checking searchability before relying on searches. The folder structure and example here are our own practical implementation of that distinction.

Worked example: two files called Report.pdf

Two deliveries, three source entriesFictional example

Reference	Original location	What is known	Next action
R-01	P01 / Reports / Report.pdf	Six-page report received October 8; review note cites PDF page 4.	Retain the file and the existing note’s version reference.
R-02	P02 / Reports / Report.pdf	Eight-page report received October 12; same filename, relationship not yet checked.	Compare the files. Do not overwrite R-01 or assume page 4 still contains the cited passage.
V-01	P02 / Media / Camera01.mp4	File received; playback fails in the approved viewer; duration unknown.	Record the problem and request technical follow-up. Do not mark the recording reviewed.

If comparison confirms R-02 is a revised report, record that relationship. Identify notes and exports referring to R-01, then check whether the cited passages changed or moved. Keep the earlier source and its history. If the relationship remains uncertain, say so; a later receipt date alone does not establish that one file supersedes another.

A useful change-log entry is: “P02 received October 12. R-02 may revise R-01. Review note N-03 references R-01, PDF page 4. Recheck assigned; pending.” After verification, record the result rather than silently changing the citation.

Make notes point to a passage, not just a folder

A usable note identifies the source reference and version, the page or elapsed time range, the observation, and the open question. For a PDF with different printed numbering, record both page labels. For media, distinguish elapsed playback time from a displayed camera clock.

For example: “R-01, P01, PDF page 4 / printed page 3; report describes an earlier conversation; compare with V-01 once readable.” This preserves the question without claiming that an unreadable recording supports or contradicts the report. The guide to finding key statements again shows how to turn this source map into searchable review notes.

Test the organization before the next delivery

Ask another authorized reviewer to open one original from the index, locate a cited passage, and identify what remains unreviewed. If they need you to explain which “final” file you meant, improve the reference. Repeat that small handoff check after a changed production affects an important note.

The goal is a usable route from a question to its evidence. Once that route works, use a charge-to-evidence matrix to group findings, or the body-camera review workflow to compare recordings with reports.

Where DiscoRev fits

DiscoRev helps criminal-defense firms review supported documents and recordings and follow findings back to source pages or timestamps. It reads connected Box files without editing, moving, or deleting the originals. Keep the firm’s received productions and review responsibilities clear as you evaluate the workflow.

See how the Florida beta works. Applications are reviewed manually, and applying does not require sending evidence files or confidential case details.

Common questions

What folder structure works for criminal discovery?

Use separate areas for received productions, the source index, working review material, and exports. Preserve each production’s original structure inside its own receipt folder. Use the index or review tags to group items by person, event, or issue without losing their origin.

Should I rename discovery files?

Preserve original filenames in the received production. If a working copy needs a clearer name, record the original path and production beside that label. Do not rely on a renamed copy as the only route back to the source.

How should I handle two discovery files with the same name?

Keep them in their respective production folders and give them distinct index entries. Compare their contents before labeling either a duplicate or replacement. Record the relationship and recheck notes that depend on a changed file.