# ADAC-Legal-US 1.0 — United States Jurisdiction Profile

**Version**: 1.0  
**Status**: Stable  
**Copyright**: © 2026 InnoVadens, LLC. All rights reserved.  
**Date**: 2026  
**Base Profile**: [ADAC-Legal 1.0 — Legal Document Profile Format Specification](../../AdacLegal/Docs/ADAC-Legal-Format-Specification.md)

---

## Abstract

The **ADAC-Legal-US** jurisdiction profile extends the [ADAC-Legal 1.0](../../AdacLegal/Docs/ADAC-Legal-Format-Specification.md) base profile with terminology, well-known value sets, and field guidance specific to the United States federal and state legal systems. This includes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure document types, U.S.-specific matter types (class actions, multidistrict litigation, bankruptcy chapters), FOIA-related redaction reasons, protective order confidentiality tiers, and guidance on populating case references using PACER conventions and federal court naming standards.

This specification is a **companion document** to ADAC-Legal 1.0. It does not define a separate profile file or container format — containers using this jurisdiction profile still use `metadata/profiles/legal.json` with `profileType: "legal"` and `jurisdictionProfile: "us"`.

---

## Table of Contents

1. [Introduction](#1-introduction)
2. [Conformance](#2-conformance)
3. [Terminology](#3-terminology)
4. [Relationship to ADAC-Legal](#4-relationship-to-adac-legal)
5. [Jurisdiction Profile Identifier](#5-jurisdiction-profile-identifier)
6. [US-Specific Well-Known Values](#6-us-specific-well-known-values)
7. [US-Specific Field Guidance](#7-us-specific-field-guidance)
8. [US Court System Reference](#8-us-court-system-reference)
9. [Subdivision Profiles](#9-subdivision-profiles)
10. [Complete US Container Example](#10-complete-us-container-example)
11. [Validation](#11-validation)
12. [References](#12-references)
13. [Version History](#13-version-history)

---

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1 Problem Statement

The United States legal system presents unique characteristics that the base ADAC-Legal specification cannot fully capture with its jurisdiction-neutral well-known value sets:

- **Federal Rules of Civil Procedure** define specific discovery mechanisms (Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, Rule 26(a) initial disclosures, Rule 33 interrogatories) that produce distinct document types not found in other legal traditions.
- **Protective orders** in U.S. litigation commonly define multi-tier confidentiality designations ("Confidential", "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only", "Highly Confidential — Source Code") that exceed the base specification's classification vocabulary.
- **FOIA exemptions** provide a structured set of redaction reasons specific to U.S. government document production.
- **Bankruptcy chapters** (7, 11, 13) represent procedurally distinct matter types with different document requirements.
- **Class actions** (FRCP Rule 23) and **multidistrict litigation** (28 U.S.C. § 1407) have unique procedural concepts.
- **PACER** (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) establishes conventions for case numbering and court identification that applications should follow for interoperability.

### 1.2 Solution

ADAC-Legal-US addresses these needs by defining:

- Additional well-known values for document types, matter types, confidentiality levels, custody actions, and redaction reasons that are specific to U.S. federal and state practice.
- Field guidance for populating base ADAC-Legal fields using U.S. conventions (PACER case numbers, official court names, state naming standards).
- A reference model for the U.S. court system hierarchy to guide `jurisdiction` and `courtName` population.
- Identification of subdivisions (e.g., Louisiana) that warrant their own companion specifications due to structural differences in legal tradition.

### 1.3 Scope

This specification defines:

- The `"us"` jurisdiction profile identifier and its scope
- US-specific additions to all five ADAC-Legal well-known value sets (document types, confidentiality levels, matter types, custody actions, redaction reasons)
- Guidance on populating base ADAC-Legal fields for U.S. practice
- A reference model for the U.S. federal and state court hierarchy
- The relationship to subdivision profiles (e.g., `"us-la"` for Louisiana)

This specification does **not** define:

- The ADAC core container format (see [ADAC 1.0](../../Adac/Docs/ADAC-Format-Specification.md))
- The base ADAC-Legal profile schema (see [ADAC-Legal 1.0](../../AdacLegal/Docs/ADAC-Legal-Format-Specification.md))
- State-specific legal concepts that require structural schema differences (those are defined by subdivision companion specifications)
- Application-level APIs, user interfaces, or enforcement mechanisms

### 1.4 Audience

This specification is intended for:

- Software developers implementing U.S. legal document management features in ADAC readers and writers
- Legal technologists at U.S. law firms and litigation support vendors
- E-discovery platform developers integrating ADAC-Legal containers into U.S. review workflows
- Compliance officers managing U.S. document retention and FOIA compliance

---

## 2. Conformance

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119).

### 2.1 Jurisdiction Profile Conformance

An ADAC-Legal container conforms to this jurisdiction profile when:

1. It conforms to ADAC-Legal 1.0 (valid ADAC container with `profileType: "legal"`).
2. The `jurisdictionProfile` field in `legal.json` is set to `"us"`.
3. The `jurisdiction.country` field, when populated, is `"US"`.

### 2.2 Additive Inheritance

This specification follows the additive inheritance model defined in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §7.3:

- ✅ Adds US-specific well-known values to existing value sets
- ✅ Provides US-specific guidance on populating base fields
- ✅ Defines US-specific concepts and terminology
- ✅ Inherits the segmented Merkle Tree fixity model, distinguishing between Master and State integrity
- ❌ Does NOT remove or redefine any base ADAC-Legal fields or values
- ❌ Does NOT modify the ADAC-Legal JSON schema
- ❌ Does NOT modify the ADAC core specification

All base ADAC-Legal well-known values remain valid and available in US containers.

### 2.3 Forward Compatibility

Readers MUST tolerate unknown JSON properties in all structures, consistent with ADAC-Legal 1.0 §6.3. US-specific values that appear in well-known value set fields are ordinary strings — applications that do not recognize them MUST preserve them during round-trip serialization.

---

## 3. Terminology

| Term | Definition |
|------|------------|
| **FRCP** | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — the procedural rules governing civil litigation in U.S. federal courts. |
| **PACER** | Public Access to Court Electronic Records — the U.S. federal judiciary's electronic case management and filing system. |
| **MDL** | Multidistrict Litigation — consolidation of related civil actions from multiple federal districts before a single judge (28 U.S.C. § 1407). |
| **FOIA** | Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) — the U.S. federal law providing public access to government records, with nine enumerated exemptions. |
| **Protective Order** | A court order under FRCP Rule 26(c) restricting disclosure of confidential discovery material. U.S. protective orders commonly establish tiered confidentiality designations. |
| **Bates Number** | A sequential page-numbering system used in U.S. document productions. Named after the Bates Manufacturing Company that produced the original numbering stamps. |
| **AEO** | "Attorneys' Eyes Only" — a common confidentiality tier in U.S. protective orders restricting document access to outside counsel and their staff, excluding in-house attorneys and party representatives. |
| **Qui Tam** | A lawsuit brought by a private citizen on behalf of the government under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729–3733), where the whistleblower receives a portion of any recovery. |
| **Section 1983** | 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal civil rights statute allowing individuals to sue state actors for constitutional violations. |
| **Rule 30(b)(6)** | FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) — a deposition mechanism where an organization designates a representative to testify on specified topics. |

---

## 4. Relationship to ADAC-Legal

### 4.1 Inheritance Chain

A container with `"jurisdictionProfile": "us"` is simultaneously:

- A valid **ADAC 1.0** container
- A valid **ADAC-Legal 1.0** container (base profile)
- A valid **ADAC-Legal-US 1.0** container (this specification)

An application that understands only the base ADAC-Legal specification can still read and process a US container — US-specific values appear as ordinary strings in well-known value set fields.

### 4.2 What This Specification Adds

| Category | Base ADAC-Legal | ADAC-Legal-US Additions |
|----------|----------------|------------------------|
| Document types | 13 base values | 14 US-specific values |
| Confidentiality levels | 6 base values | 3 US-specific values |
| Matter types | 10 base values | 10 US-specific values |
| Custody actions | 8 base values | 3 US-specific values |
| Redaction reasons | 8 base values | 7 US-specific values |
| Field guidance | General | PACER conventions, federal court naming, Bates formatting |

### 4.3 Container Format

No changes. US containers use the same structure as base ADAC-Legal containers:

- File extension: `.adac`
- Profile file: `metadata/profiles/legal.json`
- `profileType`: `"legal"`
- `jurisdictionProfile`: `"us"`

---

## 5. Jurisdiction Profile Identifier

| Property | Value |
|----------|-------|
| **Identifier** | `"us"` |
| **Full name** | ADAC-Legal-US |
| **Scope** | United States federal legal system and common law state systems |
| **ISO 3166-1** | `US` (United States of America) |
| **Legal tradition** | Common law (except Louisiana — see [Section 9](#9-subdivision-profiles)) |

### 5.1 When This Profile Applies

Use `"jurisdictionProfile": "us"` when:

- The legal matter is governed by U.S. federal law or procedure.
- The legal matter is in a U.S. state court following the common law tradition.
- The document was produced, filed, or stored under U.S. legal authority.

Use a subdivision profile (e.g., `"us-la"`) instead when the matter involves jurisdiction-specific structural differences that the base US profile cannot capture (see [Section 9](#9-subdivision-profiles)).

---

## 6. US-Specific Well-Known Values

The following value sets extend the base ADAC-Legal well-known values defined in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14. All base values remain valid — these are **additions only**.

### 6.1 Document Types

Additions to `classification.documentType` (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.1).

| Value | Description | Legal Basis |
|-------|-------------|-------------|
| `"complaint"` | Initial complaint or petition commencing a civil action. | FRCP Rule 3, Rule 8 |
| `"answer"` | Answer to a complaint, including affirmative defenses. | FRCP Rule 8, Rule 12 |
| `"summons"` | Court-issued summons directing a party to appear or respond. | FRCP Rule 4 |
| `"rule26InitialDisclosure"` | Mandatory initial disclosure of witnesses, documents, computation of damages, and insurance. | FRCP Rule 26(a)(1) |
| `"interrogatoryResponse"` | Written answers to interrogatories. | FRCP Rule 33 |
| `"requestForProduction"` | Request for production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or responses thereto. | FRCP Rule 34 |
| `"requestForAdmission"` | Request for admission of facts or the genuineness of documents, or responses thereto. | FRCP Rule 36 |
| `"rule30b6Deposition"` | Deposition of an organization through a designated representative on specified topics. | FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) |
| `"expertReport"` | Written report of an expert witness, including opinions, bases, data, exhibits, qualifications, and compensation. | FRCP Rule 26(a)(2)(B) |
| `"declarationUnderPenalty"` | Unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury, admissible in lieu of a sworn affidavit. | 28 U.S.C. § 1746 |
| `"stipulation"` | Written agreement between parties, often filed with the court. | FRCP Rule 29 |
| `"protectiveOrder"` | Court order restricting disclosure of confidential information produced during discovery. | FRCP Rule 26(c) |
| `"indictment"` | Formal criminal charge issued by a grand jury. | U.S. Const. Amend. V; Fed. R. Crim. P. 6, 7 |
| `"sentencingMemorandum"` | Memorandum to the court regarding sentencing factors and recommendations. | 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 |

### 6.2 Confidentiality Levels

Additions to `classification.confidentialityLevel` (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.2).

These tiers reflect the multi-level confidentiality designations commonly established by U.S. protective orders in commercial litigation:

| Value | Description | Typical Protective Order Tier |
|-------|-------------|-------------------------------|
| `"highlyConfidential"` | Restricted to outside counsel and their staff. In-house attorneys and party representatives are excluded. | "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" (AEO) |
| `"highlyConfidentialSourceCode"` | Further restricted: viewable only in a controlled inspection environment. Common in intellectual property litigation involving proprietary source code. | "Highly Confidential — Source Code" |
| `"controlledUnclassified"` | Sensitive government information that requires safeguarding but is not classified under Executive Order 13526. Used in FOIA contexts and government litigation. | CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information) |

### 6.3 Matter Types

Additions to `caseReference.matterType` (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.3).

| Value | Description | Legal Basis |
|-------|-------------|-------------|
| `"chapter7Bankruptcy"` | Chapter 7 liquidation — debtor's non-exempt assets are sold to pay creditors. | 11 U.S.C. §§ 701–784 |
| `"chapter11Bankruptcy"` | Chapter 11 reorganization — debtor proposes a plan to restructure debts while continuing operations. | 11 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1174 |
| `"chapter13Bankruptcy"` | Chapter 13 individual debt adjustment — wage earner's plan for individuals with regular income. | 11 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1330 |
| `"classAction"` | Class action — one or more representative plaintiffs sue on behalf of a similarly situated class. | FRCP Rule 23 |
| `"multidistrictLitigation"` | MDL — consolidation of related civil actions from multiple federal districts before a single transferee judge. | 28 U.S.C. § 1407 |
| `"quiTam"` | False Claims Act action brought by a private relator on behalf of the U.S. government. | 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733 |
| `"section1983"` | Civil rights action against state actors for deprivation of constitutional rights. | 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| `"socialSecurityDisability"` | Appeal of Social Security Administration disability determination in federal district court. | 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) |
| `"workersCompensation"` | State workers' compensation proceeding for workplace injury benefits. | State-specific statutes |
| `"federalHabeasCorpus"` | Federal habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of state or federal custody. | 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2255 |

### 6.4 Custody Actions

Additions to `custodyChain[].action` (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.4).

| Value | Description | Legal Basis |
|-------|-------------|-------------|
| `"producedInDiscovery"` | Document produced to opposing party pursuant to a discovery request or subpoena. | FRCP Rule 34 |
| `"lodgedWithCourt"` | Document lodged (submitted but not yet filed) with the court, pending a ruling on admissibility or sealing. | Local court rules |
| `"filedUnderSeal"` | Document filed with the court under seal, restricting public access. | FRCP Rule 5.2; local court rules |

### 6.5 Redaction Reasons

Additions to redaction annotation `reason` (base values in ADAC-Legal 1.0 §14.5).

| Value | Description | Legal Basis |
|-------|-------------|-------------|
| `"foiaExemption1"` | National defense or foreign policy information properly classified under Executive Order 13526. | 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) |
| `"foiaExemption6"` | Personnel, medical, or similar files where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. | 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) |
| `"foiaExemption7c"` | Law enforcement records where disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. | 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) |
| `"grandJurySecret"` | Grand jury material protected from disclosure. | Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) |
| `"juvenileRecord"` | Juvenile court or delinquency records protected from public disclosure. | State-specific statutes; 18 U.S.C. § 5038 |
| `"taxReturnConfidentiality"` | Tax return information protected from unauthorized disclosure. | 26 U.S.C. § 6103 |
| `"sealedIndictment"` | Grand jury indictment sealed pending arrest or other judicial action. | Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(4) |

---

## 7. US-Specific Field Guidance

### 7.1 Case Reference

#### 7.1.1 Case Number

The `caseReference.caseNumber` field SHOULD follow U.S. federal court conventions when the matter is in federal court:

| Format | Example | Description |
|--------|---------|-------------|
| PACER short form | `2025-CV-04521` | Year, case type, sequential number. |
| PACER full form | `1:25-cv-04521-ABC` | District division, two-digit year, case type, number, judge initials. |

Common PACER case type abbreviations:

| Abbreviation | Description |
|--------------|-------------|
| `cv` | Civil |
| `cr` | Criminal |
| `bk` | Bankruptcy |
| `mc` | Miscellaneous |
| `ap` | Adversary proceeding (bankruptcy) |
| `mj` | Magistrate judge |

For state court matters, use the case number format assigned by the filing court.

#### 7.1.2 Court Name

The `caseReference.courtName` field SHOULD use the official court name as listed in PACER:

| Example | Notes |
|---------|-------|
| `"U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York"` | Federal district court. |
| `"U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit"` | Federal appellate court. |
| `"U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware"` | Federal bankruptcy court. |
| `"Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County"` | State trial court (New York). |
| `"Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois"` | State trial court (Illinois). |

#### 7.1.3 Jurisdiction

When `jurisdictionProfile` is `"us"`:

| Field | Guidance |
|-------|----------|
| `jurisdiction.country` | MUST be `"US"`. |
| `jurisdiction.state` | SHOULD use the full state name (e.g., `"New York"`, `"California"`, `"Louisiana"`). SHOULD NOT use postal abbreviations in the jurisdiction field (abbreviations belong in case numbers and court names). |
| `jurisdiction.county` | SHOULD use the county name without a suffix (e.g., `"Cook"`, not `"Cook County"`). For Louisiana, use `"parish"` terminology in the value (e.g., `"Orleans"` for Orleans Parish — see ADAC-Legal-US-LA). |

#### 7.1.4 Docket Number

The `caseReference.docketNumber` field is OPTIONAL. In U.S. practice, the docket number is often the same as the case number. Use this field when:

- The matter has a separate docket number (e.g., MDL docket numbers differ from individual case numbers).
- A case has been consolidated and the consolidated docket number differs from the original.

### 7.2 Document Classification

#### 7.2.1 Bates Numbering

U.S. Bates numbering conventions:

| Guideline | Description |
|-----------|-------------|
| **Prefix** | A party-identifying prefix, typically the producing party's surname or abbreviation (e.g., `"SMITH"`, `"JONES_CORP"`, `"DEF"`). |
| **Digits** | Six to eight zero-padded digits (e.g., `"000001"`, `"00000001"`). |
| **Separator** | No separator between prefix and digits is the most common U.S. convention (e.g., `"SMITH000123"`). Some productions use a hyphen or underscore. |
| **Range** | For multi-page documents, `batesRangeStart` is the first page and `batesRangeEnd` is the last page. For single-page documents, both SHOULD be the same value. |

#### 7.2.2 Confidentiality Marking

When a U.S. protective order establishes tiered confidentiality, map the tiers to ADAC-Legal confidentiality levels as follows:

| Protective Order Tier | ADAC-Legal Value |
|-----------------------|------------------|
| "Confidential" | `"confidential"` (base) |
| "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" | `"highlyConfidential"` (US) |
| "Highly Confidential — Source Code" | `"highlyConfidentialSourceCode"` (US) |
| Sealed by court order | `"sealed"` (base) |

For protective orders with custom tiers not listed above, use `"restricted"` (base) and describe the restriction in a `notes` or free-text field.

### 7.3 Retention Policy

#### 7.3.1 Federal Records

Federal records retention is governed by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) records schedules. Common periods:

| Record Type | Typical Retention |
|-------------|-------------------|
| Federal court case files | Varies by court; typically 1–15 years after case closure. |
| Federal tax records | 6–7 years (IRS guidance). |
| Employment records (EEOC) | 1 year after termination; 2 years for ADEA. |
| OSHA records | 5 years from date of injury/illness. |

#### 7.3.2 State Records

State retention requirements vary significantly. The `retentionPolicy.period` field SHOULD include the governing authority (e.g., `"7 years per NY CPLR § 213"`, `"6 years per Texas statute of limitations"`).

#### 7.3.3 Litigation Hold

When `retentionPolicy.litigationHold` is `true` in a US container, applications MUST suppress any automated destruction workflows regardless of the retention period. This reflects the U.S. duty to preserve evidence once litigation is reasonably anticipated (*Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC*, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).

---

## 8. US Court System Reference

This section provides a reference model for the U.S. court hierarchy to guide population of the `caseReference.courtName` and `jurisdiction` fields.

### 8.1 Federal Court Hierarchy

| Level | Courts | Example `courtName` Values |
|-------|--------|---------------------------|
| **Supreme Court** | U.S. Supreme Court | `"Supreme Court of the United States"` |
| **Appellate** | 13 Courts of Appeals (11 numbered circuits + D.C. Circuit + Federal Circuit) | `"U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit"` |
| **Trial** | 94 District Courts across 50 states, D.C., and territories | `"U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia"` |
| **Bankruptcy** | Bankruptcy courts within each district | `"U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York"` |
| **Specialized** | Court of Federal Claims, Tax Court, Court of International Trade | `"U.S. Tax Court"` |

### 8.2 State Court Hierarchy

State court naming varies. Common patterns:

| State Pattern | Trial Court Name | Example `courtName` Value |
|---------------|-----------------|---------------------------|
| "Supreme Court" is trial level (NY) | Supreme Court | `"Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County"` |
| "Circuit Court" (IL, VA, MD) | Circuit Court | `"Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois"` |
| "Superior Court" (CA, NJ, WA) | Superior Court | `"Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles"` |
| "District Court" (TX, CO, MN) | District Court | `"District Court, Harris County, Texas"` |
| "Court of Common Pleas" (OH, PA) | Court of Common Pleas | `"Court of Common Pleas, Licking County, Ohio"` |

Applications SHOULD follow local naming conventions and include the county or parish in the court name for trial-level courts.

---

## 9. Subdivision Profiles

### 9.1 When a Subdivision Profile Is Needed

The base US profile covers the common law tradition shared by 49 states and federal courts. A subdivision profile is warranted when a state's legal system has **structural differences** that cannot be captured by the US-level value sets alone.

### 9.2 Identified Subdivisions

| Identifier | Full Name | Rationale |
|------------|-----------|-----------|
| `"us-la"` | ADAC-Legal-US-LA | Louisiana operates under a civil law tradition derived from the Napoleonic Code. Distinct terminology: "parish" instead of "county", "successions" instead of "probate", "reconventional demand" instead of "counterclaim". Distinct document types: notarial acts, authentic acts, successions proceedings. |
| `"us-pr"` | ADAC-Legal-US-PR | Puerto Rico operates under a civil law tradition derived from the Spanish Civil Code. Bilingual (Spanish/English) legal system. Distinct terminology: *demanda* (complaint), *sentencia* (judgment), *escritura pública* (public deed). Distinct court structure: *Tribunal de Primera Instancia* organized into 13 judicial regions across 78 *municipios*. |

### 9.3 Potential Future Subdivisions

The following subdivisions MAY warrant companion specifications if sufficient structural differences are identified:

| Identifier | Rationale |
|------------|-----------|
| `"us-gu"` | Guam — unique territorial court structure. |

### 9.4 Inheritance

A container with `"jurisdictionProfile": "us-la"` or `"us-pr"` inherits from both this specification (US) and the base ADAC-Legal specification:

1. **Base layer** — ADAC-Legal 1.0 (all base values and schema)
2. **Country layer** — ADAC-Legal-US 1.0 (this document — all US-specific values and guidance)
3. **Subdivision layer** — ADAC-Legal-US-LA 1.0 or ADAC-Legal-US-PR 1.0 (subdivision-specific additions)

An application that understands US but not US-LA can still process a Louisiana container — it will recognize all base and US-level values and treat Louisiana-specific values as custom strings.

---

## 10. Complete US Container Example

### 10.1 Container Structure

```
smith-v-jones-rule34-production.adac
├── manifest.json
├── master/
│   ├── master_0001.tif              (Page 1 — contract signature page)
│   └── master_0002.tif              (Page 2 — contract terms)
├── metadata/
│   ├── core.json
│   └── profiles/
│       └── legal.json
├── derivatives/
│   └── deriv_0001.jpg
├── regions/
│   └── master-001.regions.json
└── provenance/
    ├── log.json
    └── checksums.json
```

### 10.2 Legal Profile (`metadata/profiles/legal.json`)

```json
{
  "profileVersion": "1.0",
  "profileType": "legal",
  "jurisdictionProfile": "us",
  "caseReference": {
    "caseNumber": "1:25-cv-04521-LTS",
    "courtName": "U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York",
    "jurisdiction": {
      "country": "US",
      "state": "New York",
      "county": "New York"
    },
    "docketNumber": null,
    "matterType": "litigation",
    "caption": "Smith v. Jones Corp.",
    "parties": [
      { "name": "John Smith", "role": "plaintiff" },
      { "name": "Jones Corp.", "role": "defendant" }
    ]
  },
  "classification": {
    "documentType": "requestForProduction",
    "exhibitNumber": null,
    "filingDate": "2025-03-15T00:00:00Z",
    "confidentialityLevel": "highlyConfidential",
    "batesRangeStart": "JONES000442",
    "batesRangeEnd": "JONES000443",
    "retentionPolicy": {
      "period": "7 years after case closure",
      "disposition": "destroy",
      "litigationHold": true
    }
  },
  "custodyChain": [
    {
      "action": "producedInDiscovery",
      "custodian": "Jones Corp. — Legal Department",
      "timestamp": "2025-04-01T09:00:00Z",
      "organization": "Jones Corp.",
      "notes": "Produced pursuant to Plaintiff's First Request for Production, Request No. 14."
    },
    {
      "action": "received",
      "custodian": "Jane Doe, Esq.",
      "timestamp": "2025-04-01T17:00:00Z",
      "organization": "Smith & Associates LLP",
      "notes": "Received via secure file transfer from opposing counsel."
    },
    {
      "action": "scanned",
      "custodian": "Litigation Support",
      "timestamp": "2025-04-02T10:00:00Z",
      "organization": "Smith & Associates LLP",
      "notes": "Scanned from production set at 600 DPI, TIFF format."
    },
    {
      "action": "stored",
      "custodian": "Records Management",
      "timestamp": "2025-04-02T14:00:00Z",
      "organization": "Smith & Associates LLP",
      "notes": "Physical production binder stored in locked evidence room, Cabinet 12-B."
    }
  ]
}
```

### 10.3 Region Annotations (`regions/master-001.regions.json`)

```json
{
  "mediaId": "master-001",
  "coordinateSystem": "pixel",
  "width": 4800,
  "height": 6400,
  "regions": [
    {
      "id": "region-001",
      "type": "boundingBox",
      "label": "Confidentiality Stamp",
      "bounds": {
        "x": 1800.0,
        "y": 50.0,
        "width": 1200.0,
        "height": 100.0
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "region-002",
      "type": "boundingBox",
      "label": "Redacted — SSN",
      "bounds": {
        "x": 2400.0,
        "y": 2800.0,
        "width": 500.0,
        "height": 60.0
      },
      "linkedEntities": {
        "legal:redaction": {
          "reason": "pii",
          "authority": "Protective Order dated 2025-02-10, ¶ 7(b)",
          "authorizedBy": "Jane Doe, Esq.",
          "notes": "Social Security number of individual plaintiff."
        }
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "region-003",
      "type": "boundingBox",
      "label": "Bates Stamp",
      "bounds": {
        "x": 4000.0,
        "y": 6200.0,
        "width": 700.0,
        "height": 80.0
      }
    }
  ]
}
```

---

## 11. Validation

### 11.1 Base Validation

US containers are validated by the standard ADAC validator and ADAC-Legal validation rules. No additional validation error codes are defined by this specification.

### 11.2 Recommended US-Specific Application-Level Checks

| Check | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| Jurisdiction country | When `jurisdictionProfile` is `"us"`, verify that `jurisdiction.country` is `"US"` if populated. |
| Case number format | Verify that `caseNumber` follows PACER conventions (year-type-number or division:year-type-number-initials). |
| Court name recognition | Verify that `courtName` matches a known U.S. federal or state court name. |
| Bates prefix consistency | Verify that Bates prefixes are consistent across related containers in the same production. |
| Protective order tier mapping | When `confidentialityLevel` is `"highlyConfidential"` or `"highlyConfidentialSourceCode"`, verify that a protective order reference exists in the record or custody chain notes. |
| Litigation hold enforcement | When `litigationHold` is `true`, verify that no custody entry has `action: "destroyed"`. |
| FOIA redaction authority | When a `foiaExemption*` redaction reason is used, verify that the `authority` field references the specific FOIA exemption. |
| Evidentiary Integrity Alert | When a `Critical Master Failure` is reported by the core validator, the application SHOULD automatically mark all associated legal exhibits as 'Potentially Compromised' in the user interface. |

---

## 12. References

### 12.1 Normative References

| Reference | Description |
|-----------|-------------|
| [ADAC 1.0 Format Specification](../../Adac/Docs/ADAC-Format-Specification.md) | The base container format. |
| [ADAC-Legal 1.0 Format Specification](../../AdacLegal/Docs/ADAC-Legal-Format-Specification.md) | The base legal profile this jurisdiction profile extends. |
| [RFC 2119](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119) | Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. |

### 12.2 Informative References

| Reference | Description |
|-----------|-------------|
| [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure](https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure) | The procedural rules governing civil litigation in U.S. federal courts. |
| [Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure](https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-criminal-procedure) | The procedural rules governing criminal cases in U.S. federal courts. |
| [PACER](https://pacer.uscourts.gov/) | Public Access to Court Electronic Records — the U.S. federal judiciary's electronic filing and case management system. |
| [Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552)](https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-information-act-5-usc-552) | The federal law providing public access to government records. |
| [28 U.S.C. § 1407](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1407) | Multidistrict litigation transfer statute. |
| [False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/part-III/subchapter-III) | The statute authorizing qui tam actions. |
| [EDRM (Electronic Discovery Reference Model)](https://edrm.net/) | Industry framework for managing electronic discovery. |
| [Sedona Principles](https://thesedonaconference.org/) | Best practices for electronic document production in litigation. |
| [*Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubulake_v._UBS_Warburg) | Landmark e-discovery decision establishing the duty to preserve electronic evidence. |
| [NARA Records Schedules](https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs) | National Archives records retention schedules for federal agencies. |
| [ISO 3166-2:US](https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:US) | U.S. state and territory subdivision codes. |
| [ADAC-Legal-US-LA 1.0 Format Specification](ADAC-Legal-US-LA-Format-Specification.md) | The Louisiana subdivision jurisdiction profile. Civil law tradition, parish-based jurisdiction, notarial acts, successions. |
| [ADAC-Legal-US-PR 1.0 Format Specification](ADAC-Legal-US-PR-Format-Specification.md) | The Puerto Rico subdivision jurisdiction profile. Spanish civil law tradition, bilingual system, *municipio*-based jurisdiction. |

---

## 13. Version History

| Version | Date | Description |
|---------|------|-------------|
| 1.0 | 2026 | Initial release. US-specific well-known values for document types (FRCP discovery documents, criminal charging documents), confidentiality levels (protective order tiers, CUI), matter types (bankruptcy chapters, class actions, MDL, qui tam, Section 1983), custody actions (discovery production, court filing), and redaction reasons (FOIA exemptions, grand jury secrecy, tax return confidentiality, juvenile records). PACER case number conventions, federal court naming guidance, Bates numbering standards, protective order tier mapping, retention policy guidance. US court system reference model. Louisiana subdivision profile identified. |