Surface Stone v Tay Seng Leon: Discovery of Electronic Documents & Train of Inquiry
In Surface Stone Pte Ltd v Tay Seng Leon and another, the High Court of Singapore addressed the plaintiff's application for specific discovery and inspection of the first defendant's electronic devices. The plaintiff alleged wrongful disclosure and misuse of confidential information, among other claims. The court allowed the application for the Toshiba laptop and Western Digital hard disk, finding that they could lead to relevant evidence under the 'train of inquiry' principle, but dismissed the application for the iPhone as it was no longer in the defendant's possession. The court also implemented an inspection protocol.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for discovery and inspection of Toshiba laptop and Western Digital hard disk allowed; application for discovery and inspection of iPhone dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Specific discovery application involving electronic devices. The court ordered discovery of laptop and hard disk, applying 'train of inquiry' principle.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface Stone Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application for discovery and inspection of Toshiba laptop and Western Digital hard disk allowed, Application for discovery and inspection of iPhone dismissed | Partial, Lost | Chua Beng Chye, Raelene Pereira |
| Tay Seng Leon | Defendant | Individual | Application for discovery and inspection of Toshiba laptop and Western Digital hard disk allowed, Application for discovery and inspection of iPhone dismissed | Lost, Won | Daniel Koh, Radika Mariapan |
| Second defendant | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | Daniel Koh, Radika Mariapan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Shaun Leong Li Shiong | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chua Beng Chye | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Raelene Pereira | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Daniel Koh | Eldan Law LLP |
| Radika Mariapan | Eldan Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff alleged defendants wrongfully disclosed and misused confidential information.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants misused resources and corporate opportunities.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants acted to set up a new competing business.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants favored Xiamen Ouming, causing detriment to the plaintiff.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants conspired to defraud and injure the plaintiff.
- Plaintiff alleged unlawful interference with the plaintiff’s trade and business.
- Plaintiff alleged first defendant induced second defendant to breach employment contract.
5. Formal Citations
- Surface Stone Pte Ltd v Tay Seng Leon and another, Suit No 33 of 2011 (Summons No 3725 of 2011), [2011] SGHC 223
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Second defendant's employment agreement signed | |
| Plaintiff sent letter to customers regarding first defendant's suspension | |
| Plaintiff confiscated the Western Digital hard disk | |
| Suit filed against first and second defendants | |
| Interim injunction obtained | |
| Interim injunction varied | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Specific Discovery of Electronic Documents
- Outcome: The court allowed the application for discovery and inspection of the Toshiba laptop and Western Digital hard disk, but dismissed the application for the iPhone. The court also implemented an inspection protocol.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of electronic documents
- Necessity of discovery
- Train of inquiry
- Inspection protocol
- Related Cases:
- [2004] 4 SLR 39
- (1882) 11 QBD 55
- [2002] 2 SLR(R) 465
- [2007] SGHC 69
- [2003] 1 SLR(R) 75
- (2009) EWHC 3834 (QB)
- [1992] 2 SLR(R) 452
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 343
- [2010] SGHC 125
- [2011] SGHC 61
- [2011] SGHC 87
- 345 F. 3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2003)
- 2010 WL 1856265 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2010)
- 179 F.R.D. 622, D Utah, 1998
- 258 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2009)
- [2008] EWHC 2522 (ch), [2008] All ER (D) 226 (Ch)
- [2007] EWCA Civ 741
- [2010] EWCA Civ 516
- HC 07C00250 (ChD, 2008)
- [1991] 1 W.L.R. 652
- 2009 WL 1312898 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2009) Docket #124
- 2008 ABCA 219
- 2005 BCSC 1813
- 2006 BCSC 554
- [2003] FCA 532
- Train of Inquiry
- Outcome: The court found that the train of inquiry would result in obtaining evidence directly relevant and necessary for the resolution of the pleaded issues.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Indirect relevance of documents
- Potential to lead to relevant evidence
- Related Cases:
- (1882) 11 QBD 55
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Misuse of Confidential Information
- Conspiracy to Defraud
- Unlawful Interference with Trade and Business
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 39 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of necessity in discovery, requiring that the discovery sought must be necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings or for saving costs. |
| The Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Co | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | (1882) 11 QBD 55 | England and Wales | Cited for the 'train of inquiry' doctrine, where documents not directly relevant but which may lead to a train of inquiry resulting in the obtaining of directly relevant evidence can be discovered. |
| Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 465 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant party must show in what way the requested document may lead to a relevant document. |
| Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 69 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party seeking discovery on the basis of Order 24 Rule 5(3)(c) cannot hope to get an order in his favour unless the train of inquiry will itself lead to the discovery of directly relevant documents. |
| Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 75 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it does not necessarily mean that the request was a fishing expedition should it subsequently transpire that no relevant information was in fact found in the documents disclosed. |
| Goodale v Ministry of Justice (Opiate Dependent Prisoners Group Litigation) | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | (2009) EWHC 3834 (QB) | England and Wales | Cited to highlight the challenges of electronic discovery, particularly the risk of recovering voluminous electronic documents of marginal relevance. |
| Wright Norman and another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 452 | Singapore | Cited regarding the identification of classes of documents in discovery applications, but distinguished as not directly relevant to the present case. |
| Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 343 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that material on a computer database constitutes a 'document' within Order 24 and for the need to prevent unauthorised 'trawling' through databases. |
| Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 125 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has powers to order compliance with a discovery protocol even where parties have not opted into the Supreme Court Electronic Practice Directions. |
| Robin Duane Littau v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 61 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of keyword search terms in electronic discovery. |
| Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 87 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of keyword search terms in electronic discovery and the fulfillment of a party's discovery obligation once the search has been carried out. |
| In Re Ford Motor Company | US Court of Appeals (Eleventh Circuit) | Yes | 345 F. 3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2003) | United States | Cited to show the need to impose safeguards to limit the scope of inspection of compound documents, in maintaining proportionate discovery. |
| Lorentz v Sunshine Health Products., Inc. | District Court for the Southern District of Florida | Yes | 2010 WL 1856265 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2010) | United States | Cited to show that a request to inspect a computer hard drive and a database in their entirety was 'per se overboard and unduly burdensome when balanced against the need [for inspection]'. |
| Proctor & Gamble Co. v Haugen | District Court for the District of Utah | Yes | 179 F.R.D. 622, D Utah, 1998 | United States | Cited to show that limitations would have to be placed on the scope of inspection, to prevent P&G from obtaining 'general commercial or competitive information'. |
| Covad Communications Company v Revonet, Inc. | District Court for the District of Columbia | Yes | 258 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2009) | United States | Cited to show the court's discretion to impose an inspection protocol, in the interest to save the time and costs required for inspection. |
| Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd v Cable and Wireless plc | High Court | Yes | [2008] EWHC 2522 (ch), [2008] All ER (D) 226 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that what is generally required by an order for standard disclosure is a 'reasonable search' for relevant documents. |
| Nichia Corporation v Argos Limited | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] EWCA Civ 741 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that better justice is achieved by risking a little bit of injustice. |
| Fiddes v Channel 4 TV Corporation and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] EWCA Civ 516 | England and Wales | Cited to show a cautious attitude in granting inspection and searches of compound documents. |
| Albert John Martin Abela and others v Hammonds Suddards and others | High Court | Yes | HC 07C00250 (ChD, 2008) | England and Wales | Cited to show the imposition of a set of protocols to limit the extent of search and inspection. |
| Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 9) | High Court | Yes | [1991] 1 W.L.R. 652 | England and Wales | Cited to show the need to limit inspection of compound documents to the extent where it is necessary to do so. |
| Louis Vuitton Malletier. S.A. v Akanoc Solutions, Inc. | District Court for the Northern District of California | Yes | 2009 WL 1312898 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2009) Docket #124 | United States | Cited to show that a party's mere assertion that the proposed inspection protocol is technically unworkable, without any supporting evidence, is insufficient to persuade the court that a protocol should not be implemented. |
| Innovative Health Group Inc. v Calgary Health Region | Alberta Court of Appeal | Yes | 2008 ABCA 219 | Canada | Cited to show that it will take an exceptional case for a compound document (such as a hard drive) to be produced for inspection in specie. |
| Park v Mullen | Supreme Court of British Columbia | Yes | 2005 BCSC 1813 | Canada | Cited to show that the defendant's application to inspect the plaintiff's personal computers and laptops in their entirety was dismissed as the burden of such inspection outweighs its likely benefits. |
| Baldwin Janzen Insurance Services (2004) Ltd. v Janzen | Supreme Court of British Columbia | Yes | 2006 BCSC 554 | Canada | Cited to show that the plaintiff's application for the defendant's hard disk drives to be produced in their entirety for the production of mirror image copies for forensic analysis was dismissed. |
| Sony Music Entertainment (Australia) Ltd v University of Tasmania | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2003] FCA 532 | Australia | Cited to show an acute problem with compound documents – as the relevant discrete files, irrelevant discrete files, and privileged and confidential discrete files, all of them within the compound document, cannot be readily segregated. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 r 5(3)(c) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 r 11(2) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 24 r 7 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 3(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Specific discovery
- Train of inquiry
- Electronic documents
- Inspection protocol
- Compound documents
- Discrete documents
- Relevance
- Necessity
- Proportionality
- Keyword search
- Forensic examination
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery
- Electronic documents
- Train of inquiry
- Inspection
- Singapore
- Civil procedure
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Electronic Discovery
- Information Technology Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Electronic Discovery