Littau v Astrata: Discovery of Electronically Stored Documents & Keyword Search in Anton Piller Order Execution

In Robin Duane Littau v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed an application concerning the discovery and inspection of electronically stored documents following the execution of an Anton Piller Order. The court, presided over by Yeong Zee Kin SAR, ruled on the appropriate keywords to be used in a search for discoverable documents, emphasizing the need for relevance to the pending suit and setting forth a three-stage process for conducting the review. The court directed the parties to use the agreed-upon keywords to search the seized items, review the results for privilege and confidentiality, and then provide the relevant documents for general discovery.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Directions made for keyword searches to be conducted on seized electronic documents to identify discoverable information.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addresses the use of keyword searches for discovery of electronically stored documents seized under an Anton Piller Order.

1.7 Decision Date

17 March 2011

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Robin Duane Littau	Plaintiff	Individual	Directions made for discovery	Neutral	Gan Kam Yuin of Bih Li & Lee Pua Li Siang of Bih Li & Lee Joanna Lee of Bih Li & Lee
Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Directions made for discovery	Neutral	Shaun Lee of Wong & Leow LLC Gerald Kuppusamy of Wong & Leow LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Yeong Zee Kin	SAR Counsel	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Gan Kam Yuin	Bih Li & Lee
Pua Li Siang	Bih Li & Lee
Joanna Lee	Bih Li & Lee
Shaun Lee	Wong & Leow LLC
Gerald Kuppusamy	Wong & Leow LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff was a former group regional director of the defendant.
Plaintiff signed a non-compete agreement with the defendant.
Defendant obtained search orders against the plaintiff.
The search orders were directed at evidence of the plaintiff giving information to US parties and breaching the non-compete agreement.
The defendant seized the contents of the plaintiff’s computer hard drives and email accounts.
Parties agreed to use keyword searches to identify relevant documents but disagreed on the list of keywords.
A preliminary search was performed to identify the number of hits for each keyword.

5. Formal Citations

Robin Duane Littau v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd, Suit No 156 of 2010 (Summons No 5244 of 2010), [2011] SGHC 61
Littau Robin Duane v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd, , [2010] SGHC 361

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2005-03-01	Plaintiff began employment with the defendant.
2009-09-11	Plaintiff gave three months’ notice of resignation.
2009-12-09	Defendant purported to dismiss plaintiff summarily.
2010-03-01	Action transferred to the High Court.
2010-04-22	Defendant filed list of documents.
2010-04-26	Plaintiff filed list of documents.
2010-06-21	Defendant obtained interim injunction and search orders against the plaintiff.
2010-06-25	Search orders extended by the court.
2010-11-15	Directions made for a 3-stage process for conducting the review.
2010-12-13	Court ordered a preliminary search using the defendant's proposed keywords.
2011-01-12	Submissions on the disputed keywords were heard.
2011-01-19	Parties heard on the limits which ought to be applied on the reasonable search.
2011-03-07	Parties came back before the court due to disagreement on the manner in with the confidentiality and privilege review should proceed.
2011-03-18	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information
- Outcome: The court determined the relevance of keywords for searching electronically stored documents seized under a search order.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Relevance of keywords
  - Scope of search orders
  - Reasonable search parameters
- Related Cases:
  - [1991] 2 SLR(R) 379
  - [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1152
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901
  - [1989] 2 SLR(R) 505
  - [2003] 1 SLR(R) 75
  - [2007] 4 SLR(R) 343
  - [2007] EWCA Civ 741
  - [1998] 3 SLR(R) 526
Anton Piller Orders
- Outcome: The court emphasized the draconian nature of search orders and the need for strict compliance with their scope.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Scope of Anton Piller Orders
  - Execution of Anton Piller Orders
  - Relevance of seized documents
- Related Cases:
  - [1991] 2 SLR(R) 379
  - [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1152
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901
  - [1989] 2 SLR(R) 505

8. Remedies Sought

Discovery and inspection of electronically stored documents
Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of contract
Breach of duty of confidentiality

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Electronic Discovery

11. Industries

Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Computerland Corp v Yew Seng Computers Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 379	Singapore	Cited for the principle that search orders are draconian in nature and granted only in exceptional cases.
Computerland Corp v Yew Seng Computers Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] SGCA 28	Singapore	Cited for the principle that search orders are draconian in nature and granted only in exceptional cases.
Petromar Energy Resources Pte Ltd v Glencore International AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1152	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the primary purpose of a search order is to preserve relevant evidence from destruction or concealment.
Petromar Energy Resources Pte Ltd v Glencore International AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] SGCA 28	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the primary purpose of a search order is to preserve relevant evidence from destruction or concealment.
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 901	Singapore	Cited to emphasize that documents within the scope of a search order must be relevant to the pending suit.
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] SGCA 1	Singapore	Cited to emphasize that documents within the scope of a search order must be relevant to the pending suit.
Peters Edition Ltd and another v Renner Piano Co and another suit	High Court	Yes	[1989] 2 SLR(R) 505	Singapore	Cited to illustrate that if documents falling beyond the scope of a search order are seized, these have to be returned.
Peters Edition Ltd and another v Renner Piano Co and another suit	High Court	Yes	[1989] SGHC 98	Singapore	Cited to illustrate that if documents falling beyond the scope of a search order are seized, these have to be returned.
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 discovery should not allow trawling or emptying of the opponent’s filing cabinets.
Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2002] SGHC 247	Singapore	Cited for the principle that discovery should not allow trawling or emptying of the opponent’s filing cabinets.
Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and another and another suit	High Court	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 343	Singapore	Cited to show that a protocol should be put in place to ensure that the inspecting party is not allowed to trawl through the entire database under the guise of the inspection order.
Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and another and another suit	High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 133	Singapore	Cited to show that a protocol should be put in place to ensure that the inspecting party is not allowed to trawl through the entire database under the guise of the inspection order.
Nichia Corp v Argos Ltd	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[2007] EWCA Civ 741	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that better justice is achieved by risking a little bit of injustice.
Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd and another v Koh Chye Heng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 526	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Riddick principle prevents the use of documents (confidential or otherwise) disclosed in court proceedings for any purpose other than the proceedings in which it was disclosed.
Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd and another v Koh Chye Heng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] SGCA 60	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Riddick principle prevents the use of documents (confidential or otherwise) disclosed in court proceedings for any purpose other than the proceedings in which it was disclosed.
Littau Robin Duane v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 361	Singapore	Cited for the summary of the personalities, issues and procedural history leading up to this application.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Anton Piller Order
Electronically stored documents
Keyword search
Discovery
Relevance
Search orders
Forensic images
Privilege
Confidentiality
Reasonable search

15.2 Keywords

discovery
electronically stored documents
keyword search
anton piller order
singapore
high court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Breach of Confidence	75
Fiduciary Duties	70
Contract Law	60
Evidence	50
Injunctions	40
Corporate Litigation	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Discovery
Information Technology