1. The defendant submitted documents that partially disclosed the first and second volumes of the investigation materials as documentary evidence, and also submitted a list explaining the reasons for non-disclosure for each non-disclosed part.

The remaining investigation materials (volumes 3 and 4) will be partially disclosed by the end of February 2024 and will be submitted as documentary evidence, as well as in writing.

2 However, the defendant's explanation regarding the reasons for non-disclosure is still abstract, and even if the plaintiff refutes it, it may be pointed out that the defendant's claims regarding the reasons for non-disclosure are generally abstract, or that abstract claims do not require disclosure of information. It seems that the content will have to be so abstract that it cannot be recognized that it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure stipulated by the law.

3. Nevertheless, we decided to proceed by asking the plaintiff to point out such points, and if there are any points for which he would like clarification, to provide them, and then to ask the defendant to make a counterargument.

4. The plaintiff has decided to submit a written rebuttal by the end of February, and the next deadline is March 15th at 11:00 a.m.

The 12th oral argument hearing was held at 2:00 p.m. on September 8, 2023 in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

The defendant has submitted a brief (8) .

The contents are 20 pages of a list of reasons for non-disclosure of the investigation materials (volume 1). The 21st page is a format specified by the court. Following this, an explanation of the non-disclosure information is listed.

Since the main documents had not been presented as evidence, the presiding judge asked, "What is the '※ part' that has not been disclosed?" The defendant's attorney explained, "You will understand if you look at the evidence presented at a later date."

When the plaintiff said, "We would like you to disclose at least the titles of each chapter of the document," the defendant's attorney responded, "We intend to disclose as much as possible from which the titles and contents can be inferred."

The presiding judge pointed out, "Since the document's heading has not yet been revealed, it is difficult to infer its contents."

The defendant's attorney then explained, "We have issued a partial disclosure decision (Volume 1) dated August 31st to the plaintiff. The current table corresponds to the retyped disposition. In documents that have been partially disclosed, we have written separate reasons for not disclosing the "※ part" and the "remainder." We generally try to disclose the parts that are boxed in formats, etc."

This is a big improvement over when everything was withheld...

Defendant's attorney: "The second and third volumes will be about the same amount, and the fourth volume will be a little less than the first volume."

Presiding Judge: "I believe you are also currently compiling the list of reasons for non-disclosure in Volume 2. Can you complete it by early November?"

Defendant's attorney: "After the disposition is retyped, there will be a time lag of about one week before it can be submitted as documentary evidence."

Presiding Judge: "It would be better to set the next hearing after the documentary evidence is released."

Plaintiff's attorney: "We will look at the disclosure documents before the next hearing and consider how to refute them, but I think it would be best to submit written documents after the arguments at the hearing."

The presiding judge said, "After we have had the entire set of investigation materials retyped, we will return to examining the document headings."

Defendant's attorney: "The documentary evidence for the first volume is expected to be submitted around September 20th. The front pages for the second volume are due by November 8th, and the documentary evidence for the second volume by November 20th."

The next hearing will be held on December 1st at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 602.

1. Due to a personnel change in the court, the judge in charge of this case has changed.

2. Initially, the Japan Transport Safety Board took the stance of not disclosing any material other than publicly available materials, but as the trial progressed, it took a stance of disclosing some of the material, rescinding its initial non-disclosure decision and issuing a decision to disclose some of the material. I made it new. This changed the subject of the disposition sought to be rescinded, so the plaintiff changed its complaint.

3. The defendant submitted a preliminary document (7), in which the reasons for non-disclosure of the heading of the document, which is a list of the titles of the investigation materials, were summarized.

4. The defendant explained that he plans to disclose part of the set of investigation materials (approximately 180 documents in total from volume 1 to volume 4) starting from volume 1.

The next deadline is September 8th at 2pm.

The 10th oral argument was held on March 22, 2023 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom No. 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

On this day, "discussion" continued at the round table between the three judges, Takada, the plaintiff's representative, the plaintiff's attorney, and the defendant's attorney. However, as always, most of the proceedings were confirmations and suggestions from the presiding judge to the defendant, and the plaintiff representative and the plaintiff's attorney were watching the progress.

The presiding judge said to the defendant, ``The scope of disclosure of document headings has expanded from the list attached to the previous defendant's document (6), so please submit your argument regarding the reasons for non-disclosure accordingly.The revised table will be uploaded to teams. Please. When can you send me the written document?”

Defendant's attorney: ``There has been a change in the table revisions and the reasons for non-disclosure, so we will submit it in mid-May.''

In response to the defendant's expanded scope of disclosure, the plaintiff decided to change its complaint. The playing field is becoming narrower, albeit little by little.

Although the headings of the documents have been gradually disclosed, the contents of the research materials have not been disclosed at all. Without knowing the contents of the investigation materials, the court cannot determine whether the non-disclosure of the materials is legal.

Therefore, in order to be able to reach some degree of judgment, the presiding judge advised the defendant, ``The arguments for reasons for non-disclosure have only been summarized in an abstract way. I thought it would be possible to organize my arguments in a table, so I uploaded it to teams.''

The defendant's attorney said, ``We are planning to argue in the direction you have presented, but since there is a large amount of documents, we would like to divide them up and submit them in stages.For example, we would like to submit the first volume first. I will be able to explain how much of a schedule it will take to submit it by the next deadline.''

When the presiding judge asked, ``Do you have any intention to change the disposition of the set of investigation materials?'', the defendant's attorney refused, saying, ``We have no plans at this time.'' The plaintiff's attorney said, ``If you redact both the document headings and the contents of the investigation materials, it is impossible to judge whether the non-disclosure of the document headings is legal.Even if you only include subheadings of the contents of the investigation materials, you will not be able to understand the content, so you should be able to do so.'' '', the presiding judge said, ``Now that the title has been disclosed, I think some of the investigation materials will also be disclosed.'' The defendant's attorney replied, ``A list.'' I'll take this into consideration while making the project.'' I was a little disappointed.

Presiding Judge: “Even if it were divided into separate volumes, I don’t think it would take a considerable amount of time to make the argument. How about two months?”

Defendant's attorney: ``It's not just the number of documents, but also the amount of time that can be spent on just one document.I think two months is a little too long.''

Plaintiff's attorney: ``The non-disclosure portion and the reason for it should have been done at the time of initial disposition, so it shouldn't normally take that long.I understand that the person in charge would have a hard time.''

The plaintiff decided to file a change of complaint in March, and the defendant had until May 22nd to submit a written statement.

The next date is May 29th at 2:00 pm in courtroom 602.

The 9th oral argument session was held at 11:30 a.m. on February 1, 2023 in Courtroom 601 of the Tokyo District Court.

Based on the exchange on the previous date, the defendant was to sort and organize Volumes 1 to 4.

Regarding whether the personal identification information pointed out by the plaintiff on the previous date included the names of public servants, the names of public servants were not included, and the distinction between the first part and the second part of Item 1 was entered in the list.

The presiding judge asked the defendant's attorney, ``Since you have submitted a preliminary document that discloses a certain amount of the heading of the document, will the current non-disclosure disposition be reconsidered?'' The agent replied, ``The punishment will be redone in about a month and a half.''

The plaintiff's attorney opined, ``If it's an accident report, apart from the evaluation part, it should be possible to disclose a fair amount of the facts.Then, as the plaintiff, we can refute the parts that are not disclosed.'' Ta.

The presiding judge said, ``I believe that it is difficult to have a coherent argument in a situation where even the headings of the document are not disclosed,'' implicitly, or rather explicitly, saying that the entire heading of the document must be disclosed.

I said something to that effect.

The next date is March 22nd at 2:00 pm in courtroom 602.

The 8th oral argument session was held at 11:30 a.m. on December 14, 2022 in Courtroom 601 of the Tokyo District Court.

The defendant submitted the preliminary document (5) on December 7th.

The plaintiff filed a second brief on the 9th of the same month.

The content of the plaintiff's second preliminary document points out that the explanation of the list attached to the defendant's preliminary document (4) is sloppy.

The defendant explained that the reason for non-disclosure fell under the category of "Personal Identification No. 1." However, the main text of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Information Disclosure Act, which sets personal identity as a reason for non-disclosure, states that "Information about individuals (excluding information related to the business of an individual running a business), including the name, name, etc. Date of birth and other descriptions, etc. (meaning any matters written or recorded in documents, drawings, or electromagnetic records, or expressed using voice, movement, or other methods. The same shall apply in paragraph 2 of the following article. )" as a common element, and the first sentence includes "things that can identify a specific individual (including things that can identify a specific individual by comparing it with other information). '', and the latter part is divided into ``things that cannot identify a specific individual, but if made public, there is a risk of harming the rights and interests of individuals'', and which category falls under must be considered separately. Must be. There is no such classification as "No. 1."

That's not all.

On August 3, 2005, based on the "Agreement of the Liaison Conference on Information Disclosure", a uniform policy has been issued that the names of civil servants in administrative agencies will be made public, as a general rule, as those falling under Proviso A in Item 1. It is. However, the defendant has not clarified whether or not the names of public servants are included in the non-disclosure portion for the reason of "Personal Identification No. 1," so it is necessary to clarify this.

If the defendant does not disclose the public servant's name under ``No. 1'', then the agreement states that ``if there is a risk of particular hindrance,'' i.e., ``① By making the name public, the information will not be disclosed.'' Is this a case in which non-disclosure information listed in Article 5, Items 2 to 6 of the Public Disclosure Act would be made public? It is necessary to clarify whether this is the case.

If the reason for claiming to fall under ① is No. 5, then whether it is “No. 5 Candid and Neutral Defeat,” “No. 5 Confusion of the People,” or “No. 5 Disadvantageous Persons.” If No. 6, it is “difficult to investigate the cause” or something else. It is also necessary to clarify what the reason for this is.

This is clear if you read the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the above agreement.

In the preliminary document (5), the defendant states that some of the non-disclosure documents fall under not only items 5 and 6, but also items 1 (personal identification information) and 2 (corporate information), adding reasons for non-disclosure. came.

The presiding judge asked for the plaintiff's opinion, and he said, ``I have no idea what kind of document there is or what it says.There is no argument.The burden of proof is on the defendant, but what is the title and what is the content?'' If only the defendant knows, and neither the court nor the plaintiff knows, whether or not the defendant's allegation is correct in proving the reason for non-disclosure, the understanding and discussion between all three parties will be intense. No,” he complained.

The next date is February 1st at 11:30 a.m. in courtroom 602.

From 11:00 am on October 12, 2022, the 7th Oral Argument Date was held.

Defendant submitted a brief (4) on September 20, which was due on the previous date. The date of this day discussed this matter.

The claim is four and a half pages. And there are 7 attached tables.

The attachments are divided into 4 categories: volume 1/1-102, volume 2/1-55, volume 3/1-17, and volume 4/1-12. The heading, type (1 to 4), nature and type of document, and reasons for non-disclosure are to be entered.

In the assertion, since the name of the corporation to which the person involved in the accident belongs appears in the third volume, it is the information disclosure law article 5 paragraph 1 item 2 (corporation information) rights, competitive position, or other legitimate interests).

Types ① to ④ are as follows

Type 1: Documents related to the accident from interviews with people involved in the accident

Type 2: Materials related to factual information related to the accident

Type 3: Materials related to test research and analysis

Type 4: Materials related to deliberations by the Maritime Subcommittee

The properties and types of documents are classified according to these types.

Type 1 consists of the following 4 categories

aSummary of survey items

bOverview of listening method

cDate of interview survey

d Names and titles of dictators and respondents

Type 2 consists of the following 8 categories

aName, affiliation, and position of the person concerned

b Credentials of the crew to operate the vessel

c Crew identification information

d Information related to rights, structure, maintenance, payloads, and voyages of fishing vessel Juwa Maru No. 58 and consort vessels

e Information on the rights, structure, maintenance, and equipment of other vessels owned by the corporation that owned the fishing vessel Juwa Maru No. 58 and consort vessels

f Information on the business of the corporation that owned the fishing vessel Juwa Maru No. 58 and consort vessels

gInformation related to inquiries for investigating the weather and sea conditions around the sea area where the accident occurred at the time of the accident

hInformation on the results of the search for the sunken fishing vessel Juwa Maru No. 58

Type 3 consists of the following 4 categories

a Test and research items

b Titles of collected documents

c Name of material used to conduct test research

d Name of organization to which test research is entrusted

Type ④ is 1 classification

aInformation related to the names of persons concerned with the cause of the accident who expressed their objections to the draft investigation report of the accident

Even the headings (titles) of documents are all redacted or partially redacted. Considering the type and the nature and type of documents, does this matter fall under the grounds for non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Law? The question arises as to whether the Japan Transport Safety Board really thinks so.

Even with this alone, it can be said that it is progress compared to the original non-disclosure policy.

The next date is December 14th at 11:30 a.m. Courtroom 601.

A book written by Rie Izawa, a frontline press reporter for the plaintiff who dealt with the accident,

The Black Sea: The Ship Suddenly Disappeared Into the Deep Sea won the Soichi Oya Non-Fiction Award!

Fukushima Shimpo News

https://www.minpo.jp/news/detail/20230519107318/amp

I hope many people will read this and learn more about this accident.

Amazon "Black Sea Ship suddenly disappeared into the deep sea"

https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E9%BB%92%E3%81%84%E6%B5%B7-%E8%88%B9%E3%81%AF%E7%AA%81% E7%84%B6%E3%80%81%E6%B7%B1%E6%B5%B7%E3%81%B8%E6%B6%88%E3%81%88%E3%81%9F-%E4 %BC%8A%E6%BE%A4-%E7%90%86%E6%B1%9F/dp/4065304954/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=145579602669&hvadid=647915279203&hvdev=c&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-20128733 08767&hydadcr=27517_14609500&jp-ad- ap=0&keywords=%E9%BB%92%E3%81%84+%E6%B5%B7+%E8%88%B9+%E3%81%AF+%E7%AA%81%E7%84%B6+%E6% B7%B1%E6%B5%B7+%E3%81%B8+%E6%B6%88%E3%81%88+%E3%81%9F&qid=1687922471&sr=8-1

Thanks to the support of many people, we were able to achieve the first target amount of 200,000 yen.

Thank you very much.

Litigation costs are still insufficient.

As the next step, I would like to set the target amount to 500,000 yen.

Thank you for your continued support.

I would appreciate it if many people could know about this problem.

From 10:45 am on June 21, 2022, there was a date for the 6th oral argument at Tokyo District Court No. 703 Courtroom.

On the previous date of the 5th Oral Argument, the presiding judge suddenly spoke to the defendant. While presenting the form devised by the court to both the defendant and the plaintiff, I asked if the defendant would explain the nature of each document and the reason why it could not be disclosed for each non-disclosure document that the defendant did not disclose even the name of the document. did.

It was a sudden request, so the defendant was supposed to consider whether or not he could respond.

And on this date, the defendant's designated representative replied that he would prepare the document in the manner proposed by the court. The presiding judge asked me, "Then, how long will it take to prepare these documents?"

I don't know if the presiding judge thought that three months was long or appropriate, but he asked the plaintiff, "How do you feel?"

If you have properly compared the undisclosed parts and the reasons for non-disclosure from the beginning, one month should be enough even if you carefully check it. Three months would be required because the non-disclosure disposition was made without examining the contents of the information disclosure request in detail.

I knew that, but when I said, "One month should be enough," the defendant just answered, "Impossible." If you think that you are deaf, there is no point in rejecting it. Also, from the plaintiff's side, the purpose is to have a decent trial anyway, so if it takes three months, it should take three months.

As such, the defendant will submit a written answer to the court's homework by September 20, and the plaintiff will read this document and ask if there is anything further that the defendant wants to explain, or if there is an opinion on the future progress. After considering the above, it was decided to open the date for oral argument on the web at 11:00 am on October 12th.

What kind of documents will come out? I'm looking forward to the next due date.