The 18th oral argument hearing was held on Monday, January 27, 2025 from 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

This trial has become a tradition to be held in a round table courtroom. Each oral argument session is held around a round table, with the presiding judge expressing his/her views, followed by the defendant's and plaintiff's attorneys expressing their views, in a manner that feels like an exchange of opinions on mundane administrative tasks.

The plaintiff submitted the fifth, sixth and seventh preparatory documents and documentary evidence (Exhibits 22 to 35).

The preparatory documents were separated because, since the contents are different, it was thought that it would be easier to read if they were separate documents.

In the fifth preparatory brief, I wrote about the interpretation of the personal identification information (item 1) as a reason for non-disclosure, the concept of the mosaic approach, how to understand "publicly known as a practice" (information), and the burden of proof for the proviso. I then examined each individual document and found that among the information that the defendant has withheld due to the fact that it is personal identification information, there are quite a few that should be disclosed. Since the amount of documents is huge, I examined only the first volume out of four volumes.

In the sixth preparatory document, we pointed out that it is important to make the accident-related materials public in order to ensure transparency in the accident investigation, and then we individually refuted the points in Volume 1 that the Defendant claimed to fall under items 5 (information on the decision-making process) and 6 (information on administrative operations).

In the seventh preparatory document, we individually examined and refuted the parts of Volumes 2 to 4 that were not disclosed because they constitute personal identification information.

The plaintiff now has the task of refuting the points in volumes 2 to 4 that the defendant alleges fall under items 5 and 6. The deadline for submission is Tuesday, March 11th.

The defendant submitted an Excel spreadsheet containing more detailed supplementary explanations about the parts of the documents that were not disclosed and were subject to the disclosure request.

The presiding judge pointed out that until now the claims of the plaintiff and defendant have been categorized and compared in Excel spreadsheets, but looking at the plaintiff's claims this time, he felt that they were being made according to the characteristics of each document, and that the previous categorizations no longer fit them.

Explanation from the plaintiff's attorney.

When the court first proposed the classification, the defendant had not disclosed any of the documents in question and had only made abstract claims, so it was inevitable that the classification the court came up with would be abstract. Now, more than half of the titles of each individual document have been made clear, and although the contents are mostly blacked out, some of them have been disclosed, so it is better than when they were completely unknown. It is impossible to maintain the classification up to now. It will be necessary to consider whether to further subdivide the documents or to create new classifications.

The presiding judge pointed out that in the request for clarification on page 15 of Plaintiff's Seventh Preparatory Document, it is impossible to guess what is written in the blacked-out * part of Exhibit ④6. Can you explain?

The defendant's attorney will provide the name and affiliation of the submitter. In addition to the explanation of the * part of Otsu ④ 6, we will also supplement the explanation of * for Otsu ① 93 and 94. Regarding Otsu ④ 6, we will supplement the non-disclosure information part of the Excel spreadsheet. The deadline for submission is February 12th.

When the plaintiff's attorney pointed to the blacked-out portion and asked, "What's written here?", the defendant's attorney immediately and emotionally retorted, "I can't tell you!" The plaintiff's attorney did not want the contents to be explained in detail, which would be tantamount to disclosing the document, but rather intended to ask what type of information was written there, but the defendant's attorney did not seem to take it that way.

The next hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 18th at 4pm in Courtroom 602.

The 17th oral argument hearing was held on Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

The defendant submitted preparatory brief (12) and Exhibit B-18 and Exhibit B-19-1 and -2 (all copies).

In preparatory document (12), compared to previous preparatory documents, the contrast between the parts that will not be disclosed and the reasons for not disclosing them is much easier to understand.

There was an explanation of what kind of document the withheld document was, what it contained, and what was written in the withheld parts.It also went into quite a bit of detail about which of the reasons for withholding information stipulated in the Information Disclosure Act it fell under, and why it could be said that way.

I can't help but sigh and think that if the plaintiffs had been given this kind of document of non-disclosure when they first made their request for disclosure of information, their subsequent review requests and trials would have been much easier.

The new documentary evidence submitted by the defendant seemed irrelevant.

Exhibit B No. 18 is the IMO Marine Accident Investigator Manual (excerpt)

The procedure for investigating international maritime accidents states that no one country should make public a draft investigation report or other information at its own discretion. In the case of an international maritime accident, there is a possibility that conflicts of interest may arise between the countries involved, so it is only natural that such coordination is necessary.

However, the only country involved in the sinking of the 58th Suwa Maru is Japan. In that case, I think this manual is irrelevant. I wonder if the defendant thinks there are other countries involved besides Japan.

Exhibit B No. 19, No. 1 is Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, No. 2 is the translation

This is also an order concerning international civil aviation.

It states that "Any country conducting an investigation into an accident or incident must not use the following records for any purpose other than the accident or incident investigation," and lists the following records as "records in the custody or control of the accident investigating authority" as "all statements obtained by the investigating authority in the course of the investigation" and "draft final report of the accident or incident investigation."

There are many oral statements from people involved in the sinking of the 58th Jyuwa Maru. There are also several draft final reports. I believe these are cited as reasons for not disclosing them, but I believe that the sinking of the 58th Jyuwa Maru, which was neither an international nor a civil aviation incident, is not related to this treaty.

The court proceedings went as follows:

The presiding judge said, "The defendant has presented its individual arguments in their entirety in the defendant's preparatory briefs (11) and (12). The court is considering categorizing the list in light of the defendant's preparatory briefs."

Plaintiff's attorney: "The defendant's arguments have become much easier to understand from this document, so it will be easier to write the rebuttal document. However, if we only had the written argument document, it would be too long and it would be difficult to compare the arguments of both sides. I think it would be easier to understand if there was a table."

"The court is also considering whether it is possible to create a categorization following past examples," the judge said.

While the court will continue to consider the types of information to be entered in *4 (nature/type of non-disclosure information) of the list, we would like to give further thought to what to do about *7 (additional information on reasons for non-disclosure).

We would like the Plaintiff to first submit a rebuttal to Defendant's Preparatory Briefs (11) and (12) in the form of a preparatory brief.

Regarding *5 (supplementary explanation of non-disclosure information) and *6 (provision of reasons for non-disclosure) in the table, the explanation in the defendant's preparatory brief (12) states that, for example, in regard to B-1-1, this brief revealed that the company was a candidate for the investigation contractor. I think it would be good to include this point as a supplementary explanation.

Defendant's preparatory briefs (11) and (12) contain additional reasons for non-disclosure that were not included in the table (Article on reasons for non-disclosure) (※6), and conversely, there are reasons for non-disclosure that are included in the table but are not asserted in the present documents. How should we think about this?

Plaintiff's attorney: "Regarding the defendant's document (12), we can see that "people related to Suya Shoten" were mentioned as sources of each document, but there is only mention of "people related to Suya Shoten" and "information providers," so we cannot imagine what position they were in. Who provided the documents is an important factor in considering the credibility of the contents, so we would like to know at the very least how they are differentiated.

Defendant's attorney: "We cannot reveal the source of the information. If you are unsure whether the information is subject to non-disclosure, please point it out in the plaintiff's written statement and we will consider it."

Presiding Judge: "I understand that you have consciously differentiated between 'a person affiliated with Suya Shoten,' 'a person affiliated with Suya Shoten,' and 'an informant.' I would like you to point this out in the plaintiff's written statement.

Plaintiff's Counsel: "We will submit a rebuttal to Defendant's Briefings (11) and (12) in the form of a preparatory brief."

→ Submission deadline: January 10, 2025

Defendant's attorney: "We will fill in the table by the new year."

→ Submission deadline: January 10, 2025

"It would be better if there was a period of time to consider what both sides submitted," the judge said.

Next hearing date: Monday, January 27, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Courtroom 602

The 16th oral argument hearing was held at 3:00 p.m. on July 24, 2024 in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

The defendant submitted a preparatory document (11) and Exhibit ③4-1 (Report on the capsizing and sinking accident) (replacement version).

In this document, the personal information of the captain and chief engineer is blacked out, and the reasons for non-disclosure are explained in *4 and *5. However, instead of the address and name being *4 and the seaman's license being *5, the captain was written as *4 and the chief engineer as *5, making the explanation for non-disclosure unclear. Therefore, the plaintiff side was unable to write a rebuttal. The defendant made the correction by writing the address and name as *4 and the seaman's license as *5. This merely puts the document in order, and whether it is a correct legal interpretation is another matter.

Contents of the Preparatory Documents (11)

We have refuted the plaintiff's claims of applicability of item 1 (personal information) one by one. What is notable is that the parenthetical part of item 1 ("including information that can identify a specific individual by comparing it with other information") is interpreted as broadly as possible. For example, the reason for redacting the name of the company where one works is that if the name of the company where one works is known, it would be possible to identify the individual by comparing it with other information available to the person involved, such as the organizational structure of the company. If this logic were to hold, documents that are made public would be full of redacted content. It is hard to imagine that the Freedom of Information Act anticipates such a situation.

Regarding the applicability of item 2, it is written that if information related to Suya Shoten Co., Ltd., the owner of the 58th Suwamaru, were to be made public, the company's know-how would be leaked and it would suffer a disadvantage in terms of competition, but I cannot understand what kind of thinking this is.

Regarding the applicability of items 5 and 6, the government continues to repeat its assertion that there is a risk of this or that, but gives no explanation as to whether the information falls under "information relating to deliberations, considerations or consultations within or between the independent administrative agency (Japan Transport Safety Board)" (item 5) or "information relating to the affairs or business conducted by the independent administrative agency (Japan Transport Safety Board)" (item 6).

The court proceedings went as follows:

The presiding judge asked the plaintiffs, "What are your thoughts on the proceedings?" I felt that the defendants' arguments were quite rough, but since the defendants had already submitted a written statement, I thought it would be the plaintiffs' turn to submit a written rebuttal, so I answered, "I will refute it."

However, the presiding judge did not say, "Well, please do so." He pointed out to the defendants, "The defendants are arguing, but regarding item 2, it seems to be a rebuttal to the Plaintiff's Document (4), but there is no rebuttal to the specifics of the Plaintiff's allegations. The same goes for items 5 and 6. Does this mean that you will not refute this point?" Although the defendants have individually refuted the applicability of item 1, they have only made general claims regarding items 2, 5, and 6, so it is likely that this was the reason for the criticism. The way the presiding judge said, "Are you not going to refute?" was a sign that the court could take it that the defendants would not refute any further if they did not refute.

Defendant's attorney: "We refute the plaintiff's arguments regarding item 2."

Presiding Judge: "Numbers 5 and 6 are also requested in the plaintiff's third preparatory brief. Could you please explain each document separately?"

Defendant's attorney: "We will positively consider the explanation."

The judge went even further.

Presiding Judge: "Regarding the applicability of item 2, I would like to ask the defendant to refute the details on page 10 of the Plaintiff's Fourth Preparatory Briefing. I have already asked the defendant to write in detail about item 1. Regarding personal identifiability, it has been argued that the name of the corporation where an individual works or even just their surname can be disclosed, but the fact that revealing the name of the corporation or job title can identify an individual differs depending on the size of the corporation. The same is true for job titles. I would like you to consider this point as well."

The defendant's attorney countered, "This is not information that is publicly available, and our stance is that even close relatives could be identified, so we don't think it's a matter of the size of the corporation."

Presiding Judge: "I understand that this is your stance, but there is already a high court ruling on the matter of comparing the information with other information. I would like the defendant to supplement his rebuttals with respect to items 2, 5, and 6, and I would like you to consider this point regarding item 1."

Defendant's attorney: "We would like three months to submit the documents."

The deadline for defendants to submit written submissions is October 23rd.

This time too, the main focus was on exchanges between the judge and the defendant's attorney.

The next hearing will be held on November 6th at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 602.

The 15th oral argument hearing was held at 4:00 p.m. on May 17, 2024 in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

Of the three judges, the two other than the presiding judge, the right-hand associate judge and the left-hand associate judge, have been replaced, and the oral argument procedure has been updated. This is a procedure to simply confirm that the claims of the plaintiff and defendant remain the same as before.

The plaintiff presented the fourth preparatory document (see attached list ) and submitted evidence ( Exhibit A-21 ).

The contents of the preparatory documents are a rebuttal to the applicability of Article 5, Items 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, which the defendant uses as the basis for non-disclosure.

Regarding item 1 (personal information), we pointed out that since not only personal names but also titles and positions have been redacted, it is incorrect to conclude that all of this constitutes personal information that warrants non-disclosure.

Regarding item 2 (corporate information), it has been blacked out on the grounds of "corporate know-how" and "corporate labor management," but item 2 requires that there be a "risk of harming legitimate interests," and the defendant has not explained this point.

Furthermore, while the defendant asserts that the information falls under item 2, it also asserts that it falls under item 5 (information on deliberations within independent administrative agencies) and item 6 (information on the business operations of independent administrative agencies). However, it is difficult to understand how the same blacked-out areas can fall under items 2, 5, and 6.

Documents covered by item 5 are "information concerning deliberations, considerations or consultations within or between national government agencies, independent administrative agencies, local governments and local independent administrative agencies."

Documents covered by item 6 are "information concerning the affairs or business conducted by national government agencies, independent administrative agencies, local governments, or local independent administrative agencies."

In either case, what needs to be protected is the stability of the administrative operations of government agencies and other organizations, not the information obtained from outside that is handled there.

The defendant has not demonstrated that the information falls under item 5 "information" or item 6 "information." If the information does not fall under these items, even if the defendant claims that there is a risk of something, it will not be an explanation that falls under item 5 or 6.

This is the state's argument.

The plaintiff submitted as Exhibit 21 the published "Analysis and Investigation Report on the Fishing Boat Capsizing Accident" prepared by the National Maritime Research and Development Agency, National Institute of Maritime Science and Technology. The defendant continues to withhold the results of the weight and center of gravity calculations for the Gohachi Suwa Maru, but in the investigation report prepared for the capsizing accident of a purse seine fishing boat that occurred off the coast of San'in in December 2014, the results of the weight and center of gravity calculations are published in Appendix 1 to 3. It can only be said that it is arbitrary to publish the results of this marine accident but not the Gohachi Suwa Maru marine accident. The Japan Transport Safety Board may not have compared this with other marine accidents.

The court proceedings went as follows:

Plaintiff's attorney: "The defendant has made a claim regarding items 5 and 6, but as a prerequisite, the information must meet the criteria for each item. We would like you to examine this point carefully."

Presiding Judge: "There is an argument that specific details are required for the fears of items 2, 5, and 6, but I understand that there are also points that require clarification. The plaintiff has made a full rebuttal, so I would like the defendant to refute this. I do not have a good idea of what form the document should take, but I think that a rebuttal to item 1 would be sufficient, and that the other grounds for non-disclosure should be positioned as a "general argument within the specific arguments," so I think that it would be fine to first have the defendant refute the rebuttal to item 4 in the form of a preparatory document."

Plaintiff's attorney: "We haven't yet reached a point where it's like the Vaughan Index"

If there was a part of a page that was blacked out, and the plaintiff and the court could recognize what was written in the blacked-out part from the text before and after it, it would be possible to understand whether the reason for non-disclosure applies and to make an appropriate counterargument, but in this case, many pages are completely blacked out, and it is completely unclear what is written on each page. This is why the plaintiff's attorney said, "We haven't yet reached the stage of something like a Vaughn Index."

Presiding Judge: "First, I would like you to refute the Plaintiff's fourth preparatory document. As it stands, it is highly abstract, and the probabilities are unclear. It would be better if we could clarify which parts are truly relevant."

Defendant's attorney: "We will submit the preparatory documents by July 17th, two months from now. There are some corrections to be made to the part marked with * in B34. We will make the corrections at a later date."

This is a correction of a typo.

The next hearing will be held on July 24th at 3pm in Courtroom 602.

The 14th oral argument hearing was held at 11:00 a.m. on March 15, 2024 in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

Prior to the hearing, the defendant sent the third and fourth volumes as documentary evidence. This provided copies of all documents subject to the disclosure request.

At the hearing, the defendant filed a brief (10) has been submitted.

The contents are three pages listing the reasons for non-disclosure in Volume 3 of the investigation materials, and two pages listing the reasons for non-disclosure in Volume 4.

The plaintiffs submitted the third preparatory brief since December 2022. The court has been continuing persuasive negotiations with the defendant for more than a year without the plaintiffs even having to submit a written statement of claim.

Below, we will briefly explain the actual situation regarding non-disclosure in Volumes 1 and 2.

The first volume (Part 1, No. 1-102) contains materials related to interviews with people involved in the accident, including oral statements, and is approximately 8cm thick.

- Regarding "■■■ Survey" (Otsu ①1), of the eight pages, only "Revised", "Survey", "Implementing agency", and "Survey method" are disclosed; everything else has been blacked out.

・For the "■■■'s Guide" (Part 1, 2-6), only the "Revision" and "Table of Contents" have been disclosed, and everything else has been blacked out. It is not even clear who wrote what items.

- The "Response regarding ■■ of the 58th Juwa Maru" (Otsu ①8) addressed to the Yokohama Regional Marine Accident Tribunal has the response date, respondent, and response content all redacted.

- Almost all of the numbers on the ship's nationality certificate, ship's nationality certificate verification deadline designation, ship inspection certificate, ship inspection booklet, and powered fishing vessel registration slip (B①9 to 61) of the 58th Suwamaru and "other ships" have been blacked out.

- The completion centre of gravity test report and stabilisation report for the No. 58 Suwa Maru, certified copy of the erasure from the fishing vessel register, crew list, ■■ quantity table, engine room jurisdiction system diagram, sounding table, displacement curve diagram, trial run report, completion details table, pipe symbol and abbreviation table, engine room overall equipment diagram, general arrangement diagram ■■■, etc. (Otsu ① 62-102) have almost all been ink-washed out.

The thickness of the second volume (Part 2, No. 1 to 55) is approximately 9 cm.

- All interviews about the accident have been redacted, and it is not clear who interviewed them.

・It says "Survey regarding ■■■" (Otsu ②1), making it unclear what the survey is about, but since it says "This survey is being conducted to investigate the cause of the accident..." it seems pointless to hide the "■■■."

・The appraisal certificate is almost completely blackened out, making it impossible to tell who did the appraisal, why, or what kind of appraisal it was done.

- All 23 question-and-answer style interview notes (Otsu②5-27) have been redacted, including the people who were interviewed and the contents of the questions and answers.

- The list of ships assisting in the search (Bulk ②41) has all the names of the ships blacked out except for the "Juwamaru."

・The "■■■ List" (Otsu②43) hides what the list is for, but the table directly below it has "Recovered Items," "Notes," and "Quantity," so it must be a list of recovered items. Is there any point in hiding the title?

- The evidence explanation statement states "Paper ***" (Otsu ② 45), but when you look at the corresponding evidence, it is completely blacked out, which raises questions not only about what paper it is, but even whether it is really a paper at all.

・Excerpts from a paper on the weather in the Pacific Ocean (Part 2 49) were fully disclosed. I looked for the blacked-out parts, but they weren't there. That was fine, but the colophon of the paper book was not included, so I don't know the title of the book or when or who wrote it. Is this also partially withheld?

・Logbooks and engine logs of the 82nd Suwa Maru, the 22nd Suwa Maru, the 2nd Suwa Maru, and the 31st Suwa Maru (Otsu②55)

Compared to the time when nothing came up, we now have a clearer idea of exactly what aspects have not been disclosed, so it has become much easier to consider which reasons for non-disclosure apply.

In the plaintiff's written argument, the plaintiff wrote that the defendant's application of the reasons for non-disclosure was too broad, and that after interpreting the meaning and judgment framework of each item of Article 5 of the Information Disclosure Act (grounds for non-disclosure), including item 1 (personal information), item 2 (corporate information), item 5 (information for internal deliberation and consideration of government organizations, etc.), and item 6 (administrative and business information), the defendant's application did not match the stated criteria.

In response, the presiding judge asked that the defendant consider whether each document was a reason for non-disclosure, even if it meant repeating the same thing, and that the plaintiff's claims be incorporated into the list prepared by the defendant.

I imagined that it would be a time-consuming and physically demanding job to go through each and every blacked-out part of the enormous number of documents and write a document explaining why each one was grounds for non-disclosure, but looking at the titles of the documents in the list, they seemed fairly typical, so I thought it would be doable and decided to take on the job.

The next hearing will be at 4:00 p.m. on May 17th in Courtroom 602.

The 13th oral argument hearing was held at 2:00 p.m. on December 1, 2023 in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

The defendant has submitted brief (9).

The contents are 10 pages listing reasons for non-disclosure of investigation materials (volume 2).

At the previous hearing, in response to a question from the presiding judge asking "What is the '※ part' of the undisclosed portions?" the defendant's attorney explained, "You will understand when you look at the evidence we will submit at a later date." Parts of Volume 1 and Volume 2 were then submitted as evidence, with some documents completely blacked out in places, and in some cases spanning several pages.

Below, we briefly explain the reality of non-disclosure.

The first volume (Part 1, No. 1-102) contains materials related to interviews with people involved in the accident, including oral statements, and is approximately 8cm thick.

- Regarding "■■■ Survey" (Otsu ①1), of the eight pages, only "Revised", "Survey", "Implementing agency", and "Survey method" are disclosed; everything else has been blacked out.

・For the "■■■'s Guide" (Part 1, 2-6), only the "Revision" and "Table of Contents" have been disclosed, and everything else has been blacked out. It is not even clear who wrote what items.

- The "Response regarding ■■ of the 58th Juwa Maru" (Otsu ①8) addressed to the Yokohama Regional Marine Accident Tribunal has the response date, respondent, and response content all redacted.

- Almost all of the numbers on the ship's nationality certificate, ship's nationality certificate verification deadline designation, ship inspection certificate, ship inspection booklet, and powered fishing vessel registration slip (B①9 to 61) of the 58th Suwamaru and "other ships" have been blacked out.

- The completion centre of gravity test report and stabilisation report for the No. 58 Suwa Maru, certified copy of the erasure from the fishing vessel register, crew list, ■■ quantity table, engine room jurisdiction system diagram, sounding table, displacement curve diagram, trial run report, completion details table, pipe symbol and abbreviation table, engine room overall equipment diagram, general arrangement diagram ■■■, etc. (Otsu ① 62-102) have almost all been ink-washed out.

The contents of the second volume (Part 2 1-55) are approximately 9 cm

- All interviews about the accident have been redacted, and it is not clear who interviewed them.

・It says "Survey regarding ■■■" (Otsu ②1), so it is unclear what the survey is about, but since it says "This survey is being conducted to investigate the cause of the accident...", it seems pointless to hide the "■■■."

・The appraisal certificate is almost completely blackened out, making it impossible to tell who did the appraisal, why, or what kind of appraisal it was done.

- All 23 question-and-answer style interview notes (Otsu②5-27) have been redacted, including the people who were interviewed and the contents of the questions and answers.

- The list of ships assisting in the search (Bulk ②41) has all the names of the ships blacked out except for the "Juwamaru."

・The "■■■ List" (Otsu②43) hides what the list is for, but the table directly below it has "Recovered Items," "Notes," and "Quantity," so it must be a list of recovered items. Is there any point in hiding the title?

- The evidence explanation states "Paper ***" (Otsu ② 45), but when you look at the corresponding evidence, it is completely blacked out, which raises questions not only about what paper it is, but even whether it is really a paper at all.

・Excerpts from a paper on the weather in the Pacific Ocean (Part 2 49) were fully disclosed. I looked for the blacked-out parts, but they weren't there. That was fine, but the colophon of the paper book was not included, so I don't know the title of the book or when or who wrote it. Is this also partially withheld?

・Logbooks and engine logs of the 82nd Suwa Maru, the 22nd Suwa Maru, the 2nd Suwa Maru, and the 31st Suwa Maru (Otsu②55)

Compared to the time when nothing came up, we now have a clearer idea of exactly what aspects have not been disclosed, so it has become much easier to consider which reasons for non-disclosure apply.

The third and fourth volumes are scheduled to be submitted as evidence by the end of February 2024. Naturally, these will also be blacked out in places.

We will consider whether it is possible to accurately judge the appropriateness of the decision, and if we are unable to do so, we will request an explanation for the reason.

The next hearing will be held on March 15th at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 602.

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.

The 11th oral argument hearing was held at 2:00 p.m. on May 29, 2023 in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

Because the composition of the court has changed, the plaintiff and defendant have agreed to maintain their previous positions and have updated the oral argument procedure.

The plaintiff withdrew part of the lawsuit and filed a supplementary statement, and the defendant agreed to the partial withdrawal. The plaintiff withdrew part of the lawsuit because the defendant disclosed some of the information that had not been disclosed until then, making it pointless to continue the lawsuit, and thus the plaintiff essentially won a partial victory. This narrowed the scope of the dispute in court procedurally a little.

The defendant submitted brief (7).

The documents in question are classified into Volume 1 (ship-related), Volume 2 (oral memos, question records, etc.), Volume 3 (maritime competency licenses, small boat operating licenses, etc.), and Volume 4 (deliberation reports (draft), opinions of related parties, etc.), and the headings of documents in Volumes 2 and 3 are now slightly more disclosed than before.

The presiding judge asked the plaintiffs whether they were now able to make individual counterarguments, and the plaintiffs explained that with this level of disclosure they could not make specific arguments. "For example, regarding items 4 and onwards in Volume 2, even if the individual can be identified, if the person is a company representative, it is customarily made public, so even if the person is not a public official, it should be disclosed. As for the "Guide" in Volume 1, we do not know what the guide is, so we cannot specifically argue that the blacked-out parts are illegal. As for items 14 and onwards in Volume 1, we think they are the names of ships, but we are not sure. As things stand, we can only make rough arguments. It is difficult to consider this without an explanation of the specific reasons for non-disclosure."

This means that even a court that has only seen the same documents as the plaintiff would not be able to determine that the non-disclosure decision was "lawful."

The defendant's attorney responded, "In addition to the headings of the documents, we were also given the task of determining the claims and responses to the set of investigation materials, and we are considering changing the disposition of this. If you could continue to classify the contents and take a look at them, we may be able to understand to some extent."

This is an explanation that they are considering disclosing the contents of the investigation materials as well.

Presiding Judge: "This is a question of supplementing the explanation of non-disclosure information. I certainly feel that we will reach a dead end if we only discuss the headings."

Defendant's attorney: "We will proceed with the complete set of investigation materials."

Plaintiff's attorney: "If the full set of investigation materials is disclosed to a certain extent, it will be easier to consider the title."

Presiding Judge: "Let's put aside the explanation of the heading itself for now and ask the defendant to prepare a set of research materials."

Defendant's attorney: "Basically we will proceed with each volume separately, but since the third volume is small, we will do it together with the others. The first volume will take three months. The rest will take about two months, so we hope to finish by the end of the year."

Presiding Judge: "There will be a summer recess, so will we proceed with the first part by August, and then while the plaintiffs are refuting it, we will proceed with the other parts?"

Defendant's attorney: "We will make the changes one by one, starting from the first volume.

The presiding judge said, "In accordance with the re-imposition of the disposition, the plaintiff side should take the necessary measures, such as changing the complaint."

Plaintiff's attorney: "If there are many pages that are just blacked out, you can write that those pages will not be disclosed."

Defendant's attorney: "I don't think there is any such section. I will prepare a table for Volume 1 by August 31 and submit it as documentary evidence."

The next hearing will be held on September 8th at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 602.

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.