By today's deadline, some of the members of the panel of judges (three judges) handling this case have been replaced due to personnel changes, etc.

First, we confirmed that the following documents were submitted between the previous deadline and the current deadline.

Defendant: Response (Answers to questions from the plaintiff regarding the undisclosed portions marked with *, etc.)

Plaintiff: 9th Preparatory Document/10th Preparatory Document

These two documents submitted by the plaintiff, based on the Supreme Court judgment of June 3, 2025 , argue that the defendant should further subdivide the non-disclosed portions of the first and second volumes of the four volumes of non-disclosed documents and disclose the portions that can be disclosed.

Based on this, the presiding judge asked the defendant to submit a written response if they had any objections to the plaintiff's claim for subdivision. The judge said that after reviewing the defendant's response, the court would make any further comments if necessary. In response, the defendant's designated attorney said that they would submit a written response within about two months.

The plaintiffs have decided to submit a written argument within approximately two months requesting the disclosure of the undisclosed portions of the third and fourth volumes, by further subdividing the undisclosed sections.

The next hearing is scheduled for August 10th at 1:30 PM in courtroom 602.

By this date, the defendant had submitted all of the documentary evidence, including the subdivided portions of the non-disclosure information, and a list of the reasons for non-disclosure.

However, the plaintiffs believe that the subdivision is still insufficient.

Therefore, the plaintiffs first submitted a document by around April 24th pointing out that the subdivision was extremely insufficient in light of the Supreme Court ruling, and then, by May 22nd, they agreed to write down their claims on the list of grounds for non-disclosure to the extent possible.

The next hearing will be on Friday, May 29th at 11:00 AM in courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

Oral arguments were held in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court from 11:00 a.m. on December 19th.

The presiding judge was replaced due to personnel changes.

Regarding the documents for which the court is seeking the cancellation of the non-disclosure order (the complete set of investigation materials and their document catalogue), the defendant (the government) is currently in the process of breaking down the non-disclosure parts, based on the court's litigation instructions.

Specifically, regarding the Excel sheet (list of reasons for non-disclosure) in which the reasons for non-disclosure are written for each non-disclosure document,

The undisclosed parts have been broken down and written down in detail.

At this hearing, the presiding judge also asked the defendant's designated attorney about the progress of the case.

Defendant's designated attorney (Y): We are currently working on revising the list of reasons for non-disclosure. We would like to submit a list of all non-disclosure items by January 30th. It is currently difficult to submit the subdivided non-disclosure documents in the form of documentary evidence. However, there may be a small amount of additional disclosure.

After reviewing the list of reasons for non-disclosure, it will become clear what additional information needs to be disclosed, and at that point the disposition can be retyped and then submitted as documentary evidence.

Judge: What specific details are required for additional disclosure?

Y: We are currently finalizing the details.

Judge: When do you think additional disclosure will occur?

Y: Later than the end of January, but as soon as possible. I'm thinking between the end of February and early March.

If we can respond to the additional disclosure requests, we believe we will be able to prepare documentary evidence.

The next hearing will be held on Monday, March 16th at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 601.

In a Supreme Court ruling on June 3, 2025, detailed instructions were made regarding how non-disclosure information should be categorized and how information disclosure lawsuits should be heard, which changed the way judges conducted litigation and required the defendant to explain the non-disclosure information in detail.

The plaintiff has significantly narrowed down the number of documents for which he is seeking cancellation of non-disclosure, but as the amount of non-disclosure is large, the defendant is continuing to work on subdividing the non-disclosure parts and providing supplementary explanations of the content of the non-disclosure information and the reasons for non-disclosure.

Around October 1st, prior to this hearing, the defendant provided us with a detailed list of the documents that would not be disclosed, although it was only a partial list.

In preparation for the next hearing, the defendant will continue to work on breaking down the undisclosed parts.

The plaintiffs have decided to write rebuttals to some of the documents presented at this hearing, to the extent that they feel they can do so by the next hearing.

The next hearing will be held on December 19th at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

1. Motion to change the allegation: Submit a partially amended version

Regarding the list attached to the petition for amendment of the complaint that was submitted in May, we met with the court the day before the hearing and made some amendments without changing the content, and submitted this as a petition for amendment.

Since it was just before the hearing date, the defendant did not have time to consider the contents. Since the contents had not changed, it would have been fine to say, "Is it okay to approve the motion for correction?" However, the designated representatives looked at each other wondering what to do, so the plaintiff's representative said, "It's not urgent, so we can postpone our opinion until next time," and it was decided that the defendant's opinion on the motion for correction would be given next time.

2. Documentary evidence submitted by the defendant: (Exhibit B-22, Notice of decision six months ago)

The defendant submitted Exhibit B-22 (copy) of the "Notice of Changes to the Notice of Decision to Disclose Administrative Documents dated November 14, 2023," which the presiding judge had requested the defendant submit at the previous hearing. As you can see from the date, this notice is from six months ago. Since this notice has amended (expanded) the scope of information disclosure, it seems that the court wants to make it clear as evidence.

3. Exchanges at hearings: Detailed explanation of reasons for non-disclosure in light of the Supreme Court ruling

Presiding Judge: At the previous hearing, I stated that it was necessary to subdivide the non-disclosure parts in light of the Supreme Court ruling on June 3rd. For example, in Exhibit 1 of B2 ("Questionnaire regarding ■■■■"), the bottom half of the first page to the sixth page are all blacked out, but since it is a questionnaire, I think there are standard questions that are answered. In the current table, this is all lumped together as "the rest," but I think you will need to write it in further separate cells. I would like to have the supplementary column for non-disclosure information, the column for reasons for non-disclosure, and the column for supplementary column for reasons for non-disclosure subdivided. What is the defendant's status of consideration, such as what kind of schedule will be used?

Defendant: I am still considering it. First, I am thinking of completing the tasks I can do by the end of September and submitting the form. I am not sure if I will be able to complete all the fields in time, but I do not intend to split the form into three installments.

Presiding Judge: I think we will be able to get a concrete idea of the schedule once we actually start working on it. "As far as we can" is a bit vague, though.

Plaintiff: The purpose of the Supreme Court ruling is to ensure that the three parties have a common understanding of what is written in the non-disclosure portion. Please make an effort to understand that.

Next hearing: Friday, October 10th, 3pm, Courtroom 602

The 20th oral argument hearing was held on Friday, June 13, 2025 from 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

The composition of the court has changed, so the proceedings have been updated.

The presiding judge has not changed, so there is no need to worry about how the proceedings will proceed.

<Submission of written documents>

Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint.

This is a change in the lawsuit to reduce the number of documents subject to disclosure. In the course of the court proceedings, some of the documents have been gradually disclosed, and we now know much more about what the documents are compared to when the lawsuit was filed. We also found out that the plaintiff already has a considerable number of documents. We decided to withdraw these documents as we do not need a judgment on them, and since the plaintiff is concerned about the contents of the documents, we decided to exclude them from the disclosure request, even though there may be some points that could be won if a judgment is filed.

The defendant has submitted preparatory briefs (14), (15), and (16).

The preparatory document (14) is an interpretation of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Information Disclosure Act (personally identifiable information) and its application to each item that is not to be disclosed.

Defendants have stretched the Mosaic approach to its fullest extent, arguing that the "practice" in "information publicly available as a practice" is limited to the agency's practice.

This means that anything can be withheld using the mosaic approach, and if government agencies do not make it a practice, they can insist that information does not fall under "information that has been made public as a matter of practice" even if public disclosure has become the norm in society.

These are important theoretical points, but they are no longer of major contention, as many of the allegations concern documents that have been withdrawn in the amendment to the complaint.

The preparatory document (15) is an interpretation of Article 5, Paragraph 5 of the Information Disclosure Act (information related to deliberations, considerations or consultations) and its application to each of the non-disclosure items.

Item 5 is structured as follows: (A) "information concerning internal or mutual deliberations, considerations, or consultations among independent administrative agencies," which, if made public, is (B) "likely to cause undue risk to the frank exchange of opinions or the neutrality of decision-making, to cause undue risk to the public, or to give undue benefit or disadvantage to a specific person." However, the defendants have consistently emphasized the "likely" part of (B) without discussing whether the information falls under (A).

Defendant’s Preparatory Brief (16) discusses whether Volumes 2 to 4 of the Target Documents are grounds for non-disclosure for reasons other than that they contain personally identifiable information.

<Deadline negotiations>

Since the scope of disclosure was expanded in the non-disclosure decision dated November 14, 2023, the decision document was not used as evidence, so the presiding judge requested the defendant's counsel to submit the decision document as evidence, and the defendant's counsel agreed.

This was the climax of the day's deadline.

The presiding judge began by asking, "Are you aware of the Supreme Court ruling issued on the 3rd of this month(＊)?"

It is a ruling in a lawsuit for disclosure of information, presided over by Judge Katsuya Uga, that is well known to all plaintiffs (or attorneys) who are struggling with the defendant government's delaying tactics in the lawsuit. Defendant attorneys are probably also familiar with it.

* Judgment of the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court on June 6, 2025 (President: Judge Katsuya Uga)

The judge continued:

"The Supreme Court ruling also included requests regarding the way courts conduct hearings and explanations in information disclosure lawsuits. Looking at this lawsuit from that perspective, it seems that the defendants could have limited the parts that were withheld. I think it is necessary to increase the density of the hearings. I would like the defendants to reconsider how they divide up the information and the reasoning for each part."

The presiding judge was referring to the following passage of the Supreme Court ruling when he said, "There were requests regarding the court's proceedings and the manner in which explanations are given."

Based on the idea that the lower court (Tokyo High Court) should have asked the appellee to clarify whether or not sub-items were provided for each document in the "Notes" column of entries 2 and 3 of the Attached List, which were not disclosed in the separate decisions, and, if sub-items were provided, whether or not the "Notes" column could still be said to record the information in each item in an integrated manner, and then made a judgment on the applicability of the information in each item in this case for each reasonably defined range, "the lower court, however, did not exhaustively examine the matter from the above perspective, and instead determined that the information recorded in the above sections could not be further subdivided because it was difficult to identify the content, and so made a judgment on the applicability of each item in this case as an integrated whole. This judgment by the lower court is clearly illegal as it affects the judgment as a result of an insufficient trial."

The Tokyo High Court accepted the defendant's rough argument (explanation) as it was and upheld the non-disclosure order.

Even in the case we are currently facing, there are many documents that the defendant is maintaining are not disclosed, and many pages are blacked out, making it impossible to know what is written in them. Only the defendant knows what is written in the non-disclosure parts, and neither the plaintiff nor the court knows. The plaintiff cannot make an appropriate counterargument to the defendant's argument, and the court does not know what kind of information is written in them, so we cannot be sure that the defendant's argument that the documents are not disclosed is a correct interpretation of the law.

The Supreme Court ruling was written with this issue in mind.

It is only natural that the judge and presiding judge in this case would react strongly to this ruling.

As you can see from reading the Supreme Court decisions, not only Judge Uga, who rejected the information unit theory (independent and integral theory), but also other judges who do not reject the information unit theory, have called for information to be broken down into smaller pieces and whether it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure considered, and in practice it seems that the results will be almost the same as Judge Uga's thinking.

How will the defendant respond to the homework given to them by the presiding judge? I hope that they will understand the issues pointed out in the Supreme Court ruling, and provide more detail on what will not be disclosed and apply the corresponding reasons for non-disclosure.

On the other hand, the presiding judge's request to the plaintiffs was that, as there were some unclear points in the part of the claim that was being withdrawn due to the change in the complaint, they should correct the table (by colouring in grey the parts where the disclosure requests had been withdrawn) and upload it to Teams by June 27th.

The next hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 15th at 10:15am in Courtroom 602.

19th due date report

The 19th oral argument hearing was held on Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 602 of the Tokyo District Court.

The plaintiff has submitted the 8th preparatory document and a list of reasons for non-disclosure.

In the preparatory brief, we refuted the defendant's arguments (Defendant's Preparatory Brief (12)) regarding the parts of Volumes 2 to 4 of the four volumes of the target documents, excluding the parts that contain personally identifiable information.

Regarding item 2-38 of the list of reasons for non-disclosure (Response to the supplementary investigation of the No. 58 Suwamaru accident), we have decided to exclude the respondent's resume from the disclosure request. The longer it takes for the plaintiff to raise issues through disclosure documents, the later it will be, and the timing may be missed. This is a problem that always accompanies information disclosure lawsuits. It is not about whether we will win the judgment, but rather about wanting to shorten the time it takes the court to write the judgment, so we have decided to exclude (withdraw) part of it from the disclosure request.

The defendant's brief (13) finally provided a relatively specific explanation of the nature and content of the documents that were not to be disclosed. This makes it somewhat easier to argue against the applicability of the reasons for non-disclosure based on the content of the documents.

<Discussion of deadlines>

Presiding Judge: Does this mean that the claim will be reduced (partially withdrawn) in the future with regard to the parts that have been excluded this time?

Plaintiff: Yes.

Presiding Judge: All information except for personal identification information has been disclosed in Otsu②51 (Response from the Japan Meteorological Agency). If the personal identification information is to be withdrawn, is it okay to exclude (withdraw) all information in Otsu②51?

Plaintiff: Probably so. I'll check.

Presiding Judge: In this trial, a request for disclosure of information has also been made regarding the headings of documents. Some headings of documents have been made public in the previous procedures, so if you are requesting disclosure of all of them, could you please make that clear in the partial withdrawal document? Then, I think it would be fine if you thinned out the items that are not subject to the request from the list of reasons for non-disclosure.

Plaintiff: Regarding the Schedule to the 8th Preparatory Document Appendix, Volume 4, where the Defendant has added a request for clarification, I will add the word "exclusion" and upload it.

Judge: Just upload it on Teams.

Presiding Judge: I would like the defendant to submit a rebuttal to the plaintiff's claims in the form of a preparatory brief.

Defendant: Understood. I have discovered that I mistakenly attached the drawing in Exhibit ②33 (Question Record) to the end of Exhibit ②32 (Question Record), so I will disclose one additional drawing to be attached to the end of Exhibit ②32.

Presiding Judge: So this is not a change in decision but additional disclosure, or a partial correction to the disclosure of the transcript?

This error occurred when copying Exhibit ②32 and also copying Exhibit ②33, and was made when the originals were disassembled or when the copies were bound together, and there was no error in the disclosure decision itself.

The judge gave the plaintiff some homework.

The plaintiff must submit a written amendment to the complaint (reduction of the claim) by April 11th, and then create an Excel spreadsheet excluding the excluded parts from the list of reasons for non-disclosure, and upload it to Teams by the end of May. The excluded parts must be grayed out so that the excluded documents can be identified.

The next hearing will be held on Friday, June 13th at 1:30pm in Courtroom 602.

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.