Case Number

Reiwa 6 (Ne) No. 453

Parties

Appellee and appellant: Okawara Kakoki Co., Ltd. and 5 others

Appellant and Respondent: Tokyo Metropolitan Government, National Government

Case Name

State compensation claim case

due date

3rd meeting date (progress discussion)

Tuesday, July 30, 2024, from 2:30 p.m.

Next Date

Next session: Wednesday, October 9, 2024, from 10:30 a.m.

(Courtroom No. 101)

Documents to be submitted

none

Date Progress Summary

Court: Today, we would like to confirm the contents of the discussion at the last progress consultation date. First, the examination date will be set for October 9, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. We will conduct examination of Mr. ●● in the morning, and from 1:30 p.m. on the same day, we will conduct examination of Mr. ●● , as requested by the plaintiff, after Mr. ●● 's examination is completed. The planned examination time is as we discussed last time: For Mr. ●●, we would like to have 20 minutes of main examination, 20 minutes of cross examination, and about 10 minutes of state examination time; For Mr. ●● , we would like to have 25 minutes of main examination, 25 minutes of cross examination, and about 10 minutes of state examination time; For Mr. ●● , we would like to have 25 minutes of main examination, 25 minutes of cross examination, and about 10 minutes of state examination time. In addition, the court recognizes that the main matter for examination of Mr. ●● is the process of creating the METI memo. Do you have any opinions about the progress of the court?

All: No.

Court: In addition, regarding Mr. ●● , is it correct that the application will not be made by both parties, but by the plaintiff in first instance, and no application will be made by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government?

Tokyo: The Tokyo Metropolitan Government will not be requesting witnesses. In addition, regarding the appearance of all witnesses, we would like them to be summoned rather than accompanied.

Court: I understand. In addition, regarding Mr. ●● , regarding the plaintiff application, I would like the city to ensure his/her appearance and also take the necessary steps to lift the confidentiality obligation.

Miyako: I understand all of that. I would also like the witnesses to be called at different times.

Court: Understood. We will decide on the evidence in the near future, and the next hearing will be held on October 9, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 101. We will also set the hearing date for December 25, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. In addition, could you please keep the afternoon of November 8, 2024 free as a backup day? We will tell you the specific details of what will be done on the backup day for the hearing date on October 9, 2024. That's all for today.

that's all

Case Number

Reiwa 6 (Ne) No. 453

Parties

Appellee and appellant: Okawara Kakoki Co., Ltd. and 5 others

Appellant and Respondent: Tokyo Metropolitan Government, National Government

Case Name

State compensation claim case

due date

2nd date (progress discussion)

Tuesday, July 23, 2024, from 11:00 a.m.

Next Date

Next session: Tuesday, July 30, 2024, from 2:30 p.m.

Documents to be submitted

Our side: Preparatory document 1, Preparatory document 2, Preparatory document 3

Tokyo: Preparatory brief (1), Preparatory brief (2), Statement of opinion on submission of evidence

Country: Preparatory brief (1), Statement of Position on Evidence Submission

Date Progress Summary

The following is from 11:00 am to 11:15 am

Court: Although there are supplementary arguments, there will be no statements today as this is a progress consultation. Today, we would like to discuss the witness examination requested by the parties and the overall progress of this case. I believe that both sides have opinions regarding the submission of evidence, but first, I would like to hear a summary and supplementary opinions from the defendants regarding the two people requested by the plaintiff, Mr. ●● and Mr. ●● .

Government: Our opinion on the submission of evidence is as stated in the written opinion. Mr. ●● has already been examined at the first instance, and we believe there is no need to examine him as a witness again. Furthermore, Mr. ●● 's submission was not submitted at the first instance, and we believe there is no need to examine him as a witness again.

Tokyo: Our opinion on the submission of evidence is as stated in the written opinion. Mr. ●● has already been questioned at the first instance, and METI officials have also been questioned as witnesses at the first instance, so we believe there is no need to question him as a witness again. Although Mr. ●● has been seconded to METI in the past, he was seconded there before the spray dryer in question was regulated, so we believe he is not appropriate as a witness for this case.

Our side: With regard to ●● and ●●, we believe that it is necessary to question them both, since it is necessary to supplement the parts that could not be questioned at the first instance, based on the METI memo and other investigative memos newly submitted at the appeal hearing. However, the national and metropolitan governments are not disputing the authenticity or probative force of the investigative memos, and we are not strongly requesting that they be called as witnesses.

The Court: I understand. What are your thoughts on the city's request for nine witnesses?

Our side: The details are as stated in the first preparatory document. An additional statement by Mr. ●● has been submitted, but even taking this into account, our statement is mostly as stated in the first preparatory document. It is clear that none of the statements are credible, and we do not believe that cross-examination is necessary. If I had to say, we would like to cross-examine Mr. ●●, but as for the others, the content does not warrant cross-examination, so we believe it is unnecessary.

Country: As a country, we hope that the court will make an appropriate decision.

Miyako: We would like to question Mr. ●● , Mr. ●● , Mr. ●● , Mr. ●● , Mr. ●●, and Mr. ●● . As for the others, I do not think it is necessary for them to be questioned.

11:15am - 11:25am: Judges meeting

The following is from 11:25 am to 11:40 am

Court: As a court, we had the impression that a substantial hearing was held, with a considerable number of witnesses examined in the first instance. We are assuming that supplementary examinations will be conducted in the appeal hearing, based on investigative memos such as the METI memo. Therefore, as a court, we are considering using three witnesses in total, namely Mr. ●● , Mr. ●● , and one of the witnesses requested by the plaintiff, and trying to schedule the hearing for half a day if possible. If the purpose is to supplement the witnesses, we would consider Mr. ●● to be the witness requested by the plaintiff, but what do you think, plaintiff?

Our side: It is difficult to give an immediate answer as to which witness is better. We will consider it within a day or two and let you know by the deadline.

The Court: I understand. Also, there is no dispute as to the probative value of the investigative notes that include Mr. ●●'s comments.

Miyako: That's right.

The Court: I understand. The planned time for the main examination will be 25 minutes for Mr. ●●, and we would like to limit the questions to 20 minutes for Mr. ●● . Based on that premise, cross-examination will be conducted on the circumstances under which Mr. ●● made his comment, and I don't think the cross-examination will take that much time. What do you think, Plaintiff?

Me: I'd like it to be about the same.

THE COURT: Okay. What about the country?

Kuni: I would like each of the three people to have a maximum of 10 minutes.

The Court: I understand. Also, assuming that all necessary information has been asked in the first instance, would it be okay to limit the time for the plaintiff's main questioning to about 25 minutes?

Us: Understood.

Court: Then, we would like to limit the testimony of the three witnesses to a total of 60 minutes, 60 minutes, and 50 minutes respectively.

All: Understood.

11:40 a.m. to 11:48 a.m., discussion

The following is from 11:48 am to 11:58 am

Court: Regarding the hearing dates, due to court procedures, we would like to be given several possible dates.

【Schedule adjustment】

Court: The hearing date will be Wednesday, October 9, 2024, with November 8, 2024 as a preliminary hearing date. The oral argument date will be December 25, 2024, but this date may be delayed due to the hearing, so this date is tentative. The next hearing will be held on July 30, 2024, at 2:30 p.m., so we would like to hold a progress consultation like this time. Thank you for your cooperation. Thank you for your hard work.

that's all

 event number 

 Reiwa 6th Year (ネ) No. 1841 

 Parties 

 Complainant: Aishima●●ほか2

 Accused person: State 

 event name 

 State Compensation Claim Complaint Incident 

 due date 

 July 8, Reiwa 6 (Wednesday) 13:30～14:00 

 return date 

 November 6, Reiwa 6 (water) 13:10 

 Propose books, etc. 

 Complainant: Complaint, Letter of Reasons for Complaint, First Preparation Letter, Appraisal Application Form, AB11～A19の2, AC25～A C31

 Accused: Statement of Complaint and Answer

Case Number

Reiwa 6 (Ne) No. 453

Parties

Appellant and appellant: Okawara Kakoki Co., Ltd. and 5 others

Appellant and appellee: Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the National Government

Case Name

State compensation claim case

due date

First hearing (oratory hearing)

Wednesday, June 5, 2024, 11:00 a.m. (Argument date)

Next Date

Next meeting: Tuesday, July 23, 2024, 11:00 a.m. on the progress consultation date

Preliminary consultation date: Tuesday, July 30, 2024, from 2:30 p.m.

* Our side: Deadline for submission of preparatory documents is July 16th

* Defendant: Deadline for submission of preparatory briefs: July 16th

Documents to be submitted

Our side: Appeal, statement of grounds for appeal, outline of statement of grounds for appeal, petition, reply to the metropolitan government, reply to the national government, outline of reply to the metropolitan government, outline of reply to the national government, supplementary reply to the metropolitan government's reply, Exhibits Ko-166-1 to Ko-202

Tokyo: Appeal, Statement of grounds for appeal, Outline of statement of grounds for appeal, Answer, Outline of answer, Exhibits Otsu 17 to Otsu 99

State: Appeal, statement of grounds for appeal, reply, outline of reply for appeal, Exhibits C43 to C50

Date Progress Summary

-In the following, Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the national government are referred to as the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the national government in the first instance.-

Court: The plaintiff will present his/her appeal against the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the national government.

Us: I will make a statement.

COURT: The defendant state's appeal is presented here.

Country: Yes.

Court: The Tokyo Metropolitan Government's petition to amend the appeal will also be heard.

Miyako: Thank you.

Court: I would like to ask about the statement of grounds for appeal. Both sides have prepared extensive documents, but is it okay for the plaintiff in the first instance to state his/her case as stated in the statement of grounds for appeal?

Us: Yes.

Court: We have received the outline, so we will treat this as a statement. As for the government, is it okay to make a statement as per the appeal statement?

Country: Yes.

Court: It would be fine for the city to also make a statement including the grounds for appeal and the outline of the case.

Miyako: Thank you.

Court: The government's written answer and outline will also be presented. The metropolitan government will also be presented with its written answer and outline. The plaintiffs, the metropolitan government and the national government, will also be presented with their separate written answers and the supplemental written answer dated May 31st.

Both: Yes.

Court: We will update the arguments. Please state the results of the oral arguments as stated in the original judgment. Are both sides okay?

Both: Yes.

Court: We will now move on to the submission of documentary evidence. We have received documents A-166-1 to A-202 from the plaintiff, but we would like to see the originals. Document A-201 has been submitted in original form, correct?

Us: Yes.

The Court: It is written front, back, front. May I hand it over as is?

Me: Of course, that's fine.

Court: We would also like to see the originals of statements and reports.

Our side: I do not have the original of Exhibit 187 with me today.

Court: I assume you have no opinion regarding the establishment?

Capital and Country: Yes.

Court: Exhibit B is the original statement only, the rest are copies. What are your thoughts on its validity?

Us: I have no objection.

Court: Copies of Exhibit C, Nos. 43 to 50, have been submitted. Is it correct that there is no dispute regarding the authenticity of the documents?

Us: Yes.

Court: We will now move on to the application for witness testimony. Do you have any comments on the current proceedings? As a court, I believe that the witness testimony was asked quite a bit in the first instance, and I believe that both sides understand where their claims differ. I think that is about it for the claims and documentary evidence.

The city and the country: The city and the country have counterarguments. We would like to make a counterargument to the written reply. We are not asserting anything new.

Court: If there is a counterargument, I would like to ask, but the question is what to do about the application for witness testimony. I think the basics were asked in the first instance. Based on that, I would like to consider the necessity of witness testimony. We will consider what to do after hearing your opinion about witness testimony at the next progress consultation.

Even if arguments are presented at the next hearing, I would like to finish the arguments at the next hearing and decide on the witness testimony. Since I have heard that you would like to proceed as soon as possible, I would like to decide on the date for the progress consultation by conducting supplementary questioning at the first hearing. If you have any opinions about the application for witness testimony, please let me know. We are considering setting a preliminary date for the progress consultation in mid-July, and in August, but by when will the arguments be submitted?

Miyako: We will also submit a statement of opinion on the testimony of the witnesses, but it appears that there are also internal documents, so we would like to have two months to prepare a written rebuttal, including reviewing those documents.

The Court: Even if they say two months.

Miyako: In a month and a half.

Court: The next hearing will be on July 23rd at 11:00 AM, and will be a progress consultation hearing. We would like to hear your testimony before then. Also, if you are able to provide an opinion, we would like to hear your rebuttal before July 23rd. We would like to reserve one more hearing for 2:30 PM on July 30th as a backup. This is just for the time being.

Our side: We would also like to submit a written rebuttal by July 16th, if necessary.

Court: You may submit the document. We will determine the direction of the argument and set a date for it.

If you wish to submit a rebuttal, please do so by July 16th.

The next hearing will be a progress consultation hearing, starting at 11:00 a.m. on July 23rd.

that's all

event number

Reiwa 4th year (ワ) No. 30955

State compensation request incident

Parties

Plaintiff: Aishima●●ほか2

Defendant: State

event name

State compensation request incident

due date

January 11, Reiwa 6 (Wednesday) 10:30~10:50

return date

March 21, Reiwa 6 (Wednesday) 13:10

Propose books, etc.

Plaintiff: No. 4 prepared writing, Certificate A B7~B10

Defendant: Prepare written certificate No. ⑶, B C7~C9

event number

Reiwa 4th year (ワ) No. 30955

State compensation request incident

Parties

Plaintiff: Aishima●●ほか2

Defendant: State

event name

State compensation request incident

due date

October 24, the fifth year of Reiwa (fire) 14:00 ~ 14:13

return date

Next time: January 11, Reiwa 6 (fire) 10:30

Propose books, etc.

Plaintiff: No. 3 prepared written document, Certificate A B5~B6

Defendant: List of medical errors

event number

Reiwa 4th year (ワ) No. 30955

State compensation request incident

Parties

Plaintiff: Aishima●●ほか2

Defendant: State

event name

State compensation request incident

due date

August 31, Reiwa 5 (Wednesday) 11:00～11:10

return date

Next time: October 24, Reiwa 5 (fire) 14:00

Propose books, etc.

Plaintiff: No. 2 prepared written document, certificate No. A B4

Defendant: Prepare written documents (2), certificates No. B2 to B9

case number

Reiwa 3 (Wa) No. 23302

party

Plaintiff: 5 people including Okawara Kakoki Co., Ltd.

Defendant: State, Tokyo Metropolitan Government

Incident name

State compensation case

due date

10th date (end of argument)
From 13:30 to 13:40 on Friday, September 15, 2020

Next due date

Next time: Wednesday, December 27, 2020, 2:00 p.m. (Courtroom 103)

Submitted documents, etc.

Plaintiff: 8th Preparatory Document (dated September 8, 2020), 9th Preparatory Document (dated 15th of the same month), 8th Preparatory Document Correction Petition, Ko 165

Defendant country: Preparatory document (5) (dated September 8, 2020)

Defendant Tokyo: Preparatory document (5) (dated September 15, 2020, Otsu 15 to Otsu 16-4)

Dates Summary

Court: First, we will check the submitted documents. Since the plaintiff has submitted the 8th Preparatory Document, we will make a statement after filing a motion for correction. The ninth preliminary document is also a statement. The defendant state's preliminary document (5) and the defendant capital's fifth preliminary document will be used as statements.

The plaintiff has submitted Exhibit A No. 165, and the defendant has submitted Exhibits Otsu No. 15 and No. 4, Exhibit Otsu No. 16, and we will use each as evidence for impeachment.

The plaintiff's motion for an order to produce documents is dismissed as unnecessary.

The sentencing will take place on Wednesday, December 27th at 2pm in Courtroom 103.

that's all

case number

 2022 (wa) No. 30955

 National compensation claim case 

Parties

 Plaintiff: Aishima ●● and 2 others

 Defendant: Country 

Case name

National compensation claim case

due date

 June 6, 2023 (Tue) 15:00-15:15 

next due date

 Next time: August 31, 2023 (Thursday) 11:00 am 

 Document submission deadline: Plaintiff 6/20, Defendant 8/24 

Documents to be submitted, etc.

 Plaintiff: petition for change of lawsuit, first brief, written evidence, B1-3 

 Defendant: Evidence document, Otsu A4-2, Otsu A22, medical history list

 event number 

 Reiwa 4th (ワ) No. 30955

 State Compensation Request Event 

 parties involved 

 Plaintiff: Aishima  2 others

 Defendant: State 

 event name 

 State Compensation Request Event 

 due date 

 April 12, 2023 14:00-14:30 

 next return date 

 Second time: June 6, 2023 15:00 

 propose books, etc. 

 Plaintiff: Ko A3~A6 

 Defendant: Prepare written documents (1), Otsu A1-1~21, Otsu B1,Otsu C1~5