<Verification of documents submitted by the defendant, etc.>

(defendant)
During the period since the last procedural consultation hearing, the request for an investigation was accepted, and the response from Iwaki City was submitted as evidence.
The title of the defendant's preparatory document (3), which was submitted at the previous procedural hearing, was corrected to "Request for Investigation Opinion" before being resubmitted.
The defendant has submitted specific factual details regarding the criteria and process for selecting the contractor, as well as a counter-argument regarding the illegality based on these facts (Defendant's Preparatory Brief (3)).
The plaintiff submitted a document titled "Rebuttal to the Plaintiff's 'Opinion Regarding the Request for Investigation' dated January 9, 2026," with the title corrected to "Motion to Correct the Request for Investigation."
The report that Furayumori submitted to Iwaki City as a deliverable for the outsourcing contract in question, which the plaintiff had requested clarification on, was voluntarily submitted with almost all parts blacked out.

<Supplement>

The defendants are seeking the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the plaintiff has exceeded the time limit for filing a resident audit request and therefore does not meet the requirements for a resident lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that there is a "legitimate reason" (Article 242, Paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act), but the defendants have countered this by filing a request for investigation with Iwaki City, asking the city to clarify the number and content of information disclosure requests the plaintiff has made in the past.

In response, the plaintiffs argued against the appointment of the investigative commission, claiming that even if the number of information disclosure requests was made, this did not constitute grounds to deny the existence of a "legitimate reason." However, the court, perhaps wanting to confirm the facts, ultimately approved the commission.

At the debriefing and press conference held at the Fukushima Citizens' Center after the scheduled date, we announced that this case has now been published as a new case page on CALL4.

<Regarding future dates>

A procedural hearing (closed-door procedure) will be held on Friday, May 22, 2026, starting at 13:30.
The fourth hearing and oral argument (public proceedings) will be held on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 1:30 PM in the 2nd floor courtroom of the Fukushima District Court.

<Documents to be submitted between deadlines>

Between the hearings, the defendant submitted (1) a preparatory document concerning the merits of the case (whether or not the outsourcing contract in question is illegal) and (2) a petition for an investigation and an opinion requesting the acceptance of said investigation.
The plaintiffs submitted a written response to point ①.

<Contents of discussion>

(1) Regarding this case, the plaintiff's attorney asked the defendant whether they would submit the report (deliverable) prepared by Furayumori, which they had requested from the defendant since the filing of the complaint. The defendant's attorney replied that "submission is not necessary." However, the court instructed the defendant to reconsider submitting it, and the defendant agreed to consider submitting it by the next hearing date.
Furthermore, the court stated, "The defendant's arguments presented this time are superficial. As things stand, we have no choice but to conclude that Iwaki City outsourced the work to a contractor for about a month and then sub-contracted it in a manner that amounted to completely handing it over to another company. In order to have a substantive discussion going forward, we would like the defendant to present a more concrete account of the facts." As a result, the defendant will now present their arguments again before the next hearing.

(2) Regarding the request for investigation, the court stated that "we are likely to accept the request for investigation filed by the defendant."

<Regarding future dates>

The defendants are now required to present their specific arguments by the oral argument hearing scheduled for 1:30 PM on March 24th.
After that, there will be one online consultation session, and then a date for oral arguments will be set.

(Plaintiff) Submits second preparatory brief; files motion to amend the lawsuit (motion to amend the lawsuit).

(Defendant) Submission of preliminary documents (1)

(Plaintiff) Statement of oral opinion Submission of first preliminary document

(Defendant) Submits a written response.