2026/09/02

Following the filing of the complaint and the answer, the plaintiff presented their statement of opinion.

In the statement of opinion, I cited examples of research in the United States and other countries, explaining how the analysis of information obtained through information disclosure systems has been used to advance academic research. I also pointed out that digital information is indispensable for use in academic research, and that hindering its access through high fees contradicts the purpose of the information disclosure system. Furthermore, I expressed concern that if the government's argument in this case—that "the unit of file storage is at the discretion of the administration, and there is no obligation to consolidate files when a disclosure request is made"—is accepted, it could provide a means of concealing information by making the fees high through file fragmentation, thereby discouraging disclosure. (Please refer to the court documents for details.)

The defense team pointed out that the response only addressed the initial stage of the trial (whether the fee amount could be contested in court) and urged the government to also present arguments on the main issue (calculation of an appropriate fee amount in light of the spirit of the Information Disclosure Act).

For the next hearing, the first step is for the plaintiff to submit a counter-argument to the answer (by November 4th), after which the court will consider whether to request the defendant to present their arguments on the merits of the case.