case number

Reiwa 3rd Year (Wa) No. 23302

Parties

Plaintiffs: Okawara Kakoki Co., Ltd., Mr. Okawara, Mr. Shimada, Mr. Aishima, etc.

Defendant: Country, Tokyo

Case name

National compensation claim case

Deadline

6th date (Date for argument)
 From 10:30 on Friday, January 27, 2023

next due date

Next time: March 1, 2020 (Wednesday) From 10:30 on the day of proceedings, from 11:15 on the date of oral argument, courtroom 712

One after another: April 28, 2020 (Friday) From 13:30 on the discussion date, from 14:30 on the oral argument date, location undecided

* Our document submission deadline is 2/20.

* Defendants' response deadline for the petition for the order to submit documents is 2/24

*Declaration 4/14 regarding personal identification of the accompanying person

Documents to be submitted, etc.

Plaintiff: Petition for document submission order (dated January 23, 2023)

Defendant Tokyo: Brief (3) (dated January 27, 2023), Explanation of Evidence (4) (same date), Otsu 5-4 to Otsu 5-5

Summary of the progress of the date

Court: First, we will check the submitted documents. The plaintiff submitted a petition for an order to submit documents (dated January 23, 2023), and the defendant capital issued a brief (3) (dated January 27, 2023), an explanation of evidence (4) (same date), Otsu 5-4 to Otsu 5-5 has been submitted. By when can I receive a response to the petition for order to submit documents?

Defendant: Could you give me two months and set March 27 as the deadline?

Respondent Country: Although the Respondent Country is not the holder of the document, it would like to consider its necessity and relevance, so please do so by March 27.

Plaintiff: We believe that two months is too long after this, as it is a motion related to the memorandum that has already been at issue.

Court: At the next meeting (March 1), we plan to discuss the scope and schedule of the subject of the testimony, but we would like to discuss this after all opinions regarding the document submission order have been gathered. It will be enough if you claim whether or not it falls under the grounds for exemption from the document submission order, so please do so by February 24th.

Capital/Country: Submit by February 24th if possible. I may add my opinion later.

Court: Plaintiffs have until February 20th to refute defendants' allegations.

Plaintiff: I object to defendant capital's brief (3) submitted on this date.

Court: Each must submit a statement to be accompanied by April 14th. As for personal identification, who is the plaintiff supposed to be?

Plaintiff: We are planning to accompany plaintiff Mr. Okawara, plaintiff Mr. Shimada, plaintiff Mr. Aijima (one of them), and an employee of the plaintiff company who is familiar with technology.

Court: Are plaintiffs not enough on the technical point?

Plaintiff: We will consider it. In addition to the bank, Mr. ●● from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Mr. Systec ●● were involved in the legislation. And Professor ●●. How many investigators of the Ministry of Public Security were there at the time regarding violations of duty of care regarding legal interpretation? Also, we are planning to have ●● prosecutor, who filed a lawsuit, and ●●, who canceled the lawsuit.

Court: Understood. Defendants should be prepared to discuss the need for these testimonies.

that's all

case number

Reiwa 3rd Year (Wa) No. 23302

Parties

Plaintiffs: Okawara Kakoki Co., Ltd. and five others

Defendant: Country, Tokyo

Case name

National compensation claim case

Deadline

Fifth date (Date for argument)
 Friday, November 11, 2020, from 10:30 to 10:40

Attendees

Plaintiffs: Mr. Okawara, Mr. Shimada, Mr. (Sen) Aishima,

Agents: Takada, Kawamura, Wagatsuma, Yamashiro, Miki

Respondent country: number of designated representatives

Defendant Tokyo: Number of designated representatives

next due date

Next time: January 27, 2020 (Friday) 10:30 am (Court No. 712)

One after another: March 1, 2020 (Wednesday) at 10:30 a.m. (*The date for proceeding discussions regarding the examination of witnesses will start at 10:30, and the date for oral argument will start at 11:15. The location is undecided, and the court will contact you as soon as it is decided.) )

* Deadline for submission of documents by defendant city 1/16

* Our document submission deadline is 2/20.

Documents to be submitted, etc.

Plaintiff: Opinion (dated November 7, 2020), Fifth Brief (same date)

Respondent country: Written Opinion (dated October 31, 2022), Brief (3) (same date), Statement of Evidence (2) (same date), Statement of Evidence (C-A) (same date), C-28-29, Hei A1 to Hei A156

Defendant Tokyo: Opinion ⑵ (dated November 11, 2020), Evidence Explanation ⑶ (same date), Exhibit 8-1 to Exhibit 8-49

Others: Response to commissioned survey (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) (Dated September 14, 2022)

Summary of the progress of the date

Court: First, we will check the submitted documents. A written opinion from the plaintiff (dated November 7, 2022), 5th brief (same date), a written opinion from the defendant country (dated October 31, 2020), brief (3) (same date), evidence Explanation (2) (same date), Explanation of Evidence (Hei A) (same date), Hei 28 to 29, Hei A1 to Hei A156, written opinion (2) from the Defendant Capital on the petition for commission of investigation (November 2022) 11), Document of Evidence (3) (same date), and Otsu 8-1 to Otsu 8-49 have been submitted. In addition, we have received a response (dated September 14, 2020) from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to the commissioned investigation, so is it okay to declare it? (* It is necessary to confirm that the response to the commissioned investigation will be used as evidence on the date. This is called "revealing.")

Each Party: Yes.

Court: Concerning the delivery commission filed by the plaintiff, since the delivery commissions 1 and 5 were submitted as evidence by the defendants, is it correct to withdraw them?

Plaintiff: Retract.

Court: The Defendant City replied that the delivery commission 3 does not exist. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof of its existence, so we will not adopt it at this stage. In addition, sending commission 4 is not adopted because it has no relevance to the issue. We believe that submission 2 is related to the disputed issue of the interpretation of Requirement C. Can a voluntary submission from the defendant be considered?

Respondent country: I think it is unnecessary because it is irrelevant to the issue.

Court: If you don't submit it voluntarily, we will decide to adopt the sending commission 2.

Respondent State: The opinion of the Respondent State is as I have just stated.

COURT: Then we accept the sending commission 2. By the next date, the defendant city will make an objection to the plaintiff's preliminary documents (2) to (4), and after that, the plaintiff will make another objection by the next date. How much does the defendant city need to prepare?

Defendant: Could you set the deadline for submitting the documents to the end of January 2023?

Court: Please submit by January 16th, as this is not a counterargument to a newly submitted document on this date.

Defendant: Understood.

Court: I appoint the next date to be January 27th at 10:30 am. How prepared should the plaintiff be to re-rebut?

Plaintiff: I will prepare the contents of defendant capital's counterargument, so I will submit the document in about a month.

Court: Then, we will set the deadline for the plaintiff's submission of documents as February 20th and the next round as March 1st. Before the next meeting, we will hold a meeting to discuss proceedings and discuss who will be the witnesses for each issue, so please consider this in advance. The proceedings consultation date will start at 10:30 and the argument date will start at 11:15.

that's all

Deadline

4th deadline (discussion date)
 From 10:40 to 10:50 on Wednesday, July 13, 4th year of Reiwa

Next due date

Friday, November 11, 4th year of Reiwa 10:30

Documents to be submitted, etc.

Plaintiff: 1st Brief to 4th Brief, Opinion, Exhibit Ko No. 127 ~ 143

Defendant country: Opinion, escalation

Defendant Tokyo: Statement of Appeal, Statement of Opinion on Request for Investigation

Due date

Court: First, the plaintiff has submitted the 1st to 4th briefs and Exhibits A127-143.
Please state the 1st and 2nd briefs.
The third brief is an addition to the cause of the claim, but I think that the identity of the basis of the claim is not recognized, so I would like you to file a separate complaint. Also, I would like you to consider the damage separately. Regarding the merger hearing, the defendant will consider it if it is appropriate.
The 4th brief is an opinion on the commission to send the document, so it will not be treated as a statement.
Next, regarding the issue of this case, I confirmed that the long-term interrogation of plaintiff Shimada was not an issue. In addition, we also confirmed that among the issues, those related to the identification of the part where the temperature inside the spray dryer does not rise will be corrected as described in the Defendant's petitions.
Next, regarding the matter of commissioned investigation, we will adopt the investigation item ⑴, we will not adopt ⑵ and ⑶ as the necessity is unknown at this time, and we will not adopt ⑷ and ⑸ because it is appropriate to cross-examine witnesses.
Lastly, regarding the commission to send documents, the plaintiff has issued a document about the necessity this time, so the defendants should consider voluntary disclosure based on that. For items that are difficult to disclose voluntarily, please submit a brief to that effect in the form of a brief or escalation. For items that are voluntarily disclosed, I would like to ask the plaintiff to create and organize a checklist in cooperation with the plaintiff.
 Next time, I will argue with the defendants, but how long is the preparation period required?

Defendant Country: The plaintiff's allegations are exhaustive, and it is necessary to consider how to respond to the commission to send documents, so I would like to ask for your time until October 31st.

Defendant Tokyo: Based on the counterarguments of the defendant country, I would like to refute one after another. Since it is possible to consider the counterargument itself, the period from the next time to the next time will not be necessary so much.

Court: I see.
 The next deadline will be November 11th (Friday) at 10:30 am, so the defendant country is requested to submit in writing by October 31st.

that's all

Deadline

3rd deadline (due date for oral argument)
 From 10:30 to 11:00 on Friday, May 13, 4th year of Reiwa

Next due date

Wednesday, July 13, 4th year of Reiwa 10:40

Documents to be submitted, etc.

Plaintiff: Request for Investigation Commission

Defendant Country: Briefs ⑵, Hei 1-27

Defendant Tokyo: Brief ⑵, Exhibit Otsu 3-7-11

Due date

Court: First, there was a change of judge, so I will update the argument.
Next, the Defendant's country has submitted Briefs ⑵ and Hei 1-27, and the Defendant's capital has submitted Briefs ⑵ and Exhibit Otsu Nos. 3-7-11.
 Then, the plaintiff has submitted a petition for investigation, but do you have any opinions from the defendants?

Defendant's country and capital: We have just received it and have not yet examined the contents, so we cannot clarify when to express our opinion.

Plaintiff: I would like to supplement the petition for investigation commission.
This time, Evidence No. 24 and Evidence No. 25 submitted by the defendant country are a document asking the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry about the interpretation of this requirement C on April 18, this year, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry for it. According to the document of the reply from, the reference time of the reply is March 12, 2nd year of Reiwa, which is the time of arrest, and after the same day.
 However, the problem in criminal cases is the guilty of export acts, so we have decided to apply for an investigation commission this time in order to request a separate answer regarding the interpretation and operation of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry at the time of export.

Court: Can the defendants answer in three weeks?

Defendant Country: No commitment can be made here.

Court: As a court, I think three weeks is enough. If possible, I would like to hear your opinions on the deadline.

Defendant Country: I can't promise.

Court: Is it the same for 4 weeks?

Defendant Country: Yes.

Court: I see. Then, if you have any opinions by June 10, please submit them. If there is no answer, the court will decide the response at that time.

Plaintiff: Is it okay for those who are commissioned to send documents?
 Regarding this, the defendants had previously been put on hold for answering because the issue was not clear, but since the written counterargument has come out this time, I think that the issue has also been clarified. Is it?

Court: On that point, I would like to inform you of the issue that the court considers, so I would like the plaintiff to submit a written counterargument to the issue by the next time, and wait for it before drawing a conclusion. I am.

Defendant Country: In addition to the counterargument, I would like you to clarify the necessity of disclosure for each document requesting disclosure.
 Also, I think there are duplicate documents for which disclosure is requested, so I would like to ask you to organize the documents. For example, I think that No. 183 of ⑵ of Document Sending Request Form 1 is equivalent to Evidence A No. 16 of the criminal case, but I think that this is included in ⑴ of the same document.

Plaintiff: Just in case, the number 183 you just pointed out is duplicated because two copies of the same person's record were prepared and only one was submitted as evidence, so the other is requested to be disclosed. I think you haven't.

Court: If there are any results that have been examined regarding the existence of duplication, why not respond to the disclosure on that premise?

Defendant country: No examination results remain.

Court: I see.
Now, I would like to inform you of the issue, so the plaintiff should write down the counterargument and the necessity of disclosing the document.
First, (1) as a common issue between the defendant country and the defendant city,
(1) Unreasonable judgment that "sterilization" includes dry sterilization (2) Unreasonable judgment that it is sufficient to sterilize even one type of bacteria specified in Article 2-2, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Freight, etc. ③ It is irrational to judge that it is not a regulatory requirement to have an exposure prevention structure ④ It is irrational to identify the part where the temperature of the spray dryer 1 does not rise as a bug filter ⑤ The irrationality of not conducting the experiment using the bacteria powdered by think.
 Finally, regarding the issue with (3) the defendant's capital, regarding the interrogation of the plaintiff Shimada, (1) long-term interrogation, (2) preparation of an arbitrary record in advance and the act of requesting its signature, and (3) confirmation and correction of the contents of the record. (4) Guidance, fraudulent wording, interrogation, etc., (5) Intentional cutting of records

Plaintiff and Defendant Capital: No objection.

Defendant Country: I would like to consider once whether this issue is okay.

Court: I see. Then, the next due date will be 10:40 am on July 13, so the plaintiff is requested to submit in writing by June 24.

Plaintiff: Finally, let me confirm the contents of the document submitted by the defendants this time.
 First, on page 23 of the Defendant's Brief ⑵, there is a description of the part that points out that the temperature does not rise easily. There is a statement that there is no specific indication, but for this, the content of each employee's statement is extracted and described on page 50 of the complaint. What does it mean to have no specific claim?

Defendant's capital: It is unclear which word in the excerpt refers to the "measurement port". It describes the problem that the word "measurement port" does not appear.

Plaintiff: It's a matter of language, I understand.
 Next, regarding page 8 of the Defendant's Preparatory Document ⑵, is this a statement to the effect that Japan had established its own interpretation different from AG at the time of 2003 when the operational notification was established?

Defendant country: We cannot answer at this time.

Plaintiff: Now that I have just pointed out, please consider and answer later.
 Next, regarding the section on page 25 of the Defendant's Brief ⑵, which describes the time constraints of detention, is this a general theory, or is the prosecutor ●● in this case also investigating the situation for the first time at the time of arrest? Did you mean that there was a time limit because you knew it?

Defendant country: It is a description as a general theory.

Plaintiff: I see. I don't think the excuse that there is no time to make a decision on a case that the public security has taken a long time to investigate, such as this case, is not valid, but I would like to mention that point in writing.
 that's all.

that's all

Deadline

2nd due date (due date for oral argument)
 From 10:30 to 11:00 on February 9, 4th (Wednesday), Reiwa

Next due date

Friday, May 13, 4th year of Reiwa 10:30

Documents to be submitted, etc.

Plaintiff:

Defendant country: Brief ⑴, written opinion

Defendant Tokyo: Preparatory Document ⑴, Exhibit Otsu No. 1-2, Statement of Opinion on Request for Document Sending

Due date

Court: Defendant's country and Defendant's Tokyo have submitted briefs (1) respectively. In addition, Defendant Tokyo has submitted Exhibit Otsu No. 1 to Exhibit Otsu No. 2.
 In addition, the defendant's country and the defendant's Tokyo Metropolitan Government have submitted written opinions on the petition for sending documents from the plaintiffs.

Defendant Country: Regarding the commission to send documents, I would like to express my opinion again when the issues in this proceeding are clarified.

Court: Are there any documents requested to be disclosed by the document sending commission that can be disclosed voluntarily? You can answer verbally or in writing.

Defendant country: No answer can be given here. The next time I submit a document, I think it will be possible to submit it as documentary evidence to the extent necessary, along with other evidence, but at this point the issue has not been clarified and the need for disclosure cannot be determined.

Court: By when do you plan to submit the document?

Defendant Country: Submit by April 28th.

Court: How about Defendant Tokyo?

Defendant Tokyo: Submit by April 28th. Also, I would like to submit the document as documentary evidence to the extent necessary.

Plaintiff: I would like to discuss the disclosure of documents that have not been submitted as documentary evidence by the next deadline.
 Regarding the deadline for submitting the defendant's document, could you submit it a little earlier so that we can have a substantive discussion on the next deadline? There is a sufficient period before submitting this brief, and the defendant should be able to consider the content.

Defendant Country: It is difficult to accelerate submission before April 28th.

Court: The court may change the composition of the court body due to personnel matters, and even if it is submitted early, it may not be possible to confirm the contents sufficiently, so it is considered acceptable to submit it by April 28. I am.

Plaintiff: I understand. If the document will be issued by April 28, I would like to have a deadline set around the end of the consecutive holidays in May so that we can discuss how to proceed.
 Next, regarding the document submitted this time by the defendant country, there are many parts that have not been approved or rejected as being related to the defendant Tokyo. As a plaintiff, for example, the investigation status of the Metropolitan Police Department, even if it is mainly about the defendant Tokyo, can also be a description about the breach of the duty of care of the defendant country (prosecutor), so it is necessary to approve or reject it. I think there is.

Defendant Country: We will respond to the extent necessary when submitting the claim of the Defendant Country.

Court: If you are ignorant, you may be ignorant, so please approve or reject it.
 Then, the next time will be from 10:30 am on May 13, 4th year of Reiwa, and the closing date will be.

that's all

 due date 

 1st due date (due date for oral argument)
 From 13:30 to 14:00 on Wednesday, October 27, 3rd year of Reiwa 

 Next due date 

 Wednesday, February 9, 4th year of Reiwa 10:30 

 Documents to be submitted, etc. 

 Plaintiff: Complaint, Document Sending Request Form 1-5, Exhibit A1-126-17

 Defendant Country: Answer

 Defendant Tokyo: Answer 

 Due date 

 Court: The plaintiff has submitted a complaint, and the defendants have submitted an answer, so both are statements. Next, the plaintiff has submitted Evidence A No. 1 to Evidence No. 126, No. 17, so please check the original. 

 (For Exhibits A23-26 and 57-63, the court, defendant country, and defendant Tokyo confirmed the original) 

 Court: Also, the plaintiff has submitted 5 letters of commission to send the document. Would the defendants consider voluntary submission of these documents? 

 Defendant country: We will consider it, but I think we will issue a written opinion on the commission. 

 Court: Then, I would like to ask you to consider voluntary submission first, and if you have an opinion, then issue a written opinion. How about the plaintiff? 

 Plaintiff: I understand.
To supplement the contents of the document sending commission, No. 1 and No. 5 are evidence that has been disclosed in the criminal procedure, and No. 2 is also scheduled to be disclosed, so I would like you to take immediate action. increase.
 No. 3 is related to Mr. Shimada's interrogation and requests disclosure including the original materials prepared by the clerk and investigator who witnessed the interrogation. In addition, No. 4 is related to the medical records of Mr. Aijima who died. 

 Court: By when are the defendants likely to submit a substantive answer? 

 Defendant country: Submit by January 31st. 

 Defendant Tokyo: Also submitted by the end of January. 

 Defendant country: Most of the complaints are complaints, and since there are problems with specialized matters such as legal interpretation and equipment performance, the country will only answer the approval or disapproval. 

 Defendant Tokyo: The same applies to Defendant Tokyo. There may be a person in charge who has been transferred, and even if you can argue, it may be limited to a part. 

 Court: I see. However, we will prepare the content of the counterargument in parallel, and from the next time onward, we will ask you to issue it at a normal pace. 

 Plaintiff: I would like you to proceed in advance if you are commissioned to send or respond to voluntary submission. 

 Court: Then, the next date will be from 10:30 am on February 9, 4th year of Reiwa, and the date of argument will be. Defendants must submit the document by January 31st. 

 (Statement of opinion by Mr. Okawara and the bereaved family of Mr. Aijima)

 that's all