Code of Civil Procedure

If the court has an expert state an opinion orally, it may ask the expert questions after the expert has stated their opinion.

The questions referred to in the preceding paragraph are asked by the presiding judge, the party requesting the expert testimony, and the other party, in that order.

If the presiding judge finds it to be appropriate, the judge may change the order referred to in the preceding paragraph, after hearing the opinions of the parties.

If a party objects to a change under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the court reaches a judicial decision on the objection in the form of a ruling.

If the court will have an expert state an opinion orally and the court finds it to be appropriate, it may have an expert state an opinion, as provided for by the Rules of the Supreme Court, using a means that enables persons to communicate with one another through audio and visual transmissions while gaining an awareness of one another' situation.

If an authorized or commissioned judge has an expert state an opinion, that judge performs the duties of the court and the presiding judge; provided, however, that a judicial decision on an objection under the provisions of Article 215-2, paragraph (4) is reached by the court in charge of the case.

The provisions of Article 191 apply mutatis mutandis if the court has a public officer or person who was a public officer state an opinion as an expert with regard to any confidential information in connection with that person's duties, the provisions of Articles 197 through 199 apply mutatis mutandis if an expert refuses to give expert testimony, the provisions of Article 201, paragraph (1) applies mutatis mutandis if the court has an expert swear under oath, and the provisions of Articles 192 and 193 apply mutatis mutandis if an expert fails to appear without a legitimate reason for failing to do so, if an expert refuses to swear under oath, and if, after a judicial decision finding no grounds for refusal to give expert testimony has become final and binding, the expert still refuses to give expert testimony, without a legitimate reason for refusing to do so.

An examination regarding facts that an expert has learned based on that expert's special knowledge and experience is governed by the provisions on the examination of a witness.

If the court finds it to be necessary, it may request a government agency or public office, a foreign government agency or public office, or a corporation that has adequate equipment to give expert testimony. In such a case, the provisions of this Section, except for those concerning swearing under oath, apply mutatis mutandis.

In a case as referred to in the preceding paragraph, if the court finds it to be necessary, it may have a person designated by the government agency, public office, or corporation give an explanation of a paper document or electronic or magnetic record containing the results of expert testimony.

In the case referred to in paragraph (1), the court must present the results of expert testimony connected with the request referred to in that paragraph to the parties.

Documentary evidence must be offered through the submission of a document or a request for the court to order the person in possession of a document to submit that document.

In the following cases, the person in possession of the document in question may not refuse to submit that document:

if a party is personally in possession of a document that they have quoted from in litigation;

if it is permissible for the party that will offer the evidence to request the person in possession of the document to deliver it or allow it to be inspected;

if the document has been prepared in the interest of the party that will offer the evidence or with regard to the legal relationships between the party that will offer the evidence and the person in possession of the document;

in cases other than those listed in the preceding three items, if the document does not fall under any of the following categories:

a document detailing the particulars prescribed in Article 196 with regard to the person in possession of the document or a person who is related to the person in possession of the document in any of the ways stated in the items of that Article;

a document concerning confidential information in connection with a public officer's duties, which, if submitted, would be against the public interest or would be likely to substantially hinder the performance of a public duty;

a document detailing a fact prescribed in Article 197, paragraph (1), item (ii) or a particular prescribed in Article 197, paragraph (1), item (iii), neither or which are exempt from the duty of silence;

a document prepared exclusively for the use of the person in possession (excluding a document held by the State or a local public entity, which is used by a public officer for an organizational purpose);

documents related to the litigation of a criminal case, the case record in a juvenile protective case, or a document seized in these cases.

In petitioning for an order to submit a document, the following particulars must be made clear:

the indications of the document;

the purport of the document;

the person in possession of the document;

the facts to be proven by the document;

the cause of the obligation to submit the document.

It is not permissible for a petition for an order to submit a document to be filed on the grounds that the document falls under any of the categories listed in item (iv) of the preceding Article, unless it is necessary to offer documentary evidence by way of a petition for an order to submit a document.

If a person files a petition for an order to submit a document but it is extremely difficult to clarify the particulars stated in paragraph (1), item (i) or (ii) of the preceding Article, it is sufficient for the person, in lieu of those particulars, to clarify any particulars by which the person in possession of the document can identify the document that the petition concerns, when filing the petition. In such a case, the petitioner must ask the court to request the person in possession of the document to clarify the particulars stated in item (i) or item (ii) of that paragraph.

When a motion under the provisions of the preceding paragraph is made, unless the petition for an order to submit the document is clearly groundless, the court may request the person in possession of the document to clarify the particulars referred to in the second sentence of that paragraph.

If the court finds there to be grounds for a petition for an order to submit a document, it issues a ruling ordering the person in possession of the document to submit the document. In such a case, if the document contains any part that it is found unnecessary to examine or which cannot be found to be subject to the obligation to submit, the court may order the submission of the document excluding the part.

Before seeking to order a third party to submit a document, the court must hear the third party.

If a petition for an order to submit a document has been filed with regard to a document concerning confidential information connected with a public officer's duties on the grounds that the document falls under any of the categories stated in Article 220, item (iv), unless the petition is clearly groundless, the court must hear the opinion of the supervisory government agency concerned (in the case of a member of the House of Representatives or House of Councillors or a person who held the office, the relevant House; in the case of the Prime Minister or any other Minister of State or a person who held the office, the Cabinet) as to whether the document in question falls under the category of document stated in Article 220, item (iv), (b). In such a case, if the supervisory government agency states the opinion that the document falls under the category of document stated in Article 220, item (iv), (b), it must specify the reasons for this.

In a case as referred to in the preceding paragraph, if that supervisory government agency has stated the opinion that that document falls under the category of document stated in Article 220, item (iv), (b) on the grounds that submission of that document would cause any of the following risks, the court may order the person in possession of the document to submit the document only if it cannot find sufficient reasonable grounds for that opinion:

a risk that the document will impair national security, harm a relationship of trust with a foreign country or international organization, or give rise to a disadvantage in negotiations with a foreign country or international organization;

a risk that the document will hinder the prevention, suppression, or investigation of a crime, the continuation of prosecution, the enforcement of a sentence, or any other maintenance of public safety and order.

In a case as referred to in the first sentence of paragraph (3), if that supervisory government agency intends to state its opinion about a document that details particulars involving a technical or professional secret of a third party other than the person in possession of that document, it must hear the opinion of that third party in advance of doing so, unless it intends to state the opinion that the document falls under the category of document stated in Article 220, item (iv), (b).

If the court finds it to be necessary in order to determine which of the categories of documents stated in Article 220, item (iv), (a) through (d) the document that the petition for an order to submit a document concerns falls under, the court may have the person in possession of the document present the document. In such a case, no person may request the document so presented to be disclosed.

An immediate appeal may be filed against a ruling on a petition for an order to submit a document.

If a party does not comply with an order to submit a document, the court may find the adverse party's allegations concerning the details of that document to be true.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph also apply if a party, for the purpose of preventing the adverse party from using it, has caused a document that there is an obligation to submit to be lost or otherwise unusable.

In the cases prescribed in the preceding two paragraphs, if it is extremely difficult for the adverse party to make specific allegations in connection with the details of that document and to prove, by other evidence, a fact that is to be proven by the document, the court may find that the adverse party's allegations concerning that fact are true.

If a third party does not comply with an order to submit a document, the court issues a ruling sentencing the third party to a civil fine of not more than 200,000 yen.

An immediate appeal may be filed against a ruling as referred to in the preceding paragraph.