JAPAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Hiroki Wakabayashi, Kenichi Sadaka and Kei Akagawa, Anderson Mori & Tomotsune
it allows various exceptions to the obligation to produce documents. 5.4 Alternatives to Discovery Mechanisms As in other civil law jurisdictions, litigants are expected to rely primarily on the evidence that they already have in their hands prior to the liti- gation. 5.5 Legal Privilege In civil litigation, no legal privilege is recognised per se, but lawyers may refuse to testify or produce documents relating to any fact which they have learnt in the course of providing legal services and which should be kept confidential (Article 197 and Article 220 of the CCP). 5.6 Rules Disallowing Disclosure of a Document Article 220 of the CCP provides that a person may refuse to disclose any of the following: • a document relating to matters for which they or their close relative are likely to be subject to criminal prosecution or conviction; • a document concerning a secret in relation to a public officer’s duties, which is, if sub- mitted, likely to harm the public interest or substantially hinder the performance of their public duties; • a document stating: (a) any fact that a doctor, dentist, pharma- cist, pharmaceuticals distributor, birth assistant, attorney at law (including a registered foreign lawyer), patent attor- ney, defence counsel, notary or person engaged in a religious occupation, or a person who was any of these profession- als has learnt in the course of their duties and which should be kept confidential; or (b) matters concerning technical or profes-
sional secrets. • a document prepared exclusively for use by the holder thereof (excluding a document held by the state or a local public entity, which is used by a public officer for an organisational purpose); or • a document concerning a suit pertaining to a criminal case or the record of a juvenile case, or a document seized in these cases. 6. Injunctive Relief 6.1 Circumstances of Injunctive Relief Injunctive relief can be sought through normal litigation as well as a provisional remedy process in urgent cases. Injunctions freezing assets are commonly requested through this provisional remedy process for the purpose of the future enforcement of monetary claims. However, unlike a freezing injunction (formerly known as a Mareva injunction) in common law jurisdictions, the petitioner typically has to identify the assets to be seized. Injunctions to prevent certain actions damag- ing the interest of another party (eg, publication on the internet/other media or corporate action such as security issuances) are relatively com- mon. However, as far as is known, an injunction to prevent parallel proceedings in another juris- diction (ie, an anti-suit injunction) has not been granted in Japan. 6.2 Arrangements for Obtaining Urgent Injunctive Relief As mentioned in 6.1 Circumstances of Injunc- tive Relief , the court may respond to an urgent request. The major courts normally have an out- of-hours window; however, there are no out-of- hours judges for civil cases in Japan. In prac- tice, some courts in big cities which are used to
696 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook