For U.S. companies doing business in or with Japan, the prospect of civil litigation can seem daunting due to a legal system that operates on significantly different principles than the U.S. common law tradition. Japan's civil law system, with its own distinct procedures and evidentiary rules, requires a nuanced understanding to navigate effectively. This primer offers an overview of the key aspects of civil litigation in Japan, keeping in mind recent modernizations, including the significant push towards IT integration in court procedures.

The Japanese Court System for Civil Matters

Japan has a unified, national court system. Civil matters are primarily handled by a hierarchy of courts:

1. Summary Courts (簡易裁判所 - Kan'i Saibansho): These courts have jurisdiction over civil cases where the amount in controversy is relatively small (currently, not exceeding ¥1.4 million). They also handle certain specialized, expedited procedures.
2. District Courts (地方裁判所 - Chihō Saibansho): These are the courts of first instance for most civil litigation, including complex commercial disputes, tort claims exceeding the Summary Court's monetary limit, and real estate matters. There is at least one District Court in each of Japan's 47 prefectures.
3. High Courts (高等裁判所 - Kōtō Saibansho): There are eight High Courts, which primarily function as appellate courts, hearing appeals from judgments of District Courts and certain Summary Court decisions. The Intellectual Property High Court in Tokyo is a specialized branch dealing exclusively with IP cases.
4. Supreme Court (最高裁判所 - Saikō Saibansho): Located in Tokyo, the Supreme Court is the highest court and the court of last resort. It primarily hears appeals on constitutional questions or significant errors in the interpretation of law from High Court judgments.

The primary sources of procedural law are the Code of Civil Procedure (民事訴訟法 - Minji Soshō Hō) and the Rules of Civil Procedure (民事訴訟規則 - Minji Soshō Kisoku), supplemented by case law which, while not formally binding in the same way as in common law systems, is highly influential.

Commencing a Civil Lawsuit in Japan

Initiating a civil lawsuit in Japan involves several key steps:

1. Filing a Complaint (訴状 - Sojō): A lawsuit begins with the plaintiff filing a written complaint with the competent court. The complaint must clearly state:
   • The parties involved (plaintiff and defendant).
   • The "relief sought" (請求の趣旨 - seikyū no shushi), which is a precise statement of what the plaintiff wants the court to order.
   • The "cause of action" (請求の原因 - seikyū no gen'in), which outlines the factual and legal basis for the claim. This section must contain sufficient facts to identify the claim.
2. Court Fees (Stamp Fees): The plaintiff must pay court fees, calculated based on the amount or value of the claim, by affixing revenue stamps to the complaint.
3. Service of Process (送達 - Sōtatsu): Once the complaint is accepted by the court, the court will arrange for its official service on the defendant, along with a summons to respond. Proper service is crucial for the court to gain jurisdiction over the defendant.

Upon being served, the defendant is typically required to file an Answer (答弁書 - Tōbensho) by a specified deadline, outlining their defenses and responding to the plaintiff's allegations.

The Core of Japanese Litigation: Preparatory Proceedings and Evidence

Unlike the extensive pre-trial discovery common in the U.S., Japanese civil litigation places a strong emphasis on a series of court-managed Preparatory Proceedings (弁論準備手続 - Benron Junbi Tetsuzuki) and written submissions. This phase is central to clarifying the issues in dispute and preparing for oral hearings.

1. Emphasis on Written Submissions (準備書面 - Junbi Shomen):
   Throughout the preparatory proceedings, parties exchange detailed written briefs. These briefs further articulate their factual and legal arguments, respond to the opponent's points, and identify supporting evidence. These are not merely procedural notices but substantive legal arguments.
2. Role of Preparatory Proceedings:
   These proceedings, often conducted in a conference room setting with judges and parties (or their counsel), aim to:
   • Identify undisputed facts.
   • Clarify the points of contention.
   • Organize the evidence to be presented.
   • Plan the schedule for witness examination and subsequent oral hearings.
     Judges play an active role in these proceedings, asking questions, seeking clarifications, and guiding the parties towards a focused dispute. Multiple sessions are common.
3. Evidence Gathering and Presentation – Key Differences from U.S. Discovery:
   • Limited Scope of "Discovery": Japan does not have a broad, party-driven discovery process akin to U.S. interrogatories, requests for admission, or extensive depositions taken as a matter of course.
   • Obtaining Documents from Opponent/Third Parties: While mechanisms exist to request the court to order an opponent or a third party to produce specific documents (文書提出命令 - bunsho teishutsu meirei), the scope is generally narrower than U.S. discovery. The requesting party usually needs to identify the document with some specificity and demonstrate its relevance and necessity. Broad "fishing expeditions" are not permitted.
   • Emphasis on Documentary Evidence: Documents play a crucial role. Parties are expected to submit the documents they intend to rely upon proactively.
   • Witness Examination (証人尋問 - Shōnin Jinmon): Live testimony is important, but it's often more focused and concise than in sprawling U.S. trials.
     • Witnesses are typically examined by the party calling them (direct examination), then by the opposing party (cross-examination), and often by the judges themselves.
     • Written witness statements (陳述書 - chinjutsusho) are often submitted in advance to outline the expected testimony, which can streamline the live examination.
   • Expert Testimony (鑑定 - Kantei): Courts can appoint experts, or parties can present their own expert opinions, typically in written form, often followed by examination.

Oral Hearings and the Role of the Judge

Once preparatory proceedings have sufficiently clarified the issues and evidence, the case moves to Oral Hearings (口頭弁論期日 - Kōtō Benron Kijitsu).

• Nature of Hearings: These are formal court sessions. However, rather than a single, continuous trial, Japanese civil litigation often involves a series of shorter, spaced-out oral hearings. Each hearing might focus on specific issues, witness examinations, or final arguments.
• The Judge's Active Role: Japanese judges generally take a more active, or inquisitorial, role compared to their U.S. counterparts in an adversarial system. They have the power to ask questions directly to parties and witnesses, seek clarification on arguments, and actively manage the flow of the proceedings to ensure all necessary points are covered. The goal is for the court to form its own conviction based on the evidence and arguments presented.

Judgment and Appeals

1. Judgment (判決 - Hanketsu): After the conclusion of the oral hearings, the court will render a written, reasoned judgment. Japanese judgments tend to be quite detailed in their factual findings and legal reasoning.
2. Appeals:
   • Kōso (控訴): An appeal from a District Court judgment is typically filed with the competent High Court. This is often a de novo review, where the High Court can re-examine both factual and legal issues.
   • Jōkoku (上告): An appeal from a High Court judgment to the Supreme Court is generally limited to significant errors of law or constitutional issues.

Key Distinctions for U.S. Practitioners

U.S. legal professionals should be particularly mindful of these fundamental differences:

• Absence of Jury Trials: All civil cases, regardless of complexity or amount, are decided by professional judges.
• The "Discovery Gap": The lack of broad, U.S.-style discovery is perhaps the most significant practical difference. This means case strategy must rely heavily on documents already in one's possession or obtainable through more limited court-ordered production.
• Attorney's Fees and Costs: Unlike the "American Rule," where each party generally bears its own attorney's fees, in Japan, the losing party is typically ordered to bear the court costs (stamp fees, witness expenses, etc.), but not the prevailing party's attorney's fees, except in very limited circumstances (e.g., certain tort cases or by contractual agreement).
• Unavailability of Punitive Damages: Japanese law does not recognize punitive or exemplary damages. Damages are strictly compensatory.
• Different Approaches to Collective Redress: While Japan has a system for collective redress for certain types of consumer harm (the Act on Special Measures Concerning Civil Court Proceedings for the Collective Redress for Property Damage Incurred by Consumers - 消費者裁判手続特例法), it is not as broad or as frequently used as U.S. class action lawsuits.

Specialized and Expedited Procedures

Beyond standard litigation, Japan offers several specialized or expedited procedures:

• Intellectual Property High Court: Handles appeals in IP-related cases and has exclusive jurisdiction over certain IP matters as a court of first instance.
• Labor Tribunals (労働審判 - Rōdō Shinpan): A popular and effective system for resolving individual employment disputes. It combines elements of mediation and adjudication, aiming for a resolution within three sessions.
• Summary Court Procedures: For claims not exceeding ¥1.4 million, Summary Courts offer simplified procedures. This includes Small Claims Litigation (少額訴訟 - Shōgaku Soshō) for monetary claims up to ¥600,000, designed for quick resolution, often in a single day, with limited rights of appeal.
• Demand for Payment Procedure (支払督促 - Shiharai Tokusoku): A document-based, ex-parte procedure available in Summary Courts for undisputed monetary claims. If the debtor does not object within a specified period after receiving the demand, the creditor can obtain an enforceable title relatively quickly.

Enforcement of Judgments

A favorable judgment is only valuable if it can be enforced. Enforcement of monetary judgments typically involves identifying and seizing the debtor's assets through court-administered execution procedures (強制執行 - kyōsei shikkō). This can include attachment of bank accounts, real estate, or other movables. Enforcement of non-monetary judgments (e.g., an order for specific performance) also has specific procedural pathways.

Keeping Pace with Modernization: The IT-ization of Japanese Civil Courts (as of May 2025)

A major ongoing development is the "IT-ization" (IT化) of civil court procedures, based on amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure passed in May 2022, with a phased implementation scheduled over several years.

Status as of May 2025:
The rollout of these IT initiatives is well underway, transforming how litigation is conducted:

1. Web/Video Conferencing: The use of web conferencing for various court proceedings, including preparatory proceedings and even some oral hearings and witness examinations, has become increasingly common and is now explicitly provided for in the revised Code. Initially facilitated by tools like Microsoft Teams, dedicated court systems are also being enhanced. This has been particularly beneficial for parties or counsel located remotely, reducing travel time and costs. While judges still preside from the courtroom, participation by parties and lawyers via web conference is now a regular feature, subject to the court's determination of appropriateness.
2. Electronic Filing (e-Filing): A system for the electronic filing of complaints, briefs, evidence, and other court documents has been progressively implemented. As of early 2025, e-filing is becoming the standard, particularly for attorneys. While provisions for paper filing remain for unrepresented parties or in exceptional circumstances, law firms are largely transitioning to, or have already adopted, electronic submission through a dedicated court portal (民事裁判書類電子提出システム - Minji Saiban Shorui Denshi Teishutsu Shisutemu, often referred to as "mints"). The aim is full mandatory e-filing for legal professionals in the near future.
3. Online Case Management and Record Access: Courts are moving towards fully electronic case files (電磁的訴訟記録 - denjiteki soshō kiroku). Parties and their counsel are increasingly able to access case dockets and filed documents online through secure portals. This improves transparency and efficiency in managing case information. The rules for public access to electronic records (e.g., via court-installed terminals versus remote access) continue to be refined to balance transparency with privacy concerns.
4. Digitalization of Judgments and Court Orders: Judgments and other court orders are also transitioning to electronic formats, served and stored digitally.

Impact: The IT-ization aims to make court procedures more efficient, accessible, and less reliant on paper. For U.S. businesses and their legal teams, this means:

• Potentially reduced costs associated with physical document handling and travel.
• Faster communication with courts and opposing parties.
• Easier remote participation in certain proceedings.
• A need to adapt to new electronic systems and protocols.

Navigating the System: Practical Considerations for US Businesses

• Meticulous Documentation: Given the emphasis on documentary evidence and the limited discovery, maintaining thorough and accurate records of all business dealings, communications, and contractual performance is even more critical than in the U.S.
• Strategic Considerations: The procedural differences, particularly regarding evidence gathering, necessitate different strategic approaches to building and presenting a case.
• The Critical Role of Japanese Counsel (Bengoshi - 弁護士): Engaging experienced Japanese litigators early is essential. They understand the nuances of the system, the judges' expectations, and how to effectively present a case within the Japanese procedural framework. They can also advise on the evolving IT procedures.
• Potential for Settlement: Japanese courts often actively encourage settlement discussions at various stages of the litigation. Understanding this cultural and procedural emphasis on conciliation is important.

Conclusion

The Japanese civil litigation system, while operating on principles distinct from the U.S. system, is a well-established, fair, and increasingly modernized framework for resolving disputes. Key characteristics such as the judge-led preparatory proceedings, the emphasis on written submissions, limited discovery, and the ongoing IT revolution define its unique nature. For U.S. businesses, understanding these features, preparing diligently, and working closely with knowledgeable local counsel are fundamental to successfully navigating legal challenges and protecting their interests in Japan.