Question: Why did the judge rule against the civil claim?
About the article "Nanking Massacre", section "Japanese war crimes on the march to Nanking".

Candidate passages:
In this case, there was a valid claim of privilege under Rule 34; and a judgment based under Rule 37 on refusal to produce the documents subjected the United States to liability which Congress did not consent by the Federal Tort Claims Act.
As used in Rule 34, which compels production only of matters "not privileged," the term "not privileged" refers to "privileges" as that term is understood in the law of evidence.
When the Secretary lodged his formal claim of privilege, he invoked a privilege against revealing military secrets – one which is well established in the law of evidence.
When a claim of privilege against revealing military secrets is invoked, the courts must decide whether the occasion for invoking the privilege is appropriate, and yet do so without jeopardizing the security which the privilege was meant to protect.
When the formal claim of privilege was filed by the Secretary, under the circumstances indicating a reasonable possibility that military secrets were involved, there was a sufficient showing of privilege to cut off further demand for the documents on the showing of necessity for its compulsion that had been made.
In this case, the showing of necessity was greatly minimized by plaintiffs' rejection of the Judge Advocate General's offer to make the surviving crew member available for examination.
The doctrine in the criminal field that the Government can invoke its evidence privileges only at the price of letting the defendant go free has no application in a civil forum, where the Government is not the moving party, but is a defendant only on terms to which it has consented.
In a suit under the Tort Claims Act, the District Court entered a judgment against the Government.
The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. 
On 3 February 2007, Microsoft Corporation's Russian office published a statement saying that Microsoft does not consider this case a malignant copyright violation, and Microsoft did not claim and would not claim in the future any civil suit against Ponosov. 
An example of this is Rule 14 ("Third Party Practice") of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 14(a)(1): The nonparty must be served with the third party complaint as well as a summons.
If the original defendant intends to do this more than 14 days after serving its original answer, it must first, by motion, obtain the court's leave to do so.
Rule 14(a)(2): When properly served, the third-party defendant must assert any defense against the thirdparty plaintiff's claim under Rule 12; must assert any counterclaims against the third-party plaintiff that are compulsory under Rule 13(a); may assert any counterclaim against the third-party plaintiff under Rule 13(b) or any crossclaim against another third-party defendant under Rule 13(g); may assert against the plaintiff any defense that the third-party plaintiff has to the plaintiff's claim; and may also assert against the plaintiff any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff.
Rule 14(a)(3): The original plaintiff may now assert claims against the third-party defendant, as long as they arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of his claim against the third-party plaintiff.
The third-party defendant must then assert any defense under Rule 12 and any counterclaim under Rule 13(a), and may assert any counterclaim under Rule 13(b) or any cross-claim under Rule 13(g).
Rule 14(a)(4): Any party may move to strike the third-party claim, to sever it, or to try it separately.
Rule 14(a)(4): A third-party defendant may engage in third-party practice of his own.
Rule 14(a)(5): rules regarding maritime or admiralty jurisdiction.
Rule 14(b): When a claim is asserted against a plaintiff, he may engage in third-party practice of his own.
Rule 14(c): rules regarding maritime or admiralty jurisdiction. 
Adhesion procedure, adhesive procedure or ancillary proceedings is a procedure through which a court of law can rule on compensation for the victim of a criminal offense.
Rather than pursuing damages in a separate civil action, the victim files a civil claim against the offender as a part of a criminal trial.
This system exists in some common law jurisdictions, including Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, and Slovakia. 
In late May 21, 1796 one of Martha Washington's slaves, Oney Judge, escaped from the Executive Mansion in Philadelphia, where she lived with the Washingtons during his presidency, serving as Martha's chambermaid.
As Secretary, Wolcott was George Washington's intermediary in getting the Collector of Customs for Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Joseph Whipple, to capture and send Martha Washington's runaway slave, Oney Judge (sometimes Ona), to Mount Vernon, where she had begun serving the Washingtons.
Whipple met with Oney, discussed why she had escaped and tried to ascertain the facts of the case.
After she told him she did not desire to be a slave again, Whipple refused to remove Ms Judge against her will, saying that it could cause civil unrest due to abolitionists, and recommended the President go through the courts if needed.
In their correspondence, Washington said that he wanted to avoid controversy, so he did not use the courts to take advantage of the method he himself had signed into law under the 1793 Slave Act.
Washington made another attempt to apprehend her in 1798.
This time he asked his nephew, Burwell Bassett, Jr to convince her to return or to take her by force, but Oney was warned by senator John Langdon and hid.
Wolcott's involvement with this case ended with the first attempt to return Oney Judge to slavery.