DJI Says Pentagon Should Be Ordered to Produce Confidential Info in Chinese Military Company Suit
Chinese drone maker DJI urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Pentagon to provide its counsel with classified information in the company's suit against its designation as a Chinese military company. DJI argued that the information is "undoubtedly" relevant since DOD used it as the basis for DJI's designation, and that disclosure is needed because the court can't evaluate the designation without access to the "very information on which that designation is based" (SZ DJI Technology Co. v. U.S. Department of Defense, D.D.C. # 24-02970).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
DJI filed suit last year, nearly one year after the company was first added to the Pentagon's 1260H List, arguing that the Chinese Communist Party indirectly owns DJI, which is also on the Commerce Department's Entity List (see 2410210038).
The drone maker said the government's administrative record redacts "considerable portions" of information DOD marks as classified, and it moved for the court to compel DOD to provide that information.
DJI argued that the information is "undoubtedly relevant and material," since the redacted allegations "are central to this case and may be critical to the Court’s analysis and decision," the brief said.
It also said disclosure is needed to "facilitate a meaningful review," because DJI's counsel can't provide effective counsel without it. The company argued that its counsel has a "Top Secret" clearance, which makes an ex parte review of the confidential information by the court -- which the U.S. suggested -- unnecessary. In an ex parte review, the court would review the information without DJI present.
"There is no reasonable justification for barring security-cleared counsel from reviewing the classified information that is central to this litigation," the brief said.
DJI also argued that "no reasonable alternatives to disclosure exist." Without access to the redacted information, "DJI cannot assess or correct potential factual errors or meaningfully challenge its designation as a" Chinese military company.