The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has rejected a motion filed by Aaron Greenspan seeking permission to obtain evidence from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and DCI Group in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
The court, presided over by United States District Judge Beryl A. Howell, ruled on Friday, October 30, 2026, that Greenspan’s proposed discovery concerning alleged cyberattacks on his website was not sufficiently relevant to the underlying dispute over access to records held by the two American federal agencies.
The judge also denied Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment, rejected an application by a nonparty, Karl Von Batten, seeking permission to file an amicus curiae brief, and declined Greenspan’s related request for judicial notice.
The development was disclosed on Saturday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, through his verified X account, @aonanuga1956, while referencing a statement issued in Washington, D.C., on October 30.
The suit, identified as Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., Case No. 23-cv-1816, concerns requests submitted by Greenspan under the United States Freedom of Information Act for investigative records relating to a money-laundering and drug-trafficking investigation conducted in the early 1990s.
The records sought include documents connected with investigations in which Tinubu and Abiodun Agbele were named.
Tinubu is an intervenor-defendant in the proceedings, while the FBI and DEA are among the federal agencies whose handling of the information requests is being challenged.
The litigation originally arose after federal agencies declined to confirm or deny the existence of certain requested records, prompting Greenspan to challenge their responses before the court.
In an earlier decision, the court directed the FBI and DEA to search for and process responsive records that were not exempt from disclosure under the law.
The latest dispute arose when Greenspan sought permission to conduct limited discovery involving Tinubu and DCI Group over alleged distributed denial-of-service cyberattacks targeting his website.
His proposed discovery included written questions, requests for admissions and a demand for documents from DCI Group, which he identified as having a connection with the Nigerian government.
Greenspan argued that the attacks had interfered with access to his website, where he published materials relating to the litigation, and that further investigation could help identify those responsible.
However, the court found that determining the source of the alleged cyberattacks would not assist in resolving the central legal questions concerning the adequacy of the FBI and DEA’s searches and their decisions to withhold particular records.
The court consequently refused to authorise the requested discovery against Tinubu and DCI Group.
The ruling did not determine who was responsible for the alleged cyberattacks or establish that Tinubu or DCI Group had participated in them.
The judge also rejected Greenspan’s request for the court to take judicial notice of materials submitted in support of the discovery application, finding that the request had become unnecessary following the refusal of discovery.
In a related ruling, the court denied an application by Karl Von Batten, who was not a party to the proceedings, to submit an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, brief.
Such briefs are ordinarily submitted by individuals or organisations seeking to assist a court with legal arguments or information relevant to a pending matter.
The court found that the proposed submission largely repeated arguments already before it and included material whose accuracy was disputed.
It therefore declined to admit the proposed brief.
Reacting to the decisions, Attorney Christopher W. Carmichael said the ruling reinforced the principle that FOIA proceedings should remain focused on the legal questions properly before the court.
“The court’s decision makes clear that this Freedom of Information Act proceeding cannot be used to pursue discovery unrelated to the legal questions before it.
“By denying the request for discovery against President Tinubu and DCI Group, the court reinforced the importance of keeping this litigation focused on the issues properly before it,” Carmichael said.
Similarly, Attorney Oluwole Afolabi said the court’s decisions had established procedural boundaries while leaving unresolved issues concerning the disclosure of federal investigative records.
“The court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and rejected a separate request to introduce an amicus brief.
“While the underlying FOIA issues remain before the court, these rulings establish important procedural boundaries and clarify which matters are appropriate for consideration in this litigation,” Afolabi stated.
However, the court’s ruling went beyond the rejection of Greenspan’s discovery application and other procedural requests.
In determining the competing summary judgment motions, Judge Howell granted the federal agencies’ application only in part.
Specifically, the court ruled in favour of the FBI concerning the adequacy of its search for responsive records and its withholding of certain information under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act.
The judge rejected the remaining portions of the agencies’ application for summary judgment, while also denying Greenspan’s own motion for summary judgment.
The court raised questions about whether some information withheld by the federal agencies had already entered the public domain through previously disclosed court documents.
It noted that although federal investigators had processed and released certain records in response to earlier orders, questions remained concerning the justification for withholding other information.
Consequently, the judge directed the agencies to prepare additional declarations supporting any continued withholding of responsive records and to propose an expedited schedule for further proceedings after consulting Greenspan.
The decision means that although Greenspan has been refused permission to pursue discovery against Tinubu and DCI Group over the alleged cyberattacks, the underlying dispute concerning access to FBI and DEA records has not been finally determined.
The October 30 ruling therefore represents a procedural setback for Greenspan in his attempt to expand the litigation, but it does not amount to the dismissal of the FOIA lawsuit or a final judicial determination of all the outstanding disclosure issues.
The case remains before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for further proceedings.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
