The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a motion by Aaron Greenspan seeking limited discovery from Nigerian President Bola Tinubu and DCI Group in an ongoing lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The court’s ruling followed a suit filed by Greenspan at the US District Court seeking to obtain records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) relating to investigations involving Tinubu and Nigerian businessman Abubakar Agbele in the 1990s.
In a request filed on October 8, Greenspan asked the court to consider additional records in support of his separate application for permission to seek limited discovery from Tinubu.
In his application, Greenspan argued that the records provided a basis for investigating possible attacks against him and his website.
However, in its ruling, shared by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, on his X handle, the court declared that the proposed discovery concerning alleged cyberattacks on Greenspan’s website was not sufficiently relevant to the underlying FOIA dispute involving the FBI and DEA.
Christopher W. Carmichael, President Tinubu’s lawyer in the suit filed by Greenspan, said:
‘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.’
The court also denied a separate motion by non-party Karl Von Batten seeking permission to file an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief, as well as Greenspan’s related request for judicial notice.
Additionally, the court denied Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment.
Providing further details of the ruling, another of Tinubu’s lawyers, Oluwole Afolabi, disclosed that ‘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.’