By Samuel Abasiekong-Abasiekong
United States | A United States federal court has rejected an application by Aaron Greenspan seeking permission to obtain evidence from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and US lobbying firm DCI Group in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia delivered the ruling on Friday, October 30, 2026, declining Greenspan’s request for limited discovery concerning alleged cyberattacks on his website.
The court held that the proposed investigation into the alleged cyberattacks was not sufficiently relevant to the central issues in the FOIA litigation.
The ruling also rejected an application by non-party Karl Von Batten to submit an amicus curiae brief, commonly known as a friend-of-the-court submission.
Additionally, the court denied Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and his application seeking judicial notice of certain records.
The development was announced on Saturday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Information and Strategy, through his official X account.
What the US court ruling actually says
The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., is registered as Civil Action No. 23-cv-1816 (BAH).
It was heard by District Judge Beryl A. Howell, who issued a 78-page memorandum opinion addressing several outstanding applications filed by the parties.
Court documents show that Greenspan’s request for discovery was connected to alleged distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on his website.
He argued that the attacks had disrupted access to his website, increased his operating costs and affected his ability to publish documents relating to the ongoing litigation.
Greenspan suggested that the attacks could have originated from individuals interested in restricting public access to information about the case.
However, the court specifically noted that he had not accused Tinubu of being responsible for the alleged cyberattacks.
It consequently ruled that investigating the source of the attacks would not help determine whether the FBI and DEA had conducted adequate searches or lawfully withheld documents requested under FOIA.
The judge therefore concluded that the proposed discovery was neither sufficiently relevant nor proportionate to the issues before the court.
Background: Why Tinubu’s name appears in the FOIA lawsuit
The litigation originated from Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by Greenspan between 2022 and 2023.
He approached six US federal agencies, including the FBI, DEA, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Executive Office for US Attorneys and Department of State.
His requests sought historical criminal investigative records relating to a Chicago-based heroin-trafficking and money-laundering operation investigated by US authorities in the early 1990s.
Tinubu and another individual, Abiodun Agbele, were among four people specifically identified in the requests.
The court’s records also explain that the FBI and DEA initially issued what is legally known as a Glomar response.
This is a procedure through which an agency refuses to confirm or deny whether particular records exist, usually because acknowledging their existence could disclose information protected by law.
However, Greenspan challenged the responses, relying partly on previously published US court documents from 1993.
In April 2025, Judge Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could not maintain their Glomar responses concerning the relevant investigations because the existence of the investigations had already been officially acknowledged in public court filings.
The CIA, however, obtained judgment in its favour because Greenspan had not established that it had officially acknowledged the existence or non-existence of the requested records.
What happened to the FBI and DEA records?
Following the earlier judgment, the FBI and DEA were directed to search for and release non-exempt documents responsive to Greenspan’s requests.
The latest court judgment provides important details about the records processed.
The FBI identified 399 pages of potentially responsive documents following searches using the names Bola and Tinubu and a manual review of the relevant investigative file.
The DEA processed 240 pages.
However, none of the 240 DEA pages was released in full. Some were withheld entirely, while others were released with substantial redactions.
The court also observed that none of the records released by either the FBI or DEA contained the name Tinubu.
It further questioned the FBI’s decision to release a redacted version of an affidavit that had previously appeared unredacted in public court records in 1993 and 2024.
Court rejects Greenspan’s summary judgment application
Beyond the discovery dispute, Judge Howell addressed competing applications for summary judgment filed by Greenspan and the federal agencies.
Although the court rejected Greenspan’s application, it did not grant the FBI and DEA everything they requested.
The judge granted the FBI summary judgment concerning the adequacy of its search and its reliance on FOIA Exemption 5.
However, the court declined to grant the agencies summary judgment on several other categories of withheld information.
It directed the FBI and DEA to provide additional declarations explaining their continued reliance on certain exemptions and demonstrating that information that could legally be disclosed had been properly separated from protected material.
The agencies were also directed to prepare a proposed timetable for expedited further proceedings.
This means the October 30 decision did not finally resolve the entire FOIA dispute or authorise the unrestricted withholding of all outstanding records.
Karl Von Batten’s application also rejected
The court also refused an application by Karl Von Batten, who is not a party to the lawsuit, seeking permission to participate through an amicus curiae brief.
An amicus curiae brief allows an individual or organisation that is not directly involved in a case to present arguments or information that may assist the court.
Greenspan’s separate application asking the court to take judicial notice of certain documents was also rejected as moot because it had been submitted in support of the unsuccessful discovery request.
The judge additionally rejected Greenspan’s application for procedural safeguards concerning the FBI’s proposed confidential submissions.
Lawyers react to the ruling
Reacting to the decision, Christopher W. Carmichael, an attorney representing Tinubu, said the ruling reinforced the principle that FOIA proceedings must remain focused on the legal questions before the court.
He maintained that the discovery application could not be used to pursue investigations unrelated to the central issues in the lawsuit.
Attorney Oluwole Afolabi also described the decision as an important clarification of the procedural boundaries governing the litigation.
The two lawyers’ comments were contained in the statement circulated following the judgment.
What the ruling means for President Tinubu
The decision represents a procedural victory for Tinubu in the specific dispute over Greenspan’s attempt to obtain limited discovery from him and DCI Group.
However, it is important to distinguish that outcome from the broader FOIA litigation.
The court did not rule that the historical investigation never occurred. Indeed, its judgment discussed earlier public court records acknowledging the investigation.
Neither did the October 30 ruling establish that Tinubu was responsible for the alleged cyberattacks on Greenspan’s website.
Importantly, the court’s refusal to permit discovery was based on the irrelevance of the proposed cyberattack investigation to the specific FOIA questions before it.
The outstanding dispute concerns the adequacy of federal agency searches, the application of statutory exemptions and whether additional portions of historical investigative records should be disclosed.
Consequently, the case remains significant because further court proceedings could determine whether the FBI and DEA must release additional information.
The October 30 judgment is therefore a victory for Tinubu on the discovery application, but not a final determination of the outstanding questions surrounding the historical investigative records.
™️©️ Samuel Abasiekong-Abasiekong, CEO/EiC www.efeederstation.com
