Lawyers for President Bola Tinubu and the United States government have asked a federal court in Washington, DC, to reject a bid by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan to expand discovery in his Freedom of Information Act case.
Tinubu’s lawyers, who are representing him as an intervenor, argued that Greenspan was attempting to use the discovery process to investigate private individuals and organisations over alleged denial-of-service attacks on his PlainSite website.
They told the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the proposed discovery fell outside the limited scope of a FOIA case and amounted to a speculative investigation into the activities of third parties.
Greenspan, who operates the for-profit PlainSite website, has alleged that the platform was targeted by denial-of-service attacks.
However, Tinubu’s lawyers said Greenspan had not independently verified the attacks, did not know who was responsible and had not alleged that Tinubu was behind them.
They also rejected his attempt to link the alleged attacks to activity in the FOIA case, describing the connection as speculative.
In a response filed on September 23, Tinubu’s lawyers said Greenspan was seeking interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production from Tinubu, as well as a third-party subpoena against DCI Group AZ, LLC, a public relations and lobbying firm, and its unidentified parent company.
The proposed discovery also sought information about other individuals or organisations allegedly providing public relations, lobbying or legal advice.
Tinubu’s lawyers argued that FOIA was intended to provide access to information about government activities rather than investigate the activities of private parties.
They cited previous court decisions holding that discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA cases and, where allowed, is reserved for exceptional circumstances, particularly when a plaintiff raises substantial questions about the adequacy or good faith of an agency’s search.
“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions,” the lawyers said, adding that Greenspan had neither sought discovery from the government agencies nor demonstrated bad faith in their handling of his FOIA requests.
They further argued that Greenspan had failed to show that the proposed discovery was relevant to the issues before the court.
According to reports by The Nation, the filing, Greenspan acknowledged that he did not know who carried out the alleged attacks and that the use of botnets made identifying the perpetrators difficult.
The lawyers also pointed to his admission that PlainSite had been attacked on other occasions and that the website’s server had remained under attack for extended periods when there were no court filings.
They argued that the fact that more than 100 docket entries were made in the case, with some attacks allegedly occurring within days of filings, was insufficient to establish a connection.
“The relationship that Plaintiff draws between the website issues and this case remains wholly speculative,” they said.
Tinubu’s lawyers also opposed Greenspan’s request for expedited discovery, arguing that there was no imminent event requiring such action.
They noted that, according to Greenspan’s own filing, the alleged attacks had stopped at the end of August 2026.
His suggestion that the attacks could resume, they argued, was theoretical and did not justify expedited discovery.
The lawyers also rejected Greenspan’s reliance on the court’s inherent authority, arguing that such authority could not override relevance and proportionality requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the restrictions governing discovery in FOIA cases.
They urged the court to dismiss the discovery request in its entirety.
In a separate filing, the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration asked the court to grant their cross-motion for summary judgment, maintaining that they had conducted adequate searches for records responsive to Greenspan’s FOIA requests.
The agencies said they searched for responsive records, processed the documents located and released all reasonably segregable information that was not exempt from disclosure.
The FBI said its search included separate searches for the terms “Bola” and “Tinubu”, followed by a manual, page-by-page review of a multi-subject file.
It said an additional declaration filed with its response addressed Greenspan’s complaints about the search terms and alleged failure to account for misspellings and typographical errors.
The DEA said Greenspan had not challenged the adequacy of its search and maintained that its searches were reasonably calculated to locate responsive records.
The agencies also defended their decision to withhold portions of the records under various FOIA exemptions.
On grand jury material, the FBI said it relied on Exemption 3, together with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), the Pen Register Act and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
The agency said the information was withheld to preserve grand jury secrecy and prevent the disclosure of non-public details concerning pen registers and information obtained through their use.
The FBI also defended its reliance on Exemption 5 to withhold records reflecting prosecutorial strategy.
It argued that the records were protected by attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges because their disclosure could reveal the “thought process, strategy and legal impressions” of US Attorney’s Office personnel working with FBI law enforcement partners on criminal cases.
The government said disclosure could hinder prosecutors from openly preparing strategies and plans in the course of their duties.
The agencies also defended exemptions covering personal information, confidential sources and law enforcement techniques.
They said the records involved third-party criminal defendants and that the exemptions were intended to protect non-public identifying information.
The DEA argued that disclosure of information concerning confidential sources could reveal their identities and expose them to potential risks.
It also defended its use of Exemption 7(E), which protects certain law enforcement techniques and procedures, saying Greenspan had acknowledged that non-public investigative techniques could properly be withheld.
The FBI further defended its reliance on Exemption 7(F), which covers law enforcement information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger an individual’s life or physical safety.
It said the exemption was applied to protect the names and identifying information of people who could face violence if identified in the records.
The DEA similarly cited the sensitive nature of undercover operations involving armed and potentially violent offenders.
The FBI and DEA therefore asked the court to enter summary judgment in their favour, while Tinubu urged the court to reject Greenspan’s discovery application.
Greenspan filed the FOIA lawsuit against several US federal agencies seeking records relating to investigations involving Tinubu.
Among the records he is seeking are the FBI’s entire file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records covering the period between 1992 and 1993.
The case also concerns an alleged record relating to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the US involving about $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
The Nation.
