Lawyers for Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the U.S. government have asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to reject efforts by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan to expand discovery in his Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Tinubu, intervening in the case, argued through his attorneys that Greenspan is improperly trying to use the federal discovery process to investigate private individuals and organizations over alleged denial-of-service attacks on his for-profit website, PlainSite. Such discovery, they said, lies outside the narrow bounds of a FOIA action and amounts to a speculative inquiry into third-party conduct.
Greenspan has claimed PlainSite came under attack but has not independently verified the incidents, does not know who was responsible, and has not accused Tinubu of involvement. His lawyers are seeking interrogatories, requests for admission, and document production from Tinubu, plus a third-party subpoena directed at public-relations and lobbying firm DCI Group AZ, LLC, its unidentified parent company, and other entities allegedly providing related advice.
Tinubu’s counsel stressed that FOIA exists to open government records, not to scrutinize private parties. Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA cases and is reserved for exceptional situations in which a plaintiff raises substantial questions about an agency’s search or good faith—none of which Greenspan has shown, they argued. He has neither sought discovery from the agencies themselves nor demonstrated bad faith. The claimed link between the website problems and court filings remains “wholly speculative,” the lawyers wrote, noting that PlainSite had suffered attacks at other times unrelated to the litigation and that more than 100 docket entries do not establish causation.
They also opposed any request for expedited discovery, pointing out that the attacks had ceased by the end of August 2026 and that fears of a resumption were purely theoretical. The court’s inherent authority, they added, cannot override relevance, proportionality, or the special limits on FOIA discovery.
In a separate filing the same day, the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration asked the court to grant their cross-motion for summary judgment. Both agencies said they conducted adequate searches, processed responsive records, and released all reasonably segregable non-exempt material. The FBI described searches using the terms “Bola” and “Tinubu,” followed by a page-by-page review of a multi-subject file, and submitted an additional declaration addressing concerns about search terms and possible misspellings. The DEA noted that Greenspan had not challenged the adequacy of its search.
The agencies defended withholdings under multiple FOIA exemptions, including protections for grand-jury material, attorney work-product and deliberative processes, personal privacy, confidential sources, law-enforcement techniques, and information whose release could endanger individuals. They argued disclosure of certain records could reveal prosecutorial strategy, compromise undercover operations, or expose sources and third parties to harm.
Greenspan’s underlying FOIA suit seeks records related to investigations involving Tinubu, including the FBI’s complete file on him, Form 302 interview reports from 1992–1993, and documents concerning a 1993 civil forfeiture of approximately $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu’s lawyers urged the court to deny the discovery motion in full, while the FBI and DEA sought summary judgment in their favor.
