FOIA suit: US court rejects Greenspan’s discovery request against Tinubu
A United States federal court has rejected a request by Aaron Greenspan seeking permission to obtain evidence from President Bola Tinubu and DCI Group in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving US federal agencies.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in a ruling delivered on October 30, held that the proposed discovery concerning alleged cyberattacks on Greenspan’s website was not sufficiently relevant to the underlying dispute involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The development was contained in a statement issued on Friday in Washington, DC.
Greenspan had sought limited discovery from Tinubu and DCI Group over the alleged cyberattacks as part of the ongoing litigation.
Reacting to the ruling, attorney Christopher W. Carmichael said the decision reinforced the need to restrict the FOIA proceedings to issues directly connected to the legal dispute.
“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,” he said.
The court also rejected a separate application by nonparty Karl Von Batten seeking permission to submit an amicus curiae brief, commonly known as a friend-of-the-court submission.
It equally denied Greenspan’s related request for judicial notice and his motion for summary judgment.
Attorney Oluwole Afolabi said the decisions established procedural boundaries for the case, although the substantive FOIA issues remained before the court.
“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,” he said.
Background
The lawsuit stems from FOIA requests by Aaron Greenspan seeking FBI and DEA records relating to an alleged investigation involving Tinubu and others dating back to the early 1990s. The case centres on whether the US agencies should release the requested documents.
