Lawyers for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the United States government have urged a federal court in Washington, D.C., to reject moves by Aaron Greenspan to expand discovery in his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case.

‎Tinubu’s lawyers, acting for him as an intervenor, argued that Greenspan was attempting to use the federal 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 such discovery was outside the limited scope of a FOIA action and amounted to a speculative investigation into activities by third parties.

‎Greenspan operates PlainSite, a for-profit website, and has alleged that it was subjected to denial-of-service attacks.

However, Tinubu’s lawyers said he had not independently verified the attacks, did not know who was responsible and had not alleged that Tinubu was behind them.

‎They also rejected Greenspan’s attempt to link the attacks to activity in the FOIA case, saying the alleged connection was based on speculation.

‎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 concerning other persons or entities allegedly providing public relations, lobbying or legal advice.

‎Tinubu’s lawyers argued that FOIA is designed to provide access to information about government activities, rather than to investigate what private parties are doing.

‎They cited decisions holding that discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA cases and that, where permitted, it is reserved for exceptional circumstances, particularly where a plaintiff raises substantial questions about the adequacy or good faith of a government agency’s search.

‎“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions,” the lawyers said, adding that Greenspan had not sought discovery from the government agencies or demonstrated bad faith in their handling of his FOIA requests.

‎They further argued that Greenspan had failed to establish that the proposed discovery was relevant to the issues before the court.

According to the filing, Greenspan himself acknowledged that he did not know who carried out the alleged attacks and that the use of botnets made identification of the perpetrators difficult.

‎The lawyers also pointed to Greenspan’s admission that PlainSite had been attacked at other times and that the website’s server had been under attack for extended periods when there were no court filings.

‎They argued that the existence of more than 100 docket entries in the case asserted that an attack occurred within days of some filings, 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.

‎They said there was no imminent event requiring such action because, according to Greenspan’s own filing, the attacks had stopped at the end of August 2026.

‎His suggestion that the attacks could resume, they argued, was merely theoretical and did not justify expedited discovery.

‎The lawyers further rejected Greenspan’s reliance on the court’s inherent authority, arguing that such authority could not override the relevance and proportionality requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the restrictions governing discovery in FOIA cases.

‎They urged the court to deny the motion in its entirety.

‎In a separate reply, the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) asked the court to grant their cross-motion for summary judgment, maintaining that they conducted adequate searches for records responsive to Greenspan’s FOIA requests.

‎In the reply filed the same day, the agencies said both had searched for responsive records, processed the records located and released all reasonably segregable non-exempt information.

‎The FBI said its search included searches using “Bola” and “Tinubu” separately, followed by a manual, page-by-page review of a multi-subject file.

‎The agency said the additional declaration filed with its reply addressed Greenspan’s complaints about the search terms and alleged failure to account for misspellings and typographical errors.

‎The DEA, on its part, said Greenspan had not challenged the adequacy of its search and maintained that it had conducted searches reasonably calculated to locate responsive records.

The agencies also defended their decision to withhold portions of the records under several FOIA exemptions.

‎On grand-jury material, the FBI said it relied on Exemption 3, together with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6€, the Pen Register Act and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.

‎The government said the information was withheld to preserve grand-jury secrecy and avoid revealing non-public details about pen registers and the information obtained through their use.

‎The FBI also defended its reliance on Exemption 5 to withhold records reflecting prosecutorial strategy.

‎It said the records sought by Greenspan were central to attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges because they could reveal the “thought process, strategy and legal impressions” of U.S. Attorney’s Office personnel working with FBI law-enforcement partners on criminal cases.

‎The government argued that disclosure could hinder prosecutors from openly preparing strategies and plans in the performance of their duties.

‎The agencies further defended exemptions protecting personal information, confidential sources and law-enforcement techniques.

‎They said the records were law-enforcement records involving third-party criminal defendants and that the exemptions were intended to protect non-public identifying information.

‎The DEA specifically argued that disclosure of information concerning confidential sources could reveal their identities and expose them to risks.

‎It also defended the use of Exemption 7€, which protects certain law-enforcement techniques and procedures, saying Greenspan had acknowledged that non-public investigative techniques could properly be withheld.

‎The FBI also defended 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 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 grant summary judgment in their favour, while Tinubu urged the court to reject Greenspan’s discovery application.

‎The records are being sought by U.S. transparency activist Greenspan, who filed a FOIA lawsuit against several federal agencies seeking documents relating to investigations involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

‎Among his requests 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 United States involving about $460,000 linked to Tinubu. (The Nation)