WASHINGTON, D.C. — A United States District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed a legal application seeking to compel evidence from President Bola Tinubu and lobbying firm DCI Group.
In a ruling issued on October 30, 2026, the presiding judge held that the requested discovery—which centered on claims of digital disruptions and cyberattacks targeting transparency activist Aaron Greenspan’s website—was not sufficiently relevant to the core legal issues of the underlying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proceeding.
The primary litigation focuses strictly on public access records requested from federal law enforcement agencies, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Responding to the decision, attorney Christopher W. Carmichael emphasized that statutory record-disclosure cases cannot be expanded beyond their legal scope.
“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,” Carmichael said. “By denying the request for discovery against President Tinubu and DCI Group, the Court reinforced the importance of keeping this litigation focused on the issues properly before it.”
Alongside the discovery denial, the federal court turned down a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff. It also rejected a separate application submitted by nonparty Karl Von Batten seeking permission to introduce an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief, as well as Greenspan’s related motion for judicial notice.
Evaluating the overall outcome, attorney Oluwole Afolabi noted that while these judicial decisions establish firm procedural boundaries for the litigation, the substantive FOIA claims concerning federal agency record access remain pending before the court.
“The Court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and rejected a separate request to introduce an amicus brief,” Afolabi stated. “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.”
You Might Also Like
