Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys

District of Columbia

Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided April 8, 2025·No. Civil Action No. 2023-1816·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AARON GREENSPAN,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 23-1816 (BAH) v. Judge Beryl A. Howell EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Aaron Greenspan, proceeding pro se, seeks disclosure, pursuant to the Freedom

of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, by defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation

(“FBI”), Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) of

criminal investigative documents relating to two individuals, Bola Ahmed Tinubu (“Tinubu”) and

Abiodun Agbele (“Agbele”), that plaintiff claims were generated during a federal investigation of

an international drug trafficking and money laundering ring in the early 1990s. See Pl.’s Mem. of

P. & A. in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 1, ECF No. 41-1; Joint Status Report

& Proposed Briefing Schedule (“JSR”) ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 39 (describing plaintiff’s agreement to

narrow the issues for summary judgment litigation); Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Defs.’

Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. & in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Opp’n”) at 1, ECF No.

43-1 (describing the “remaining disputes” in this case). All three defendants have issued Glomar

responses refusing to confirm or deny whether the requested records exist, Pl.’s Mem. at 7; Defs.’

Opp’n at 2, which responses plaintiff now contests, seeking disclosure of the requested

1 information, see generally Pl.’s Mem.; Pl.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Reply”),

ECF No. 44. 1

For the reasons explained below, both parties’ motions for summary judgment are granted

in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Glomar responses asserted by defendants FBI and

DEA are improper and must be lifted, while the Glomar response issued by defendant CIA is

sustained.

I. BACKGROUND

Summarized below is the factual and procedural background relevant to the FOIA requests

at issue and the parties’ pending cross-motions for summary judgment.

A. Plaintiff’s FOIA Requests

During 2022 and 2023, plaintiff filed twelve FOIA requests with six different federal

government agencies and components: the FBI, DEA, CIA, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”),

Executive Office of United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”), and the United States Department of

State, Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 21-117, ECF No. 35, seeking information about a joint

investigation conducted by the FBI, IRS, DEA, and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Northern

District of Indiana and Northern District of Illinois into the activities, including money laundering,

of a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s, id. ¶¶ 1-2. Each of plaintiff’s FOIA

requests sought criminal investigative records about four named individuals allegedly associated

with the drug ring: Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Lee Andrew Edwards, Mueez Abegboyega Akande, and

1 The moniker “Glomar” stems from a case in which a FOIA requester sought information about a ship named the “Hughes Glomar Explorer,” and the CIA refused to confirm or deny any relationship with the Glomar vessel, since doing so would compromise national security or divulge sensitive intelligence sources and methods. Phillippi v. CIA, 655 F.2d 1325, 1329-31 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The D.C. Circuit upheld that approach, see id. at 1333, and now Glomar responses are proper “if the fact of the existence or nonexistence of agency records falls within a FOIA exemption,” Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also infra.

2 Abiodun Agbele. Defs.’ Opp’n at 1; see also SAC ¶¶ 21-117. 2 As the parties acknowledge, Bola

Ahmed Tinubu is the current President of Nigeria. See Pl.’s Mem. at 4; Defs.’ Opp’n at 1.

Five of these FOIA requests are at issue in the parties’ pending cross-motions for summary

judgment. Defs.’ Opp’n at 4-8 (describing the five FOIA requests at issue); JSR ¶¶ 5-6 (describing

plaintiff’s agreement to narrow the issues for summary judgment briefing to defendants’ Glomar

responses, redactions, and withholdings as to Tinubu and Agbele only); see also Pl.’s Mem. at 5

(outlining eight FOIA requests, but three of which do not involve Tinubu or Agbele and thus are

not at issue). Each request at issue is described briefly below.

1. FBI Request No. 1588244-000 (SAC Count 5)

On March 29, 2023, plaintiff submitted to the FBI an electronic FOIA request seeking

“[t]he entire FBI file for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, DOB 3/29/1952, President-Elect of Nigeria as of

February 2023.” SAC ¶ 54; SAC Ex. 22 at 2, ECF No. 35-22. Less than a week later, the FBI, by

letter, acknowledged receipt of the request, notified plaintiff of the assigned request number, and

informed plaintiff that “the FBI will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such records,”

invoking FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6), (7)(C), to justify this response,

since “[t]he mere acknowledgement of the existence of FBI records on third party individuals

could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” SAC

¶¶ 55-56; SAC Ex. 23 at 1, ECF No. 35-23. This letter informed plaintiff that this course of action

was the FBI’s “standard response to such requests and should not be taken to mean that records

do, or do not, exist.” SAC Ex. 23 at 1. Plaintiff timely appealed this decision to the Department

of Justice’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”), SAC ¶ 58; see also A-2023-01148, SAC Ex. 24,

2 Plaintiff notes that “Akande is referred to with his first name and middle name reversed, as Adegboyega Mueez Akande, in some documents.” Pl.’s Mem. at 1 n.2. Where relevant, this opinion refers to Akande in the same way plaintiff does, as Mueez Adegboyega Akande. See id.

3 ECF No. 35-24, and OIP affirmed the FBI’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the

requested records, SAC ¶ 60; SAC Ex. 25 at 1, ECF No. 35-25. The FBI’s response to this FOIA

request is challenged in Count 5 of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. SAC ¶¶ 54-61, 138-

142.

2. FBI Request No. 1593615-000 (SAC Count 6)

In May 2023, plaintiff submitted to the FBI an electronic FOIA request for any “FBI 302

interviews with Bola Tinubu from FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU during the timeframe

1992-1993.” SAC ¶ 62; see also SAC Ex. 26 at 2, ECF No. 35-26. 3 Roughly a week later, the

FBI, by letter, acknowledged receipt of the request, informed plaintiff of the request number

assigned to this FOIA request, and advised plaintiff that “the FBI will neither confirm nor deny

the existence of such records,” again pursuant to FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C), since merely

acknowledging the existence of any such records “could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” SAC ¶¶ 63-64; SAC Ex. 27 at 1, ECF No. 35-27. This

letter also informed plaintiff that issuance of this “standard response to such requests . . . should

not be taken to mean that records do, or do not, exist.” SAC Ex. 27 at 1. Plaintiff timely appealed

the response to OIP, SAC ¶ 67; see also A-2023-01393, SAC Ex. 28, ECF No. 35-28, and OIP

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI