Order on State Motion to Reconsider Unsealing Records

Close

Court Filing

PDF Order on State Motion to Reconsider Unsealing RecordsFBI Record Redaction
court Court Filing Idaho 4

Named in this document

  • Anne Taylor Person
  • Ashley Jennings Person
  • Bicka Barlow Person
  • Bryan Kohberger Person
  • Jay Logsdon Person
  • Joshua Hurwit Person
  • Mr. Nye Person
  • Renee Waters Person
  • Steven Hippler Person
Filed: 03/12/2026 15:30:55 Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Trent Tripple, Clerk of the Court
By: Deputy Clerk-Waters, Renee
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA

STATE OF IDAHO,

Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665 Plaintiff,
V. ORDER ON STATE'S MOTION ΤΟ

RECONSIDER UNSEALING OF

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER, CERTAIN RECORDS

Defendant.

Before the Court is the State's motion to reconsider the unsealing of certain documents relating to Federal Bureau of Investigation (" FBI ") records.¹ Specifically, the State requests that the Court redact from court records the FBI agents ' identities and contact information on grounds that the information is confidential and exempted from disclosure pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7 (C) of the Freedom of Information Act (" FOIA "). 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b) (6); 552 (b) (7) (C). The State has identified eleven records containing this information, six of which have already been unsealed in part or in full and made public² and five of which are pending partial unsealing.3 The Court agrees that, absent a showing that the public interest in disclosure outweighs privacy concerns, Exemptions 6 and 7 (C) of FOIA protect against the disclosure of the identities of federal employees involved in law enforcement. See, Baker v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 863 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2017) (Exemption 6 precluded disclosure of the names of FBI agents involved in a criminal investigation absent showing that the public interest in disclosure of the records outweighed privacy concerns.); Powell v United States, Dept. of Justice, 584 F Supp 1508 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (finding FBI agents have significant privacy interest under exemption 7 (C) of FOIA in the nondisclosure of their names since disclosure of identities could conceivably subject them to annoyance or harassment or even physical danger in either official 1 See, State's Motion to Reconsider Unsealing of Certain Records and Motion to Seal (Nov. 21, 2025); State's Supplemental Motion to Reconsider Unsealing of Certain Records and Motion to Seal (Dec. 15, 2025); State's Second Supplemental Motion to Reconsider Unsealing of Certain Records and Motion to Seal (Feb. 9, 2026).

2 Documents 37, 84, 102, 120, 121 and 125.

3 Documents 126, 131, 140, 152 and 160.

or private lives); Sandoval v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 296 F. Supp. 3d 1, 18 (D.D.C. 2017) (finding names of FBI agents properly withheld under Exemption 7 (C) of FOIA).

Typically, the only time the public interest outweighs the privacy interest is when the FBI is accused of wrongdoing or other misconduct. SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197, 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (holding, categorically, that unless the names of federal employees appearing in law enforcement files are necessary to confirm or refute compelling evidence that the agency is engaged in illegal activity, the information is exempt from disclosure under exemption 7 (C)). Here, there is no accusation that the FBI engaged in wrongdoing and, therefore, no basis to find that the public interest outweighs the FBI agents ' privacy interests. Thus, had the State objected to the revealing of FBI agents ' names and contact information when provided the opportunity, the Court would have agreed to redact the information pursuant to I.C.A.R.

32 (g) (1), which exempts from disclosure records to which access is restricted by federal law.

The problem is that six of the documents identified by the State are already in the public realm. Taking remedial measures at this point would be futile. Thus, the State's motion to reconsider is untimely as to these documents and, therefore, DENIED. As to the five documents which have not yet been released to the public, the Court GRANTS the State's motion and will ensure this information is redacted as requested by the State.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of March, 2026.

T

Steven Hippler District Judge 4 See, Exh. S-2 (Feb. 9, 2026).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on 3/12/2026 I served a true and correct copy of the Order on State's Motion to Reconsider Unsealing of Certain Records
WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR.

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

VIA EMAIL: paservice@latahcountyid.gov
ASHLEY JENNINGS

SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

VIA EMAIL: paservice@latahcountyid.gov
JOSHUA D. HURWIT

SPECIAL DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

VIA EMAIL: paservice@latahcountyid.gov
JEFFERY D. NYE

SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

VIA EMAIL: jeff.nye@ag.idaho.gov
MADISON ALLEN

SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

VIA EMAIL: Madison.allen@ag.idaho.gov
ANNE TAYLOR LAW, PLLC

ANNE C. TAYLOR

VIA EMAIL: info@annetaylorlaw.com
ELISA G. MASSOTH, PLLC

ELISA G. MASSOTH

VIA EMAIL: emassoth@kmrs.net
IDAHO STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

FIRST DISTRICT PUBLIC DEFENDER

JAY W. LOGSDON

VIA EMAIL: jay.logsdon@spd.idaho.gov
BICKA BARLOW

Pro Hac Vice
VIA EMAIL: bickabarlow@sbcglobal.net
TRENT TRIPPLE

Clerk of the Court
By: Rin Wat Deputy Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE