Hodge v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 403 U.S. App. D.C. 255

Hodge, a Kentucky death-row inmate, was convicted of three murders in 1985; FBI participated due to impersonating an agent and cross-state flight with stolen funds.
In 2002, Hodge filed a FOIA request seeking all FBI records from its investigation; FBI produced 361 pages and claimed exemptions on rest.
After suit was filed, FBI conducted further searches, releasing 1,762 additional pages; remaining documents were withheld under FOIA exemptions 3, 7(C), and 7(D).
District Court granted summary judgment for FBI, holding the agency released all non-exempt material, conducted a reasonable search, and correctly applied exemptions.
Hodge argued (i) release of 125 unredacted pages in a separate FOIA matter to an accomplice shows withholding, (ii) FBI search was inadequate, and (iii) exemptions 3, 7(C), 7(D) were improperly applied.
Court affirms district court, holding (i) the 125 pages were likely produced under criminal discovery, not FOIA; (ii) searches were reasonably calculated and Hodge failed to identify specific additional searches; (iii) exemptions 3, 7(C), 7(D) were properly applied, and (iv) no mandatory in-camera review or segregability obligation was violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 125 unredacted pages released to an accomplice undermine FOIA entitlement	Hodge argues release to accomplice shows withholding	Release to accomplice was not FOIA-produced; likely discovery	Denied; 125 pages not FOIA release, discovery-related
Whether FBI's search for responsive documents was adequate	FBI failed to uncover all relevant records	Search was reasonably calculated; additional finds after suit are permissible	Affirmed; searches deemed adequate
Whether Exemptions 3, 7(C), 7(D) were properly applied	Exemptions improperly used to withhold information	Exemptions properly applied to protect grand jury, privacy, and confidential sources	Affirmed; exemptions applied correctly
Whether in-camera review or segregability analysis was required	District Court should review in camera; challenge to segregability	No required in-camera review; presumption of reasonable segregability	Affirmed; no in-camera review required; proper segregability presumed
Whether the FBI's redactions were consistent with its exemptions	Redactions excessive; warrants further scrutiny	Redactions consistent with exemptions given the sensitivity	Affirmed; redactions upheld

Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (adequacy of FOIA searches depends on method, not fruits)
Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (burden on requester to identify missing searches)
Krikorian v. Dept. of State, 984 F.2d 461 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (effects of discovery on search adequacy)
Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Ltd. v. United States, 534 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (district courts may rely on affidavits or in-camera review for FOIA)
Landano v. Dept. of Justice, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) (factors for confidentiality and implied assurances to witnesses)
Campbell v. Dept. of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (express confidentiality assurances require probative evidence)
Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (public interest in private individuals’ records is limited)
Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Service, 494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (reasonableness of disclosure vs. privacy interests)
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (mere speculation of additional documents does not defeat reasonableness)
National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (public interest must be supported by evidence of possible government impropriety)
Billington v. Dept. of Justice, 233 F.3d 581 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (witness confidentiality considerations in Exemption 7(D))
Dept. of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993) (confidentiality standards for witnesses)