## Facts

- Lam Lek Chong, a New York state prisoner convicted in 1975, learned during his criminal proceedings that federal authorities had intercepted communications involving him under Title III.
- Years later, Lam submitted a FOIA request to the Drug Enforcement Administration seeking transcripts of intercepted communications and related records.
- The DEA produced some responsive records but withheld wiretap transcripts and other materials, relying in part on FOIA Exemption 3 and additional FOIA exemptions.
- Lam filed a FOIA suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel disclosure.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the DEA, concluding Title III surveillance product was exempt under Exemption 3 and declining to conduct in camera review of additional withheld records.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III is a “withholding statute” under FOIA Exemption 3, permitting categorical nondisclosure of intercepted communications and related transcripts.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct in camera review of other materials withheld under additional FOIA exemptions.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the DEA.
- It held that Title III qualifies as a FOIA Exemption 3 statute and that the product of Title III electronic surveillance is not subject to disclosure under FOIA.
- It held the district court acted within its discretion in declining to conduct in camera review of other withheld materials.

## Legal Principles

- FOIA Exemption 3 applies when another statute either mandates withholding without agency discretion or identifies particular criteria or particular types of matters to be withheld.
- Title III’s disclosure-and-use provisions (including limits on disclosure and specific authorization for limited law-enforcement and judicial uses) identify intercepted communications as a protected category within Exemption 3.
- FOIA cannot be used to obtain disclosure of wiretap contents beyond what Title III permits.
- In camera review in FOIA cases is discretionary; where agency declarations are sufficiently detailed and there is no substantial basis to doubt good faith or the asserted exemptions, a court may resolve the case without examining withheld records.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that Title III’s confidentiality scheme for intercepted communications triggers FOIA Exemption 3, barring disclosure of Title III surveillance product, and it upheld the district court’s decision to deny in camera review and enter summary judgment for the DEA.


Lam Lek Chong v. Drug Enf't Admin., 929 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1991)