IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL NO. EP-20-CR-0389-DCG

JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER 

LIMITING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN MATERIAL

The United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the Government, by and through 

the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, and Patrick Wood Crusius, through 

his undersigned Counsel, respectfully move this Court to enter the attached proposed Order 

Limiting Publication of Certain Material, specifically information purportedly in the possession of

the El Paso County Office of Medical Examiner and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., First Convenience 

Bank, and Castro Enterprises d/b/a McDonald’s and/or McDonald’s Corporation.

I. Background

A. Criminal Prosecution

On February 6, 2020, a federal grand jury sitting in the Western District of Texas, El Paso 

Division, returned a ninety count indictment in the above-captioned case charging Patrick Wood 

Crusius with twenty-two death-resulting hate crime offenses, twenty-three additional hate crime 

offenses involving an attempt to kill, and forty-five related firearm offenses. Twenty-two of these 

firearm offenses carry a potential death sentence. (ECF No. 1). On July 9, 2020, a federal grand 

jury sitting in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, returned a superseding indictment 

in the above-captioned case to include in addition to the original counts the death of an additional 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 180 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 9
victim. (ECF No. 82). These charges arise from an August 3, 2019, mass shooting at a Walmart 

located in El Paso, Texas.

As reflected in the Indictments, the shooting killed twenty-three people and injured several 

more. Given the time and location of the incident, there were hundreds of witnesses to the shooting. 

Hundreds of local, state, and federal law enforcement officers and first responders played a role in 

responding to the attack and its aftermath. Those entities amassed a tremendous amount of material 

that the prosecution team will share with the Defendant and his counsel. 

The investigation into the mass shooting on August 3, 2019, has progressed on dual federal 

and state tracks since its inception. On September 12, 2019, and on June 25, 2020, a Grand Jury 

for the 34th Judicial District sitting in El Paso County returned indictments charging Patrick Wood 

Crusius with capital murder of multiple persons for allegedly executing the August 3, 2019, mass 

shooting and announced that it would seek the death penalty. 

On February 14, 2020, this honorable court issued a Protective Order Governing Discovery 

(the “Protective order”) in the above-captioned case, (ECF No. 39); this order remains in place.

B. Civil Lawsuit(s)

On March 1, 2021, under the above-captioned case, a Non-Party filed its Unopposed 

Motion for Clarification of Protective Order. (ECF No. 172). The non-party seeks clarification by 

this honorable court to determine if the Protective Order issued in the above-captioned case (ECF 

No. 39) applies to a state civil case pending in state court. (See ECF No. 172, p. 2). The non-party 

movants specifically requested clarification of the Protective Order’s application to items 

purportedly in the possession of the El Paso County Office of Medical Examiner, Walmart, First 

National Bank, and McDonald’s. (See ECF No. 172, p. 4). There are currently over 70 non-party 

litigants in the pending state civil suit.

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 180 Filed 04/28/21 Page 2 of 9
C. Due Process and Sensitivity of Information Sought

While the parties strongly prefer that the information sought by non-party movants not be 

released until after the criminal matter has been resolved, the parties also recognize that the nonparty litigants in the state civil case(s) possess an interest in having access to due process.

The parties further recognize that the Protective Order in this case was not originally 

drafted to govern the dissemination of discoverable material in state civil cases; as a result, that 

Order most likely does not apply to the civil discovery in the state civil case(s). Even so, the 

parties believe that the information in question is so sensitive to this case – possible items 

responsive to the non-party movant’s civil discovery requests could include autopsy details and

results, as well as closed circuit surveillance videos and photos allegedly showing the mass murder

of multiple individuals - that the court must take appropriate steps to safeguard the integrity of this 

proceeding. 

Fortunately, after careful consideration and consultation with the Defendant, the parties

believe that there is a way to address the interests of the parties to the criminal case as well as those 

of the civil litigants. By inviting the non-party movants to willing bind themselves to the proposed 

Order, the Court can mitigate the likelihood that the sensitive information potentially still in the 

possession of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., First Convenience Bank, and Castro Enterprises d/b/a 

McDonald’s and/or McDonald’s Corporation, be publicly released prior to the conclusion of the 

criminal trial in this case, while still providing an avenue through which the non-party movants 

may gain the access they seek. Should the non-party movants be unwilling however to agree to 

the proposed Order’s terms, the Court should act to forestall any potential claims of unfair 

prejudice to these proceedings by limiting the ability of the El Paso County Office of Medical

Examiner, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., First Convenience Bank, and Castro Enterprises d/b/a 

McDonald’s and/or McDonald’s Corporation to release any materials in their possession relevant 

to this case. 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 180 Filed 04/28/21 Page 3 of 9
II. Legal Authority

In the Protective Order, the Parties, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 

3771(a)(1) and (8), sought to limit the dissemination of discovery in this case for several reasons, 

but primarily because the information in question was voluminous; it came in various formats; and 

included sensitive, graphic, and private material that contained personally identifiable information 

(PII) such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, financial account numbers, and 

other personal identifiers.

As a result, the Protective Order serves important interests. It protects the privacy interests 

of, among others, family members of the deceased, surviving shooting victims, and eyewitnesses 

to the incident while also helping to ensure that both the Defendant and the Government receive a 

fair trial. 

The proposed Order looks to accomplish those same goals while also allowing the state 

civil suit(s) to proceed. 

A. The Court Has the Authority to Limit Trial Participants’ Speech When There is 

a Substantial Likelihood that the Fair Conduct of a Trial Could be Prejudiced 

The parties are unaware of any case standing for the proposition that this court could extend 

the dictates of its Protective Order to materials that are potentially discoverable in the state civil 

suit(s). This court does, however, have the ability to limit the statements made by trial participants 

when those statements are substantially likely to prejudice the conduct of a fair trial. United States

v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2000); Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991).

The El Paso County Office of Medical Examiner, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., First Convenience 

Bank, and Castro Enterprises d/b/a McDonald’s and/or McDonald’s Corporation, by virtue of the 

materials obtained from them by the Government, will most likely be participants to any federal 

criminal trial on this matter. Similarly, the information that these entities could still possess –

information that may include autopsy details and results, as well as closed circuit surveillance 

videos and photos allegedly showing the mass murder of some twenty-three people – is so sensitive

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 180 Filed 04/28/21 Page 4 of 9
that the pretrial release of these details would be likely to substantially prejudice certain aspects of 

this case, namely the ability to select a jury locally. 

This is the very information, however, at the heart of the non-party movant’s petition to 

the court. Because the Court’s Protective Order most likely does not apply to this material, it is 

possible that the El Paso County Office of Medical Examiner, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., First 

Convenience Bank, and Castro Enterprises d/b/a McDonald’s and/or McDonald’s Corporation

may be compelled to disclose sensitive material still in their possession to litigants in the state civil 

suit(s) via the state civil discovery process.

To avoid both the pretrial disclosure of such sensitive material, and any arguable claim of 

an unfair trial in this case, the Court could – and, absent the affirmative agreement by the nonparty movants to the conditions laid out in the proposed Order, should – limit the El Paso County 

Office of Medical Examiner, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., First Convenience Bank, and Castro 

Enterprises d/b/a McDonald’s and/or McDonald’s Corporation from divulging the information that 

non-party movants seek.

B. The Proposed Order Would Allow the Discovery Process to Continue in the State 

Civil Suit(s)

Without commenting on any non-party’s ability to compel - or conversely, quash -

production of material through the state civil court discovery process, the parties recognize that 

non-party plaintiffs and defendants have a strong interest in advancing towards a resolution of their 

case. The parties to this case however also have a strong interest in protecting the equities 

particular to this case, foremost among them for both parties is the ability to try this case in El 

Paso. 

Setting stringent, voluntary, conditions by which materials possibly constituting state civil 

discovery, as determined by the state court adjudicating the state civil process, are viewed ensures 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 180 Filed 04/28/21 Page 5 of 9
that the parties’ interests in the federal criminal case are protected while still allowing the state 

civil suit(s) to advance. 

III. Consultation with Counsel

The Parties have conferred with the non-party movants under ECF No. 172, and the nonparty movants have agreed to submit to the terms of the proposed Order. The non-party respondent 

has filed its response providing the Court with its position. (ECF No. 173).

IV. Conclusion

The parties submit good cause exists to enter an Order such as the one proposed and 

respectfully request the Court grant their motion.

Respectfully submitted,

ASHLEY C. HOFF /s/ Joe A. Spencer_______ 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JOE A. SPENCER

 1009 Montana

/s/ Ian Martinez Hanna El Paso, Texas 79902

IAN MARTINEZ HANNA 915-532-5562

Assistant United States Attorney joe@joespencerlaw.com

Texas Bar #24057885 State Bar of Texas No. 18921800

700 East San Antonio, Suite 200

El Paso, Texas 79901 REBECCA L. HUDSMITH

(915) 534-6884 (phone) LA Bar No. 7052

ian.hanna@usdoj.gov Office of the Federal Public

 Defender for the Middle and 

 Western Districts of Louisiana

 102 Versailles Blvd. Suite 816

 Lafayette, LA 70501

 Telephone: (337) 262-6336

 Facsimile: (337) 262-6605

 Rebecca_hudsmith@fd.org

 MARK STEVENS

 310 S. St. Mary’s Street

 Tower Life Building, Suite 1920

 San Antonio, TX 78205

 (210) 226-1433

 State Bar No. 1918420

 mark@markstevenslaw.com

 Attorneys for Patrick Crusius

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 180 Filed 04/28/21 Page 6 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

ORDER LIMITING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN MATERIALS

Upon the motion of the Parties, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. This Order applies to materials, if any, relating to the above-captioned cause that 

are: a) in the actual or constructive possession of the El Paso County Office of Medical Examiner, 

in any format; and b) videos, photos and/or audio recordings, and/or written descriptions of those 

same recordings, in the actual or constructive possession of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., First 

Convenience Bank, and Castro Enterprises d/b/a McDonald’s and/or McDonald’s Corporation, 

and which are determined to be discoverable as part of the discovery process in the state civil court 

suit(s).

2. “State civil court suit(s)” are those civil actions originating in state civil court 

stemming from the events taking place on August 3, 2019, at the Walmart located near Cielo Vista 

Mall, more specifically 7101 Gateway Boulevard West, El Paso, Texas. 

3. A “non-party” is defined as a civil litigant party to the state civil court suit(s). A 

“non-party” is also any third-party custodian of information, in any form, sought as discovery in 

the state civil suit and/or the state and federal criminal case. 

4. For purposes of this Order, “authorized persons” are defined as counsel of record 

(and attorneys within their respective firms) for the non-party movants, the non-party respondents, 

and third-party custodians. “Authorized persons” also include third-party custodians’ secretarial,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL NO. EP-20-CR-0389-DCG

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 180 Filed 04/28/21 Page 7 of 9
administrative, and legal personnel (including contract staff, copying services or other

administrative support) working under the direction and control of the third-parties to ensure 

proper control and accountability over the materials subject to this Order. Experts retained by 

counsel of record for the non-party movants and non-party respondents are also “authorized 

persons” under the meaning of this order.

5. Authorized Persons wishing to have access to materials subject to this Order 

voluntarily subject themselves to the terms of this Order and agree to abide by the conditions set 

out below. 

6. The remaining litigants to the state civil suit(s) may become “authorized persons,” 

as defined above, upon written acknowledgment of receipt of this Order, written agreement 

accepting the terms of this Order, and filing of both of those documents with this court. 

7. Nothing in either the Protective Order (ECF No. 39), or this Order, should be 

interpreted to confer an independent right to obtain discovery through the state civil suit’s 

discovery process and this order applies only if materials subject to this order are determined to be 

legally required to be produced by the state courts adjudicating the state civil suit(s).

8. Similarly, nothing in the Protective Order (ECF No. 39), or this Order, should be 

construed to constitute an absolute bar to obtaining discoverable material as part of the state civil 

suit. 

9. Non-parties and third-party custodians bear ultimate responsibility for 

appropriately securing materials subject to this Order. Failure by non-parties and third-party 

custodians to adhere to the conditions set out below may result in civil and criminal contempt 

sanctions. 

10. A non-party wishing to access materials subject to this Order shall inform all 

members of their team to whom access is made available of the existence and terms of both the 

Protective Order (ECF No. 39), and this Order and obtain a signed acknowledgement. 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 180 Filed 04/28/21 Page 8 of 9
11. Non-parties granted access to any materials subject to this Order agree to abide by 

the following conditions: 

a) Materials subject to this order shall remain in the exclusive custody and control of its 

current custodian. Authorized persons viewing materials subject to this order may not 

reproduce, record, film, or otherwise copy those materials. 

b) Authorized persons may make notes during the viewing of materials subject to this 

order and may keep written notes describing the materials subsequent to its viewing.

Authorized persons making and keeping notes bear the sole responsibility for

safeguarding those notes.

c) Non-parties and authorized persons are prohibited from making public comment in any 

way, shape, or form relative to materials subject to this order and are further prohibited 

from using proxies to accomplish the same.

12. Any description of materials subject to this order subject to this order that a nonparty team files with any court in connection with pre-trial motions, trial, or other matters before 

a court, shall be filed under seal and shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered by this court. 

Signed this ______ day of April, 2021.

_______________________________________

HONORABLE DAVID GUADERRAMA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 180 Filed 04/28/21 Page 9 of 9