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

GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

GOVERNING DISCOVERY 

The United States of America, by and through the United States Attorney for the Western 

District of Texas, respectfully moves this Court to enter the attached proposed Protective Order 

Governing Discovery. This motion is unopposed.

I. Background

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. These charges arise from an August 3, 2019 mass 

shooting at a Walmart located in El Paso, Texas.

As reflected in the Indictment, the shooting killed twenty-two 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, a Grand Jury for the County of El 

Paso, State of Texas returned a one count indictment 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. 

II. Legal Authority

The United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the Government, by way of this 

motion, and pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3771(a)(1) and (8), seeks to limit 

the dissemination of discovery in this case. “At any time the court may, for good cause, deny, 

restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d). 

Protective Orders have been applied and enforced in various cases for multiple reasons. “The trial 

court can and should, where appropriate, place a defendant and his counsel under enforceable 

orders against unwarranted disclosure of the materials which they may be entitled to inspect.” 

United States v. Carriles, 654 F. Supp. 2d 557, 566 (W.D. Tex. 2009) citing Alderman v. United 

States, 394 U.S. 165, 185, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969) (citing prior version of 

FED.R.CRIM.P. 16(d)); see also Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 726 (9th Cir.2003) (“The 

power of courts ... to delimit how parties may use information obtained through the court's power 

of compulsion is of long standing and well-accepted.”).

The proposed protective order would serve important interests. First, it would protect the 

privacy interests of, among others, family members of the deceased, surviving shooting victims, 

and eyewitnesses to the incident. Second, the proposed protective order would ensure that both the 

Defendant and the Government, receive a fair trial. The proposed protective order would also allow 
the parties to share and discuss discovery with the prosecution and defense teams working on the 

parallel state case arising from the same events.

Discovery in this case is voluminous. It comes in various formats, and includes sensitive, 

graphic, and private material. Many of the discovery materials and documents include personally 

identifiable information (PII) such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, financial 

account numbers, and other personal identifiers. Included in the discovery are crime scene photos, 

as well as law enforcement sensitive materials.

Further, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cooperated with state authorities to 

the maximum extent possible, in part by disclosing all FBI investigative reports to the El Paso 

Police Department as close in time to their finalization as practicable. The FBI continues to provide 

disclosure of its un-redacted documents and reports to the El Paso Police Department as quickly 

as possible so that state authorities may comply with their discovery obligations in the pending 

capital murder case. 

A. The Court Has the Authority to Limit Discovery in Order to Protect the Dignity 

and Privacy of the Victims, Witnesses, and their Family Members

A crime victim has the right to be reasonably protected from the accused and the right to 

be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy. 18 U.S.C. § 3771 

(a)(1), (8) Protecting the identity of persons cooperating with the Government is a proper purpose 

of a protective order. United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1978) Multiple family 

members of the deceased, victims, and lay witnesses exist in this case. The court should seek to 

ensure that disclosure of discovery materials to a defendant “involve[s] a minimum hazard to 

others.” Alderman, 394 U.S. at 185, 89 S.Ct. 961 (1969). 
As previously noted, the shooting killed twenty-two people and injured several more. The 

use of protective orders to prevent disclosure of private medical information is also clearly 

established. See Bittaker, 331 F.3d at 716 (“Courts could not function effectively in cases involving 

sensitive information—trade secrets, medical files and minors, among many others—if they lacked 

the power to limit the use parties could make of sensitive information obtained from the opposing 

party by invoking the court's authority.”); see also United States v. W.R. Grace, 401 F.Supp.2d 

1093, 1096 (D.Mont.2005) (“The only issue with regard to these [medical] records is whether the 

victim witnesses' privacy rights require the Court to place restrictions on the production in the form 

of redaction of sensitive materials, issuance of a protective order, or both.”). Carriles, 654 F. Supp. 

2d at 568 (W.D. Tex. 2009)

Accordingly, the interests of justice weigh heavily against public disclosure at this stage of 

the proceedings. See, United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“The privacy 

interests of third parties ... should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.”). 

B. The Proposed Protective Order Would Ensure a Fair Trial

Discovery, whether in a civil or criminal case, is essentially a private process because the 

litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation. 

United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1986). Although some documents or 

recordings may be introduced at trial, at this point in the proceedings, it is unclear which will be 

entered into evidence, or even if there is an evidentiary foundation sufficient for their introduction. 

The Government submits the proposed protective order would restrict premature public 

dissemination of discovery materials not yet submitted into evidence. Risk exists that disclosure 

of some discovery material could taint a trial. “Trial courts have an affirmative constitutional duty 

to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity.... The beneficiaries of this duty include not 
only the defendant in a given trial.... The vigilance of trial courts against the prejudicial effects of 

pretrial publicity also protects the interest of the public and the state in the fair administration of 

criminal justice.” United States v. Carriles, 654 F. Supp. 2d 557, 568 (W.D. Tex. 2009) citing 

United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 423–24 (5th Cir.2000)

C. The Proposed Protective Order Would Ensure that Sensitive Information is 

Treated Properly by Both Federal and State Parties

As previously stated, in addition to the federal prosecution, the Defendant faces a state 

capital murder charge which also addresses the August 3, 2019 Walmart shooting. While the 

Government must abide by discovery obligations under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, the state prosecution 

must meet discovery obligations under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14. Thus, each separate 

prosecution office discloses discovery differently with its respective statutory rule guiding the 

manner of production to defense. The proposed protective order would allow the appropriate 

parties to share and discuss discovery across the federal and state prosecution and defense teams, 

while ensuring that the more permissive state discovery regulations do not negatively impact the 

victims and witnesses, or the federal proceeding.

The District Attorney’s Office has, in fact, provided materials to the state defense team. 

Those materials have not been redacted in the same manner as the federal government would redact 

materials it shares with federal defense counsel. Though the state has provided materials without 

redaction, the state production is protected by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which, 

among other things, restricts disclosure of discovery to a third party unless a court, having 

considered the privacy and security interests of victims and witnesses, determines that there is 

good cause for the disclosure. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14(e)(1) Additionally, Texas state 
rules of criminal procedure place an obligation on defense counsel to redact PII before sharing 

discovery with the defendant or a witness. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14(f)

The District Attorney’s Office has also provided a copy of the discovery produced to the 

state defense team to the federal prosecution team on a self-contained storage device. This device 

has not been commingled with the discovery collected by the federal prosecution team.

For the sake of transparency, the federal prosecution expects to produce the discovery 

provided by the state prosecution to the federal defense. In keeping with state law, the proposed 

protective order would ensure that the state discovery to be provided to the federal defense counsel 

by the federal prosecution will be protected in a similar manner as the un-redacted state production 

is protected by state law.

III. Consultation with Defense Counsel

The undersigned has spoken with David A. Lane, Attorney for Patrick Wood Crusius, who 

has indicated that he is not opposed to this motion and proposed protective order.
IV. Conclusion

The Government submits good cause exists to enter a protective order such as the one 

proposed and respectfully requests the Court grant its motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d) 

and 18 U.S.C. ' 3771(a)(1) and (8).

Respectfully submitted,

John F. Bash

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Ian Martinez Hanna

Ian Martinez Hanna

Assistant United States Attorney

Texas Bar #24057885

700 East San Antonio, Suite 200

El Paso, Texas 79901

(915) 534-6884 (phone)

IHanna@usa.doj.gov

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on February 12, 2020, a copy of the forgoing instrument was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will transmit 

notification of such filing to the following CM/ECF participant:

David A. Lane, Attorney for Defendant

dlane@kln-law.com

Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Attorney for Defendant

rebecca_hudsmith@fd.org

/s/ Ian Martinez Hanna

Ian Martinez Hanna

Assistant United States Attorney
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCOVERY

Upon the motion of the Government, and for good cause shown, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 16(d) and 18 U.S.C. ' 3771(a)(1) and (8), it is hereby ORDERED:

1. This Protective Order governs all discovery material in any format (written or 

electronic) that is produced by the Government in discovery in the above captioned case. 

2. Discovery in this case is voluminous and many of these materials and documents 

include personally identifiable information (PII) such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, 

addresses, financial account numbers, and other personal identifiers. Included in the discovery are 

crime scene photos, as well as law enforcement sensitive materials.

3. Disclosure of discovery material will be restricted to the state prosecution team, the 

federal defense team and the state defense team (“authorized persons”) with the limited exceptions 

discussed below. “State prosecution team” shall be limited to employees of the 34th Judicial 

District, District Attorney’s Office and any experts retained by same. “Defense team” shall be 

limited to criminal attorneys of record for the Defendant and any of the following people working 

on this matter under the supervision of the criminal attorneys of record: attorneys, investigators, 

paralegals, law clerks, testifying and consulting experts, and legal assistants. For purposes of this 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL NO. EP-20-CR-0389-DCG
Order, “defense team” does not include the Defendant. Members of the defense team shall not 

disclose discovery materials or their contents, directly or indirectly, to any persons outside of the 

defense team, except as specifically set forth below.

4. The state prosecution team shall inform any one of the state criminal defense attorneys 

of record to whom disclosure of discovery material obtained from the United States Attorney’s 

Office – El Paso Division is made of the existence and terms of this Protective Order and obtain a 

signed acknowledgement.

5. Defendant’s attorneys shall inform any member of the defense team to whom 

disclosure of discovery material is made of the existence and terms of this Protective Order and 

obtain a signed acknowledgment by the defense team member.

6. Defendant’s attorneys shall not disclose the state discovery to a third party unless this 

court, having considered the privacy and security interests of victims and witnesses, determines 

that there is good cause for the disclosure. If this court grants disclosure of the state discovery, the 

defense team shall redact personally identifiable information (PII) before sharing the state 

discovery with the Defendant or a witness.

7. Members of the defense team shall retain custody of all copies of the discovery 

material, except as discussed below with regard to Defendant review. Members of the defense 

team shall use discovery material only for the purpose of preparing a defense to the charges in this 

action. Members of the defense team may review the discovery material with Defendant and 

witnesses for purposes of trial preparation, provided that witnesses may review the material only 

in the presence of a member of the defense team and may not take notes regarding the content of 

the discovery material. These restrictions, however, do not apply to expert witnesses who may 

need to independently review and retain some discovery in order to do their jobs. In the event that 
an expert witness needs to retain discovery documents as part of his or her preparation, said expert 

must sign a confidentiality agreement making them subject to the authority of this Court if they 

violate it. At the conclusion of their expert role in the case, all such material must be returned to 

defense counsel. 

8. Defense counsel may provide discovery to Defendant, subject to the following 

conditions: 

a) Defendant shall use discovery material only for the purpose of assisting the defense 

team with preparing a defense to the charges in this action;

b) Defendant may not provide copies of the discovery material to any third parties and 

may only review the discovery material either alone or in the presence of the defense 

team; 

c) Defendant shall only be permitted to review his copy of the discovery material in the 

courthouse itself, or facilities approved by the detention center detained at for this 

purpose, on detention center-approved computers, or in hard copies maintained by the 

detention center staff while not in use by the Defendant; and 

d) Defendant shall not be permitted to maintain a copy of the discovery material, or any 

notes made while reviewing that material, in his cell. 

9. To the extent any material is produced by the Government to Defendant or Defendant=s 

counsel by mistake, the Government shall have the right to request the return of the material and 

shall do so in writing. Within five days of the receipt of such a request, the defense team shall 

return all such material if in hard copy, and in the case of electronic materials, shall certify in 

writing that all copies of the specified material have been deleted from any location in which the 

material was stored.

10. Any discovery material that the defense team files with the Court in connection with 

pre-trial motions, trial, or other matters before the Court, shall be filed under seal and shall remain 

sealed until otherwise ordered by the Court. 
11. This Protective Order may be modified, as necessary, by filing with the Court a 

Stipulated Order Modifying the Protective Order or by order of the Court after service of the 

defense motion upon the Government and hearing with the court. After obtaining a modified order 

from the Court, any discovery material the defense team files with any Court or tribunal in 

connection with post-conviction matters, or any matters before any Court or tribunal, shall be filed 

under seal and shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered by the Court. 

Signed this ______ day of February, 2020.

_______________________________________

HONORABLE DAVID GUADERRAMA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

Acknowledgement of Protective Order

I certify that I have been notified of the existence and terms of the document entitled 

“Protective Order Governing Discovery” in the above titled and numbered case. I further certify 

that I understand the terms placed on the discovery in this case as detailed in the Protective Order.

Signed this ______ day of _________________________, 20____.

_______________________________________

Signature

_______________________________________

Printed Name

_______________________________________

Employer

_______________________________________

Employment Title

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

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