District Court, El Paso County, Colorado Court address: 270 South Tejon Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Phone Number: (719) 452-5446 People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff, ROBERT LEWIS DEAR, JR, Defendant. Attorney or Party wihout Attorney(Name and Address): Case Number: 15CR5795 Phone Number: - Email: Division 10 FAX Number: Atty.Reg#: C?um??m W570 ORDER REGARDING CERTAIN VICTIMS REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO DISCOVERY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the request of some of the victims of the November 27, 2015 shooting who have ?led a civil action against the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc., a/k/a Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Inc. in the District Court, County of Denver, (16CV31798) Judge Elizabeth Starrs presiding. The victims ask the Court for discovery of material which they state would ordinarily be subject to discovery; however, the criminal court Gag Order prevents them from obtaining said discovery. The Plaintiffs in the civil matter urge the Court to modify the Gag Order to allow them and their counsel to obtain discovery. In addition the Plaintiffs argue, inter alia, that a protective order would be suf?cient to allow discovery of information. from law enforcement agencies while maintaining the con?dentiality of such information consistent with the Gag Order. Procedural Historv This case involves a shooting that occurred on November 27, 2015 at approximately 11:30 am. at the Planned Parenthood building located at 3480 Centennial Blvd., Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Court on December 23, 2015 ordered the defendant to the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo for a competency evaluation. A competency report was ?led with. the court on March 11, 2016. Hearings concerning defendant?s competency were held on April 28, 2016 and May 10, 2016. Pursuant to said hearings the defendant was found incompetent to proceed and he was remanded to the Colorado Mental Health Institute for treatment. The defendant pursuant to a November 2, 2016 report remains incompetent to proceed. The matter is presently set for an additional review date on February 15, 2017. Counsel for the Plaintiffs in the civil matter have ?led a Gag Order position paper and have argued their position in open court. Defense counsel in the civil case state that the materials can be released for discovery purposes only and the parties would agree not to release the information publicly. In short the civil defendants are asking the Court to parse out the discovery. Both the district attorney and defense counsel in the criminal matter urge the Court not to release the discovery. The district attorney in oral argument and in their November 15, 2016 reply to third party civil plaintiffs? Gag Order position paper join, at least in part, with defense counsel?s reasoning to not release the discovery. The district attorney does not have an objection to release of discovery or material prior to the November 27, 2015 date. Mr. Dear by and through his defense counsel object to the release of any information arguing that if the Court were to release any information the Court could not guarantee their containment in any way and that said release would jeopardize the criminal matter. Defense counsel for Mr. Dear ?led a response to the position paper on November 2, 2016. . The Court heard oral argument on November 16, 2016 and took the matter under advisement. Analysis Plaintiffs? counsel in the civil case ask for the following information: (1) the video surveillance from the day of the shooting at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood building; (2) any video or still photos taken during the siege or after by CSPD or any other law enforcement agency; (3) any history that CSPD or other investigating agencies have regarding prior threats against the facility in question, and any history of CSPD responding to the facility due to threats; (4) law enforcement interviews of witnesses and victims of the shooting; (5) any emails or other evidence seized from Planned Parenthood that goes to notice on the part of Planned Parenthood; and (6) the autopsy of Ke? Arre Stewart. Mr. Dear through counsel argues that the matter is not properly before the court and that the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to intervene in the criminal matter. The Court will allow the Plaintiffs to raise the issue in the criminal context; however, the Court is denying the Plaintiff?s request for the release of discovery while the criminal case is in its present posture. As the parties are aware the case at bar has been subject to intense public scrutiny and the release of this information at this stage of the proceedings may jeopardize Mr. Dear?s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The Court ?nds that the protective order offered by the civil counsel does not provide suf?cient protection. The material requested by Plaintiffs? counsel has not been displayed in prior hearings such as motions hearings or preliminary hearing; thus, any release of said information would interfere with the integrity of this litigation and would interfere with the defendant?s right to a fair trial. This .Court ?nds that the People?s interest (district attorney) in preserving the integrity of the prosecution of this case and the defendant?s constitutional right to a fair trial outweigh the victims? interest in receiving the requested discovery to facilitate their civil lawsuit. The Court is mindful of the fact that because of the defendant?s incompetency status there is no speci?c date as to when the criminal matter will proceed forward. Thus, the Court is open to revisiting the issue at a later date. However, at this early stage of the proceedings a release of the information is not appropriate. The Court has serious concerns that granting the Plaintiffs? request with the proposed protective order would not protect the defendant?s right to a fair trial. Once the discovery is released this Court cannot guarantee their containment as said discovery may be used to resolve motions in the civil matter and'for all intent purposes said motions would be open to the public. Granting access to discovery to nonparties at the present time would unnecessarily risk compromising the integrity of the criminal proceedings and the defendant?s right to a fair trial. The Court has also considered the Plaintiffs? prior restraint argument; however, the Court does not ?nd that the Gag Order is a prior restraint. The Court ?nds that the Plaintiffs? prior restraint argument is misplaced. The Court is limiting discovery, albeit including statements that have already been made; however, said Gag Order does not fall under the prior restraint doctrine. In the case at bar, assuming for arguments sake that the Court?s previous Gag Order is a prior restraint the People?s interest in preserving the integrity of the prosecution and the defendant?s right to a fair trial is an interest of the ?highest order? that would justify a prior restraint. WHEREFORE, this Court is ORDERING that the Gag Order stay in place with the exception of paragraph (3) any history that CSPD or other investigating agencies have regarding prior threats against the facility in question, and any history of CSPD responding to the facility due to threats prior to November 27, 2015. The video tape of the events of the day in the possession of Planned Parenthood is subject to the Gag Order and should not be released. DONE this {May of November, 2016. BY THE COURT: .9.ng District Court Jt(gbe CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 23, 2016, I electronically served a true and correct copyof the foregoing document to: Dan May Donna Billek Jeff Lindsey Doyle Baker Of?ce of the District Attorney 105 E. Vermijo Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Daniel King Rosalie Roy Kristen Nelson Of?ce of the State Public Defender 19 N. Tejon Colorado Springs, CO 80903 {file Lid Him/#141 I hereby certify that on November 23, 01 djemailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to: Kirk R. McCormick McCormick Murphy, RC. 929 West Colorado Avenue Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Email: Thomas R. Brennan Durney Brennan, Ltd. 6900 S. McCarran Blvd., Suite 2060 Reno, NV 89509 Email: trbrennan61 92@aol.com Joseph Archuleta Law Of?ces of Joseph Archuleta Associates, RC. 1724 Odgen St. Denver, CO 80281 Email: Stuart Pack Lisa Mayers Spencer Fane, LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000 Denver, CO 80203 Email: spack@spencerfane.com; lmavers@spencerfane.com Kevin S. Taylor Kyle D. Seedorf Taylor Anderson, LLP 1670 Broadway, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 Email: Ronald Wilcox Wilcox Law Firm, LLC 383 Corona Street, Suite 401 Denver, CO 80218 Email: ron@wilcox.legal If. we ?y (247/2122: