USA v. Prudencio Ruiz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
vs.
EDGAR PRUDENCIO RUIZ AND
DAMIAN LEE GUTIERREZ,
Defendants.
§
§
§ 	CRJMINAL ACTION NO. 4:25-CR-385
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before this Court is Defendant Damian Lee Gutierrez's Opposed Motion to
Disclose Identity and Location of Informants and Request for Interview with Informants and
Cooperating Defendants. (Doc. No. 53). The Government filed a response in opposition. (Doc. No.
54). On November 13, 2025, the Court held a pre-trial conference, and the parties presented oral
argument on this issue. Additionally, the Court held an in camera hearing related to the identity,
knowledge, and role of the confidential informant. Having considered the pending motion and
response, oral arguments, and the evidence presented in the in camera hearing, the Court hereby
denies Defendant Gutierrez's Motion to Disclose (Doc. No. 53).
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2025 , Defendant Edgar Prudencio Ruiz and Defendant Damian Lee Gutierrez
("Defendants") were indicted on the counts of (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with the
intent to distribute a controlled substance and (2) possession with the intent to distribute a
controlled substance. (Doc. No. 21). On June 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA")
received information from a confidential informant that an unknown male distributor of quantities
of methamphetamine would be distributing at a specific location later that day. Authorities
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 14, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cr-00385 Document 55 Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

launched a surveillance investigation that showed Defendant Ruiz and Defendant Gutierrez at the
tipped-off location, and the surveillance led to the seizure of large quantities of methamphetamine
and the subsequent arrest of the Defendants. (Doc. No. 1) . The confidential informant was not
present during any part of the investigation, searches, or arrests.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The Supreme Court of the United States has established that the Government has a
privilege, usually referred to as the "informer's privilege," to withhold from disclosure the identity
of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of
that law. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957). The informer's privilege, however, is
not absolute, and there is "no fixed rule" for when a confidential informant's identity should be
disclosed. Id. Instead, the issue "calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of
information against the individual's right to prepare his defense." Id. at 62. The Fifth Circuit has
adopted the Roviaro framework and created a three-factor test to determine whether the identity
of a confidential informant must be disclosed. United States v. Ortega, 854 F.3d 818, 824 (5th Cir.
2017). First, courts must evaluate the level of the informant' s involvement in the alleged criminal
activity. United States v. De Los Santos, 810 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1987). Second, courts must
consider the helpfulness of disclosure to any asserted defense. Id. Third, courts must consider the
Government's interest in nondisclosure. Id. Courts must balance these three factors to determine
whether a criminal defendant is entitled to such information. See id.
Ill. 	ANALYSIS
Defendant Gutierrez filed this Motion to Disclose Identity and Location of Informants and
requests this Court to order the Government to disclose the name and location of the informant(s)
utilized by the Government and to arrange an interview with the informants and any other
2
Case 4:25-cr-00385 Document 55 Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

cooperating individuals in the instant cause of action. At the request of counsel for Defendant
Gutierrez, this Court held an in camera hearing to determine whether Defendant Gutierrez is
entitled to the identity and location of the confidential informant. The Court hereby applies the
well-established three-factor test and denies Defendant Gutierrez's request to order disclosure.
A. The Level of the Informant's Activity
First, this Court considers the level of the informant's activity in the alleged drug operation.
Ortega, 854 F.3d at 824. The more active the participation, the more likely disclosure will be
required. De Los Santos, 810 F.2d at 1331. If the informant's participation is minimal, it favors
nondisclosure. Id. Finally, if "the evidence shows that an informer is a mere tipster, no disclosure
of his identity is required." Id. (quoting United Stat es v. Freund, 525 F.2d 873 , 876 (5th Cir.
1976)). In this case, it is clear the informant's role in the alleged drug operation was limited to
providing information about the time and location of only the initial suspected distribution. The
drug task force used the information to set up surveillance, which led to the observations of the
Defendants at the location mentioned in the tip. Those observations led to a later traffic stop and a
search of Defendant Ruiz' s vehicle, which led to a search of Defendant Gutierrez' s apartment and
a seizure of large quantities of methamphetamine. The confidential informant was not involved at
any stage of the surveillance, searches, seizures, or arrests. The Court holds that this level of
involvement is minimal and shows that the informant was a "mere tipster." Therefore, this factor
weighs against disclosure.
B. The Helpfulness of the Disclosure to the Asserted Defense
Second, this Court considers the helpfulness of the disclosure to the asserted defense.
Ortega, 854 F.3d at 824. Under this factor, a criminal defendant is required to make a sufficient
showing that the testimony would significantly aid the defendant in establishing an asserted
3
Case 4:25-cr-00385 Document 55 Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

defense. De Los Santos, 810 F .2d at 13 31. "Mere conjecture or supposition about the possible
relevancy of the informant's testimony is insufficient to warrant disclosure." Id (quoting United
States v. Gonzalez, 606 F.2d 70, 75 (5th Cir. 1979)). In this case, Defendant Gutierrez does not
and could not state the theory of helpfulness in his Motion to Disclose. (Doc. No. 53). While the
Motion states that Defendant Gutierrez "believes that the cooperating source 	may 	be an
exculpatory or possibly mitigating witness as to the conspiracy alleged in the indictment," the
Motion does not include any supporting evidence or basis for such conjecture. (Id.). Although
counsel for Defendant Gutierrez mentioned the possibility of an entrapment defense during oral
argument for this Motion at the pre-trial conference, counsel offered no such evidence that this
informant has any mitigating evidence to support the defense. Indeed, since the informant's only
involvement was providing information about the initial location of distribution, the Court finds
that Defendant Gutierrez did not establish a sufficient showing that the identity of the informant
would significantly aid in his defense. Thus, this factor weighs against disclosure.
C. The Government's Interest in Disclosure
Lastly, this Court considers the Government's interest in nondisclosure. The Government's
interest relates to both the safety of the informant and the informant's future usefulness to the
authorities as a continuing confidential source. De Los Santos, 810 F.2d at 1331. This factor weighs
heavily against disclosure. It was made clear during the in camera hearing that the informant and
the informant's family would be in life-threatening danger in the event this Court orders the
disclosure of the informant's identity, and that should the Court order such a disclosure, the only
alternative would be to place the informant and his/her entire family in witness protection.
Therefore, this factor weighs heavily against the disclosure of the informant's identity.
4
Case 4:25-cr-00385 Document 55 Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

In conclusion, all three factors of the Fifth Circuit test to determine whether Defendant
Gutierrez is entitled to the identity of the Government's confidential informant weigh against
disclosure because of the informant's minimal participation, the speculative mitigating value of
the putative evidence, and the Government's strong interest in protecting the lives of the informant
and the informant's family.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Gutierrez' s Motion to Disclose
Identity and Location of Informants and Request for Interview with Informants and Cooperating
Individuals (Doc. No. 53).
It is so ordered.
--0--
Signed on this the 	/4 	day ofNove
And ew S. Han en
United States District Judge
5
Case 4:25-cr-00385 Document 55 Filed on 11/14/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 5