boned
No. 02 C4721 Page3

Much of the subsequent paper battle would have been unnecessary. It was then aware that
the software came from plaintiff, which claimed copyright protection and, Quest was given to
understand, plaintiff also was claiming it contained trade secrets. As it turns out, the
substantial dictates of the protective order have been followed. The name of the expert has
been disclosed, he appears to be qualified for designation as an expert, Quest’s counsel and
that expert have the only copies of the Wahlgren CDs of which Quest is aware, the expert has
signed on to the protective order, plaintiff has a copy of Quest’s source code, and a copy of the
Wahlgren CD, and Quest has a copy of plaintiff's source code, which is apparently identical
to that in the Wahlgren CDs. The most that can be said is that Quest did get some head start
in analyzing source codes, but that can be adjusted by the discovery schedule, in the unlikely
event that is necessary. For now we deny the motion, but with the added admonition that the

Wahlgren CDs are subject to the protective order.

JAMES B, MORAN
ior Judge, U. S, District Court

Fab. a2, 2003,


2 Minute Orteenggorm (116/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Ni of Assigned Jud} 7 Sitting Judge if Othe
an Magisteste judge James B. Moran than Aseigeed Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4721 DATE 2/27/2003
CASE Computer Associates etc. Vs. Quest Software, Inc. et al.
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
af the motion being presented]

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
a) 0 Filed motion of | use listing in “Motion” box above.}
(2) QO Brief in support of motion due
(3) 0 Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue
(4) i) Ruling/Hearingon___esetfor at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for}on ___ set for__ at
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on set for_ at
mM a Trial|set for/re-set forjon at
(8) a {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at__
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CUFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) COFRCPAL(a\(2).
(0) [Other docket entry) Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Computer Associates’ motion for

turnover of its proprietary information defendants improperly obtained outside discovery and to bar
defendants’ use of such information is denied.

(i!) {For further detail sec order attached to the original minute order]

No notices required, advised in open court. Document
Nuinber

No notices required,
amber oF noticos

Notices mailed by judge’s stat

Notified counsel dy telepbone. ne ducked

 { Docketing to mail notices.

ail AO 450 form Ly . /
[} mail ao 4s0 f N09 19IMIsIg sn define ep aise

Copy 1o judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom,

96 36 HY 6z CERES doty suited notice
WAH deputy’s -

initials |+}———01-03-444+--_—J
Date/lime receiVed

central Clerk's Otfice nailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL )
INC., a Delaware corporation, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 02 C 4721
)
QUEST SOFTWARE, INC., a California )
corporation, et al, ) Lop "
)
Defendants, ) Mp, a 77)

ty mn

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Quest has misappropriated and relied upon its EDBA
Source Code to develop defendants’ programs. It raised that possibility or likelihood with the
corporate defendant (Quest) in June 2000. Quest responded that it was unaware of its having
the EDBA Source Code, said it was investigating, and asked for more specific information.
Quest repeated that position in September 2000. Then, in February 2002, plaintiff received
an anonymous letter in a Quest envelope stating that a former employee of plaintiff (actually,
plaintiff's predecessor, but we disregard that), and then an employee of Quest, defendant
Wahlgren, had given copies of the EDBA Source Code in November 1999 to other Quest
employees for use in a Quest project. It so advised Quest, which responded that it continued
to believe that plaintiff's source code had not been improperly used. (although it did not deny
that it might have possession of the EDBA Source Code) and stated that it was renewing its
investigation, Plaintiff brought suit in July 2002. In August 2002, Quest, in its answer,

admitted that Wahlgren had distributed the EDBA source code to some Quest employees, In



Nw
No, 02 C 4721 Page 2

its December 2002 answers to interrogatories, Quest responded that Wahlgren had indeed
obtained the EDBA Source Code when she was employed by plaintiff, that she had distributed
copies to certain named other employees, and that all copies were now in the possession of its
counsel “and their expert consultant.”

In the meantime, Quest had entered into an expert consulting arrangement with an
outside expert shortly after the complaint was filed and had furnished him a copy of the EDBA
Source Code. He signed a confidentiality agreement, agreeing he would not disclose the
contents to any third party. Thereafter, in September, the parties attempted to negotiate a
protective order, with disputes about that being resolved by the court on December 30, 2002.
In the meantime, the parties agreed to share information (but not source codes) on any
“attorneys” eyes only” basis. Quest initially took the position that the Wahlgren EDBA Source
Code copies were not produced in discovery, were therefore not covered by the standby
agreement, and that it could provide a copy to the consultant but not reveal his name. It did
provide a copy of the Wahlgren CD to plaintiff (the CD apparently contains copyright notices
and other indicia that the information was claimed to be confidential), while continuing to
assert that the Wahlgren CDs were not subject to the protective order. Plaintiff filed this
motion for a return of the Wahlgren CDs, requiring Quest to name its expert and specify his
works, disqualifying him from further participation in this litigation and preventing any use
of any of his work, and reimbursement of fees and costs.

Tt would have been far better if Quest had conceded that plaintiff had special claims
to the protection of the EDBA source code suftware during the pendency of this litigation when

it first disclosed to plaintiff that it had possession of it, having obtained it from Wahlgren.