1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC. CONSUMER 

PRIVACY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to All Cases 

MDL No. 2948 

Master Docket No. 20 C 4699 

Judge John Z. Lee 

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO 

NON-SETTLING PLAINTIFFS’ PURPORTED EMERGENCY MOTION 

There is no emergency, and the Court should therefore deny or set a normal briefing and 

hearing schedule on the non-settling plaintiffs’ purported emergency motion filed August 27, 

2020 (ECF No. 11, “the Emergency Motion”). As stated on this Court’s website, “Emergency 

matters must be of such a nature that a delay in hearing them would cause serious harm to one or 

more parties.” The non-settling plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion identifies no such “serious harm”: 

 To the extent the Emergency Motion asks the Court to compel Defendants to meet 

and confer as required by Case Management Order No. 1 (ECF No. 3), Defendants have 

done so and have further stated: “[O]ur positions were stated in the Aug. 21 filing with the 

Court. If you would like to confer on any of those points, we are happy to do so.” See ECF 

No. 11-18, Ex. 17. Counsel for the non-settling plaintiffs never responded to this offer. 

 To the extent the Emergency Motion seeks an order requiring Defendants to preserve 

relevant evidence, the Court has already ordered all parties to preserve all relevant evidence 

in its Case Management Order No. 1, ¶ 14 (ECF No. 3). There is no need—let alone on any 

emergency basis—for a second redundant order. Defendants have repeatedly affirmed that 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 16 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:231
2 

Defendants are actively preserving and will continue to preserve relevant evidence. They 

also affirm so here. The executive orders cited by the Emergency Motion give Defendants 

90 days (up to 120 with an extension) to “divest,” i.e., transfer their relevant data to an 

acquiror before it is deleted. Nothing in the executive orders prohibits Defendants from 

ensuring that evidence relevant to the litigation be preserved by the acquiror. Defendants do 

not intend to spoliate any evidence in complying with these orders. 

 To the extent the Emergency Motion is concerned about being able to collect any 

monetary judgment after an acquisition of TikTok Inc. by a third party, such acquisition 

presents no risk of “serious harm.” The potential acquiring entities identified in the 

Emergency Motion (Microsoft, Oracle, and Twitter) are certainly not “judgment proof” 

entities. See ECF No. 11-5. 

 To the extent the Emergency Motion seeks to discover the confidential terms of the 

tentative settlement reached in this case, the request is premature and fails to show any risk 

of “serious harm.” Non-settling plaintiffs have no standing to challenge a settlement before 

it is presented to the Court for approval. Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch., 668 F.3d 481, 501 

(7th Cir. 2012) (“a non-settling party does not have standing to object to a settlement 

between other parties” unless and until the non-settling party “will suffer plain legal 

prejudice”); Agretti v. ANR Freight Sys., 982 F.2d 242, 247 (7th Cir. 1992) (“We reject any 

suggestion by [the non-settling party] that standing to object to a settlement in a class action 

situation by a nonsettling party requires a different standard than plain legal prejudice.”); 

Smith v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 2:08-cv-15, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81842, at 

*11-12 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 12, 2010) (objections to class settlement were “premature and 

overruled” because settlement had not yet been submitted to the Court for approval). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 16 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:232
3 

Simply put, there is no “emergency” here that justifies disrupting the settling parties’ 

ongoing task of finalizing the settlement for presentment to the Court (and non-settling parties) 

for comment and approval. And the Emergency Motion appears to be no more than a pretext to 

do just that. Most of the facts and timeline recited in the Emergency Motion have nothing to do 

with the purported emergency, and to the extent relevant, are inaccurate and incomplete. 

Defendants also object to the improper filing in the public record by the non-settling parties of 

confidential mediation and settlement communications after non-settling parties promised not to 

do so as a condition of having those discussions. Defendants cannot be expected to share 

confidential information with such parties. 

For all these reasons, the Court should deny the Emergency Motion or set a reasonable 

briefing schedule on the motion. If the Court desires further briefing on the Emergency Motion, 

Defendants request that they be given 14 days (September 10, 2020) to respond to that 16-page 

motion so they can address each of the points asserted therein. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: August 27, 2020 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/Anthony J Weibell

Anthony J Weibell (aweibell@wsgr.com) 

David S. Steuer (dsteuer@wsgr.com) 

Sara Lai-Ming Rose Tolbert (srose@wsgr.com) 

Curtis S. Kowalk (ckowalk@wsgr.com) 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Victor Jih (vjih@wsgr.com) 

Ryan S. Benyamin (rbenyamin@wsgr.com) 

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027 

Telephone: (323) 210-2900 

Lead Counsel for all Defendants 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 16 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:233
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 27, 2020, the foregoing document was filed electronically 

through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System. Service of this document is being made upon 

all counsel of record in this case by the Notice of Electronic Filing issues through the Court’s 

Electronic Case Filing System on this date. 

/s/Anthony J Weibell 

Anthony J Weibell 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 16 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:234