EXHIBIT 6 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:2283
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

T.K., THROUGH HER MOTHER, SHERRI 

LESHORE, AND A.S., THROUGH HER 

MOTHER, LAURA LOPEZ, 

individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

-vsBYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., 

MUSICAL.LY, INC., MUSICAL.LY THE 

CAYMAN ISLANDS CORPORATION, AND 

TIKTOK, INC.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 19 CV 7915 

Chicago, Illinois 

August 4, 2020 

11:00 o'clock a.m. 

TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS - Motion 

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN R. BLAKEY

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP

BY: MR. GARY M. KLINGER 

227 West Monroe Street 

Suite 2100

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

For the Plaintiffs: MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP

BY: MR. DAVID K. LIETZ 

 MR. GARY E. MASON 

5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW

Suite 305 

Washington, DC 20016

LAURA LACIEN, CSR, RMR, FCRR, CRR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

219 South Dearborn Street

Room 1212

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 408-5032

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:2284
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES: (Cont'd)

For the Defendants: WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC 

BY: MR. ANTHONY J. WEIBELL

 MR. RYAN S. BENYAMIN

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

For the Defendants: MANDELL MENKES LLC 

BY: MR. STEVEN P. MANDELL

One North Franklin 

Suite 3600 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

For the Intervenor: 

I

LOEVY & LOEVY 

BY: MR. SCOTT R. DRURY

311 North Aberdeen

3rd Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:2285
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:30AM

11:31AM

11:31AM

11:31AM

11:32AM

8

Your Honor, this case is about the collection, 

disclosure, and distribution of Personally Identifiable 

Information. That is made clear in multiple filings and, 

most importantly, it's made clear in the complaint and the 

various claims that are asserted in the complaint. The 

parties, plaintiffs and defendants, brought before your Honor 

a proposed settlement -- it's a preliminary approval -- which 

your Honor -- which your Honor granted back in December. 

After seeing the proposed settlement, Objector timely filed 

numerous objections because the settlement does not meet the 

standards of being fair, reasonable, and adequate. Your 

Honor, one just needs to look at the facts and figures of 

this settlement to see why it does not meet those standards 

by any stretch of the imagination. 

As the plaintiffs stated in their complaint, the 

goal of this complaint was to make six million child victims 

who had their personal information collect -- surreptitiously 

collected and distributed to make them whole. That's at 

Docket 1, Paragraph 57 of the complaint. After 

issuing -- after reaching the settlement and distributing the 

class notice, only 90,953 payable claims were submitted by 

members of this -- by the six million members of the class; 

and specifically the six million seventy thousand members of 

the class. That's a paltry 1.5 percent of the class that 

submitted claims which as the Seventh Circuit found in Redman

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:2286
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:32AM

11:32AM

11:33AM

11:33AM

11:33AM

9

indicates that indifference and rejection of the settlement. 

But more importantly than the small amount of 

claims, your Honor, is that 59 percent of the settlement 

fund, the $1.1 million settlement fund, 59 percent of that -- 

exactly $649,082.50 -- go to the three lawyers for the 

plaintiffs' counsel, one administrator, and the two class 

representatives leaving only 41 percent to go to the six 

million child victims. On a pro rata basis, that's seven 

cents per victim, your Honor. If we look at it just on 

the -- with the claimants, that's just $5 per claim -- per 

claimant. 

The settlement doesn't provide for any injunctive 

relief. It doesn't require the deletion of all the 

information of all of the children under 13 whose data the 

defendant has collected. It doesn't require the defendant to 

claw back the data that it improperly collected and disclosed 

and it doesn't even require the defendant to disclose who it 

gave the data to. 

Now the plaintiffs and the defendants have 

indicated that the settlement -- injunctive relief is not 

appropriate in this case because there's a different 

injunction that has been entered by the FTC. And, your 

Honor, I want to make clear that the Objector in no way is 

trying to assert the claims of the FTC. We're not trying to 

enforce the FTC settlement. But the fact is, is that there 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:2287
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:34AM

11:34AM

11:34AM

11:34AM

11:35AM

10

is a gap in the injunctive relief that the FTC settlement 

reached that could be part of this settlement that would 

provide these six million victims the relief they need to be 

made whole. And as the Objector -- as the plaintiffs cited 

in one of their cases, in Fraley, a settlement allows for any 

relief the parties want so certainly there could be 

injunctive relief in this case. 

And as I'll address a little bit later, there is 

other litigation going on related to TikTok in front of Judge 

Lee that is set for a settlement conference. And in that 

case, the defendant who is represented by the same counsel 

has represented to Judge Lee that they intend to offer 

injunctive relief at that settlement conference directly in 

contradiction to what they're telling you in their briefs 

here. 

So just again, from the facts and figures, this 

settlement is not fair, reasonable, or adequate. When we 

look at it under the factors of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(e)(2), we can see that the claim -- that the 

relief is not adequate. The alleged claims that the 

plaintiffs make in their complaint are strong despite the 

fact that they now try to downplay their own claims; and 

they're worth well in excess of the $1.1 million settlement 

fund. 

They bring claims under the Video Privacy 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:2288
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:35AM

11:35AM

11:35AM

11:36AM

11:36AM

11

Protection Act which allow -- 

COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. 

THE COURT: Counsel, try that again. 

MR. DRURY: Yes, your Honor. 

THE COURT: Louder and slower. 

MR. DRURY: Okay. They bring claims -- the 

plaintiffs bring claims, your Honor, under the Video Privacy 

Protection Act which allow for statutory damages of $2,500 

per violation. The requisite elements under the Video 

Privacy Protection Act is that the defendant is a video 

service provider, which it clearly is, that the plaintiffs 

are subscribers, which they clearly are by registering and 

signing up for this service, and that the information is 

Personally Identifiable Information, which it is. 

The information at issue here, your Honor, are 

first and last names, biographical information, pictures, 

videos, user names. And as we cited in our reply brief in In 

re Vizio, the courts have found that conduct almost identical 

to the conduct here is a violation of the Video Privacy 

Protection Act so that is a very strong claim. 

The common law privacy claims, intrusion upon 

seclusion, and under the California constitution are also 

very strong claims. There certainly is an expectation of 

privacy that children have and parents of children have in 

their child's viewing habits and it's been found in the case 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:2289
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:36AM

11:37AM

11:37AM

11:37AM

11:38AM

12

that we cited Kiloo v. McDonald -- the Kiloo case that 

the -- the conduct of taking children's data is highly 

offensive. Here the conduct was luring kids to using a video 

app while claiming that they weren't trying to -- while 

claiming that this app was not directed at children in direct 

violation of a federal statute that did not allow them to do 

this. 

The remaining claims under the Consumer Legal 

Remedies Act under California law and the Illinois Consumer 

Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act are equally 

strong. As here, the defendants engaged in -- engaged in 

deceptive practices again in luring children into signing up 

and registering for this service and using this sort of 

service while knowing that they were going to be collecting 

their data, distributing their data and not giving them 

any -- without any consent. 

Your Honor, if the Court were just to look at the 

91,000 victims that submitted claims in this case under the 

Video Privacy Protection Act and say that there was a single 

violation for just each one of those victims, which again is 

only 1.5 percent of the class, the total value of those 

claims is $225 million. Under the California Consumer Legal 

Remedies Act, there's $1,000 per violation statutory damages 

clause. Again, looking at that with just the 90,000 or so 

victims that submitted claims, that would equal $90 million. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:2290
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:38AM

11:38AM

11:39AM

11:39AM

11:39AM

13

This does not even get into the punitive damages award that a 

jury would likely give in this case given the fact that the 

defendant engaged in this conduct both before and after a 

federal injunction was entered preventing them from doing 

this and the fact that the defendants have not been deterred 

by a -- deterred by a $5.7 million penalty that was entered 

against them. 

On the other side when looking at the defenses to 

these claims, they're very weak, Judge. The defendants claim 

that these claims are subject to arbitration; but under both 

California and Illinois law, a minor can disaffirm any 

agreement even past the age of 18. And under those laws, a 

plaintiff or a child can disaffirm that contract even if 

they've received some benefits from the contract. 

The other claim that the defendant largely relies 

on is preemption. They say that the claims are preempted 

under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA, 

but COPPA doesn't preempt federal claims and Count One of 

this complaint is a federal claim under the Video Privacy 

Protection Act. But even looking at the state claims, those 

claims are not premised on the collection of data without 

parental consent. They're just premised on the fact that the 

defendants collected this data without consent at all so 

they're outside of the COPPA rule. 

And to the extent that the Court were to find that 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:2291
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:39AM

11:40AM

11:40AM

11:40AM

11:41AM

14

they're not wholly outside of the COPPA rule, the claims are 

consistent with COPPA because the liability that they're 

claiming is based on the defendant's actual knowledge that 

kids are using the app, which is wholly consistent with 

COPPA. And again for that, your Honor, we cited the New 

Mexico versus Tiny Lab case which found to be the same 

finding. 

COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. 

THE COURT: Go ahead, counsel. If you could repeat 

that last statement. Go ahead. 

MR. DRURY: We cited -- your Honor, we cited to the 

case New Mexico versus Tiny Lab which is a case that asserts 

claims on behalf of child victims and on behalf of -- against 

advertisers and app makers that were collecting child data 

and there was a claim by the defendant in that case -- and I 

believe defense counsel is one of the lawyers in that case. 

There was a claim by them that COPPA preempted the case and 

the federal judge in New Mexico found that that is not the 

case, that COPPA did not preempt those claims. 

There's also a case pending, your Honor, in the -- 

(telephone interruption) and to COPPA claims brought by on 

behalf of children. And, your Honor, we've cited that case 

and that's the -- I believe it's the Kiloo case but I can get 

your Honor and the Court the exact cite after the hearing if 

it needs it. But in that case, the Court has also allowed 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:2292
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:41AM

11:41AM

11:42AM

11:42AM

11:42AM

15

the case to go on beyond a motion to dismiss. So this case 

is not preempted by COPPA, which is the main defense. 

The defendants also argue that this case is not a 

good case for class action because there's not common 

questions of law in fact. But, your Honor, there's many 

common questions of law in fact in this case that make it 

ideal for a class action and certainly at this early stage, 

that is not sufficient to determine that this case should 

settle, not even for pennies on the dollar, your Honor, but 

it seems like half pennies on the dollar. 

Furthermore, your Honor, there's no support for 

this settlement. As I said, there's a 1.5 percent claim rate 

which the Seventh Circuit has found indicates indifference 

and rejection of the settlement. And even if the Court were 

to look at the low opt-out rate which the plaintiffs and 

defendants cite to, that does not indicate that the 

settlement is fair or that the Court should accept it. And 

the Seventh Circuit found that in the Eubank case, 

E-u-b-a-n-k, which again is cited in our brief. 

And finally with respect to support for the 

settlement, I want to point out that the plaintiffs relied 

heavily in their opposition to the objection to the position 

of the child advocates. And, your Honor, I submit that the 

child's advocates and the advocacy groups, some that are 

represented by Professor Campbell, are a good proxy for 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:2293
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:43AM

11:43AM

11:43AM

11:43AM

11:44AM

16

whether -- a good proxy for the child victims and the 

positions of the victims as they're keeping up with these 

issues and were aware of the settlement. And as Professor 

Campbell made clear, the child advocates from day one did not 

support and do not support this settlement -- 

THE COURT: Counsel, counsel, let me interrupt you. 

MR. DRURY: Yes? 

THE COURT: Professor Campbell has not made a 

Motion to Intervene, has not made an appearance, correct? 

MR. DRURY: She has not, your Honor. And as she 

said in her letter, she did not believe because she herself 

is not a child victim and the organization she represents are 

not child victims that the position -- as I believe she put 

in her letter -- was that they didn't have standing to be 

present in these proceedings. 

Certainly, your Honor, if your Honor wanted to hear 

from them, my guess is -- and I don't represent them -- that 

that could be arranged. But no, you're correct, they have 

not filed an appearance before your Honor or before this 

Court. 

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, counsel. I 

interrupted you. 

MR. DRURY: But my point is, is that they submitted 

in the record because we submitted the letter as part of our 

reply that the representations that have been made by 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:2294
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:44AM

11:44AM

11:45AM

11:45AM

11:45AM

17

plaintiffs that the child advocacy groups support this 

settlement is not -- is inaccurate at best. 

So, again, when looking at the strength of the 

claims versus what's been offered, there's just -- there's a 

complete disconnect, your Honor. The strength of the claims 

are strong. They're worth far in excess of $1.1 million and 

the $1.1 million settlement fund is totally disattached from 

the actual worth and strength of the claims. 

The next factor that the Court, I believe, should 

look at in its analysis is whether or not class counsel and 

the class representatives have adequately represented the 

class. And here we have a settlement that principally served 

to induce the defendant to -- we have a case that principally 

served to induce the defendant to pay money to class counsel 

to make them go away. And, in fact, the plaintiffs indicated 

that that's what they think all settlements are is just an 

amount of money to make plaintiffs go away. Well, the 

Seventh Circuit has expressly said that that is not the case 

in In re Subway. 

And beyond that, your Honor, the fees that the 

class counsel are seeking here of $363,000 are completely 

unsupported. They want to do a percentage of the funds fee 

but here it's unclear what work they did to earn that fee and 

at minimum Objector believes that the calculus should be a 

lodestar or at least a lodestar cross-check. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:2295
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:46AM

11:46AM

11:46AM

11:47AM

11:47AM

18

When looking at where the substantive allegations 

of this complaint came from, which is important because it 

indicates the investigation that went into these claims, the 

plaintiffs in this case wholly copied them from a previously 

filed complaint in the FTC matter and we set forth those -- 

the copied allegations in our initial objection. So when the 

plaintiffs come forth and say they should get $363,000 plus 

expenses, which is a third of the small settlement already, 

the fact is, is that the investigation that went into this 

case was done by government attorneys; not done by 

plaintiffs' counsel. 

Moreover, in terms of the inadequate 

representation, the release in this case, your Honor, is 

extremely broad. They seek to release any claims that arise 

out of or related to -- for all time anything related to the 

civil actions which are the claims in this case or the 

subject matter of the complaint and we set forth in our 

objection and in our response numerous claims that are 

subject to the release. And this has already become a 

problem because as we said in our objection, your Honor, one 

of the claims that is subject to the release indisputably are 

claims under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, an act 

which wholly deals with personal information and taking 

personal information, namely biometric data, without people's 

consent; and we raised in our objection that this was subject 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:2296
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:47AM

11:47AM

11:48AM

11:48AM

11:48AM

19

to the release. 

And the reason that I highlight this is because the 

defendants and the plaintiffs have spent some time saying 

that these claims under the Biometric Information Privacy 

Act, referred to as BIPA, were not part of the release. And 

this is important, your Honor, because the defendants and the 

plaintiffs at once are trying to have your Honor uphold the 

settlement and at the same time they're trying to disregard 

parts of the settlement that they don't like making it 

impossible for people to know what their rights are even 

under the settlement. 

Your Honor, in your order on December 19th, 2019, 

your preliminary approval order, you entered a preliminary 

injunction that barred any settlement class members from 

bringing any new alleged class actions or asserting any 

released claims in any other action. Shortly after you did 

that, a bunch of class actions were filed in the Northern 

District of Illinois. They've all been consolidated in front 

of Judge Lee in matter 20 CV 2810, E.R. v. TikTok. 

Each of those complaints initially tried to abide 

by your preliminary injunction and they defined the class in 

those cases, which were all cases -- privacy cases against 

TikTok based on BIPA. They limited the class to Illinois 

residents ages 14 to 17. That's important because the class 

here was children under 13. So those plaintiffs knew at the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:2297
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:49AM

11:49AM

11:49AM

11:50AM

11:50AM

20

time or at least thought they knew that the release in this 

case included the BIPA claims and that your Honor's 

injunction barred anyone from bringing those claims. 

We filed our objection on May 11th, 2020, where we 

raised the issue of the broad release. On June 5th, 2020, 

both the plaintiffs -- well, the plaintiffs in their 

opposition explicitly stated that no, the BIPA claims are not 

released even despite the broad language in those claims. 

Exactly one week later, the plaintiffs in those cases in the 

Northern District of Illinois filed a consolidated complaint 

and they changed the class definition to all children under 

18. 

Now why is this important? Well, it's important, 

your Honor, because it's unclear to members of the settlement 

class, including the Objector, whether or not -- what their 

rights are even under the settlement and what other claims 

they could be bringing or could not be bringing. The 

plaintiffs fault the Objector for not filing his own 

complaint but doing so would be in direct violation of your 

Honor's order unless the plaintiffs and defendants say that 

it wouldn't be. And there's just no -- right now, there's no 

certainty as to what the -- what your Honor's order is and 

the plaintiffs and defendants are seemingly just trying to 

play games by trying to salvage the settlement where they can 

and move forward with other litigation where they can all in 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:2298
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:50AM

11:51AM

11:51AM

11:51AM

11:52AM

21

hopes of having the settlement go forward but not really even 

looking at their own language that they put forward. So it's 

problematic and it demonstrates that the -- that the 

plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' counsel are not adequately 

representing the class, which again provides grave problems 

for the settlement and is a reason that the settlement should 

not be approved. 

Finally, your Honor, there's an issue of the 

defective notice program in this case which we set forth at 

length in our brief. There was no direct notice provided to 

the class members and it's unclear and no one has explained 

why the defendant simply couldn't have direct messaged 

through their app to members of TikTok that this settlement 

had happened and that they could enforce their rights. 

Further, the fact is that the way TikTok works, 

it's able to identify people through facial recognition and 

show them videos and other materials that seemingly based on 

data that we've seen show people and videos just like the 

people watching them that they know who is watching these 

videos and they have the technology to identify children that 

they believe or believe to be are under 13 and no effort was 

made. 

But even if we put that technology aside, the fact 

is that the targeting in this case was completely wrong. 

They -- they targeted parents of children under 18 where the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:2299
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:52AM

11:52AM

11:53AM

11:53AM

11:53AM

22

parents use music apps, use social media, or use video apps 

and there's no explanation as to why the belief was that 

someone who has a child under 13 who uses TikTok themselves 

are heavy app users, be it TikTok or any other app, and why 

traditional methods of notification weren't used. And the 

fact that there's such a small response, 1.5 percent, is 

indicative of the fact that either this settlement was too 

small for people to care or the fact that people didn't get 

notice. 

Further, the notice program failed to update class 

members of the changes in the schedule through the COVID 

orders as has been an issue in this case. What were the 

actual dates when objections were due, what were the actual 

dates of this hearing. That information was not being 

updated on the site even though your Honor's order in 

December specifically required the parties to update the 

notice on the website. That's at Paragraph 14 of Docket 13. 

The notice had the wrong effective date of when 

people's claims -- the effective date of people's claims. It 

cut off the effective date on May 6th even though the 

effective date has not run even as of this hearing, your 

Honor. 

And finally as we raised, the original schedule set 

forth in the notice program improperly required the 

objections to be put forth before the motion for approved -- 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:2300
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:54AM

11:54AM

11:54AM

11:55AM

11:55AM

23

for final approval on the fee petition. And, your Honor, I 

want to make clear that in doing that, there was no attack on 

the court that the plaintiffs had said. This was a schedule 

that the plaintiffs proposed and at no point did anyone make 

your Honor aware of the issue until it was raised in the 

objection. So for all these reasons, your Honor, the 

Objector submits that this case -- this case should not be 

approved and, you know, there should be further proceedings. 

There were a couple of procedural issues that the 

plaintiffs raised. One was class membership which we 

took -- we believe the initial objection satisfied the class 

membership but certainly through the declaration of the 

Objector have taken care of any questions whether or not the 

Objector and his son fit within the broad scope of -- the 

broad definition of class membership here, that's (telephone 

interruption) the age of 13 and their parents, who used or 

registered the TikTok app before the effective date, which 

again, your Honor, has not yet run. 

There also was a procedural issue related to 

the -- related to whether or not the length of the brief -- 

and, your Honor, we submit that given the issues in this 

case, the brief was succinct as it could be, we know it was 

lengthy, and ask for leave to have that -- our filing 

accepted nunc pro tunc to the date on which it was -- on 

which it was filed. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:2301
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11:55AM

11:55AM

11:56AM

11:56AM

11:56AM

24

Your Honor, do you want me to move right forward in 

intervention or do you want me to pause here? 

THE COURT: I'm going to -- I want you to take a 

moment, look at your notes regarding intervention. I'm going 

to ask you about that in a moment and then I'm going to hear 

from the plaintiffs and the defendants. I have a criminal 

case that -- due to this case running over, I'm going to take 

a break from this case and I'm going to take up my criminal 

case and then I'm going to come back with you all so my 

Courtroom Deputy is going to put you on mute for a while. Go 

over your notes and then I would like you to stay on the line 

and I will expedite things as fast as I can and I thank you 

in advance for your patience. 

I do have to have this criminal matter resolved and 

I believe I can do that in fairly short order. It's not 

substantive. It has to do with some procedural matters 

regarding a trial that's going to proceed with COVID 

guidelines so it's not the substantive pretrial conference. 

So at this point, we're going to take a recess on the civil 

case and we're going to switch over to the criminal case. 

Gloria, could you mute this -- the attorneys on the 

line, please? 

(The Court turned his attention to other matters on his 

call, after which the following telephonic hearing was held 

in open court:) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:2302
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

C E R T I F I C A T E

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a transcript of 

telephonic proceedings before the Honorable John Robert 

Blakey on August 4, 2020.

/s/Laura LaCien August 11, 2020 

Official Court Reporter DATE

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-6 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:2303