1

SETTLING PLAINTIFFS’ AND ADDITIONAL INTERIM COUNSEL’S OBJECTIONS

TO THE APPLICATIONS OF: (1) EKWAN RHOW, MEGAN JONES, THEIR 

PROPOSED PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE (KARA WOLKE, AMANDA 

KLEVORN AND DAVID GIVEN) AND PROPOSED LIAISON COUNSEL (SHANNON 

MCNULTY); (2) LESLEY WEAVER AND AMY KELLER, AND;

(3) FRANK HEDIN AND PHILIP FRAIETTA

As the Court is aware, Settling Plaintiffs (with support from additional Interim Counsel 

designated below) propose the following plaintiffs’ counsel leadership structure: Katrina Carroll 

and Jonathan Jagher as Co-Lead Counsel; a Steering Committee consisting of Robert Foote,

Michael Gervais, Joseph Guglielmo, Tina Wolfson and James Zouras, and; Beth Fegan as 

Liaison Counsel. This structure is the result of arduous consensus building and compromisebased self-ordering. It also has broad support from counsel involved in the MDL who came 

together in the spirit of collaboration. Support for Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher’s specific 

appointments to serve together as Co-Lead Counsel also goes beyond just the firms who 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 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-cv-4699 

Judge John Z. Lee

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1675
2

participated in the August 13, 2020 mediation, and includes firms from the Northern District of 

California litigation, each of whom attest to our extensive efforts at cooperation and inclusion.

1

 

Indeed, the facts speak for themselves. No other counsel in this case has achieved 

remotely comparable endorsements or substantive results. See generally Declaration of Katrina 

Carroll (the “Carroll Decl.”) [ECF No. 52]. Settling Plaintiffs’ proposed structure is the most

inclusive, has garnered the support of counsel from all districts in the MDL, promotes age,

gender and racial diversity, includes counsel with significant experience in the country’s largest 

class actions and specifically incorporates counsel who have the most experience in biometric 

privacy cases under BIPA and with technology-focused matters. Our proposed structure best 

meets this Court’s articulated criteria for leadership (the willingness and availability to commit 

to this case, the ability to work cooperatively, and experience in this type of litigation).

Most importantly, Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher seek appointment as Co-Lead Counsel 

because under their direction, Settling Plaintiffs reached a substantial and meaningful settlement

with Defendants (where others previously failed using the same mediator), capitalizing on a 

pivotal moment for TikTok, and doing so with the solid backing and the support of so many 

other firms. No other counsel was as effective to ensure this opportunity of recovery, especially

given TikTok’s precarious position in light of the President’s Executive Orders and impending

sale. At all times, Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher have acted in the best interests of the class and 

1 The following Interim Counsel filed briefs supporting Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher as Co-Lead 

counsel: Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O’Neil, LLC [ECF No. 27]; Stephan Zouras, LLP; Langeland 

Law; Tostrud Law Group, P.C. [ECF No. 28, 30, 32, 39]; Fegan Scott LLC [ECF No. 29]; Scott 

+ Scott Attorneys at Law LLP; Wood Law Firm, LLC; Baird Law Firm [ECF No. 31]; Ahdoot & 

Wolfson P.C. [ECF No. 33]; Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP; Bottini & Bottini, P.C. [ECF No. 

35]; Susman Godfrey L.L.P. [ECF No. 36]; Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP [ECF

No. 37]; Sauder Schelkopf LLC; Gordon Law Offices, Ltd. [ECF No. 42]; Girard Sharp [ECF 

No. 44]; Onder Law, LLC [ECF No. 53]; and Consumer Protection Legal, LLC; Law Office of 

Francis J. Flynn, Jr. [ECF No. 54].

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:1676
3

permitting them to lead this case will allow the most efficient and effective presentation of the 

proposed settlement for Court approval. Of course, any party or his or her counsel can object to 

the settlement, if upon disclosure those individuals believe the settlement is deficient in any 

respect. 2 But appointing those who are responsible for the settlement capitalizes on the 

cohesion, consensus, and progress built by Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher. That progress should 

continue.

Because Settling Plaintiffs and other Interim Counsel believe that our proposed structure 

is the most qualified based on our collective experience and the results we achieved in this case,

Settling Plaintiffs and other Interim Counsel designated below object to the following applicants 

who seek leadership appointments: (1) the applications of Mr. Rhow and Ms. Jones, their 

proposed Steering Committee (Kara Wolke, Amanda Klevorn and David Given) and Liaison 

Counsel Shannon McNulty (“Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ Slate”) [ECF Nos. 40, 43]3; (2) Ms. 

Weaver and Ms. Keller’s joint leadership application [ECF No. 51], and; (3) Mr. Hedin and Mr. 

Fraietta’s application which proposes they serve as Co-Lead counsel (or alternatively as 

members of a PSC) and Mr. Larry as a member of the PSC [ECF No. 55].

4

2 As explained in the Carroll Decl., Settling Plaintiffs support and have urged the disclosure of 

the settlement to all litigants. At the very least, Settling Plaintiffs believe that TikTok should 

support disclosure to the Court in camera. TikTok has not yet agreed to our proposals. See 

Carroll Decl. at ¶¶23, 24, 75, 76.

3 The PSC members and Liaison Counsel proposed by Mr. Rhow and Ms. Jones, each filed a 

separate application. See [ECF No. 41] (Amanda Klevorn), [ECF No. 47] (David Given) and 

[ECF No. 45] (Kara Wolke); [ECF No. 48] (Shannon McNulty). 4 Two additional applications for PSC positions were filed by Mark Molumphy [ECF No. 35]

and Dan Girard [ECF No. 44], both of whom support Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher for Co-Lead 

Counsel. A third application was filed by Eric Gibbs, who has indicated a neutral position as to 

the appointment of Co-Lead Counsel, but proposes himself to serve as a “liaison” between NonSettling Plaintiffs and Settling Plaintiffs. [ECF No. 46]. In Settling Plaintiffs’ view, this proposal 

is unnecessary, inefficient and not supported by the various counsel involved. This settlement, 

reached with the assistance of a highly respected mediator, and having the support of the vast 

majority of counsel, should simply proceed in its normal course.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:1677
4

While the attorneys on Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ Slate make general statements promoting

their ability to create consensus and work cooperatively with other plaintiffs’ counsel, these 

generalities are demonstrably inconsistent with their conduct in this case. All of this history is

recounted in Ms. Carroll’s Declaration [ECF No. 52] and need not be restated here.

Even looking at Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ Slate objectively, however, it becomes evident 

that the slate is not the product of consensus. Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ Slate has not expanded to 

include any counsel from outside their small, self-formed group, or counsel from any actions 

filed outside of the Northern District of California. Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ proposal was not 

built on any post-MDL consensus: they merely propose all of the same attorneys they previously 

proposed in California.5 And unlike Settling Plaintiffs’ group, which includes counsel who 

stepped back so that the group could be best-positioned to achieve success for the class, none of 

the Northern District of California counsel from Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ Slate did the same. 

Because of this, Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ proposal is stilted and heavily favors the Northern 

District of California attorneys to the exclusion of nearly everyone else, including the counsel 

who reached a settlement with Defendants. Similarly, Ms. Weaver and Ms. Keller, who 

supported Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ Slate in its entirety during the Northern District of California 

leadership proceedings, did not form a proposal built on consensus. In re TikTok, Inc. Privacy 

Litigation, 5:19-cv-07792-LHK (N.D. Cal.) [ECF Nos. 66, 72, 76].

The same goes for the application of Messrs. Hedin, Fraietta and Larry. Settling 

Plaintiffs were unaware of the involvement of any of these attorneys until they filed a leadership 

application in the MDL docket (within minutes of filing a complaint, M.G. v. TikTok, the day 

5 Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ Slate includes proposed Liaison Counsel Shannon McNulty, retained 

by Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel without having filed any underlying case in the MDL. As 

such, the inclusion of Ms. McNulty is not the result of any consensus building.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:1678
5

leadership applications were due). None of these attorneys provided any advance notice of these 

filings nor any articulated interest in collaborating with any of the other counsel in the MDL. 

Non-Settling Plaintiffs6 attempt to downplay our successful consensus-building and

imply that the entire coalition we assembled is uninformed about the settlement. This is not 

accurate. While only the delegates to the mediation know the exact settlement terms because 

they personally participated, the larger group of 16 firms were involved at all times in mediation 

preparation (and are contributing now). All 16 firms worked on pre-mediation analysis, were 

involved in mediation-related discussions with defense counsel and assisted in the preparation of 

Settling Plaintiffs’ mediation materials. For purposes of efficiency (since having 16 firms 

appearing at the mediation would not have been productive), the larger group ultimately agreed 

on a delegation authorized to conduct negotiations. It is not atypical for authorized 

representatives to negotiate in this manner. After the settlement was reached, all firms agreed to 

respect confidentiality given TikTok’s articulated need for secrecy. Further, the additional firms 

supporting Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher have also agreed to preserve confidentiality and respect

our process. See Carroll Decl., ¶¶16, 23 & n. 5. 

Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ red herring argument (that because Mr. Jagher and Ms. Carroll

only plead BIPA claims in the pre-MDL consolidated complaint filed in this District, they cannot 

resolve any additional claims) is unsupported by the facts and relevant caselaw, and can be

further addressed in the briefing seeking preliminary or final approval of the proposed 

settlement. First, the 16-firm mediation coalition includes plaintiffs who assert non-BIPA claims 

on behalf of nationwide classes. See, e.g., G.R. et. al. v. TikTok, Inc. et. al., 2:20-cv-04537-AB6 For clarity, references to “Non-Settling Plaintiffs” do not include Messrs. Hedin and Fraietta, as 

they have had no involvement throughout the history of this case and no statements can properly 

be attributed to them.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:1679
6

MAA (C.D. Cal.). Thus, the Settling Plaintiffs group, on behalf of a nationwide class, has 

standing to assert all of the claims and negotiate a resolution for the Court’s approval. Second, 

Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ assertion that the VPPA claim could not properly be compromised since 

it had not been pleaded at the time of mediation, is also incorrect.7

 The VPPA is a federal cause 

of action, and thus all current plaintiffs have a potential VPPA claim that can be asserted on 

behalf of a nationwide class (to the extent such a claim is viable). Prior to filing their 

complaints and then in anticipation of mediation, the experienced counsel among the 16-firm 

mediation coalition considered a broad range of potential claims (including the VPPA claim),

going well beyond the four corners of the on-file complaints. All potential claims were

thoroughly vetted, their merits were closely scrutinized and the relief was zealously negotiated. 

Though Non-Settling Plaintiffs argue otherwise, there is no requirement that every potential 

claim be pleaded prior to the time of settlement negotiations. Of course, once the settlement is 

made public, the Court will evaluate the proposed scope of the release at preliminary and final

approval.

8 Non-Settling Plaintiffs attempt to cast aspersions on the settlement process to support 

their leadership bid, but any such issues will be properly handled during the Rule 23 process for 

objections. 

7 Ms. Weaver and Ms. Keller seek credit for originating the VPPA claim, when in fact, those 

claims are at issue in the T.K. matter which is outside of the MDL has been pending before Judge 

Blakey since December of 2019. See Carroll Decl. ¶82. In any event, the VPPA claim was 

specifically discussed during our settlement negotiations. Id.

8 With respect to the ability to settle unpleaded claims, “the Seventh Circuit has recognized that a 

settlement offer is a compromise and may include release of claims not before the court. 

Additionally, a federal court may release not only those claims alleged in the complaint, but also 

a claim based on the identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class 

action even though the claim was not presented and might have not been presentable in the class 

action.” Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, Co., No. 07-cv-1707, 2016 WL 

806546, at *9 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:1680
7

Because Settling Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Defendants, it would be highly 

inefficient to adopt Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ proposal concerning the retention of a Special Master 

to resolve document preservation issues. The Court’s two prior Case Management Orders

eliminate any preservation concerns. There is no good cause to expend class resources for the 

services of a Special Master, which would only reduce the recovery to class members, with no 

attendant benefit. Of course, should the services of a Special Master become necessary, lead 

counsel can freely engage one in the future. Non-Settling Plaintiffs’ proposal for the 

appointment of a Special Master does not provide a basis for their appointment to lead this case.

When the Court analyzes the various competing applications using its articulated criteria 

(the willingness and availability to commit to this case, the ability to work cooperatively, and 

counsel’s experience in this type of litigation), it should find that Settling Plaintiffs’ proposed 

structure most aptly fulfills each of these requirements and should be appointed to lead this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: September 15, 2020 CARLSON LYNCH LLP

/s/ Katrina Carroll

Katrina Carroll

111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240

Chicago, IL 60602

Tel: (312) 750-1265

Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

Jonathan M. Jagher

FREED KANNER LONDON & 

 MILLEN LLC

923 Fayette St.

Conshohocken, PA 19428

Tel.: (610) 234-6487

Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

PROPOSED CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND INTERIM 

COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR SETTLING 

PLAINTIFFS

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:1681
8

Elizabeth A. Fegan 

FEGAN SCOTT LLC 

150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Tel: (312) 741-1019 

Fax: (312) 264-0100 

Email: beth@feganscott.com

PROPOSED LIAISON COUNSEL AND INTERIM 

COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR SETTLING 

PLAINTIFFS

Robert Foote

FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O’NEIL, LLC

10 W. State Street, Suite 200

Geneva, IL 60134

Tel.: (630) 232-7450

Fax: (630) 232-7452

Email: rmf@fmcolaw.com

James B. Zouras

STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP

100 N. Riverside Plaza,

Suite 2150

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Tel.: (312) 233-1550

Fax: (312.) 233-1560

Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

Tina Wolfson

AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC

10728 Lindbrook Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Tel: (310) 474-9111

Fax: (310) 474-8585

Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

Joseph P. Guglielmo

SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10169

Tel.: (212) 223-6444

Fax: (212) 223-6334

Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:1682
9

Michael Gervais

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Tel: (310) 789-3100

Fax: (310) 789-3150

Email: mgervais@susmangodfrey.com

PROPOSED PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE

AND INTERIM COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR 

SETTLING PLAINTIFFS

Tiffany M. Yiatras

CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC

8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100

Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643

Tel: (314) 541-0317

Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com

Jennifer W. Sprengel

Daniel O. Herrera

Nickolas J. Hagman

CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER 

& SPRENGEL LLP

150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Tel: (312) 782-4880

Fax: (312) 782-4485

Email: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com

Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

Email: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com

Joseph G. Sauder

Joseph B. Kenney 

SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC

1109 Lancaster Avenue

Berwyn, PA 19312

Tel.: (610) 200-0580

Fax: (610) 421-1326

Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com 

Email: jbk@sstriallawyers.com

Richard R. Gordon

GORDON LAW OFFICES, LTD. 

111 West Washington Street

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:1683
10

Suite 1240 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Tel: (312) 332-5200

Fax: (312) 242-4966

Email: rrg@gordonlawchicago.com

Erik H. Langeland

733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor

New York, N.Y. 10017

Tel: (212) 354-6270

Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com

Jon A. Tostrud

TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Tel: (310) 278-2600

Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

William A. Baird

BAIRD LAW FIRM

2625 Townsgate Road

Suite 330 

Westlake Village, CA 91361 

Tel: (805) 267-1209 

Fax: (866) 747-3905 

Email: william.a.baird.1@gmail.com

E. Kirk Wood

WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC

P. O. Box 382434 

Birmingham, AL 35238-2434 

Tel: (205) 908-4906 

Fax: (866) 747-3905

Email: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

INTERIM COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR SETTLING 

PLAINTIFFS

Francis J. “Casey” Flynn, Jr.

LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.

3518A Arsenal Street

Saint Louis, Missouri 63118 

Tel: (314) 662-2836

Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:1684
11

Lawana S. Wichmann 

James G. Onder 

ONDERLAW, LLC

110 E. Lockwood Ave, 2nd Floor St. Louis, MO 63119

Tel: (314) 963.9000

Fax: (314) 963-1700

Email: Wichmann@onderlaw.com 

Email: Onder@onderlaw.com

ADDITIONAL INTERIM COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:1685
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 15, 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 issued through the 

Court’s Electronic Case Filing System on this date.

/s/ Katrina Carroll

Katrina Carroll

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 81 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:1686