1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC. CONSUMER 

PRIVACY LITIGATION 

MDL No. 2948 

Master Docket No. 20 C 4699 

District Judge John Z. Lee 

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

This Document Relates to All Cases 

PLAINTIFF A.J.’S OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED APPLICATIONS FOR LEAD 

COUNSEL AND/OR PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE 

Pursuant to Case Management Orders Nos. 1 and 2 (ECF Nos. 4, 24), counsel for Plaintiff 

A.J., through her guardian, Aaron Johnson, Mark Molumphy (“Molumphy”) of Cotchett, Pitre & 

McCarthy, LLP (“CPM”) and Albert Chang (“Chang”) of Bottini & Bottini, Inc. (“Bottini”) 

respectfully submit this response to the competing applications filed in this matter. 

1. Katrina Carroll and Jonathan Jagher Should Be Appointed Co-Lead Counsel

The following four applications were filed by attorneys seeking appointment as co-lead 

counsel: 

Co-Lead Counsel Co-Lead Counsel Co-Lead Counsel Co-Lead Counsel

Katrina Carroll 

Carlson Lynch 

Ekwan E. Rhow 

Bird, Marella 

Amy Keller 

DiCello Levitt 

Frank S. Hedin 

Hedin Hall LLP 

Jonathan Jagher 

Freed Kanner 

Megan Jones 

Hausfeld 

Lesley Weaver 

Bleichmer Fonti 

Philip L. Fraietta

Bursor & Fisher 

In CMO Nos. 1 and 2, the Court stated its main criteria in appointing Lead Counsel will be 

(a) counsel’s willingness and availability to commit to a time-consuming project; (b) counsel’s 

ability to work cooperatively with others; (c) counsel’s professional experience in this type of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1606
2 

litigation, including prior assignments as lead or liaison counsel in multi-party litigation, and (d) 

the efforts, if any, that a particular plaintiffs’ attorney has made (in this case and other cases) to 

canvas, coordinate, compile, and incorporate the thoughts and input of other plaintiff’s counsel in 

the MDL. (ECF Nos. 4, 24.) 

Based on the criteria set by the Court, Plaintiff A.J. supports the application of Carroll and 

Jagher. While each of the Lead Counsel applicants describes their various degrees of class action 

experience, and all confirm their willingness and availability to work on this project, Carroll and 

Jagher stand alone in their ability and efforts to work with other plaintiffs’ counsel in this MDL. 

Carroll and Jagher reached out to all counsel, regardless of where they filed cases or whether they 

supported coordination in this district, to seek out their input on matters such as scheduling, 

discovery and preservation of evidence, and the pros and cons of mediation. 

Conversely, the other applicants have unilaterally filed motions impacting other plaintiffs 

without first consulting counsel (e.g., Hedin and Fraietta’s emergency motion for a temporary 

restraining order (ECF No. 70)), filed motions that would prejudice other plaintiffs in the MDL 

over objections from their counsel (e.g., Rhow and Jones’ motions to intervene (E.R. v. TikTok, 

Inc., No. 1:20-cv-02810 (N.D. Ill.), ECF No. 46, and A.S. v. TikTok, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00457 (S.D. 

Ill.), ECF No. 3), or have yet to even make contact with all other MDL counsel in this case (Keller 

and Weaver). 

Carroll and Jagher will provide the best and most inclusive representation as Lead Counsel. 

2. Mark Molumphy and Albert Chang Should Be Appointed to the Steering Committee 

In CMO No. 2, the Court indicated it would appoint a five-member Plaintiffs’ Steering 

Committee with the responsibility to assist Lead Counsel in their efforts to represent the interests 

of the Plaintiffs in this multi-district litigation. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:1607
3 

Not surprisingly, each of the Lead Counsel applicants either nominated themselves to the 

Steering Committee (in the event they are not selected as Lead Counsel), or nominated members 

who are already committed to supporting their respective positions. For example, Carroll and 

Jagher proposed five attorneys who not only support them as Co-Lead Counsel, but who 

personally participated in the underlying mediation and settlement negotiations. Similarly, Rhow 

and Jones proposed three attorneys who not only support them as Co-Lead Counsel, but supported

their prior efforts to be appointed in the Northern District of California, to file motions to intervene 

in the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and/or to object to settlement negotiations. 

However, the Steering Committee should include members independent of these two 

competing slates. Indeed, given this history of this case, it is absolutely essential to have 

independent representation on the Steering Committee, rather than Committee members who have 

already committed to certain positions or strategies or outcomes. The inclusion of independent 

Steering Committee members will provide an important check on counsel to ensure that the 

proposed Class obtains the best possible result, free from conflict, or any predetermined course for 

how this case should be litigated or resolved. 

Molumphy and Chang are the best choices for such independent representation on the 

Steering Committee. Unlike the other applicants, they were not involved in the underlying 

mediation and thus have not committed to the settlement (like the five members proposed by 

Carroll and Jagher), nor were they involved in the active efforts to dismiss cases filed in Illinois 

district courts and transfer them to California (like the three members proposed by Rhow and 

Jones). In addition, Molumphy and Chang both have extensive experience in multi-party class 

actions involving similar legal and factual issues, as detailed in their application (ECF No. 35). 

Unique to their application, Molumphy and Chang have also personally litigated multi-party, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:1608
4 

complex actions against China-based corporations, including a recent class action against Alibaba, 

the largest corporation in China, which involved extensive discovery, review of documents 

produced in several languages, and depositions in Hong Kong. No other firm or attorney has such 

experience. 

Finally, Molumphy and Chang are well-positioned to benefit the Plaintiffs because both 

are located in California, where TikTok (Culver City) and its counsel (Palo Alto) are located. 

Further, according to recent reports, Oracle has now been selected as the “trusted technology 

provider” to TikTok, and may take possession of some or all of TikTok’s assets and data stored in 

the United States.1

 Oracle is located in San Mateo County, just minutes away from Molumphy’s 

office, and both Molumphy and Chang have experience in litigation involving Oracle. In re Oracle 

Corp. Derivative Litig., No. C-10-3392 (N.D. Cal.); Klein v. Ellison, No. 20-cv-4439 (N.D. Cal.). 

Accordingly, based on their independence, their demonstrated willingness and ability to 

work with others, their unique and substantial litigation experience in complex cases involving 

China-based companies, and their physical location and ability to provide practical benefits to the 

class, the Court should appoint Molumphy and Chang to Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. 

Dated: September 15, 2020 

 

/s/ Mark C. Molumphy 

MARK C. MOLUMPHY 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010 

Telephone: 650.697.6000 

mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com 

/s/ Albert Y. Chang 

Albert Y. Chang 

BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 

7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 

La Jolla, CA 92037 

Telephone: 858.914.2001 

achang@bottinilaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff A.J., through her guardian, Aaron Johnson

1

 Jordan Novet, Oracle confirms deal with TikTok-owner ByteDance to become ‘trusted 

technology provider’, CNBC, available at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/14/oracle-confirmsdeal-with-tiktok-owner-bytedance-to-become-trusted-technology-provider.html (last visited 

Sept. 15, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:1609
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Albert Y. Chang, affirm that the foregoing was filed on September 15, 2020, via 

CM/ECF, which automatically served all counsel of record. 

Dated: September 15, 2020 /s/ Albert Y. Chang

 Albert Y. Chang 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 78 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:1610