IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILILNOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., )

CONSUMER PRIVACY ) MDL No. 2948

LITIGATION, )

) Master Docket No. 20 C 4699

)

) Judge John Z. Lee

)

) Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

This Document Relates to All Cases )

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2

On August 17, 2020, the Court issued Case Management Order (“CMO”) No. 1, ECF No. 

4, which sets forth a schedule for, among other things, selection of two Lead Counsel and one 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. The Court hereby amends CMO No. 1 and will permit any 

applications/nominations for those positions to be up to seven (7) pages in length, and any 

objections also may be up to seven (7) pages in length. 

In addition, after further consideration, the Court will establish a Steering Committee of 

counsel for Plaintiffs. The duties and responsibilities of Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee will be to 

assist Lead Counsel in their efforts to represent the interests of the Plaintiffs in this multi-district 

litigation. The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee will consist of five members and 

applications/nominations for those positions should be filed no later than September 8, 2020, with

each submission being no longer than seven (7) pages in length. Any objections to a proposed 

applicant/nominee must be filed by September 15, 2020, and should not exceed seven (7) pages. 

Furthermore, as stated in CMO No. 1, the Court has designated all counsel who are

appearing on behalf of a Plaintiff and who are electronically registered to receive electronic 

notifications in this litigation to serve as Interim Counsel of Record, until such time that the Court 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 24 Filed: 09/01/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:254
2

appoints Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel, and the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee. Until the Court 

makes these appointments, no counsel of record representing a particular Plaintiff or a putative 

class of Plaintiffs shall have any more or less authority than another. Nor will counsel of record 

for a particular Plaintiff or a putative class of Plaintiffs have the authority to act on behalf of or 

bind another Plaintiff or another putative class of Plaintiffs absent further order of the Court. 

Along these lines, the Court is informed by certain Plaintiffs’ counsel that progress has 

been made in settlement discussions with Defendants. Certain other Plaintiffs’ counsel take 

umbrage with the manner in which those settlement discussions have taken place, stating that they 

were not allowed to participate in the settlement discussions (for one reason or another) and have 

not been informed of the terms of any potential settlement. It goes without saying that, before this 

Court can approve a class-wide settlement of any kind, it must consider the factors set forth in Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b), and (e). Those factors include, without limitation, whether the settling class 

representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class, whether the proposal was 

negotiated at arm’s length, whether the relief provided for the class is adequate, and whether the 

proposed settlement treats class members equitably relative to one another. 

In the Court’s experience, it often is advisable for the settling plaintiffs to encourage the 

participation in the settlement process of attorneys who represent other plaintiffs who have brought 

similar claims in other venues. After all, those attorneys may represent potential class members, 

possible objectors, or others who may opt out of any settlement class altogether. And, to the extent 

that counsel for certain plaintiffs are excluded from participating in the settlement process (whether 

by other plaintiff’s attorneys or a defendant), such exclusion may raise concerns regarding the 

equity and fairness of the overall negotiation process. Lastly, what efforts, if any, that a particular 

plaintiff’s attorney has made (in this case and other cases) to canvas, coordinate, compile, and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 24 Filed: 09/01/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:255
3

incorporate the thoughts and input of other plaintiff’s counsel in the MDL is a factor that the Court 

will consider in the appointment Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel, and members of the Steering 

Committee. 

Next, the attorneys for certain Plaintiffs have raised the concern that any upcoming sale of 

TikTok, Inc., or its assets by its current owner to a domestic company may result in the destruction 

of relevant documents as that term is used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court 

wants to make it clear that, in the event that such a sale takes place, any successor-in-interest shall 

be bound by Paragraph 14 of CMO No. 1 (just as the Defendants are now) and must make all 

reasonable efforts to preserve any and all evidence in the possession, custody, or control of TikTok, 

Inc., that is relevant to the claims and defenses raised in this action. 

Finally, absent further order of the Court, the deadlines and provisions contained in CMO

No. 1 stand. The actions that are part of this multi-district litigation are stayed only to the extent 

set forth in CMO No. 1. And the emergency motion to compel filed by certain Interim Plaintiffs’ 

Counsel, ECF. No. 11, is denied except as set forth in this order. 

ENTERED: 9/1/20

________________________________

John Z. Lee

United States District Court Judge

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 24 Filed: 09/01/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:256