Exhibit E 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:2809
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

26

27

28

 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

Ekwan E. Rhow - State Bar No. 174604 

 erhow@birdmarella.com 

Thomas R. Freeman - State Bar No. 135392 

 tfreeman@birdmarella.com 

Marc E. Masters - State Bar No. 208375 

 mmasters@birdmarella.com 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561 

Telephone: (310) 201-2100 

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Misty Hong 

DAVID S. STEUER, State Bar No. 127059 

ANTHONY J WEIBELL, State Bar No. 238850 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: aweibell@wsgr.com; dsteuer@wsgr.com; 

ckowalk@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for all Defendants 

[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MISTY HONG, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BYTEDANCE, INC., a corporation, 

TIKTOK, INC., a corporation; 

BEIJING BYTEDANCE 

TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., a 

privately-held company; and 

MUSICAL.LY, a corporation. 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO. 5:19-cv-07792-LHK 

Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

Date: April 22, 2020 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:2810 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 21
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

26

27

28

 2 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

The parties jointly submit this Joint Case Management Conference Statement in 

compliance with the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California, Contents 

of Joint Case Management Statement. 

I. JURISDICTION & SERVICE 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) & 1367 

because: (i) this is a class action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of 

$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs; (ii) there are 100 or more class members; and (iii) 

some members of the class are citizens of states different from some Defendants, and also because 

two Defendants are citizens or subjects of a foreign state. 

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because: (i) they transact business in 

the United States, including in this District; (ii) they have substantial aggregate contacts with the 

United States, including in this District; (iii) they engaged and are engaging in conduct that has 

and had a direct, substantial, reasonably foreseeable, and intended effect of causing injury to 

persons throughout the United States, including in this District, and purposely availed themselves 

of the laws of the United States. 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this District because: (i) a 

substantial part of the conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in and/or emanated from 

this District; (ii) Defendants transact business in this District; (iii) one Defendant has its principal 

place of business in this District; (iv) two Defendants have offices in this District; and (v) Plaintiff 

resides in this District. 

No parties remain to be served. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

Defendant TikTok, Inc., the operator of the TikTok—Make Your Day app (“the App”) 

intends to file a motion to compel arbitration, as it believes Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claims 

arising from her use of the App. If any part of this action is not referred to arbitration, foreign 

defendants Beijing Bytedance Technology Co., Ltd. and Musical.ly (“the Foreign Defendants”) 

will move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as the Foreign Defendants are not subject to 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:2811 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 21
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

26

27

28

3

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

personal jurisdiction in California because they are not incorporated here, they do not have their 

principal place of business here, and they do not operate the TikTok App. Similarly, while 

defendant Bytedance Inc. does have its headquarters in this District, this defendant is not a proper 

defendant in this action because it plays no role in the operation of the App. Plaintiff appears to 

have simply named every entity it could find with any corporate relationship to defendant TikTok, 

Inc. At a minimum, Plaintiff should drop all defendants but TikTok, Inc. from the amended 

complaint Plaintiff intends to file on May 11, 2020 to avoid wasting the Court’s and the parties’ 

resources on needless motion practice to resolve these issues. 

II. FACTS 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

This is a data privacy case involving the surreptitious taking of personally-identifiable 

data, and the transmission of that data to the People’s Republic of China, where Defendants are 

obligated by law to provide it to the Chinese government. Defendants took the data through the 

popular TikTok app, which has been banned by the Department of Defense for security reasons, 

and is the subject of intense concern by other parts of the United States government. 

Defendant Beijing ByteDance was founded in 2012 and is worth approximately $75 

billion. Defendants Musical.ly and Musical.ly, Inc. launched the highly-popular social media and 

social networking app “Muscial.ly” in 2014. This app allows its users to (i) create video selfies of 

themselves dancing and/or lip-syncing with a musical soundtrack in the background, and (ii) share 

such videos over the internet through the app. In 2016, Defendant Beijing ByteDance launched its 

own app for the Chinese market (“Douyin”), which mimicked the Musical.ly app. By 2017, 

Defendant Beijing ByteDance introduced an English-language version of the Douyin app outside 

China under the name “TikTok.” 

In August 2018, after having acquired Defendants Musical.ly and Musical.ly, Inc., 

Defendant Beijing ByteDance combined the Musical.ly app with its TikTok app, merging all 

existing accounts and data into a single app under the retained “TikTok” name (the “App”). The 

App has become one of the world’s fastest-growing social media platforms and a global 

phenomenon with a massive American audience. It has been downloaded more than 1.3 billion 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:2812 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 21
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

26

27

28

 4 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

times worldwide, and more than 140 million times in the United States. 

One key to Defendants’ financial success is the targeted advertising that they run through 

the App. Such targeted advertising relies heavily upon knowledge of each user’s preferences, and 

such knowledge is gleaned from private and personally-identifiable information the Defendants 

clandestinely acquire about each user. Other ways in which Defendants have unjustly monetized 

this private and personally-identifiable information is through the development of patents and 

artificial intelligence. 

The private and personally-identifiable information taken from users without their 

knowledge or consent, and collected by Defendants in living dossiers organized by user, includes: 

(1) user videos that were never saved or posted online by the users; (2) biometric data; (3) highlyspecific physical location tracking data; (4) highly-specific device ID data that allows Defendants 

to track users’ digital movements around the internet; (5) username, password, age/birthday, email 

address, and user-generated content; (6) phone and social network contacts; (7) browsing history 

and cookies; and (8) users’ private and personally-identifiable information stored in their other 

social media accounts, including Facebook, Google and Twitter. 

The App begins taking private and personally-identifiable information immediately upon 

the completion of the download process and before users even have the opportunity to sign-up and 

create an account. Even when users stop using the App and close it, Defendants continue to 

harvest private and personally-identifiable information through the App. And, critically, both the 

core App and certain third-party analytic libraries embedded within the App transmit private and 

personally-identifiable information from users’ devices to servers located in China that are owned 

by Defendants and other Chinese tech giants. Pursuant to Chinese law, Defendants and these other 

Chinese tech giants are obligated to make such information available to the Chinese government. 

The United States government has revealed its deep concern with the App in a variety of 

ways. Two senators wrote a letter to the Acting Director of National Intelligence describing the 

national security risks associated with the App. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the 

United States is reviewing Defendant Beijing ByteDance’s acquisition of Defendants Musical.ly 

and Musical.ly, Inc. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:2813 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 4 of 21
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

26

27

28

5

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

that Defendants refused to attend, and its Chairman loudly criticized Defendants for their absence. 

Additionally, the United States military has banned the use of the App and there are plans to 

prohibit federal employees from downloading the App on government devices. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

The “TikTok - Make Your Day” short-form-video-sharing app (“the App”) is one of the 

most popular apps of its time. Like most other popular apps, it is free to use and supported by 

advertising revenues. With its unprecedented rise in popularity, the App has also become the target 

of competitive attacks from competitors who are losing market share to the App and political 

attacks from politicians seeking to generate “buzz” for themselves and their campaigns in an 

election year by attacking TikTok because it has some Chinese affiliations. The present lawsuit is 

based on (and quotes) the same anti-Chinese rhetoric, conjecture, supposition, and innuendo that 

originated with these political and competitive attacks. 

Plaintiff’s accusations about data collection from the App and conjectural use of that data 

are factually mistaken and factually misplaced. For example, the App does not collect and store 

any biometric identifiers from its users (such as facial recognition profiles) and does not give 

access to any U.S. user data to the Chinese government (nor is it required to by law any more than 

it would be required to turn over user data in response to a U.S. government subpoena). And users 

are required to affirmatively grant permission on their mobile device before the App can collect 

any video data or GPS location data from them—whether they choose to register for a TikTok 

account or not. The App’s privacy policy also fully discloses that user data will be shared with 

TikTok’s corporate affiliates and third-party business partners and service providers, as is standard 

with free social networking apps that have a business model based on advertising. As with most 

large consumer-facing businesses, some of these affiliates, partners, and service providers are 

located in other countries. None of these facts are actionable under the law. 

III. LEGAL ISSUES 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

Defendants have indicated that they intend to file the following four motions: (1) a motion 

to compel arbitration; (2) a motion to dismiss based on users’ purported consent; (3) a motion to 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:2814 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 5 of 21
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

26

27

28

6

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

dismiss based on a purported failure to plead the elements of certain causes of action; and (4) a 

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the two Defendants located in China. 

These motions raise the following potentially disputed points of law. 

Arbitration: First, Plaintiff never signed up for a TikTok account and thus never assented 

to the Terms of Service containing the arbitration provision. Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of 

Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989); Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 

(9th Cir. 2014). Second, additional plaintiffs who are minors will be added in an amended 

complaint, and they have disaffirmed the arbitration agreement. T.K. v. Adobe Sys., 2018 WL 

1812200 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Third, the hyperlink to the Terms of Service and the 

disclosure/warning accompanying that hyperlink are each insufficiently conspicuous to infer 

assent. Arena v. Intuit Inc., 2020 WL 1189849 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Colgate v. Juul Labs, Inc., 402 

F.Supp.3d 728 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 

2018). Fourth, the complaint seeks public injunctive relief, a type of claim that cannot be waived 

under McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017), and the unenforceability of that waiver

triggers a contractual “poison pill” provision that nullifies the arbitration agreement in its entity. 

McCardle v. AT&T Mobility, 2017 WL 4354998 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d, 772 F. App’x. 575 (9th 

Cir. 2019); Roberts v. AT&T Mobility, 2018 WL 1317346 (N.D. Cal. 2018). While Defendants 

have indicated that they may file a motion to stay this case pending the United States Supreme 

Court’s possible review of the McGill rule, such a motion would be both highly speculative and 

ultimately pointless because the McGill rule is only one of several reasons that Defendants’ 

motion to compel arbitration will fail. Fifth, the arbitration provision is unconscionable. Pinnacle 

Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development, 55 Cal.4th 223 (2012); Higgins v. 

Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 1238 (2006). 

Consent: The Privacy Policies for adults and minors are also subject to the same flaws 

undermining the arbitration provision (above). Additionally, the Privacy Policies are too vague 

and ambiguous to place a reasonable user on notice. Backhaut v. Apple, 74 F.Supp.3d 1033 (N.D. 

Cal. 2014); Doe v. SuccessfulMatch.com, 70 F.Supp.3d 1066 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Further, the 

Privacy Policy for adults does not provide adequate disclosure of the conduct at issue, and the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:2815 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 6 of 21
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

26

27

28

7

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

Privacy Policy for minors is even narrower in scope. Finally, the scope of any alleged consent 

under the Privacy Policies is narrowly circumscribed by the stated purpose of the data siphoning, 

which has nothing to do with what Defendants are actually using the data for. In re Google Inc., 

2013 WL 5423918 (N.D. Cal. 2013); Opperman v. Path, Inc., 205 F.Supp.3d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 

2016). 

Personal Jurisdiction: Defendants Bytedance, Inc. and TikTok, Inc. are headquartered in 

California. Defendants Beijing ByteDance and Musical.ly, headquartered overseas, are subject to 

specific jurisdiction in California because they engaged and are engaging in conduct that has and 

had a direct, substantial, reasonably foreseeable, and intended effect of causing injury to persons 

throughout the United States, including in this District, and purposely availed themselves of the 

laws of the United States. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

The legal issues in dispute that will be addressed in Defendants’ motion to compel 

arbitration, motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim are too numerous to list with citations to statutes and authorities in this statement, but 

the following is a summary of the disputed points of law: 

• There is no law that prohibits a U.S. company from sharing its customer data with 

affiliates in other countries, even China. 

• There is no invasion of any personal right when an app shares user data with 

affiliates, service providers, and business partners if the app’s posted privacy policy 

discloses that the app will share it with them. 

• There is no invasion of a personal right when accessing and collecting user videos 

where, as here, the user has affirmatively granted permission for the app to access 

this content. 

• Plaintiff is bound by the arbitration and class action waiver clauses of the App’s 

Terms of Service. 

• Aside from TikTok, Inc., which operates the App, Plaintiff has sued the wrong 

defendants. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:2816 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 7 of 21
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

26

27

28

8

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

• This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants. 

• The class action waiver in the App’s Terms of Service precludes Plaintiff from 

asserting claims on behalf of a class. 

• The scope of the injunctive relief requested in Plaintiff’s Complaint is improper 

and should be stricken because it seeks to enjoin lawful conduct, such as the 

collection and use of user data where such collection and use is lawful and 

beneficial if adequately disclosed. 

• Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 

U.S.C. § 1030. 

• Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the California Comprehensive Data 

Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Pen. C. § 502. 

• Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the California Constitution. 

• Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion. 

• Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. 

• Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the California False Advertising Law. 

• Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for negligence. 

• Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for restitution / unjust enrichment. 

• The putative class cannot be certified under Rule 23 because Plaintiff alleges to be 

in such a unique position (a user who downloaded the app, refused to create an 

account, created videos with the app anyway, but chose to neither save nor upload 

those videos) that there is no typicality, commonality, or adequacy present 

sufficient to satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 23(a). 

• Defendants are entitled to judgement in their favor on Plaintiff’s claims in whole or 

in part based upon their respective affirmative defenses. 

IV. MOTIONS 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

There are no pending motions. Defendants’ potential motions are listed above. Plaintiff 

may need to file discovery motions depending on the responses Defendants provide to pending 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:2817 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 8 of 21
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

26

27

28

9

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

discovery requests. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

Defendants have not yet seen the amended complaint that Plaintiff states she intends to file 

on May 11, 2020. At the present time, Defendants anticipate filing the following motions: 

1. Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay this action pending arbitration; 

2. Motion to dismiss the Foreign Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction; and 

3. Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), including a 

motion to dismiss or strike some of Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. 

V. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

The original complaint will be amended to add parties and claims. Additional parties will 

include one or more California parent/child tandems as well as an Illinois adult and an Illinois 

parent/child tandem. New claims may include those under (i) the Illinois Biometric Information 

Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/ et seq., (ii) the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq., (iii) the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510 et seq.; (iv) the 

California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Pen. Code §§ 631, 632; (v) trespass to 

chattels/personal property; (vi) larceny under Cal. Pen. Code §§ 484, 496; and (vii) other privacyrelated statutes and common law. 

Plaintiff’s counsel request that the Court grant a May 11, 2020 deadline to file the 

amended complaint, and that the Court order Defendants to respond within 30 days. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

In light of the difficulties posed by the current shelter-in-place orders, Defendants do not 

oppose Plaintiff’s request to take until May 11, 2020 to amend the complaint, but any such 

amendment should focus on eliminating the defects in the complaint, not multiplying them. 

Contrary to Rule 11 and notions of judicial efficiency, Plaintiff proposes amending her complaint 

to add an additional seven causes of action to the eight already asserted, including claims that 

Plaintiff’s counsel knows lack a Rule 11 basis, such as “larceny” and violations of Illinois’ BIPA 

and the CCPA. Plaintiff should instead focus her amendments on removing improper defendants, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:2818 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 9 of 21
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

26

27

28

 10

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

such as the foreign defendants who do not operate the App, and removing improper claims that 

cannot be stated upon the facts alleged. 

In light of the proposal by Plaintiff to add additional plaintiffs to this action, and her 

contention that she never agreed to the arbitration agreement in the TikTok Terms of Service, 

Defendants would respectfully request (given the unknown and indefinite duration of the current 

shelter-in-place orders) that they be given 45 days following the filing of the amended complaint 

to, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, obtain discovery from the plaintiff(s) limited to their allegation that 

they never registered for the App or agreed to the App’s terms of service and arbitration 

agreement, and to then file a motion to compel arbitration if it appears those allegations are 

incorrect. 

If the motion to compel arbitration is filed, and if for any reason the motion to compel 

arbitration is denied in whole or in part, Defendants expect to file their Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 

12(b)(6) motions within 30 days thereafter. 

VI. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION 

The parties’ counsel have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of 

Electronically Stored Information, and have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) 

regarding reasonable and proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues 

reasonably evident in this action. 

VII. DISCLOSURES 

The parties have exchanged initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Plaintiff disclosed 

a list of individuals likely to have discoverable information, a list of potentially relevant 

documents, data compilations and tangible things, and a statement of the types of damages that 

Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff also represented that she is unaware of any relevant insurance policies. 

Defendants provided a short list of potential witnesses and relevant documents. Defendants also 

stated that they had no damages computation and that they are awaiting a “potential coverage 

decision.” (According to Defendants’ counsel, a negative decision was subsequently reached 

regarding insurance coverage.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:2819 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 10 of 21
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

26

27

28

 11 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

VIII. DISCOVERY 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

Plaintiff served each of the four named defendants with a set of requests for production and 

a set of interrogatories on March 2, 2020, and Plaintiff agreed to extend the deadline for 

Defendants’ responses to April 20, 2020. In addition to these written discovery requests, Plaintiff 

anticipates serving additional requests for production, interrogatories and requests for admission. 

Plaintiff also anticipates deposing Rule 30(b)(6) designee(s) for each Defendant as well as certain 

executives, engineers and employees presently and/or formerly employed by Defendants. There 

will be third party discovery as well, including but not limited to: (1) entities and individuals 

engaged in business activities – such as targeted advertising – with Defendants; (2) the owners of 

the analytic libraries embedded within the App; (3) outside consultants hired by Defendants to 

analyze their data storage and transmission practices; and (4) entities with knowledge of 

Defendants’ data practices and the value of such data. 

The parties are negotiating a stipulated protective order for litigation involving highly 

sensitive confidential information that is based in large part on the model provided by the 

Northern District of California. Plaintiff anticipates reaching an agreement in the near term but, if 

not, Plaintiff will file a noticed motion asking the Court to enter such a protective order. 

Plaintiff proposes the following discovery plan under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3): 

(A) No changes to the disclosure requirements under Rule 26(a).

(B) Discovery should be completed by Spring 2021 as set forth below. Discovery will be 

needed on the topics raised in the complaint and summarized in the fact section above. There is no 

current need for phased discovery. 

(C) The parties should abide by the Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored 

Information that are promulgated by the United States District Court for the District of California, 

as well as the representation made during the February 12, 2020 discussions between counsel for 

the parties. To the extent that Defendants believe there is any tension between (i) their 

preservation obligations in this action and (ii) a court order, statutory requirement or other legal 

obligation, it is incumbent upon Defendants to raise that issue in a timely fashion, allow for 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:2820 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 11 of 21
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

26

27

28

 12 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

counsel to meet and confer in order to attempt to resolve the issue, and if necessary, allow for 

motion practice in this action to resolve any dispute among the parties. 

(D) There are currently no known claims of privilege. 

(E) Plaintiff believes that, given the number of Defendants and issues in the case, it may be 

necessary to expand the number of depositions beyond ten (10). Plaintiff believes the parties 

should continue to meet and confer on this issue as the identity of the deponents becomes clearer. 

Plaintiff does not agree with Defendants that merits discovery should await resolution of 

Defendants’ various planned motions. Any requested stay should be supported by a noticed 

motion to be heard in a timely fashion. Plaintiff also does not believe that Defendants’ stated 

intent to serve incomplete discovery responses on April 20 is appropriate or necessary. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

Discovery on the merits should await resolution of the motion to compel arbitration, 

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and any challenge to the pleadings to avoid 

wasting court and party resources. Nevertheless, Defendants have expended considerable 

resources since receiving Plaintiff’s discovery requests to preserve, collect, and prepare to produce 

information responsive to those requests. Defendants’ forthcoming responses to those requests (to 

be served April 20) will identify the documents it intends to produce, pending a determination on 

the arbitration issue and jurisdictional issues, and information that cannot be produced without a 

further meet and confer between the parties. 

If this action does proceed to discovery, Defendants will need to seek discovery concerning 

Plaintiff’s downloading, access, and use of the App; Plaintiff’s registration of an account on the 

App; Plaintiff’s interaction with the App’s Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and other 

agreements; Plaintiff’s understanding of how the App operates; and Plaintiff’s alleged damages. 

IX. CLASS ACTIONS 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

Plaintiff’s counsel has reviewed the Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. 

Plaintiff proposes that Plaintiff file her motion for class certification within a year of the Court’s 

orders concerning Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:2821 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 12 of 21
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

26

27

28

 13

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

Plaintiff and the other soon-to-be-added plaintiffs each satisfy the commonality, typicality 

and adequacy requirements, and individual issues do not predominate. Because these class 

certification issues are not yet ripe, they can be addressed at greater length at a later date. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

The TikTok App’s Terms of Service contains a class action waiver which precludes 

Plaintiff from asserting her claims on behalf of a class of plaintiffs. Even if Plaintiff were not 

contractually precluded from asserting class claims, the alleged putative class could not be 

certified under the requirements of Rule 23 because the claims of the putative class members lack 

sufficient commonality, Plaintiff’s claims are not typical of the putative class, Plaintiff is not an 

adequate representatives of the putative class, and individual issues will predominate. Specifically, 

Plaintiff alleges that she is in a peculiar and unusual position because she downloaded the app, did 

not notice its privacy policy, did not create a user account, created videos with the app anyway, 

and then chose not to save or upload those videos. Plaintiff also downloaded a version of the app 

that has long been replaced with an updated version that does not include most of the features of 

which Plaintiff complains. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not in the same position as the typical user 

who either creates an account or never uses the app to create any user content. 

Counsel of record for the Defendants have reviewed the Procedural Guidance for Class 

Action Settlements. 

X. RELATED CASES 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

While not related cases under the Local Rules, Plaintiff notes in the interest of 

completeness that there are at least three other lawsuits against Defendants raising certain privacy 

issues, including the following: (i) United States v. Musical.ly et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01439 

(United States District Court, Central District of California); (ii) B.M. through her mother Ashley 

Scott v. Musical.ly et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-06851 (United States District Court, Central District of 

California); and (iii) T.K. through her motion Sherri Leshore et al. v. ByteDance Technology Co., 

Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07915 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois). 

The first case was resolved through a Stipulated Order for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:2822 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 13 of 21
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

26

27

28

 14 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

and Other Relief. The second case was dismissed by plaintiff. There is an Order Granting 

Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Direction of Notice under Rule 23(e) in the third 

case. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

Currently, this action is not related to any other action. If Plaintiff attempts to certify a 

class that includes children under 13 who used the app and allegedly had their personal 

information collected without consent, this action would be related to T.K. v. ByteDance 

Technology Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07915 (N.D. Ill.). Final approval of a class

settlement in that action is pending and has been delayed by COVID-19 orders. There are no other 

related actions currently pending. 

XI. RELIEF 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

Plaintiff seeks an order for injunctive relief, including but not limited to the following two 

items: 

First, Defendants shall be enjoined from: (i) transmitting user data to China, to other 

locations or facilities where such user data is accessible from within China, and/or to anyone 

outside the defendant companies; (ii) taking users’ videos and biometric data without advanced 

notice to, and the prior written consent of, such users; and (iii) taking location tracking data, 

device ID data, personally-identifiable data and any other user data except that which Defendants 

can show to be reasonably necessary for the lawful operation of the App within the United States. 

Second, Defendants shall: (a) destroy the data they already have taken in violation of law; 

(b) remove from the App all SDKs based in China or whose data is otherwise accessible from 

within China; (c) implement protocols to ensure that no data of U.S. users is transmitted to, or 

otherwise accessible from within, China; (d) hire third-party monitors for a period of at least five 

years to ensure that all of the above steps have been taken; and (e) provide written verifications on 

a quarterly basis to the court and counsel for the Plaintiffs in the form of a declaration under oath 

that the above steps have been satisfied. 

Because discovery has not yet occurred and because Plaintiff has not yet had complete 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:2823 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 14 of 21
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

26

27

28

 15

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

access to information relating to, among other things, the total number of potential class members 

subjected to Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and the profits and revenues Defendants derived from 

the targeted advertising, patents and artificial intelligence based upon users’ private and personally 

identifiable information, any computation or estimate of any category of damages is premature. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiff and the proposed class and sub-classes seek actual damages, statutory 

damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

Defendants dispute that Plaintiff has suffered any injury to be redressed or that Plaintiff is 

otherwise entitled to any relief. Defendants will seek legal fees, costs and other expenses to the 

extent permitted by applicable law. Damages in this case will be a subject of expert discovery. 

XII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR 

The Parties have conferred with respect to ADR options pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-5. The 

parties attended a mediation before former United States District Judge Layn Phillips of Phillips 

ADR on April 6, 2020. No settlement was reached. Both resolution of Defendants’ anticipated 

early motions and further development of fact discovery have the potential to motivate the parties 

to engage in further settlement negotiations. 

XIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES 

Whether all parties will consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings 

including trial and entry of judgment: ___ Yes __X_ No 

XIV. OTHER REFERENCES 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

No other references are suitable. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

In the unlikely event that the class settlement in T.K. v. ByteDance Technology Co., Ltd. et 

al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07915 (N.D. Ill.) is not finally approved by the court, Defendants may file a 

motion for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to 

have that action transferred to this Court or vice versa. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:2824 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 15 of 21
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

26

27

28

 16

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

XV. NARROWING OF ISSUES 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

There is no need to bifurcate issues, claims or defenses. Plaintiff’s counsel does not believe 

that any narrowing of issues is needed at this time. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

All of the issues in this action are subject to mandatory arbitration under the TikTok App’s 

Terms of Service. Even if the action were not referable to arbitration, the action would need to be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. If the action were to proceed past the pleadings phase, the 

remainder of the action could be resolved on summary judgment. 

XVI. EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE 

At this time, the parties do not believe that this is the type of case that can be handled 

under the Expedited Trial Procedure of General Order No. 64 Attachment A. 

XVII. SCHEDULING 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

Plaintiff proposes the following schedule: 

(1) Designation of experts: December 18, 2020 

(2) Discovery cutoff: March 19, 2021 

(3) Hearing of dispositive motions: June 30, 2021 

(4) Pretrial conference: September 30, 2021 

(5) Trial: October 18, 2021 

As noted above, Plaintiff does not believe that merits discovery should be stayed. Nor does 

Plaintiff believe that the phased briefing schedule proposed by Defendants serves any purpose 

other than delay. Defendants should file their anticipated motions within 30 days from the date the 

amended complaint is filed. At a minimum, there is no reason why one Defendant’s filing of a 

motion to compel arbitration should relieve the other three Defendants from their obligation to 

respond to the amended complaint by filing their motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. That is a threshold issue for those three Defendants. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:2825 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 16 of 21
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

26

27

28

 17

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

B. Defendants’ Position 

Because this action is subject to arbitration, and also to dismissal as to the Foreign 

Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, merits discovery should await resolution of the 

motion to compel arbitration and any subsequent challenge to the pleadings. If any part of the 

action survives after that point, the Parties can meet and confer regarding an appropriate schedule 

for the action. Nevertheless, if the Court would instead prefer to set a schedule now, Defendants 

propose the following schedule to give sufficient time for resolution of the anticipated motions: 

Event Proposed Date

Deadline for Plaintiff to file Amended 

Complaint 

5/11/20 

Deadline for Defendants to file Motion to 

Compel Arbitration (or Rule 12(b)(2) and 

12(b)(6) motions if no motion to compel 

arbitration) 

6/25/20 

Deadline for Defendants to file Rule 

12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) motions 

30 days after the Court rules on the Motion 

to Compel Arbitration 

Class Discovery Start Date 9/30/20 or 14 days after Defendants file 

their answer

Plaintiff to designate experts in support of 

class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 26(a)(2)(A)

10/21/20 or 21 days after Class Discovery 

Start Date

Defendants to designate experts in 

opposition to class certification pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(2)(A)

11/4/20 or 35 days after Class Discovery 

Start Date

Deadline for Plaintiff to file Motion for 

Class Certification

12/9/20 or 70 days after Class Discovery 

Start Date

Deadline for Defendants to file Opposition 

to Motion for Class Certification

1/13/21 or 105 days after Class Discovery 

Start Date

Deadline for Plaintiff to file Reply in 

Support of Motion for Class Certification

1/27/21 or 119 days after Class Discovery 

Start Date

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:2826 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 17 of 21
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

26

27

28

 18

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

Hearing on Motion for Class Certification 2/10/21 or 133 days after Class Discovery 

Start Date or as the Court’s calendar 

permits

Merits Discovery Start Date 2/24/21 or 1 day after order re class 

certification

Merits Discovery End Date 7/14/21 or 140 days after Merits Discovery 

Start Date 

Deadline for Plaintiff to designate experts 

for trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 

26(a)(2)(A)

7/28/21 or 14 days after Merits Discovery 

End Date

Deadline for Defendants to designate 

experts for trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 26(a)(2)(A)

8/11/21 or 28 days after Merits Discovery 

End Date

Deposition of Experts Complete 9/8/21 or 56 days after Merits Discovery 

End Date 

Dispositive Motions 10/20/21 or 42 days after Deposition of 

Experts Complete

Oppositions to Dispositive Motions 12/1/21 or 42 days after motions filed 

Replies in Support of Dispositive Motions 12/29/21 or 28 days after motions filed 

Trial Date 5/1/22 or 91 days after ruling on 

dispositive motions 

XVIII.TRIAL 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

Plaintiff requests a jury trial and anticipates that 3-4 weeks will be required to conduct that 

trial. 

B. Defendants’ Position 

Defendants anticipate one week for trial and are willing to stipulate to a bench trial. 

XIX. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 

A. Plaintiff’s Position 

Plaintiff has filed the Certification of Interested Entities or Persons pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 3-15. Plaintiff has no changes to that Certification. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:2827 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 18 of 21
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

26

27

28

 19

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

B. Defendants’ Position 

Defendants have filed the Certification of Interested Entities or Persons pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 3-15. That certification identified the following potentially interested non-parties: 

ByteDance Ltd., TikTok Ltd., TikTok LLC, and Bytedance Co., Ltd. 

XX. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 

The parties’ counsel have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the 

Northern District of California. 

DATED: April 15, 2020 By: /s/ Marc E. Masters 

Ekwan E. Rhow - State Bar No. 174604 

 erhow@birdmarella.com 

Thomas R. Freeman - State Bar No. 135392 

 tfreeman@birdmarella.com 

Marc E. Masters - State Bar No. 208375 

 mmasters@birdmarella.com 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561 

Telephone: (310) 201-2100 

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 

DATED: April 15, 2020 By: /s/ Jonathan M. Rotter 

Marc L. Godino – State Bar No. 182689 

Jonathan M. Rotter – State Bar No. 234137 

Pavithra Rajesh – State Bar No. 323055 

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561 

Telephone: (310) 201-9150 

info@glancylaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Misty Hong 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:2828 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 19 of 21
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

26

27

28

 20

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

DATED: April 15, 2020 By: /s/ Anthony J Weibell 

DAVID S. STEUER, State Bar No. 127059 

ANTHONY J WEIBELL, State Bar No. 238850 

CURTIS S. KOWALK, State Bar No. 324770 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: aweibell@wsgr.com; dsteuer@wsgr.com; 

ckowalk@wsgr.com 

VICTOR JIH, State Bar No. 186515 

RYAN S. BENYAMIN, State Bar No. 322594 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027 

Telephone: (323) 210-2900 

Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 

Email: vjih@wsgr.com; rbenyamin@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:2829 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 20 of 21
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

26

27

28

 21 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 15th day of April 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Joint Case Management Conference Statement with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system, thereby serving all parties and counsel of record. 

/s/ Marc E. Masters

 Marc E. Masters 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 142-5 Filed: 04/02/21 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:2830 Case 5:19-cv-07792-LHK Document 30 Filed 04/15/20 Page 21 of 21