EXHIBIT 8 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-9 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:142
Saturday, August 22, 2020 at 10:00:36 PM Central Daylight Time

Page 1 of 6

Subject: RE: TikTok Plain-ffs' Counsel Meet and Confer

Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 9:55:30 AM Central Daylight Time

From: Katrina Carroll

To: Ekwan E. Rhow, dgirard@girardsharp.com, jelias@girardsharp.com, apolk@girardsharp.com,

Benjamin F. Johns, bmm@chimicles.com, Kyle Shamberg, Nicholas Lange, Lesley Weaver,

akeller@dicelloleviV.com, dmillen@Wlmlaw.com, bhogan@Wlmlaw.com, Jon Jagher,

kjus-ce@Wlmlaw.com, jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com, dherrera@caffertyclobes.com,

nhagman@caffertyclobes.com, rrg@gordonlawchicago.com, Joseph Sauder,

tyiatras@gmail.com, casey@lawofficeflynn.com, francisflynn@gmail.com,

jbk@sstriallawyers.com, Tina Wolfson, Robert Ahdoot, Ted Maya, bking@ahdootwolfson.com,

rstephan@stephanzouras.com, jzouras@stephanzouras.com, aficzko@stephanzouras.com,

mshannon@stephanzouras.com, elangeland@langelandlaw.com, jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com,

\o]ni@bo]nilaw.com, achang@bo]nilaw.com, ykolesnikov@bo]nilaw.com,

jcotcheV@cpmlegal.com, mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com, tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com,

nrahman@cpmlegal.com, ehg@classlawgroup.com, dmb@classlawgroup.com,

jbk@classlawgroup.com, william.a.baird.1@gmail.com, jguglielmo@scoV-scoV.com,

ecomite@scoV-scoV.com, jpe]grew@scoV-scoV.com, ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net,

Wichmann@onderlaw.com, Onder@onderlaw.com, ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com, Kalpana

Srinivasan, mgervais@susmangodfrey.com, ecc@fmcolaw.com, kcc@fmcolaw.com,

rmf@fmcolaw.com, beth@feganscoV.com, melissa@feganscoV.com,

jonathan@feganscoV.com

CC: Marc E. Masters, Tom R. Freeman, Jonathan RoVer, Marc L. Godino, Kara Wolke, Lionel Glancy,

David M. Given, Nicholas A. Carlin, James Pizzirusso, Megan E. Jones, Amanda Klevorn, Korey

Nelson

ADachments: image001.png

Ekwan:

Thank you for your email.

As you know, all cases (except for your consolidated ac-on) were represented at the media-on and ac-vely

par-cipated in the nego-a-ons. Further, representa-ves from all cases have con-nually communicated

throughout the history of this case and we con-nue to do so now. To the extent that your email represents

some reconsidera-on of your prior posi-on and a newfound aVempt at collabora-on with co-counsel beyond

your group, we welcome you. As you are aware, we have previously reached out to you in an effort to

establish a collabora-ve and coopera-ve rela-onship among all plain-ffs’ counsel in this case. We are

heartened that you now appear to be recep-ve.

At this point, however, we do not believe it is appropriate for us to join your effort to force Defendant to

provide informa-on regarding the seVlement terms to you. If you choose to proceed with your demand to

defense counsel, we will take no posi-on on it. While we have always supported the idea of you par-cipa-ng

in the media-on and receiving informa-on regarding the pending seVlement, we simply see no benefit to be

gained for the class in making such a demand of Defendant at this -me, which could derail the hard-fought

seVlement which we have worked for months to resolve on mutually agreeable terms and with the assistance

of a seasoned and tremendously respected mediator. Of course, once the seVlement is made public, we

would welcome any dialogue that would lead to the best possible result for the class. We understand your

concern that 90 days is too long to withhold seVlement terms and to allay that, we will explore with

Defendant a poten-al compromise that would make the terms available sooner.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-9 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:143
Page 2 of 6

For now, we see no need to deviate from the typical process of seVlement approval. Quite frankly, Ekwan,

your request to now receive the seVlement informa-on in advance of its public disclosure appears to be

somewhat at odds with your posi-on regarding par-cipa-on in the media-on process, and adds to the list of

decisions you have made in this case that appear to be driven more by your personal interest in securing

control over the li-ga-on than what is in the best interest of our collec-ve clients and the class. Briefly, the

history is as follows:

1. On June 3, 2020, we invited all counsel- including you (meaning, Bird Marella)- to par-cipate in

the media-on. Despite having mediated already with Judge Phillips, albeit unsuccessfully, you

immediately declined. Your stated reason for declining was that you would prefer to await Judge

Koh’s appointment of interim lead counsel in the consolidated Northern District of California

cases. You also indicated to all counsel that you would be pursuing interven-on in our case for

purposes of dismissal and transfer and circulated Judge Lee’s briefing order. 

2. On June 4, 2020, despite your having filed interven-on papers in our case, we again reached out

to all counsel. Because we did not want to forego an opportunity to pursue meaningful relief for

the class, and recognizing the procedural status of the cases, we suggested that all counsel in the

Northern District of California cases could self-order for purposes of media-on or else pursue

expedited leadership proceedings before Judge Koh to alleviate the concerns raised regarding the

appointment of leadership prior to the media-on. You declined to pursue either of these

sugges-ons and dug in on your refusal to par-cipate in the media-on process.

3. On June 8, 2020, we held an organiza-onal conference call among all counsel to discuss the

media-on, our nego-a-on strategy and how best to proceed. Representa-ves from all of the

districts par-cipated on that call. You declined.

4. On June 8, 2020, in our prepara-ons for media-on, we asked you to provide us with the

informa-on exchanged during your prior media-on with Judge Phillips so that those par-cipa-ng

in the next round would have a clearer picture of everything that happened. In response, without

any basis whatsoever, you accused us of improperly rushing to media-on and being unprepared. 

You declined to share any informa-on with us regarding the prior media-on, even though

Defendant was willing to waive the media-on privilege Your decision was shockingly at odds with

the best interests of the class and appeared to be driven by your desire to maintain some type of

proprietary, self-serving interest over the history of the nego-a-ons with the Defendant.

5. On June 12, 2020, we learned that certain counsel in your consolidated ac-on (who were invited

to par-cipate in the media-on along with everyone else) contacted defense counsel insis-ng that

TikTok to pull out of the media-on and accusing us of aVemp-ng to conduct a “reverse auc-on.”

Hence, wholly apart from merely refusing to par-cipate in the media-on, your group

affirma-vely aVempted to thwart a seVlement opportunity for the class. And of course, the

accusa-on of a “reverse auc-on” was completely baseless, since we had been con-nually invi-ng

you to aVend the media-on and nego-ate collabora-vely with us. Again, it appeared that your

mo-va-ons leaned toward self-interest over the needs of the class.

6. On June 16, 2020, we reiterated our request that you allow us to know what happened at your

prior media-on. You again declined.

7. On June 23, 2020, you filed a reply brief in support of your interven-on mo-on in our court that

asserted that Northern District of Illinois counsel somehow conspired with defense in filing a joint

response brief opposing interven-on. When you were informed that Judge Lee had, in fact,

ordered us to file the joint brief, you refused to correct your misrepresenta-on with the court.

8. On July 17, 2020, we congratulated you on your appointment as lead for the Northern District of

California case, told you we’d like to set our differences aside to ensure produc-ve collabora-on,

and again, invited you to par-cipate in media-on. You responded the same day, asked us to copy

Marc Masters on all communica-ons going forward despite your having been appointed as lead

counsel, and reiterated your prior refusal to par-cipate in the media-on.

9. On July 30, 2020, we argued the MDL. During the argument, the panel was concerned about

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-9 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:144
Page 3 of 6

your refusal to par-cipate in media-on. You confirmed at the argument that you would not

aVend. You did not reconsider your refusal in the days following the argument.

10. Meanwhile, during our July and early August discussions with the mediator’s office, we learned

that your group contacted the mediator without our prior knowledge or authoriza-on to interfere

in the media-on process by aVemp-ng to discourage the mediator from allowing us to proceed. 

In fact, your group created such a significant distrac-on that we had to devote substan-al -me

and effort to addressing your aVempts at interference in the days- and even hours- leading all the

way up to the media-on. 

11. On August 4, 2020, aper the MDL panel issued its ruling sending the cases to Northern District of

Illinois, you suddenly reached out, indica-ng your willingness to be included in the media-on. 

(Again, a reversal of posi-on that appeared to be mo-vated by self-interest rather than the best

interest of the plain-ffs and the class.) Thereaper, even though we were very well-organized and

had prepared for media-on for over two months, we made every effort to include your group and

even reserved two in-person spots (of only eight available) for you and Megan (your group’s

“seVlement” counsel). Even when defense counsel raised issues concerning a perceived conflict

with your firm’s par-cipa-on, we implored them to allow you to aVend. We tried to assist you in

resolving the personal dispute between your firm and defense counsel, which threatened the

integrity of the en-re media-on and would rob the class of a unique opportunity at seVlement

given the poli-cal climate as well as TikTok’s ongoing discussions with poten-al acquirors. When

this dispute surfaced again in the final days preceding the media-on, we even went so far as to

suggest several avenues that you could explore with defense counsel. One of our sugges-ons

was to use our mediator to work through these issues separately, the day before the media-on,

to eliminate the distrac-on. We do not know all the details of your discussions, but our

understanding is that you did not fully pursue all of your available op-ons. Nor would you agree

that Megan could par-cipate in your stead, something that the Defendant agreed to permit.

12. And finally, the day before the media-on, we asked you again whether you would waive

confiden-ality so that we wouldn’t waste our -me bidding against the class. Your response was

to condi-on your providing us with informa-on concerning the prior media-on on your personal

aVendance at the media-on. We fail to understand how holding this informa-on hostage

benefiVed the class in any way. You lep us (and the class) no choice but to nego-ate in a

vacuum. Even now, you s-ll have not shared what happened at your media-on, even though the

Defendant has expressly consented for you to share such informa-on. This is yet another

example of conduct which appears to be calculated to serve your personal interest in controlling

this li-ga-on, rather than serving the needs and interests of our collec-ve clients and the class.

Ekwan, as this makes clear, from the very outset, we have aVempted to include all counsel (including you up

un-l the final hours preceding the media-on) in the media-on process for the benefit of the class. Conversely

and to the detriment of the class, you and/or other counsel from your consolidated case have refused our

numerous aVempts at coopera-on, implored defense counsel not to mediate with us and also interfered with

the integrity of the seVlement process by contac-ng the mediator for the purpose of denying the class the

opportunity of a favorable, nego-ated resolu-on to this li-ga-on. Notwithstanding these subversive ac-ons,

we con-nue to recognize the value of full par-cipa-on and welcome the opportunity to work together as we

try to move the seVlement towards final approval.

As you know, we now have reached a tenta-ve seVlement of the claims in this case, with the majority of the

cases in the MDL ac-vely par-cipa-ng. We intend to present that seVlement to the court in the normal

course. Given that the case is seVled, we see no benefit to the class whatsoever of engaging with you in

standard “li-ga-on track” discussions (discovery, class cer-fica-on, etc.) which are now moot. CMO No. 1

provides for an appropriate meet and confer to discuss li-ga-on decisions and the filing of a proposed case

management schedule, but only “to the extent applicable.” (See CMO No. 1 at ¶9(d), 9(f)). The discussions

you are sugges-ng are not at all applicable now. Of course, we are happy to discuss whatever is ripe and

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-9 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:145
Page 4 of 6

makes sense.

Best,

Katrina Carroll

Jon Jagher

KATRINA CARROLL

Partner

CARLSON LYNCH LLP

111 W. Washington Street

Suite 1240

Chicago, IL 60602

Main: 312.750.1265

Direct: 312.750.1591

Fax: 773.598.5609

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

carlsonlynch.com

From: Ekwan E. Rhow <erhow@birdmarella.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:36 PM

To: Katrina Carroll <kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com>; dgirard@girardsharp.com; jelias@girardsharp.com;

apolk@girardsharp.com; bv@chimicles.com; bmm@chimicles.com; Kyle Shamberg

<kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com>; Nicholas Lange <nlange@carlsonlynch.com>; lweaver@bfalaw.com;

akeller@dicelloleviV.com; dmillen@Wlmlaw.com; bhogan@Wlmlaw.com; Jon Jagher <jjagher@Wlmlaw.com>;

kjus-ce@Wlmlaw.com; jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com; dherrera@caffertyclobes.com;

nhagman@caffertyclobes.com; rrg@gordonlawchicago.com; jgs@sstriallawyers.com; tyiatras@gmail.com;

casey@lawofficeflynn.com; francisflynn@gmail.com; jbk@sstriallawyers.com;

twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com; rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com; tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com;

bking@ahdootwolfson.com; rstephan@stephanzouras.com; jzouras@stephanzouras.com;

aficzko@stephanzouras.com; mshannon@stephanzouras.com; elangeland@langelandlaw.com;

jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com; \o]ni@bo]nilaw.com; achang@bo]nilaw.com; ykolesnikov@bo]nilaw.com;

jcotcheV@cpmlegal.com; mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com; tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com;

nrahman@cpmlegal.com; ehg@classlawgroup.com; dmb@classlawgroup.com; jbk@classlawgroup.com;

william.a.baird.1@gmail.com; jguglielmo@scoV-scoV.com; ecomite@scoV-scoV.com; jpe]grew@scoVscoV.com; ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net; Wichmann@onderlaw.com; Onder@onderlaw.com;

ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com; Kalpana Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com>;

mgervais@susmangodfrey.com; ecc@fmcolaw.com; kcc@fmcolaw.com; rmf@fmcolaw.com;

beth@feganscoV.com; melissa@feganscoV.com; jonathan@feganscoV.com

Cc: Marc E. Masters <mmasters@birdmarella.com>; Tom R. Freeman <wreeman@birdmarella.com>;

Jonathan RoVer <jroVer@glancylaw.com>; Marc L. Godino <mgodino@glancylaw.com>; Kara Wolke

<KWolke@glancylaw.com>; Lionel Glancy <LGlancy@glancylaw.com>; David M. Given <DMG@phillaw.com>;

Nicholas A. Carlin <NAC@phillaw.com>; James Pizzirusso <jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com>; Megan E. Jones

<mjones@hausfeld.com>; Amanda Klevorn <aklevorn@burnscharest.com>; Korey Nelson

<knelson@burnscharest.com>

Subject: TikTok Plain-ffs' Counsel Meet and Confer

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-9 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:146
Page 5 of 6

Dear Counsel –

I’m writing on behalf of my firm and the other four law firms who were appointed by Judge Lucy H.

Koh to the interim leadership group in the Northern District of California. Pursuant to Judge John Z.

Lee’s August 17, 2020 Case Management Order No. 1 (the “CMO”), all counsel in the cases listed in

Exhibit A thereto are now Interim Counsel and have been ordered to meet and confer on certain issues.

I’m writing to begin that process.

First, our five firms intend to send a letter to Defendants by noon PST tomorrow demanding they

reveal all the terms of their potential settlement. All designated Interim Counsel are entitled to know

those terms pursuant to the CMO and because they pertain to our respective clients and the class in

general. We will advise Defendants that we will stipulate to the standard mediation confidentiality

provisions to protect that information from improper disclosure. If you would like to sign on to our

letter demand, please let us know by 10 a.m. PST tomorrow and we will circulate a draft to you. We

are hopeful that the firms who participated in the August 13 mediation will join in the request that all

Interim Counsel be given the opportunity to see the terms and discuss the potential settlement and

contingencies that are present.

Next, the CMO mandates that all Interim Counsel participate in a meet and confer with Defendants

concerning discovery, class certification, experts, dispositive motions, and settlement prior to the filing

of a joint proposed case management schedule on September 8. We would like to suggest a meet and

confer internally among all plaintiffs’ counsel to see if we can reach a consensus on these issues before

discussing them with Defendants. Please let us know your availability next Monday or Tuesday for

this discussion. That will allow enough time to receive a response from Defendants on our demand for

the terms of the potential settlement, which are part of this meet and confer.

Finally, the CMO directs all Interim Counsel to meet and confer about leadership and liaison counsel,

and to attempt to reach consensus before filing any motions/applications by the September 8 deadline.

We would like to have these discussions as a group next Monday or Tuesday as well. Please advise of

your availability. 

We recognize that, even beyond the terms of the CMO, Judge Lee may have a different approach to

lead appointments than does Judge Koh. We seek an approach that is as inclusive as possible and are

interested in any and all input. We look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, 

Ekwan Rhow

Kara Wolke

David Given

Megan Jones

Amanda Klevorn

Ekwan E. Rhow 

Principal

O: 310.201.2100 

F: 310.201.2110 

E: erhow@birdmarella.com

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, 

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-9 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:147
Page 6 of 6

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561 

www.BirdMarella.com

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-9 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:148