625954.3 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

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 )

LITIGATING PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO 

THE EMERGENCY MOTION

There is an emergency here, and the fact that Defendants fail to recognize the urgency gives 

the Litigating Plaintiffs even greater pause. Defendants’ dire situation threatens both the Class’s 

ability to prove its case and its ability to collect from the liable parties. Defendants’ response has 

been to violate the Court’s Case Management Order No. 1 (the “CMO”) and place the Class at 

greater risk with each passing day. This is a strategic choice intended for the Defendants to gain 

tactical advantage. The Litigating Plaintiffs reply briefly to each of Defendants’ arguments in their 

Opposition to the Emergency Motion, Doc. No. 16: 

First, Defendants suggest that they have met and conferred and further imply they are 

willing to meet and confer concerning settlement as directed by the CMO, Doc. No. 4, but that is 

false. To be absolutely clear, Defendants repeatedly refused – and continue to refuse – to disclose 

the contents of their purported settlement in principle, and have barred the Litigating Plaintiffs and 

Interim Counsel who do not represent the Settling Plaintiffs from any participation in the attendant 

ongoing negotiations.

1 Defendants’ idea of meeting and conferring on settlement, as required by the 

 

1 Evidence of Defendants’ refusal to disclose the purported settlement terms and conditions, and 

refusal to allow all Interim Counsel to participate in settlement talks, is found in their (1) public 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:235
625954.3 Page 2 of 7

CMO, is to tell the Litigating Plaintiffs and Interim Counsel who do not represent the Settling 

Plaintiffs that they will find out about the settlement in late October. That conduct violates the 

Court’s CMO and its mandate to meet and confer on “settlement” prior to the September 8 joint 

report. Due to the circumstances set forth in the moving papers, Doc. Nos. 11-12, Defendants’ 

conduct threatens the Class with irreparable harm.

Second, as to preservation, Defendants notably fail to address two key considerations raised 

in the motion: (a) that after the impending deal, the China-based Defendants will have no ties to the 

United States; and (b) that the August 14 Executive Order requires the destruction of data in China, 

where much of the key evidence resides. Defendants claim that all relevant data will be transferred 

to an acquirer, but in fact, Defendants’ systems will not be transferred wholesale. To the contrary, 

intricate surgery to separate TikTok from Defendants’ China-based operations is underway—surgery 

that would be unnecessary had Defendants’ repeated public statements about U.S. user data not 

being accessible in China been true.2 Defendants’ omission of this critical fact intensifies the urgency 

of this matter. In view of these circumstances, Defendants’ plea to “trust us” is insufficient. Also,

while Defendants take the position that evidence in the hands of the acquirer is exempt from the 

August 14 Executive Order to destroy data, that is unclear and steps must be taken to ensure that a 

compliant alternative is adopted. Finally, the CMO requires the parties to meet and confer on 

discovery prior to the September 8 joint report, but Defendants have refused to do so, claiming the 

issue is moot in light of their secret purported settlement, and have merely asserted that the data will 

be transferred. These circumstances call out for immediate Court supervision, potentially by a special 

master.

 

filings in this case, Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 8; (2) communications with undersigned Interim Counsel, Rhow 

Decl. at ¶¶ 5-9, 15-24; and (3) Opposition to the Emergency Motion, Doc. No. 16.

2

See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tiktok-cybersecurity-exclusive/exclusive-microsoftfaces-complex-technical-challenges-in-tiktok-carveout-idUSKCN256100 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:236
625954.3 Page 3 of 7

Third, Defendants rely on the straw man argument that the potential acquiring parties are 

large, solvent companies. The problem for the Class is that, depending on the deal structure, the 

solvency of an asset acquirer may become irrelevant should that deal structure insulate the acquirer 

from liability to the Class. Thus, the acquirer’s purported solvency may not ensure the Class’s ability 

to recover and, by that time, the China-based Defendants will have no ties or assets in the U.S.

Finally, Defendants raise irrelevant arguments about objections to a settlement. The cases 

cited by Defendants are inapposite: the Litigating Plaintiffs are not objectors. The undersigned are 

Interim Counsel, and are withholding judgment on the substance of the settlement, which has been 

concealed; at this point the Litigating Plaintiffs have raised concerns only about the process and 

violations of the CMO. What the Litigating Plaintiffs request is a court order directing Defendants 

to permit all Interim Counsel, as part of their meet and confer duties with respect to “settlement” 

under the CMO prior to the September 8 joint report, to participate in the ongoing negotiations 

concerning the purported settlement. That does not make anyone an objector, but rather, it ensures 

that all Interim Counsel participate in the ongoing negotiations where they can better protect the 

Class. Defendants are attempting to use a purported settlement reached at a structurally-flawed 

mediation to achieve a de facto stay of the case, including by violating the Court’s CMO. In the fastmoving circumstances presented by the sale of TikTok, that threatens the Class with irreparable 

harm for the reasons in the moving papers. Doc. Nos. 11-12.

Despite the obvious emergency described in the moving papers, Doc. Nos. 11-12, 

Defendants seek a briefing schedule that would have the Emergency Motion decided after the

September 20 sale deadline and also after the parties’ joint report is due on September 8 pursuant to 

the CMO, thus cementing Defendants’ violation, injuring the Class, and depriving the Court of the 

benefit of full compliance with its Order. The undersigned Interim Counsel respectfully request that 

the Court set an expedited hearing to immediately address these ongoing and serious violations.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:237
625954.3 Page 4 of 7

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: August 28, 2020 BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

By: /s/ Ekwan E. Rhow

Ekwan E. Rhow

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,

NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG 

& RHOW, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Email: erhow@birdmarella.com

MDL Interim Counsel 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Misty Hong, minor A.S., 

through her mother and legal guardian Laurel 

Slothower, and minor A.R., through her mother and 

legal guardian Gilda Avila

DATED: August 28, 2020 GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

By: /s/ Kara M. Wolke

Kara M. Wolke

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-9150

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Email: info@glancylaw.com

MDL Interim Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Misty Hong, minor A.S., 

through her mother and legal guardian Laurel 

Slothower, and minor A.R., through her mother and 

legal guardian Gilda Avila

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:238
625954.3 Page 5 of 7

DATED: August 28, 2020 PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP

By: /s/ David M. Given

David M. Given

39 Mesa Street, Suite 201, The Presidio

San Francisco, CA 94129

Telephone: (415) 398-0900

Email: dmg@phillaw.com

MDL Interim Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Meghan Smith, minors C.W. 

and I.W., through their mother and legal guardian 

Mikhaila Woodall, and minor R.P., through her 

mother and legal guardian Lynn Pavalon

DATED: August 28, 2020 HAUSFELD LLP

By: /s/ Megan E. Jones

Megan E. Jones

600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 633-1908

Email: mjones@hausfeld.com

MDL Interim Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiffs minor P.S., through her legal 

guardian Cherise Slate, and minor M.T.W., through 

her legal guardian, Brenda Washington

DATED: August 28, 2020 BURNS CHAREST LLP

By: /s/ Amanda Klevorn

Amanda Klevorn

365 Canal Street, Suite 1170

New Orleans, Louisiana 70115

Telephone: (504) 779-2845

Email: aklevorn@burnscharest.com

MDL Interim Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiffs minor P.S., through her legal 

guardian Cherise Slate, and minor M.T.W., through 

her legal guardian, Brenda Washington

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:239
625954.3 Page 6 of 7

DATED: August 28, 2020 CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.

By: /s/ Robert A. Clifford

Robert A. Clifford

Shannon M. McNulty

120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: (312) 899-9090

Email: rac@cliffordlaw.com

MDL Interim Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiffs minor P.S., through her legal 

guardian Cherise Slate, and minor M.T.W., through 

her legal guardian, Brenda Washington

DATED: August 28, 2020 LAWRENCE KAMIN, LLP

By: /s/ Peter E. Cooper

Peter E. Cooper

300 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 500

Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: (312) 372-1947

Email: pcooper@lawrencekamin.com

MDL Interim Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Misty Hong, minor A.S., 

through her mother and legal guardian Laurel 

Slothower, and minor A.R., through her mother and 

legal guardian Gilda Avila, Meghan Smith, minors 

C.W. and I.W., through their mother and legal 

guardian Mikhaila Woodall, and minor R.P., through 

her mother and legal guardian Lynn Pavalon, P.S., 

through her legal guardian Cherise Slate, and minor 

M.T.W., through her legal guardian, Brenda 

Washington

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:240
625954.3 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 28, 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 issues through the Court’s 

Electronic Case Filing System on this date.

/s/ Peter E. Cooper

Peter E. Cooper

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/28/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:241