UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER 

PRIVACY LITIGATION

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

MDL No. 2948-A

Master Docket No. 20 C 4699 

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer This Document Relates to:

Bravo v. TikTok, Inc. 

Murphy v. TikTok, Inc. 

Buckley v. TikTok, Inc. 

Tado v. TikTok, Inc. 

Recht v. TikTok, Inc. 

Fleming v. TikTok, Inc. 

E.K. v. TikTok, Inc. 

Androshchuk v. TikTok, Inc.

Albaran v. TikTok, Inc. 

G.R. v. TikTok, Inc. 

Moody v. TikTok, Inc. 

Schulte v. TikTok, Inc.

Fugok v. TikTok, Inc.

23 C 225

23 C 504 

23 C 841 

23 C 1430 

23 C 2248 

23 C 2260 

23 C 2262 

23 C 2462 

23 C 2463 

23 C 2464 

23 C 2465 

23 C 2466 

23 C 2467

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case concerns TikTok’s practice of using JavaScript code to secretly intercept, view,

and record users’ private activities on third-party websites (the “IAB Cases”). On January 25, 

2024, this Court denied TikTok’s motion to dismiss the IAB Cases and designated this newly 

coordinated matter as “MDL No. 2948-A.” (Dkt. 316). The Court also scheduled an in-person 

status hearing for March 7, 2024, to discuss “the next procedural steps, including appoint of 

counsel and development of a revised case management order.” Id. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), Plaintiffs in the IAB Cases have met 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:14168
2

and conferred extensively and reached unanimous1 agreement on a proposed leadership 

structure, subject to the Court’s approval. MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION §21.272 (the 

“MANUAL”) (4th ed. 2005) (“private ordering” is the most common method for selection of 

plaintiffs’ counsel.) Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court’s appointment of an 11-person

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) comprised of Roland Tellis of Baron & Budd, P.C., as 

Chair of the PSC, along with Carey Alexander of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Stephen R. 

Basser of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, 

James E. Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C., Israel David of Israel David 

LLC, MaryBeth V. Gibson of Gibson Consumer Law Group, LLC, Tyler S. Graden of Kessler 

Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, John Herman of Herman Jones LLP, Michael R. Reese of Reese 

LLP, and Bryan P. Thompson of Chicago Consumer Law Center, P.C. 

In compliance with this Court’s prior directive, the proposed PSC is comprised of 

“lawyers who ‘are capable and experienced,’ and who ‘will responsibly and fairly represent all 

plaintiffs, keeping in mind the benefits of diversity of experience, skills, and backgrounds.’” In 

Re: Abbott Laboratories, et al., MDL No. 3026. Indeed, the proposed PSC reflects a wellmanaged leadership structure populated by talented lawyers, recognizes the Court’s desire for 

efficiency, balanced against the financial and professional resources necessary to effectively 

litigate this matter, and meets the goal of achieving diversity among counsel. 

Plaintiffs propose that the PSC be responsible for overseeing all aspects of this MDL on 

behalf of all Plaintiffs including: (i) steering the overall litigation; (ii) presenting arguments to 

1

 As the Court noted, some of the IAB Cases were voluntarily dismissed leaving a total of 

thirteen IAB Cases currently pending before this Court. (Dkt. 316, n. 10). The proposed PSC 

was not intended to exclude any participants. Rather, it consists of all Plaintiffs’ counsel who 

have pending IAB Cases and who have actively participated in the organization and litigation of 

the matter. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:14169
3

the Court; (iii) preparing all briefing; (iv) managing all discovery; (v) convening meetings of 

counsel; (vi) all settlement negotiations; and (vii) all other duties required for the proper 

coordination of Plaintiffs’ pretrial activities. 

The PSC will operate through subcommittees with distinct responsibilities, including 

Law and Briefing, Offensive Discovery, Defensive Discovery, Third-Party Discovery, Experts, 

Settlement, and Trial. The Law and Briefing Subcommittee will be responsible for pleading 

challenges, class certification, summary judgment, and will assist with pre-trial and trial-related 

briefing. The Discovery Subcommittees will take responsibility for all aspects of written and 

deposition discovery, beginning with the negotiation of a Protective Order and ESI Protocol. 

The Expert Subcommittee will handle all aspects of expert designation and discovery, including 

identifying appropriate experts, working with them to ensure timely preparation of expert 

reports, rebutting Defendants’ experts, taking and defending depositions, and Daubert

challenges. The Settlement Subcommittee will take responsibility for all settlement discussions

and the Trial Subcommittee will work with all other subcommittees to ensure that Plaintiffs’ 

cases are ready for trial in a timely and efficient manner.

To maintain efficiency, the proposed PSC will enforce the use of proven methodologies 

from prior cases and MDLS to monitor billing, control costs, and avoid duplication. All attorneys 

will be required to maintain contemporaneous timekeeping records and to submit detailed 

monthly time reports to the Chair of the PSC to ensure that multiple attorneys are not performing 

duplicative or unnecessary work.

As Chair of the PSC, Mr. Tellis will oversee the assignment and coordination of work. 

He will review and monitor subcommittee progress and manage PSC resources to effectively 

advance the IAB Cases. And, if necessary, Mr. Tellis will retain the tie-breaking vote in any 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:14170
4

instance of deadlocked PSC or subcommittee decisions. Plaintiffs believe that this structure and 

allocation of resources will encourage efficiency and clarity without requiring appointment of 

“Lead Counsel” among this group. Foregoing the traditional “Lead Counsel” structure seen in 

other MDLs in favor of a PSC structure with a Chair, as proposed here, has achieved the 

consensus of Plaintiffs’ counsel in the IAB Cases, and reflects both the cooperative effort of 

counsel and their willingness to set aside ego in service to this litigation.

The proposed PSC also offers the Court a diverse and geographically balanced structure 

consisting of nationally recognized counsel with unparalleled experience litigating complex 

MDL cases and provides the best foundation to litigate the IAB Cases ably and efficiently. To be 

sure, this is not a small or simple case. Recognizing the substantial discovery and litigation 

burdens that will inevitably fall on Plaintiffs in an MDL against a world-wide social media 

conglomerate, Plaintiffs have proposed a reasonably large slate with the experience and diversity 

necessary to effectively confront those challenges. Plaintiffs further expect that this litigation will 

require prolonged commitments and resources by Plaintiffs’ counsel; this consideration is also 

reflected in the proposed PSC’s size. The proposed PSC easily satisfies the Rule 23(g) factors.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule 23(g)(3) provides that “[t]he court may designate interim counsel to act on 

behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3); Moehrl v. National Assoc. of Realtors, Case No. 19-cv-01610, 2020 WL 

5260511, *1 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2020). Pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1)(A), courts must typically 

consider the following factors: (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating 

potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex 

litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the 

applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class[.] Fed. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:14171
5

R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i)–(iv); In re Navistar Maxxforce Engines Marketing, Sales Practices and 

Prods. Liab. Litig., Case No. 14-cv-10318, 2015 WL 1216318, *1 (N.D. Ill. March 5, 2015) (“In 

re Navistar”). The most important goal in appointing counsel is achieving efficiency and 

economy without jeopardizing fairness to the parties. MANUAL at § 10.221.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs’ Proposed PSC is the Product of Collaborative Private Ordering

The most common and efficient method of selecting class counsel is “private ordering.” 

MANUAL § 21.272. Pursuant to this method, “[t]he lawyers agree who should be lead class 

counsel and the court approves the selection after a review to ensure that the counsel selected is 

adequate to represent the class interests.” Id. It is counsel who “are best informed [about who is 

best suited to lead the case] and have the greatest incentive to keep attorney fees in check.” In re 

Parking Heaters Memorandum Antitrust Litig., 310 F.R.D. 54, 58 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). 

Here, counsel began coordinating their activities shortly after TikTok filed a Notice of 

Potential Tag-Along Action in the first-filed Recht case. Mr. Tellis immediately began working

to organize a new MDL and collaborated with all counsel to oppose TikTok’s efforts to dismiss 

the IAB Cases. As a natural outgrowth of counsels’ prior collaboration, the undersigned firms 

worked together to organize a leadership structure for the IAB Cases. Through cooperative 

discussions, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed that the proposed PSC would effectively incorporate the 

skills and experience of counsel while allowing a case of this size to proceed efficiently.

B. Members of the Proposed PSC Have Taken Steps to Advance the IAB Cases

In appointing counsel, courts routinely look to which counsel expended the most 

resources in identifying and investigating the potential claims of the class. Walker v. Discovery 

Fin. Servs., Case No. 10-cv-6994, 2011 WL 2160889, *3-4 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2011) (concluding 

work performed and resources expended by counsel was a decisive factor). Here, members of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:14172
6

the proposed PSC have already invested significant time and resources in developing the IAB 

Cases. They collectively researched TikTok’s conduct, vetted class representatives, filed 

complaints, opposed TikTok’s attempt to transfer the IAB Cases to the Biometric Data MDL, 

filed a motion to transfer the IAB Cases to a new MDL, prepared a joint opposition brief in 

response to the Court’s Order, and retained expert consultants. In sum, the proposed PSC has 

demonstrated a willingness to jointly dedicate the resources necessary to prosecute this important 

MDL expeditiously. 

C. The Proposed PSC Has Extensive Experience Handling Complex Class Actions

Courts also look at counsel’s experience litigating similar cases as well as their 

knowledge of the applicable laws. See Walker, 2011 WL 2160889, at *5. Plaintiffs believe that 

the proposed PSC presents a leadership structure with experience in high-profile, high-stakes, 

and complex class action litigation that maximizes opportunities for successfully resolving this 

case. The proposed PSC is also uniquely positioned to prosecute this MDL because it is 

comprised of members experienced in litigation involving social media applications like TikTok 

and data privacy litigation. 

The proposed PSC has successfully led numerous national consumer class actions, 

including through trial. Its members bring outstanding reputation and experience which will 

benefit the putative classes and this Court’s oversight of this MDL. Plaintiffs briefly discuss each 

PSC member below, supplemented by the resumes attached hereto as Exhibits 1-11. 

D. Experience and Credentials of the Proposed PSC Members

Roland Tellis, Baron & Budd, P.C. – PSC Chair

Roland Tellis is a Partner in the law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. where he manages the 

Firm’s Los Angeles Office and is the Chair of the Consumer Class Action Practice Group. Mr. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:14173
7

Tellis has more than 28 years of experience in complex, high-profile litigation helping to recover 

tens of billions of dollars for plaintiffs and class members.

Mr. Tellis filed the first IAB Case, petitioned the JPML for the formation of a new MDL, 

and led the opposition of TikTok’s motion to dismiss. He has helped organize the leadership 

slate and has received unanimous support to serve as PSC Chair. Mr. Tellis’s resume reflects his 

experience litigating complex class action cases, including his appointment as Lead Counsel in 

numerous MDLs. Additionally, Mr. Tellis has pursued data privacy litigation against LinkedIn 

and Google and was appointed to the Plaintiffs’ leadership group in In re: Social Media 

Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Prods. Liab. Litig., Case No. 22-md-3047, a mass tort 

action against TikTok, Facebook and others, involving dangerously addictive social media 

applications. 

Mr. Tellis has been recognized for his leadership and contributions to complex MDLs and 

class actions generally. He was recently invited to speak at the 2023 MDL Transferee Judges’ 

Conference on a panel called Resolving MDLs, and at Duke Law’s Bolch Judicial Institute on 

“MDL Pre-Trial Issues” and “MDL Leadership.” A copy of Mr. Tellis’s resume is attached as 

Exhibit 1. 

Carey Alexander, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Carey Alexander is a partner in Scott+Scott’s Consumer Practice Group. Since joining 

the bar in 2014, Mr. Alexander’s practice has been exclusively focused on litigating high-profile 

consumer protection and data privacy class actions. Mr. Alexander currently serves as Interim 

Co-Lead Class Counsel in Alves v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., Case No. 2284CV02509 (Mass. 

Sup. Ct.) (Krupp, J.) and as part of the appointed leadership group prosecuting In re: BPS Direct, 

LLC and Cabela’s, LLC Wiretapping Litig., Case No. 2:23-md-03074 (E.D. Pa.) (Kearney, J.), 

both of which assert similar electronic eavesdropping violations under many of the laws at issue 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:14174
8

in this action. Mr. Alexander has long engaged with issues relating to new technologies including 

through service as a representative to the New York City Bar Association’s Task Force on Digital 

Technologies. A copy of Mr. Alexander’s resume is attached as Exhibit 2. 

Stephen R. Basser, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine 

Stephen R. Basser is a partner with Barrack, Rodos & Bacine. Mr. Basser has served in a 

leadership role in a variety of cases, including: In re: McKesson HBOC, Inc., Securities Litig., 

Master File No. 99-cv-20743 (Whyte, J.) (N.D. Cal.), (Co-Lead Counsel resulting in settlement 

of $1.0425 billion), In re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litig., Master File No. CV-04-2147-PHX 

(J. Teilborg) (D. Ariz.), (Lead and First Chair Trial Counsel resulting in jury verdict of $145 

million), Castillo v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-01548-JHC (W.D. Wash.)

(Executive Committee), In re: Lincare Holdings Data Breach Litig., Case No. 8:22-cv-01472 

(M.D. Fl.) (Executive Committee), In re: Forefront Dermatology Data Breach Litig., Case No. 

1:21-cv-00887-1 (E.D. Wis.) (Executive Committee), In re: Apria Healthcare Data Breach 

Litig., Master File No. 1:23-cv-01003-RLY-KMB (S.D. Ind.) (Executive Committee), and In re: 

Shields Health Care Group Data Breach Litig., Case No. 1:22-cv-10901 (D. Mass.) (Executive 

Committee). Significantly, Mr. Basser was instrumental, in the Anthem Health Data Breach 

Litigation, in identifying and developing cyber-expert witnesses and the supporting expert 

presentation. A copy of Mr. Basser’s resume is attached as Exhibit 3. 

Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 

Kate M. Baxter-Kauf is a partner at Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP. Ms. Baxter-Kauf

has deep experience in data breach, antitrust law, business litigation, and securities litigation. For 

the past several years, she has been on the forefront of cutting-edge cybersecurity and privacy 

litigation. She has actively litigated the legal and technological issues that will be involved here – 

wiretap claims and session replay technologies. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:14175
9

Ms. Baxter-Kauf is currently appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in In re: BPS 

Direct, LLC, and Cabela’s, LLC Wiretapping Litigation, Case No. 2:23-md-3074 (E.D. Pa.);

Johnson v. Cornerstone National Insurance Co., Case No. 2: 22-cv-04135-WJE (W.D. Mo.) and 

Holmes v. Elephant Insurance Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-00487 (E.D. Va.). The BPS litigation 

involves session replay technology and wiretap claims. Ms. Baxter-Kauf is also appointed as a 

pre-approved member of the leadership team in conjunction with Co-Lead Counsel in In re:

Geico Customer Data Breach Litig., Case No. 1:21-cv-002210-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y). She is a 

frequent speaker on data breach and privacy issues at conferences across the country. A copy of 

Ms. Baxter-Kauf’s resume is attached as Exhibit 4. 

James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C. 

Before entering private practice, James E. Cecchi clerked for the Honorable Nicholas H. 

Politan in the District of New Jersey and then served as an Assistant United States Attorney 

(“AUSA”) in Newark, New Jersey. As an AUSA, Mr. Cecchi developed skills as an effective 

trial advocate and as a dogged investigator—skills that have proven immensely valuable in 

complex MDL cases. Mr. Cecchi’s experience as a former Assistant United States Attorney is a 

distinguishing factor that adds to the already diverse nature of the proposed PSC. 

Mr. Cecchi has had the privilege to be in some of the largest national and complex 

litigations in recent years. His formal leadership and committee roles on behalf of Plaintiffs in 

these important cases include: Sole Lead Counsel - In re: American Medical Collection Agency, 

Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2904 (D.N.J.), a nationwide MDL 

involving the largest medical data breach in the United States; and Sole Lead Counsel - In re: 

Samsung Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 3055 (D.N.J.), a nationwide MDL 

involving massive data breach related to highly sensitive personal and electronic information. 

These appointments reflect the confidence that other courts have expressed regarding Mr. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:14176
10

Cecchi’s skills and professionalism in handling large and important litigations. A copy of Mr. 

Cecchi’s resume is attached as Exhibit 5. 

Israel David, Israel David LLC 

Israel David has nearly 30 years of experience representing corporations, boards of 

directors, and nationwide classes in a wide array of civil litigation, with an emphasis on 

securities, data-privacy, and antitrust cases. Mr. David regularly litigates “bet-the-company” 

cases through trial and appeal across the United States. Mr. David’s experience includes over 25 

years (including 17 as a partner) with the elite international law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver 

& Jacobson LLP. 

Mr. David’s career includes experience as Co-Lead Counsel, a member of Plaintiffs’ 

Executive Committees, and in some of the most high-profile class actions in the country, 

including In re: American Airlines/JetBlue Antitrust Litig. (Case No. 22-cv-07374-AMD-TAM)

(E.D.N.Y) – Co-Lead Counsel in a high-profile antitrust class action lawsuit against American 

Airlines and JetBlue Airlines; Gerber v. Twitter, Inc. (Case No. 23-cv-00186-KAW) (N.D. Cal.) –

Co-Lead Counsel in a data privacy class action lawsuit involving over 200 million Twitter users; 

and Tuteur v. Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. (Case No. 23-cv-03997-GS) (S.D.N.Y.) –

Interim Lead Counsel in a data privacy class action lawsuit involving a data security incident at 

The Metropolitan Opera in New York City. These appointments reflect judicial trust of Mr. 

David to successfully litigate complex data privacy cases on behalf of putative classes and class 

members. A copy of Mr. David’s resume is attached as Exhibit 6. 

MaryBeth V. Gibson, Gibson Consumer Law Group, LLC 

MaryBeth Gibson has practiced law in Georgia for over thirty years and specializes in 

class actions involving complex civil litigation, including data privacy litigation, data breach and 

misuse, consumer fraud, and business torts. Ms. Gibson’s experience has earned her leadership 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:14177
11

appointments in multiple data breach cases in the health care, financial, and retail industries. Ms. 

Gibson’s experience includes several wiretapping cases throughout the country including, 

notably, In re: Marriott Int. Customer Data Breach Sec. Litig., where the Court certified Rule 

23(b)(3) damages classes and Rule 23(c)(4) issues classes. Ms. Gibson’ extensive experience 

litigating data privacy cases has contributed to the development of data privacy law with respect 

to pleading and briefing standing, concrete harm and damages. 

Ms. Gibson serves as Chair for the Consumer Privacy/Data Breach Litigation Group for 

the American Association for Justice and Co-Chair of the Georgia State Bar e-Discovery and Use 

of Technology Section, and as a member of Working Group 11 on Data Security and Privacy 

regarding Liability on Data Security and Privacy in Healthcare and Exploring Greater 

Efficiencies in Data Breach and Privacy Class Action Litigation. A copy of Ms. Gibson’s resume 

is attached as Exhibit 7. 

Tyler S. Graden, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 

Tyler S. Graden is a partner in Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check’s Consumer Protection and 

Data Privacy practice groups. Mr. Graden has over a decade of experience litigating complex class 

actions involving state and federal law across the country. Mr. Graden is currently leading 

litigation on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs in Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 

Case No. 3:23-cv-02865 (N.D. Cal.), which alleges the unlawful use of session replay and other 

eavesdropping technology under federal law, as well as state statutory and common law. Mr. 

Graden is also currently working under the direction of co-lead counsel on behalf of the local 

government and school district plaintiffs in In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal 

Injury Prods. Liab. Litig., Case No. 22-md-3047. 

Mr. Graden has also served as a member of several trial teams that have tried class actions 

to jury verdict, including a Rule 23(c)(4) issues class trial in multidistrict litigation (In re: FCA US 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:14178
12

LLC Monostable Electronic Gearshift Litig., Case No. 16-md-2744 (E.D. Mich.)). A copy of Mr. 

Graden’s firm resume is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. 

John Herman, Herman Jones LLP 

John Herman has spent his thirty plus year career handling complex technology disputes. 

Mr. Herman has built a team of technology-savvy attorneys and staff to work on cases such as 

this one. The prospective class members will greatly benefit from Mr. Herman’s experience in 

dealing with the complex technological issues that will likely arise in this case. 

Mr. Herman and his firm have been appointed to leadership positions in a number of 

significant technology matters including, but not limited to: In re: Amazon.com, Inc. Shareholder 

Derivative Litig., Lead Case No. 2:22-cv-00559-JCC (W.D. Wash.) (Co-Lead Counsel in 

shareholder derivative case arising out of biometric privacy matters) and In re: Google Digital 

Advert. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1:21-md-03010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.) (Herman Jones filed first 

antitrust suit against Google for its ad technology monopoly). 

These appointments reflect judicial trust of Mr. Herman, his experience, and ability to 

successfully litigate complex data privacy cases on behalf of putative classes and class members.

A copy of Mr. Herman’s resume is attached as Exhibit 9. 

Michael R. Reese, Reese LLP

Michael R. Reese is the founding and managing partner of Reese LLP. Prior to beginning 

private practice in 2000, Mr. Reese was an assistant district attorney in the New York County 

District Attorney’s Office where he prosecuted and tried violent felony and white collar crimes. 

Mr. Reese is a member of both the Trial and General Bars of the Northern District of 

Illinois. Mr. Reese has been appointed to lead numerous class actions and MDLs, including two 

recent examples in the Northern District of Illinois: Seresto Flea and Tick Collar Marketing, 

Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL 3009, Master Case No. 1:21-cv-04447 (N.D. Ill.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:14179
13

(Co-Lead Counsel in class action that settled for $15 million) and In re: Fairlife Milk Products 

Marketing and Sales Practices Litig., MDL 2909, Master Case No. 1:19-cv-03924 (N.D. Ill.) 

(Co-Lead Counsel in MDL that settled for $21 million). 

As class counsel, Mr. Reese has successfully litigated numerous class actions and 

recovered hundreds of millions of dollars as well as significant injunctive relief for consumers. 

Finally, Mr. Reese also is an accomplished appellate lawyer, having argued successfully before 

numerous appellate courts, including, but not limited to, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 

See, e.g., Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc. v. Bauer, 845 F.3d 350 (7th Cir. 2017). A copy of Mr. 

Reese’s resume is attached as Exhibit 10. 

Bryan P. Thompson, Chicago Consumer Law Center, P.C. 

Bryan P. Thompson has significant experience in class action and complex consumer 

litigation gained by dedicating his entire career to representing consumers in financial services, 

consumer protection, and data privacy litigation, typically against much larger companies with 

greater resources.

Mr. Thompson has been counsel or lead counsel in both individual and class actions filed 

under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud 

Act, and other federal and state consumer protection statutes. For example, Mr. Thompson was 

appointed Lead Counsel in Badillo v. Consumer Protection Legal Center, Case No. 2020-CV-2962 

(Cir. Ct. Cook County), resulting in one of the first class-wide settlements under the Illinois Debt 

Settlement Consumer Protection Act. Id. Mr. Thompson also worked closely with the Plaintiffs’ 

Steering Committee in In re: LastPass Data Security Incident Litig., Case No. 1:22-CV-12047-

PBS (D. Mass.).

Mr. Thompson is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) recognized by 

the International Association of Privacy Professionals, often considered the gold standard in 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:14180
14

privacy certification. Mr. Thompson also frequently presents continuing legal education courses 

and lectures on consumer law and privacy topics and has held leadership positions in legal and 

consumer law focused groups. A copy of Mr. Thompson’s resume is attached as Exhibit 11.

E. The Proposed PSC Will Commit the Time and Resources Necessary to Obtain 

the Best Results for the Putative Classes

To date, the proposed PSC have demonstrated this commitment, which extends beyond 

their financial undertakings. The proposed PSC can and will devote the attorneys, staff, and 

financial resources necessary to achieve the best possible result for the putative class, having 

done so in numerous other complex class actions. Indeed, in successfully prosecuting high 

stakes, resource-intensive class actions throughout the country, the proposed PSC has

demonstrated an ability and willingness to dedicate substantial resources to vigorously prosecute 

this case without delay. 

F. The Proposed PSC is Committed to Diversity

The court may also consider whether counsel “captures the benefits of diversity of 

experience, skills, and backgrounds.” Bolch Judicial Inst., Guidelines and Best Practices for 

Large and Mass-Tort MDLs, DUKE LAW SCHOOL, 38 (2d ed. 2018). In this regard, the Bolch 

Judicial Institute recommends:

[In] appointing a leadership team, courts should be mindful of the benefits of 

diversity of all types. In particular, the strong repeat player dynamic that has 

historically existed reduces fresh outlooks and innovative ideas, and increases 

pressure to go along with the group and conform, all of which may negatively 

impact the plaintiffs whose cases are being pursued in the MDL. At the same time, 

leadership needs repeat players who understand the ropes. Thus a balanced team, 

with diversity of skills, expertise, prior casework and role, and demographics, 

should be sought.

Bolch Guidelines at 37.

The proposed PSC represents the diversity of legal talent available in this country. They 

reflect a diversity of skills and expertise, as well as demographics, including gender, age, race, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14181
15

and geography. In sum, the proposed PSC reflects a rich tapestry of skills that will lend unique 

perspective and insight in the representation of the putative classes. 

G. The Proposed PSC is Structured to Ensure Efficiency and to Avoid 

Duplicative Efforts

This Court has previously recognized that appointment of a large leadership slate is not 

an impediment to efficiency or economy. See In re: Abbott Laboratories, et al., Case 

Management Order No. 2, ECF No. 109 at 3. In Abbott, the Court conditionally appointed 26 

attorneys to leadership, including five co-lead counsel, five executive committee members, 15

steering committee members, and one liaison counsel. Id. at 3-4. Although the Court expressed 

concern that the involvement of 26 attorneys could cause duplication of efforts, the leadership 

group identified the distinct roles to be played by the various attorneys. The proposed PSC here 

is smaller than the leadership slate in Abbott but has nevertheless outlined for the Court how the 

proposed PSC will be organized to ensure efficiency and to avoid duplicative efforts.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and appoint the proposed 

Plaintiffs’ PSC to litigate the IAB Cases on behalf of the putative classes.

Dated: February 21, 2024 By: /s/ Roland Tellis

Roland Tellis 

rtellis@baronbudd.com 

BARON & BUDD, P.C.

15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1600

Encino, CA 91436

Telephone: (818) 839-2333

Stephen R. Basser

sbasser@barrack.com

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE

One America Plaza

600 West Broadway, Suite 900

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: (619) 230-0800

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:14182
16

James E. Cecchi

jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & 

AGNELLO, P.C.

5 Becker Farm Road

Roseland, NJ 07068

Telephone: (973) 993-700

Bryan P. Thompson

bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com

CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, 

P.C.

650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100

Lisle, IL 60532

Telephone: (312) 584-2614

MaryBeth V. Gibson

marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com

GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC

4729 Roswell Road

Suite 208-108

Atlanta, GA 30342

Telephone: (678) 642-2503

John Herman

jherman@hermanjones.com

HERMAN JONES LLP

3424 Peachtree Road NE

Suite 1650

Atlanta, GA 30326

Telephone: (404) 504-6555

Israel David

Israel.david@davidllc.com

ISRAEL DAVID LLC

17 State Street

Suite 4010

New York, NY 10004

Telephone: (212) 739-0622

Tyler S. Graden

tgraden@ktmc.com

KESSLER, TOPAZ, MELTZER & CHECK, 

LLP

280 King of Prussia Road

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:14183
17

Radnor, PA 19087

Telephone: 610-667-7706

Kate M. Baxter-Kauf

kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP

100 Washington Avenue South

Suite 2200

Minneapolis, MN 55401

Telephone: (612) 339-6900

Michael R. Reese

mreese@reesellp.com

REESE LLP

100 West 93rd Street

Sixteenth Floor

New York, NY 10025

Telephone: (212) 643-0500

Carey Alexander

calexander@scott-scott.com

SCOTT+SCOTT 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

The Helmsley Building

230 Park Ave., 17th Floor

New York, NY 10169

Telephone: (212) 223-6444

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:14184