UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER 

PRIVACY LITIGATION, 

This Document Relates to All Cases 

 MDL No. 2948 

Master Docket No. 20 C 4699 

Judge John Z. Lee 

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

PLAINTIFF M.E.’S OBJECTION TO 

PROPOSED LEADERSHIP SLATES 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 82 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1687
- 1 -

Plaintiffs’ Leadership Team Should Include Multiple Viewpoints 

At least nineteen attorneys have applied to serve on Plaintiffs’ leadership team. In 

many instances, those attorneys are seeking appointment as part of a slate of likeminded lawyers. The “Settling Plaintiffs” favor a slate consisting of Katrina Carroll, 

Jonathan Jagher, Robert Foote, Michael Gervais, Joseph Guglielmo, Tina Wolfson, James 

Zouras, and Beth Fegan, while the “Litigating Plaintiffs” favor a slate consisting of 

Ekwan Rhow, Megan Jones, Kara Wolke, David Given, Amanda Klevorn, and Shannon 

McNulty (with two slots to be filled by the Court from the remaining applicants). 

Each of these attorneys are highly qualified and capable of making meaningful 

contributions to Plaintiffs’ leadership team. But in Plaintiff M.E.’s view, it would be a 

mistake to appoint either of the proposed slates in its entirety. Both the Litigating 

Plaintiffs and the Settling Plaintiffs have performed valuable work on behalf of the 

class: the Litigating Plaintiffs initiated this litigation nearly a year ago and held the first 

mediation with TikTok, while the Settling Plaintiffs then pursued a second mediation 

that led to a proposed settlement. The class will benefit if both groups’ perspectives are 

represented throughout the settlement approval process and in any renewed litigation. 

The alternative is that one important viewpoint will be excluded from internal 

deliberations—to the detriment of the class and the Court. For example, if the Settling 

Plaintiffs’ proposed slate is adopted, the leadership team would consist almost entirely 

of attorneys who were in the room when the terms of the proposed settlement were 

negotiated. The class would not have the benefit of an objective or skeptical eye as the 

settlement is finalized and works its way through the approval process. Issues that 

could have been identified and rectified internally will be more likely to later arise and 

require the Court’s attention. Parties who might have supported the settlement if their 

concerns had been afforded due consideration will be more likely to raise those 

concerns through formal objections. And dissenting views that could have been 

presented to the Court through an efficient and coordinated process will be more likely 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 82 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:1688
- 2 -

voiced through a number of overlapping, piecemeal filings. 

Anytime a settlement is reached at the beginning of a highly visible multidistrict 

proceeding like this one, the parties and the Court can expect the settlement to receive a 

high degree of scrutiny—from consumers, from the press, and from the objectors’ bar. 

That scrutiny only intensifies if some plaintiffs’ counsel are excluded from internal 

settlement deliberations. It may not be possible to identify and address every legitimate 

objection before the Court is asked to formally approve or reject the proposed 

settlement, but by involving dissenting voices at the outset, giving them a seat at the 

table, and working collaboratively to address their major concerns, it is possible to 

ensure the settlement ultimately presented to the Court is as good as it can be, that the 

number of issues requiring the Court’s attention are reduced to a minimum, and that 

those issues are presented in a clear and organized manner. 

The collaborative, multi-viewpoint approach worked well under similar 

circumstances in the Hyundai & Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, MDL 2424, discussed in 

Plaintiff M.E.’s previous filing, and M.E. believes it would work well here as well. M.E. 

accordingly suggests that the Court consider appointing attorneys from both the 

Litigating Plaintiffs and the Settling Plaintiffs to the collective leadership team. Ms. 

Carroll and Mr. Rhow, in particular, have garnered an impressive degree of support 

from each respective side and would make excellent choices for the two leads. 

Plaintiffs’ Leadership Team Would Benefit From Neutral Representatives 

In her lead-counsel application, Ms. Carroll affirmed that she will work with 

whomever the Court appoints, but also expressed concern that a “’forced marriage’ 

order could derail the settlement entirely and irreparably harm the class.” M.E.’s 

counsel has worked alongside Ms. Carroll before and believe that, while she raises a fair 

point, she has the ability to set aside prior hostilities and work with Mr. Rhow and other 

plaintiffs’ counsel to ensure that all viewpoints are given due consideration. 

Two factors in particular will ensure that a leadership team with multiple 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 82 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:1689
- 3 -

viewpoints benefits the class and does not cause any irreparable harm. First, the 

collaborative approach M.E. is advocating would not require the competing sides to 

marry their views—only to work together to air those views, to address issues when 

possible, and to present competing views to the Court in an orderly fashion when not. 

An inclusive process that provides both an internal forum for raising and resolving 

potential issues, and a streamlined mechanism for presenting unresolved issues to the 

Court will not hurt the class—it will ensure that the class receives the best possible 

representation at a crucial juncture in the litigation. 

Second, appointing one or more neutral representatives to Plaintiffs’ Steering 

Committee will ensure that the appointed leadership team works together as intended. 

A neutral representative can offer an objective perspective on issues as they arise, work 

diplomatically with competing factions to find common ground, and help discourage 

hostile and counter-productive communications between team members. Plaintiff M.E. 

has previously suggested Eric Gibbs for that role based on his experience serving a 

similar role in Hyundai, his strong reputation amongst the plaintiffs’ bar, and his prior 

experience in major consumer privacy litigation. Mr. Gibbs has not seen the settlement 

nor taken a position as to the manner in which it was negotiated. He has not aligned 

himself with either the Litigating Plaintiffs or the Settling Plaintiffs before this Court or 

in prior proceedings. He has not made promises to any other attorney in connection 

with this litigation. And he has neither asked for nor accepted any consideration from 

other counsel in exchange for his current or future support. 

Amy Keller and Leslie Weaver are also strong candidates to add a neutral voice 

and an objective, even-handed approach to Plaintiffs’ leadership team—either alongside 

Mr. Gibbs or in his stead. Ms. Keller and Ms. Weaver previously supported Mr. Rhow 

for a lead appointment in the Northern District of California, but appear to have 

otherwise remained above the fray and conducted themselves with the utmost 

professionalism in their dealings with other counsel. While Mr. Gibbs would of course 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 82 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:1690
- 4 -

like to be selected as a neutral member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, what’s 

most important is that the Steering Committee include at least one member who has the 

respect of both sides and can ensure that the leadership team’s efforts remain cordial, 

productive, and focused on the class’s interests. 

Dated: September 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Eric H. Gibbs 

Eric H. Gibbs (SBN 178658) 

David M. Berger (SBN 277526) 

GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 

505 14th Street, Suite 1110 

Oakland, California 94612 

(510) 350-9700 (tel.) 

(510) 350-9701 (fax) 

ehg@classlawgroup.com 

dmb@classlawgroup.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff M.E.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 82 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:1691