UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE TIKTOK, INC. CONSUMER 

PRIVACY LITIGATION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL No. 2948

Case No. 1:20-cv-04699

This Document Relates to All Cases

STATUS REPORT BY INTERIM LEAD 

COUNSEL IN THE CONSOLIDATED 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA ACTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION.

After the submission of briefs and competing leadership slates, Judge Lucy H. Koh 
2

appointed the undersigned counsel as Rule 23(g) Interim Lead Counsel and members of the 

Executive Committee for the TikTok class actions originally filed in the Northern District of 

California and now centralized before Your Honor (the “N.D. Cal. Actions” and “N.D. Cal. 

Interim Leadership Group”). The N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group respectfully submit this 

separate Status Report because it was not given the opportunity to review in advance, contribute 

to, or sign the “Joint Status Report” filed today exclusively by Defendants and Northern District 

of Illinois Counsel (the “E.R. Status Report”). As such, the E.R. Status Report is not joint, and 

the relief it requests raises serious concerns that materially affect our clients and the class that 

should be addressed. The N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group therefore respectfully suggests the

Court schedule a status conference pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Order No. 1.

Because of three pressing threats to the interests of the class, the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership 

Group respectfully requests that the status conference occur at the Court’s earliest convenience.

Our first concern relates to the August 13, 2020 mediation referenced in the E.R. Status 

Report. Defendants prohibited the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group from attending this 

mediation without justification and, since then, have kept the results of mediation a secret from 

the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group and from others who are Interim Counsel pursuant to 

this Court’s Case Management Order No. 1. As a result, the N.D. Cal Interim Leadership Group

was prevented from representing our clients’ and the class’s best interests. Defendants used this 

tactic to hand-select counsel to represent their own adversaries at a time when the only Rule 

23(g) Court-appointed lead counsel were excluded. 

Defendants and E.R. Counsel purport to have settled our claims based on work product 

that only the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group has researched, litigated, and pled, and to have 

done so without allowing the group’s cooperation, input, or involvement at mediation. The N.D. 
3

Cal. Interim Leadership Group filed the first of the consolidated actions in November 2019, five 

months before the next action was filed, and the extensive nature of our multiple years of work in 

the case is reflected in our pleadings, which contain more detail and substance than any other.

Defendants’ excluding us from the mediation put the class at a structural disadvantage.

Defendants and E.R. Counsel now jointly seek a court order that no leadership 

appointment process occur except in connection with E.R. Counsel’s far-in-the-future motion for 

preliminary approval of their secret settlement – even though no details of that settlement have

been shared with the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group despite repeated requests. That is 

unreasonable.

Our second concern relates to President Donald J. Trump’s August 14, 2020 Executive 

Order mandating the destruction of crucial evidence the class requires to prove its claims. The 

N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group believes this will require a Preservation Order specifically 

tailored to these unique circumstances.

Our third concern, which compounds the others, is the proposed stay requested in the 

E.R. Status Report. Until leadership is resolved, our position is that no counsel should be seeking 

a stay or otherwise inhibiting the advancement of the class’s interests. Moreover, the N.D. Cal. 

Interim Leadership Group opposes Defendants’ and E.R. Counsel’s proposed 90-day stay as 

prejudicial to the class because: (i) it would undermine the class’s ability to proactively address 

President Trump’s orders banning TikTok, which could and should be timely addressed on a 

class-wide basis; (ii) it would prevent the class from seeking to preserve the critical data 

threatened by the August 14 Executive Order (above); and (iii) it would prevent the appointment 

of interim lead counsel who could protect the class from these issues pursuant to the Court’s

Case Management Order No. 1. The proposed stay would also prevent the filing of additional 
4

claims which the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group intends to pursue. In sum, the proposed 

stay would prejudice the class.

II. THE AUGUST 13 MEDIATION

This Court has not issued a Rule 23(g) leadership decision detailing who can 

appropriately speak for the class in the centralized actions. Instead, Defendants improperly 

selected which plaintiffs’ counsel could attend and represent the class at the August 13 

mediation, and barred the Court-appointed N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group—who have the 

longest history in this litigation—from attending. Defendants’ improper selection of opposing 

counsel structurally disadvantaged the class by excluding a group of lawyers who have

developed the broadest claims and most detailed technical information that could have been used 

to advance the class’s interest, and who previously mediated the case with Defendants on April 

6, 2020, before the filing of any competing cases.

After months of requesting that the five firms comprising the N.D. Cal. Interim 

Leadership Group participate in the August 13 mediation, Defendants reversed course 

immediately after the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”) issued its August 4 

centralization order, and barred the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group.

1

Defendants tried to justify this improper reversal on their baseless, supposed suspicion 

that two member firms of the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group, including Interim Lead 

Counsel Ekwan E. Rhow, are secretly pursuing this case on behalf of Defendants’ potential 

acquirers and/or are assisting President Trump with the impending TikTok ban. This accusation 

was, and always has been, false. Indeed, Defendants never sought to disqualify the firms at 

 

1

Earlier, the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group had suggested postponing mediation efforts 

precisely because venue and leadership had not been resolved. This offer was rejected. 
5

issue, were forced to acknowledge they have no evidence of any such alleged conflicts, and tried 

to justify their transparent maneuvering based on a mere “feeling.” Nonetheless, in a gesture of 

goodwill, the two targeted firms offered to sign affidavits attesting to their lack of conflicts and 

their promise to maintain the confidentiality of the mediation negotiations, but Defendants

rebuffed those efforts.

Defendants instead stated they would allow Megan Jones from Hausfeld LLP – a Courtappointed member of the Executive Committee jointly in charge of settlement with Mr. Rhow

and a partner at one of the other three firms among the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group – to 

attend, but only upon the unreasonable condition that she pledge not to share any mediation 

information with the two targeted firms – including Interim Lead Counsel Mr. Rhow – who had 

the longest experience with the case. The N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group were forced to 

reject this unreasonable condition because it would violate both (1) Judge Koh’s Rule 23(g) 

standing order mandating internal communication with Interim Lead Counsel on matters 

concerning potential settlement; and (2) the rules of professional responsibility requiring 

communication between clients and their counsel of choice. Despite explaining to Defendants 

why this condition was unacceptable, Defendants refused to alter their position, and E.R Counsel 

nonetheless proceeded to mediation without the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group.2

As a result of Defendants’ actions, the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group was barred 

from presenting at mediation a new claim they filed in an amended complaint in this Court on 

August 14 pertaining to Defendants’ unlawful distribution of TikTok users’ video viewing 

history to third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710 et seq., 

 

2 A pre-mediation email exchange on these issues between Defendants, E.R. Counsel, and the 

N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group is attached as Exhibit A.
6

which provides for statutory damages in the billions of dollars given the over 100 million class 

members. In re TikTok, Inc. Privacy Litig., Case No. 1:20-cv-04723, Doc. No. 89 at ¶ 3, 54-57, 

288-96. Also, given its forced absence from the August 13 mediation, the N.D. Cal. Interim 

Leadership Group was unable to present the factual and legal support for its other myriad claims 

against Defendants, including California causes of action not found in the other TikTok class 

action complaints and BIPA factual allegations unique to the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership 

Group’s complaint based on its extensive domestic and foreign investigations.

Prior to suddenly changing their position after the JPML order, Defendants had conceded

that the participation of the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group was essential to the mediation. 

E.R. Counsel similarly acknowledged that participation by the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership 

Group was critical to a fair mediation in view of the work the group has done. Yet the E.R.

Status Report purports to have reached a settlement in principle with Defendants concerning 

claims that E.R. Counsel did not bring – and to have done so without our participation, which 

was blocked by Defendants.

III. THE AUGUST 14 EXECUTIVE ORDER.

On August 14, President Trump issued an Executive Order through the Office of the 

Press Secretary, which is attached as Exhibit B. This Order’s directives to divest and destroy

data relevant to these centralized cases pose a serious and imminent threat to the class’s ability to 

prove its allegations and establish a factual and legal basis for the relief to which it is entitled.

Specifically, pursuant to the Executive Order, within 90 or 120 days, Defendants must 

“divest all interests and rights in” (1) “any tangible or intangible assets or property” used for 

operation of the TikTok app in the United States, and (2) “any data obtained or derived from” 

TikTok users in the United States. See Exhibit B at § 2(b)(i)-(ii). Critically, “upon divestment, 
7

ByteDance shall certify in writing to CFIUS that it has destroyed all data that it is required to 

divest pursuant to section 2(b)(ii), as well as all copies of such data wherever located ....” See

Exhibit B at § 2(c) (emphasis added).

While the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group agrees that TikTok should not retain such 

data for its own use, it is necessary to act to preserve this data in the hands of a trusted party in 

the United States to protect the class’s ability to prove its claims. Defendants’ procedurallyimproper settlement and requested stay cannot moot the need to address this issue, since 

Defendants propose withholding the settlement from scrutiny until after the Executive Order’s 

deadline. And even if it were presented earlier, final approval and the exhaustion of appeals 

could not occur before the Executive Order’s deadline. Thus, the class requires protection 

immediately.

IV. THE PROPOSED STAY BY DEFENDANTS AND E.R. COUNSEL.

Without notice to the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group or certain other counsel, and 

without any explanation as to its necessity at this time, Defendants and E.R. Counsel requested a 

90-day stay. Their proposed stay would deprive the class of the ability to proactively respond to 

President Trump’s orders banning TikTok, which could play a role in obtaining the best possible 

settlement for the class. This proposed stay would also prevent the class from seeking to preserve 

the critical data threatened by the August 14 Executive Order; it would prevent the appointment 

of interim lead counsel (pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Order No. 1) who could 

advance the class’s interests; and, it would prevent the filing of additional claims that the N.D. 

Cal. Interim Leadership Group believes may be appropriate.

The N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group remains committed to working cooperatively 

with all counsel, but the proposed stay would be detrimental to the interests of the class, and the 
8

N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group opposes it for those reasons. The N.D. Cal. Interim 

Leadership Group believes that any stay and/or purported settlement should be resolved after 

leadership is determined when Court-appointed counsel can speak for the Class and represent all 

claims in this litigation.

V. CONCLUSION.

To avoid prejudice to the class, the N.D. Cal. Interim Leadership Group respectfully 

requests that the Court schedule a status conference at its earliest convenience and reject the 

Defendants’ and E.R. Counsel’s proposed stay.

DATED: August 17, 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

Interim Lead Counsel in the N.D. Cal. Actions

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
9

DATED: August 17, 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

Member, Executive Committee, N.D. Cal. Actions

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 17, 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

Member, Executive Committee, N.D. Cal. Actions

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
10

DATED: August 17, 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

Member, Executive Committee, N.D. Cal. Actions

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 17, 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

Member, Executive Committee, N.D. Cal. Actions

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 17, 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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, N.D. Cal. Actions