KATRINA CARROLL AND JONATHAN JAGHER’S APPLICATION FOR 

APPOINTMENT AS CO-LEAD COUNSEL, PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE 

AND LIAISON COUNSEL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g) 

 Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s August 17, 

2020 Case Management Order (“CMO 1”), ECF Doc. 41, Katrina Carroll of Carlson Lynch LLP 

(“Carlson Lynch”) and Jonathan Jagher of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC (“Freed Kanner”) 

submit this application for their appointment as Co-Lead Counsel (“Proposed Co-Lead Counsel”). 

INTRODUCTION 

Though there are many highly qualified and accomplished counsel involved in this MDL, 

Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher both deserve to be Co-Lead Counsel in this case. We have consistently 

endorsed an inclusive approach with all counsel and, above all, consistently acted with only the 

best interests of the class in mind. The following facts speak for themselves: 

 We successfully organized all of the related actions and advanced the pre-MDL 

litigation in this District – our progress on this front was lauded by the MDL panel; 

 We formed a coalition representing the majority of all related actions and were able 

to pursue a unique settlement opportunity for the class; 

1

 The Court subsequently amended CMO 1, in part. ECF Doc. 24 (“CMO 2”). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 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-cv-4699 

Judge John Z. Lee 

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 49 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:805
2 

 We communicated professionally and garnered the respect of defense counsel to 

ensure that the settlement opportunity would not be lost; 

 We worked cooperatively with a large group of law firms and distributed and shared 

work assignments, recognizing each counsel’s strengths and unique areas of 

expertise; 

 We tried to spare the Court’s and the parties’ resources and acted continually to 

avoid unnecessary motion practice; 

 Through our coalition, we successfully negotiated a substantial settlement; 

 Since reaching the settlement, we have worked collaboratively with Interim 

Counsel, even counsel that chose not to participate in the mediation. As a result, 

we built consensus with additional firms who have agreed to support our process 

until we are able to disclose the settlement, and these firms support our application 

to be appointed Co-Lead Counsel; and 

 Counsel from 14 of 19 of the related actions support our appointment as Co-Lead 

Counsel. 

No other counsel in this case has this track record of results or is more uniquely suited to 

serve as Co-Lead Counsel. The vast majority of counsel here agree. 

A. Proposed Co-Lead Counsel Will Commit, and Have Already Committed, 

Substantial Time and Resources to a Successful Outcome for the Class 

Before a court may appoint interim class counsel it must evaluate whether the proposed 

counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Smith v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 301 F.R.D. 284, 288 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2), (4)). In CMO 

1, this Court specifically instructed that “[t]he main criteria for appointment will be: (a) counsel’s 

willingness and availability to commit to a time consuming project; (b) counsel’s ability to work 

cooperatively with others; and (c) counsel’s professional experience in this type of litigation.” 

CMO 1 at 6-7. Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher easily meet each of these criteria. Our experience is 

detailed in our accompanying Declarations and briefly summarized below. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 49 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:806
3 

 As the Declarations make clear, from the very outset of this case, we have devoted nearly 

all of our days, nights and weekends for months advancing the claims of the class. We worked 

cooperatively, cohesively, and in a transparent, all-inclusive manner to try and organize all of the 

related actions in this MDL. The progress we made in our litigation here was integral to the Panel’s 

decision to transfer the related cases to this District. In fact, in its transfer order, the MDL Panel 

recognized our progress and praised this Court for its active management of our process. MDL 

Docket, ECF No. 2 at 1-2. Through our efforts, and because we convinced counsel to take MDL 

leadership off the table until appropriate leadership proceedings could be had in the ultimate 

transferee court, all Plaintiffs’ counsel coordinated seamlessly and worked toward the common 

goal of litigating in the most efficient way possible. Together, we filed a Consolidated Complaint, 

served discovery, worked with our expert and prepared for the mediation, which ultimately 

resulted in the excellent settlement which we would like to present to this Court. We will continue 

to work just as vigorously with even more support from the other plaintiffs’ attorneys and will see 

this case through to the end. 

B. Proposed Co-Lead Counsel Have Demonstrated Their Ability to Work 

Cooperatively With Other Plaintiffs’ Counsel 

The main driver of our success is our proven track record of working collaboratively with 

other attorneys, both on the plaintiffs’ side and the defense side. For example, in In Re: RustOleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 1:15-cv-1364 (N.D. 

Ill.), a complex MDL in which Ms. Carroll served as Co-Lead Counsel, Judge St. Eve praised Ms. 

Carroll’s professionalism with defense counsel (Lori Lightfoot, then a partner at Mayer Brown) as 

a “model I wish all lawyers would follow.” Likewise, Mr. Jagher has always taken the “team first 

approach” essential to leading class action cases on the plaintiffs’ side, developing personal and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 49 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:807
4 

business relationships with most if not all of the attorneys and their firms in this MDL. Jagher 

Decl. ¶ 4. 

Because of our extensive network of pre-existing relationships we spearheaded the highly 

successful coordination of related actions in the MDL. See generally Carroll Decl. (detailing our 

extensive efforts at coordinating this sprawling litigation in as inclusive and equitable a manner as 

possible). At all times, we did so with the sole interest of achieving the best possible outcome for 

the plaintiffs and the class. Id. The Court has made clear that “what efforts, if any, [] a particular 

plaintiff’s attorney has made (in this case and other cases) to canvas, coordinate, compile, and 

incorporate the thoughts and input of other plaintiff’s counsel in the MDL is a factor that the Court 

will consider in the appointment [of] Lead Counsel . . . .” CMO 2, at 2-3. No one has done this 

more effectively or more consistently than we have. 

C. Proposed Co-Lead Counsel Are National Leaders in BIPA Litigation and 

Complex Class Actions 

We have a track record of successfully litigating and resolving consumer class actions and 

other complex litigation. Our vast litigation experience is fully detailed in our Declarations. 

Briefly, Ms. Carroll has significant experience with biometric privacy matters, having 

litigated some of the earliest biometric privacy cases on record in this District, including cases 

against Google and Shutterfly that have shaped BIPA jurisprudence across the country. See e.g., 

Norberg v. Shutterfly, Inc., 152 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (finding jurisdiction against 

defendant and that plaintiff stated a claim under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act); 

Rivera v. Google Inc., 238 F. Supp. 3d 1088, 1095-96 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (interpreting meaning of 

“biometric identifier” within the context of BIPA). She is currently litigating BIPA matters against 

some of the largest companies in the world (IBM, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Facebook). 

Apart from her BIPA experience, Ms. Carroll has extensive MDL experience and has been 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 49 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:808
5 

personally appointed to leadership positions in numerous complex class cases, including privacyrelated actions like this one. See Carroll Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. Her firm, Carlson Lynch, has additional 

and far-ranging MDL experience in some of the country’s largest privacy and data breach matters. 

Id. ¶ 7. 

Similarly, Mr. Jagher has built a practice representing plaintiffs in consumer and antitrust 

class actions, recovering close to $1 billion for his clients and represented classes. Jagher Decl. ¶ 

4. He is currently serving a lead role for Freed Kanner as an Executive Committee member in a 

case involving mobile apps (such as TikTok) in Cameron et. al. v. Apple, Inc. 4:19-cv-03074 (N.D. 

Cal.). Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Jagher also has significant experience and has served in lead roles in the some 

of the largest antitrust cases on record including In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL 

2311 (E.D. Mich.) (“Auto Parts”), an ongoing MDL consisting of over 25 different coordinated 

actions in which settlements to date total over $550 million. Significantly, Ms. Carroll also played 

a key role in that litigation, and for years, worked seamlessly with Mr. Jagher. Id. ¶ 8. She 

witnessed first-hand Mr. Jagher’s ability to extract key deposition testimony from top global 

executives, his successful negotiation of mega-fund class action settlements, and his effective 

management of thirty plaintiffs’ firms across multiple classes in that MDL. These skills 

contributed to the successful outcome of that MDL and have similarly contributed to the effective 

prosecution of this litigation. 

In sum, we are committed to pursuing the best interests of plaintiffs and the class and have 

the necessary skills, experience and reputation to do so. We understand the time and resources 

necessary to pursue this action. Our firms have already made significant investments into the 

prosecution of the claims against TikTok. Further, our firms possess the resources and manpower 

required to continue our vigorous prosecution. Perhaps most importantly, we will lead this 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 49 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:809
6 

litigation, as we have done since the beginning, in a way that gives a voice to all involved parties 

and seeks cohesion, agreement, and cooperation in protecting and advancing the interests of the 

class. 

D. The Court Should Approve Our Proposed PSC And Liaison Counsel 

Apart from our appointment as Co-Lead Counsel, we propose a Plaintiffs’ Steering 

Committee (“PSC”)2 consisting of the following counsel: Robert Foote (Foote, Mielke, Chavez & 

O’Neil, LLC); Michael Gervais (Susman Godfrey LLP); Joseph Guglielmo (Scott+Scott Attorneys 

at Law LLP); Tina Wolfson (Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC) and James Zouras (Stephan Zouras, LLP). 

These attorneys are eminently qualified and have devoted significant time and attention to 

progressing this matter. 

This proposed PSC consists of individuals who personally participated in the mediation 

(remotely) and counsel that contributed significantly through their tireless efforts in the months 

preceding the mediation. The proposed PSC is in part comprised of counsel from this District who 

actively advanced the litigation by assisting in the research and drafting of the consolidated 

complaint, preparing discovery requests, and several other “litigation track” assignments. Simply 

put, the proposed PSC, at our direction, has worked cooperatively, efficiently and in the best 

interests of the class for months and is well-qualified to continue these efforts. 

In addition to the PSC, there are many other Class Counsel that have collaborated with us 

and support our appointment as Co-Lead Counsel. In the interest of presenting an agreed-upon 

cohesive group, many of these counsel (who are just as well qualified and could easily serve in a 

2

 Each member of the proposed PSC supports Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher as Co-Lead Counsel 

and will be submitting individual applications for PSC positions discussing their qualifications in 

detail. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 49 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:810
7 

PSC role here) stepped back for the good of the collective team.3 Should this Court appoint us as 

Co-Lead Counsel, we will continue drawing on their collective class-action experience. This allstar team of lawyers and firms that we have united includes William Baird (Baird Law Firm); 

Albert Chang (Bottini & Bottini, Inc.); Francis J. “Casey” Flynn, Jr. (Law Office of Francis J. 

Flynn, Jr.); Richard Gordon (Gordon Law Offices, Ltd.); Daniel Herrera (Cafferty Clobes 

Meriwether & Sprengel LLP); Benjamin Johns (Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith 

LLP); Erik H. Langeland (Erik H. Langeland, P.C.); Mark Molumphy (Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy 

LLP); James Onder and Lawana Wichmann (Onder Law LLC); Daniel Girard (Girard Sharp); 

Joseph Sauder (Sauder Schelkopf LLC); Jon Tostrud (Tostrud Law Group, P.C.); E. Kirk Wood 

(Wood Law Firm, LLC); and Tiffany Yiatras (Consumer Legal LLC). 

 We also propose Beth Fegan of Fegan Scott, LLC as Liaison Counsel. Since filing her 

case, Ms. Fegan has worked hand-in-hand with us. She has supported and contributed to the 

mediation efforts and is extremely well-suited to serve as Liaison Counsel in this MDL.4 

CONCLUSION 

 For all the above reasons, we respectfully request that the Court grant our application to 

serve as Co-Lead Counsel in the matter and approve our proposed PSC and choice of Liaison 

Counsel. 

3

 We think it is particularly appropriate to recognize Tiffany Yiatras, appointed by Judge 

Rosenstengel as Interim Lead Counsel in the Southern District of Illinois actions during the 

pendency of the MDL. Ms. Yiatras performed substantial work for our team at all times. She 

also served as a mediation delegate. Despite her continuous efforts and in the interests of 

consensus, Ms. Yiatras graciously agreed to forego a PSC position on our proposed slate. In 

addition, Daniel Herrera and Joseph Sauder both greatly contributed to our efforts and 

participated in the mediation coalition. Like Ms. Yiatras, both Mr. Herrera and Mr. Sauder also 

agreed to step down for the good of our group. 

4

 Ms. Fegan supports Ms. Carroll and Mr. Jagher as Co-Lead Counsel and will be submitting an 

individual application for appointment as Liaison Counsel discussing her qualifications in detail. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 49 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:811
8 

Dated: September 8, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Katrina Carroll

Katrina Carroll 

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com 

CARLSON LYNCH LLP

111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: (312) 750-1265 

Jonathan M. Jagher 

FREED KANNER LONDON & 

MILLEN LLC 

923 Fayette St. 

Conshohocken, PA 19428 

Tel.: (610) 234-6487 

Fax: (224) 632-4521 

jjagher@fklmlaw.com 

Proposed Co-Lead Counsel 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 49 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:812
9 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 8, 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 issued through the Court’s 

Electronic Case Filing System on this date. 

/s/ Katrina Carroll 

Katrina Carroll 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 49 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:813