Peter H. Kang
How Judge Kang decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Reads the court's model protective orders by their text and the actual sensitivity of the anticipated discovery, not by case label: the Tier-2 (highly-sensitive/trade-secret) MPO is available for any case with sensitive discovery, not only patent cases.
“Plaintiff's argument that the Tier 2 MPO is somehow applicable only for patent litigation is facially wrong. ... There is nothing in the Tier 2 MPO or the Local Rules which limits adoption of the Tier 2 MPO only to certain types of intellectual property cases.”
Cautions
Expects strict compliance with his Standing Discovery Order and genuine lead-counsel meet-and-confer before he will hear a discovery dispute; non-compliant letter briefs are denied without prejudice, and he warns that continued failure to compromise can lead to in-person meet-and-confers in his courtroom and monthly discovery management conferences.
“this Discovery Letter Brief does not comply with Section H.2 of the Court's Standing Discovery Order because it is lacking the certification of lead trial counsel of their meet and confer on the disputes therein. ... the Court may consider requiring the Parties to appear in-person for monthly Discovery Management Conferences, if counsel continue to demonstrate a failure to reasonably compromise discovery disputes.”
Will personally sanction counsel (not the client) under Rule 16(f) for ignoring scheduling/pretrial orders and OSCs, while declining harsher remedies like default judgment -- and credits candor at the hearing in setting the amount.
“Attorney Thomas R. Chapin is PERSONALLY SANCTIONED in the amount of $500 ... which shall be directly paid by him personally (and not by his client) ... reduced the amount out of consideration for Attorney Chapin's candor at the OSC hearing.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Workday's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This RESOLVES Dkt. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
“The Court DECLINES to enter default judgment against Defendant. Attorney Thomas R. Chapin is PERSONALLY SANCTIONED in the amount of $500 ... which shall be directly paid by him personally (and not by his client) ... The Court considered greater monetary sanctions (at least double the amount imposed in the preceding sentence) but has reduced the amount out of consideration for Attorney Chapin's candor at the OSC hearing.”
“the Court ORDERS the Parties to use the Tier 2 Model Protective Order ... The Court DENIES Defendant Pharmavite's proposed edits to the MPO which would broadly bar disclosure of highly confidential information to experts consulting against a competitor of Pharmavite. ... the Court DENIES the Discovery Letter Brief filed on May 4, 2026 [Dkt. 118]”
“On March 31, 2025, the Court issued an Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiff Jewish Legal News, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, and granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant United States Department of Education’s cross-motion for summary judgment. [Dkt. 45]. Accordingly, no issues remain for adjudication.”
“Kranz’s motion for summary judgment as to its claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage [Dkt. 76 at 2] is DENIED. Kranz’s motion for summary judgment as to Lain’s counterclaims for FEHA sex harassment, Title VII sex harassment, FEHA race harassment, Title VII race harassment, FEHA sex discrimination, Title VII sex discrimination, FEHA race discrimination, and Title VII race discrimination [Dkt. 76 at 2-3] is GRANTED.”
“Lain’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 77] is DENIED.”
“the Court DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause and ORDERS the imposition of specific sanctions (detailed below) against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record personally.”
“Plaintiff’s motion requesting service of process [Dkt. 5] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
A pro se in forma pauperis complaint invoking criminal statutes and alleging fraud connected to a decades-old Social Security dispute, screened under the mandatory IFP-screening statute and found frivolous for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, with leave granted to amend. Sua sponte screening dismissal, not a party motion: "Plaintiff's Complaint [Dkt. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief."
“The Motion to Compel [Dkt. 1] is DENIED.”
“Sacks’ request for an award of fees and costs [Dkt. 1 at 12] is DENIED.”
“After carefully reviewing the Parties’ briefings and after oral argument, the Court DENIES the Petition.”
“For all the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES Defendant MOHELA’s motion to maintain confidentiality as to the remaining challenged documents and ORDERS that these documents are no longer deemed confidential under the Protective Order.”
“Having considered all relevant factors and legal requirements, and in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, the Court finds that GRANTING IN PART Liapis’s § 1782 application is appropriate in this case.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Kang joined the court in December 2022 and serves both as an initially assigned San Francisco magistrate judge and as a discovery referee in larger cases. His recent directly assigned caseload includes product liability, consumer protection, immigration-delay, civil-rights, copyright-subpoena, and other miscellaneous matters. The 2026 sample is overwhelmingly pending, consistent with his short tenure, so too few terminated cases are available for duration figures.
Put Judge Kang's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Kang actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Kang's own signed orders and cites them.