Peter H. Kang
How Judge Kang rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Kang decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A discovery request ordinarily cannot require a party to create data that it does not keep in the ordinary course of business.
“A Party is not required to create new, previously nonexistent data for an Opposing Party to respond to a discovery request, if the data is not kept in the ordinary course of business.”
Cautions
New discovery disputes must be ripe and must satisfy the applicable meet-and-confer requirements before he will consider additional relief.
“any such new disputes are not ripe and premature. There is no indication in the record that the Parties fully complied with all meet and confer requirements and Section H(2) of the Standing Discovery Order with regard to any of these new disputes, issues, or requests for additional discovery.”
He may sanction counsel personally for disregarding scheduling orders while declining a harsher remedy against the client, and may credit candor when 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.
Draft for Judge Kang with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kang, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kang's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace