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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motion to dismiss consent final N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Rule 16f attorney sanctions N = 1 |
counts only | |
| Discovery protective order dispute N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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]”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Kang's docket caseload under assigned_judge='Peter H. Kang' / 'Peter H Kang'. As a magistrate appointed December 2022 he is the initially-assigned judge in San Francisco (-PHK), and is also a frequent DISCOVERY-REFERRAL magistrate in larger cases assigned to district judges (e.g. Hamzeh v. Pharmavite, referred for all discovery; appears in the In re Social Media MDL 22-md-03047 and In re Uber MDL 23-md-03084 discovery streams). His recent direct-assignment docket skews to product-liability (notably multiple Epic Games and Apple personal-injury/product cases), consumer protection (TCPA, FDCPA/consumer credit, false advertising), immigration mandamus (USCIS/visa delay), civil rights, and 512(h)/subpoena miscellaneous matters. Sample is overwhelmingly PENDING (2026 filings), consistent with his short tenure; case durations not reported (too few terminations).