Peter H. Kang
How Judge Kang rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kang
Peter H. Kang joined the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as a magistrate judge in December 2022. Before joining the bench, he litigated complex civil cases, served as an arbitrator and mediator, and clerked for a federal district judge in Rhode Island. He earned degrees from Stanford University and Georgetown University Law Center.
Judge Kang's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kang, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
With the stated discovery exception, send requests to the court as filed pleadings rather than letters.
“With the exception of discovery disputes (see Judge Kang’s Standing Order for Discovery 3 in Civil Cases), or unless expressly permitted by the Court, Parties shall not submit letters to the 4 Court, and any communication with the Court must be in pleading form filed manually or e-filed 5 with the Clerk of Court, including but not limited to status reports, requests for continuances, and 6 requests for remote appearances.”
Filing
File a separate redline with every proposed amended pleading.
“All proposed amended complaints, answers, counterclaims, or other pleadings shall be filed 8 contemporaneously with a separate red-line version of the amended document showing the changes 9 made to the previously operative pleading.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
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.”
In two disability appeals, he ordered further agency proceedings after finding legal error because unresolved evidence still required evaluation before any benefits award.
“The second factor is not met, however, because further proceedings are necessary”
Cautions
In Gemini Data, Inc. v. Google LLC, Kang declined to address newly raised discovery disputes because they were premature and the record did not show compliance with the required meet-and-confer process.
“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.”
In Smith v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Office Correctional Facility, he declined to enter default against the defendant but personally sanctioned defense counsel $500, reducing the amount in light of counsel's candor at the hearing.
“Attorney Thomas R. Chapin is PERSONALLY SANCTIONED in the amount of $500 (five hundred U.S. dollars), 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.”
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.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 3 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Northern District of California, not for Judge Kang: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 6,017 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,955 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,978 | 7.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,052 | 15 months |
| Closed during trial | 32 | 36.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,017 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,248 | 20.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 5,452 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 9,464 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,437 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,881 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,640 | 8.7 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
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