Judge Peter H. Kang — United States District Court, Northern District of California

Delivery Address

United States District Court Office of the Clerk 450 Golden Gate Ave, 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102

Judge Kang's Civil Standing Order

[Source: https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Civil-Standing-Order_2025.7.16.pdf]

United States District Court Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PETER H. KANG (Effective and Last Revised on July 16, 2025) I. APPLICABILITY OF STANDING ORDER Unless otherwise indicated by the Court, this Standing Order applies to all categories of civil cases before Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang. The Parties shall follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Northern District of California’s Local Rules and General Orders, except as expressly modified herein. Counsel shall also comply with the Northern District of California’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct. See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/professional_ conduct_guidelines. Counsel shall review and be familiar with this Standing Order. Failure to comply with any of the applicable rules and orders, including this Standing Order, may be deemed sufficient grounds for sanctions (monetary or otherwise), revocation of pro hac vice admission, referral to appropriate state or local bar authorities, dismissal, entry of default judgment, or other appropriate sanctions. Plaintiff (or in the case of removed cases, any removing Defendant) is directed: (a) to serve copies of this Standing Order and Judge Kang’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases upon all other Parties to the action within seven (7) calendar days of the appearance of these other Parties, including any subsequently joined Parties, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 5; and (b) to file with the Clerk of the Court a certificate reflecting such service, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-5. II. CONSENT CASES In civil cases that are randomly assigned to Judge Kang for all purposes, the Parties will be provided a Clerk’s notice of the deadline to consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction. The form for “Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” is available at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/mj_consent-declination_form_10-2020/. All Parties should promptly file this form indicating their written consent to assignment of a magistrate judge for all purposes, or their written declination of such consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(2); Civil L.R. 73.
If a Party files a dispositive motion (such as a motion to dismiss or a motion for remand),

United States District Court Northern District of California the moving party must file the consent or declination simultaneously with the motion. In no event shall the consent or declination be filed later than the deadlines specified in Civil Local Rule 73- 1(a)(1) and (2). The Parties are directed to inform the Court of all reasonable bases for recusal at the earliest possible date. III. AMENDED PLEADINGS All proposed amended complaints, answers, counterclaims, or other pleadings shall be filed contemporaneously with a separate red-line version of the amended document showing the changes made to the previously operative pleading. IV. SCHEDULING HEARINGS AND CONFERENCES Civil Law and Motion is generally heard on Thursdays at 1:30 p.m. unless otherwise ordered by the Court. When Judge Kang is on criminal duty, Civil Law and Motion is heard on Thursdays at 2:30 p.m. or as otherwise ordered by the Court. The Parties should notice civil motions for hearing in accordance with the Civil Local Rules (however, with respect to discovery disputes, counsel should review and follow the procedure in Judge Kang’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases). Counsel need not reserve hearing dates but should check Judge Kang’s calendar (at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov under “Calendar” and “Judges’ Weekly Calendars”) before noticing civil motions for hearing to confirm the Court’s availability. The availability of the civil calendar on Zoom does not constitute a hybrid hearing. All litigants must appear in person unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
Criminal Law and Motion is heard on Tuesdays at 1:30 p.m. Case Management Conferences are held on Wednesdays at 11:00 a.m.
Pretrial Conferences are held on Wednesdays at 1:30 p.m. All counsel listed on the Parties’ pleadings and briefing must be fully apprised of the status of the pending matter and must be authorized to respond to calendar settings and modifications to the case schedule entered by the Court. Noticed dates may be reset by the Court as Judge Kang’s calendar requires or as otherwise ordered by the Court. Parties (including their counsel) shall not attempt to make ex parte contact

United States District Court Northern District of California with Judge Kang or his chambers staff by email, telephone, fax, text or messaging app, or any other means. With the exception of discovery disputes (see Judge Kang’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases), or unless expressly permitted by the Court, Parties shall not submit letters to the Court, and any communication with the Court must be in pleading form filed manually or e-filed with the Clerk of Court, including but not limited to status reports, requests for continuances, and requests for remote appearances.
No changes to the Court’s schedule shall be made except by order of the Court. Parties seeking to continue hearings, request special status conferences, modify briefing schedules, or make any other procedural or scheduling changes shall submit a proposed order and fully executed stipulation explaining the need for the requested modification, or, if stipulation is not possible, a motion for administrative relief. See Civil L.R. 7-11. A Party seeking to enlarge a filing deadline or other matter by way of a motion for administrative relief is admonished to file such a motion sufficiently in advance of the filing deadline sought to be enlarged to allow time for any opposition to be filed under Civil Local Rule 7-11(b), and to allow time for the Court to review prior to the original deadline, rather than at the last minute (such as only a day or two before a brief or other matter is due). Continuances are generally disfavored and will be granted only upon a showing of good cause, with a particular focus on diligence (or lack thereof) by the Party seeking the continuance and prejudice that may result if the continuance is denied (or granted). Parties should address all questions regarding scheduling to Judge Kang’s Courtroom Deputy (“CRD”) via email at PHKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov.
V. CHAMBERS COPIES Pursuant to General Order 78, no paper or hard courtesy copies will be accepted by Judge Kang pending further order of the Court. Instead, courtesy copies of as-filed documents may be emailed to PHKpo@cand.uscourts.gov. In addition, any proposed stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall be sent in Word format by email to PHKpo@cand.uscourts.gov. This address is to be used only for these purposes, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

United States District Court Northern District of California VI. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES The Parties to an action shall file their joint case management conference statement no later than seven (7) calendar days in advance of the case management conference date. The statement must include all elements requested in the “Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement.” See Civil L.R. 16-9. To the extent not already included, the joint case management conference statement may also discuss any issues under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(2) which any of the Parties desire the Court to consider at or in connection with the case management conference.
As discussed further herein, the Court recognizes that generative AI (including related technologies and tools) are an evolving area impacting the practice of law and clients. In addition to issues relating to electronic discovery, counsel and parties shall meet and confer on any concerns, issues, and proposals for handling generative AI-related issues specific to or anticipated in their case, and shall report on and raise any such AI-related issues in their Joint Case Management Conference and Pretrial Statements.
The Parties shall caption their filing to read either “Initial Joint Case Management Statement” or “Further Joint Case Management Statement,” as appropriate. In the joint case management conference statement, any law firm with more than 25 lawyers nationwide shall submit a specific plan for how that firm intends, in this case, to provide opportunities for less experienced lawyers (six years or less out of law school) to develop skills by participating meaningfully in court and in the case, including a plan for such lawyers to argue motions in court, to take and defend depositions, to represent a Party in court at case management and other conferences, to present Party positions at settlement conferences, to present argument during pretrial conferences and during trial, to examine (including cross-examine) witnesses at trial, and to participate meaningfully at any other court proceeding. Specific junior lawyers shall be identified.
In cases involving pro se litigants, the Parties shall attempt to file a joint case management statement; if after due diligence, an agreement cannot be reached, the Parties may file separate case management statements, with each statement complying with Civil L.R. 3-4, 16-9, and this Standing

United States District Court Northern District of California Order, where each statement shall be limited to seven (7) pages in length.
Unless proceeding pro se, each Party shall be represented at each case management conference by counsel knowledgeable about the case and its status, and with full and complete authority to address all of the matters referred to in: (1) the joint case management statement; (2) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(c) and 26(f); (3) the “Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement;” and (4) the orders issued in the instant action, including this Standing Order. Counsel must also have full and complete authority to enter stipulations and make admissions.
No scheduled or noticed case management, status, or pretrial conference will be continued by stipulation or agreement of the Parties alone. Noticed conference dates may be continued only as ordered by the Court. If a Party files a motion that would be dispositive of the entire case (e.g., a motion to dismiss or remand), the Parties may file a stipulation and proposed order to continue the initial case management conference to fifteen (15) calendar days after the hearing on that case- dispositive motion. If the motion to dismiss (or remand) is not entirely case dispositive, the initial case management conference will not be continued. In their joint case management statement for the initial case management conference, the Parties shall propose a full schedule for their action, including a proposed last day to amend pleadings, regardless of whether they have received a ruling on any such motion to dismiss or remand. Parties shall indicate in their joint case management conference statement (or by a separate notice filed contemporaneously therewith) if they intend to have a less experienced lawyer present a Party’s positions on an issue in dispute or identified for discussion at the case management conference and may request the case management conference be conducted in person for that purpose. Subject to the Court’s calendar, the Court generally encourages in-person appearances for case management, status, and pretrial conferences. Permission for a Party to attend by remote means (e.g., videoconference/Zoom or telephone) may be granted, in the Court’s discretion and on a case- by-case basis, only upon a Party’s filing a motion for administrative relief at least two (2) weeks in advance of the conference should the Court determine that good cause exists to excuse personal

United States District Court Northern District of California attendance and that personal attendance is not needed in order to have an effective conference. The facts establishing good cause must be set forth in the motion for administrative relief and supported by declaration(s) under oath establishing those facts. Absent compelling circumstances, the Court will generally not grant a motion for administrative relief to appear by videoconference or telephonically for Parties or counsel who reside or have an office located within any of the Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma) or are otherwise located within 100 miles of the courthouse. In addition, the Court generally will not grant a request to appear remotely made by a Party that has raised or identified an issue for discussion or dispute in a case management conference statement. If a motion for administrative relief to appear by remote means is granted, the Party granted remote appearance must contact Judge Kang’s CRD by email for specific instructions on appearing remotely. To ensure the quality of the record, the Parties should avoid the use of mobile phones, speakerphones, public telephone booths, or the use of laptops, tablets, or cellphones in other public places. All case management, status and pretrial conferences are audio recorded; they are not reported by a court reporter unless counsel requests a court reporter in advance. VII. MOTIONS A. Form of Filing Motions and Supporting Papers All motions and declarations shall be filed as separate documents. This includes motions and declarations e-filed with the Court. All exhibits to motions should be separately filed on ECF.
For example, if the motion is Docket No. 30, and a supporting declaration with 10 exhibits is Docket No. 31, Exhibit A should be filed as Docket No. 31-1, Exhibit B should be Docket No. 31-2, and so on. Electronically filed documents must be text-searchable PDFs whenever possible. In situations where leave of Court has been granted to electronically file a declaration with its exhibits as a single .pdf file, that combined declaration and exhibits must be bookmarked (i.e., if the declaration references an exhibit, the declaration must contain a hyperlink to the corresponding exhibit). The foregoing applies regardless of page length. For motions to seal, any Party who submits a request to file a document or material under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5 shall include a statement to inform the Court: (1) whether the

United States District Court Northern District of California document, or portion thereof, has been the subject of a previous request to file under seal; and (2) if so, provide the docket numbers of the request and order on the request, and identify whether the request was granted or denied. Parties shall also submit by email to PHKpo@cand.uscorts.gov a complete unredacted chambers copy of any brief or supporting papers lodged under seal with all confidential material highlighted or otherwise clearly indicating which portions the Parties seek to seal. Parties shall not submit redacted versions of the documents that they seek to seal as chambers copies. Each Party filing a motion shall also file and serve a proposed order that sets forth the relief or action sought and a short statement of the rationale of decision. Each Party opposing a motion may file and serve a proposed order (with a short statement of the rationale of decision) if that Party seeks a specific ruling by the Court other than mere denial of the motion. Any proposed order should be filed contemporaneously with the motion or opposition. As noted above, any proposed stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall also be sent in Word format by email to PHKpo@cand.uscourts.gov. For discovery motions, see Judge Kang’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases. B. Summary Judgment Motions For summary judgment motions, each Party or side in an action is presumptively limited to filing one summary judgment motion. Any Party wishing to exceed this limit must request leave of the Court well in advance of the dispositive motions deadline. Counsel are encouraged and expected to raise any such issue in connection with case management statements and conferences. Briefing shall comply with Civil Local Rules 7-2 through 7-5. Separate statements of proposed undisputed facts and/or conclusions of law are prohibited, and thus, will not be considered by the Court. Joint statements of undisputed facts are encouraged and should be filed if agreed upon. If Parties submit excerpts of deposition transcripts in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment, they shall highlight the relevant portions for ease of reference. Unless otherwise ordered, the Parties shall meet and confer no later than forty-five (45) calendar days before the end of fact discovery to determine if they will file cross-motions for summary judgment. If so, only four briefs will be allowed: (1) opening brief by the plaintiff side;

United States District Court Northern District of California (2) opening/opposition brief by the defense side; (3) opposition/reply brief by the plaintiff side; and (4) reply brief by the defense side. The Parties may agree to reverse the briefing sequence, and may have the defense side file its opening brief first, without order of the Court. The first two briefs are limited to twenty-five (25) pages each; the third brief is limited to twenty (20) pages; and the fourth brief is limited to fifteen (15) pages. Before the first brief is filed, the Parties shall submit a stipulation and proposed order setting a briefing schedule for the cross-motions and a general, one- sentence description of the subject matter of each of the cross-motions. The proposed schedule shall require that the fourth brief must be filed at least twenty-one (21) calendar days before the hearing date on the cross-motions. If the parties agree to change the procedure or scheduling for cross- motions for summary judgment, they may submit a stipulation and proposed order explaining the grounds for such requested change. C. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Filings with the Court The Court is aware of recent developments regarding generative AI and its impact on litigation. Accordingly, the Court provides the following guidance for parties and their counsel in this evolving area. If parties have specific proposals for modifying, adding to, or addressing AI- related issues in their matter, counsel are encouraged and expected to raise such proposals as part of the case management procedures above and as appropriate during the progress of an action. AI and specifically generative AI (as referred to herein) denote a category of automated tools that are capable of formulating unique content, such as text that has not been expressly programmed into the computer system at issue. Generative AI is thus distinguishable from other categories of AI, which may operate based on pre-established algorithms and, of particular relevance to the administration of justice, do not generate original content or text. The Court recognizes that generative AI, AI tools, and the applications using such technology are evolving areas, with changing terminology and technical approaches. Therefore, these provisions are to be reasonably construed as these AI tools develop further, with the overarching purpose of the provisions in mind.
At one end of the spectrum of available software tools, the provisions herein do not apply to the use of applications, solutions, or tools which implicate AI for tasks unrelated to or at best tangentially related to the practice of law and not involved in or responsible for the creation or drafting of text

United States District Court Northern District of California for submissions to the Court. For example, these provisions do not apply to counsel’s use of software, applications, or vendors’ offerings which may in some way incorporate a technology labeled as “AI” in performing law firm or lawyer administrative or ministerial tasks (e.g., timekeeping, invoicing, HR, accounting, business development, and similar back office or business of law solutions). Nor do these provisions apply to counsel’s or a pro se party’s use of traditional legal research, word processing, spellchecking, grammar checking, or formatting software tools (e.g., Lexis, Westlaw, Microsoft Word, or Adobe Acrobat).
AI and Briefs/Pleadings Filed with the Court: As a baseline matter, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the Court’s Education Guidelines as set forth in ESI Guideline 3.01, and any other applicable legal or ethical guidelines, it is expected that counsel for the parties, including all counsel who have appeared, as well as all others responsible for making representations to the Court or opposing counsel (whether or not they make an appearance) and pro se parties, shall competently and responsibly use automated, computer-based software or hardware applications in drafting briefs, pleadings, or other documents to be submitted to the Court, whether such tools are labelled as AI, generative AI, language model, natural language processing tool, machine learning tool, artificial neural network, deep learning neural network, or any other automated generator of text. Counsel and pro se parties shall make use of such tools with competent training, knowledge, and understanding of the limitations and risks of such automated tools. Counsel are expected to abide by existing and evolving California State Bar guidance and advisory opinions on the use of AI in the legal profession, and counsel should conduct themselves in a manner consistent with ABA Resolution 604’s (Feb. 6, 2023) admonishment regarding accountability of individuals and organizations for any use of AI products, systems, and capabilities (and the Resolution’s provisions regarding operators of AI systems and capabilities). See https://perma.cc/A6WC-6X6P. As with any prudent approach in an evolving area of law, counsel and pro se parties are expected to be competent and knowledgeable about evolving judicial and legal standards in the use of generative AI tools, including case law and opinions addressing such issues (not limited to case law imposing sanctions for failure to use generative AI in an ethical manner). Any brief, pleading, or other document submitted to the Court the text of which was created

United States District Court Northern District of California or drafted with any use of an AI tool shall be identified as such in its title or pleading caption, in a table preceding the body text of such brief or pleading, or by a separate Notice filed contemporaneously with the brief, pleading, or document. Counsel shall maintain records sufficient to identify, if requested by the Court, those portions of the text of a pleading, brief, or document submitted to the Court which was created or drafted by an AI tool. Parties and counsel shall not file or otherwise present to the Court any briefs, pleadings, materials, other documents, or argument which contain AI-hallucinated citations to law, case or legal citations which are fictitious or non- existent, or any uncorroboratable assertions of law or fact. A pro se party or a counsel’s failure to confirm or double-check the accuracy, veracity, or even existence of a case or legal citation (or assertion of fact) created by an AI tool is grounds for potential sanctions.
AI and Evidence: The Court recognizes that, as AI tools proliferate generally in society, there may arise situations in which AI-generated documents or materials (for example, created by a Party prior to the commencement of litigation) are or may become exhibits, evidence, or the subject of factual disputes in an action. In such situations, a pro se party or counsel shall follow the procedures below with regard to proffering evidence, documents, or other factual material which that Party or counsel knows or has any reasonable basis to believe is or was created in whole by a generative AI or any AI tool for creating text, documents, images, video, graphics, audio, or any other material:

1. If a Party or counsel seeks to file or otherwise present to the Court any such AI-generated evidentiary material, no such material shall be considered unless previously disclosed or produced timely in discovery (or, with respect to demonstrative exhibits, by the deadline for exchange or disclosure of demonstrative exhibits).
2. Contemporaneous with the production or disclosure of any such AI-generated evidentiary material, counsel shall serve a Notice to the opposing Party or side identifying such material with sufficient specificity to locate it (such as by Bates or production number, by attaching a copy to such Notice, by promptly responding to any request for counsel to provide a copy of such material, or by any other means which reasonably permits the other Party or side to identify and locate the material promptly). Any such AI-generated material which does not

United States District Court Northern District of California have an accompanying Notice shall not be considered by the Court. Absent stipulation between the Parties or other order of the Court on scheduling, at the time of the submission or filing of any such material to the Court, the Party or counsel proffering such AI-generated material to the Court shall file and serve any declarations, affidavits, or sworn testimony to address the material’s authenticity under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 3) If a Party or counsel chooses to use an AI or other automated tool as part of a process for creating exhibits, demonstratives, or other material to be filed or presented to the Court, they shall only do so consistent with their ethical and legal obligations and shall use such tools responsibly and with competent training, knowledge, and understanding of the limitations and risks of such automated tools. Parties and counsel shall not file, proffer, or otherwise present to the Court exhibits, demonstratives, or other evidentiary or factual material which contain AI-hallucinated assertions of fact, uncorroboratable statements as to factual matters or evidence, or any fictitious or non-existent references or citations to law or fact. A pro se party’s or a counsel’s failure to confirm or double-check the accuracy, veracity, or even existence of a basis for an assertion of fact or evidence created by an AI tool is grounds for potential sanctions. Any exhibit, demonstrative, or other material to be filed or presented to the Court which was created or drafted with any assistance or use of an AI tool shall be identified as such in its title or caption, in a table preceding the body of exhibit, demonstrative, or other material, or by a separate Notice filed contemporaneously with the document or material. Counsel shall maintain records sufficient to identify, if requested by the Court, those portions of that exhibit, document, or material created or drafted by use of an AI tool. AI and Confidentiality: Third parties and non-parties to an action may own and operate publicly available AI tools such as large language models, machine learning tools, artificial neural networks, deep learning neural networks, and all other forms of generative AI for creating text, documents, or other materials. The owner or operator of any such AI tool may have access to, ownership of, or otherwise retain information input or submitted to such AI tool, including queries or prompts. Accordingly, in the course of preparing filings with the Court or other documents for

United States District Court Northern District of California submission in an action, counsel and Parties choosing to use an AI or other automated tools shall fully comply with any applicable protective order and all applicable ethical/legal obligations (including issues relating to privilege) in their use, disclosure to, submission to, or other interaction with any such AI tools. Such counsel and parties using any AI tool shall maintain records sufficient to establish and corroborate their compliance with this Standing Order, if asked by the Court, such as by keeping records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any such third-party AI tools.
D. Motion Hearings Parties shall indicate in their motion or opposition papers (or by a separate notice filed contemporaneously therewith) if they intend to have a less experienced lawyer argue all or part of the motion and may request an in-person hearing for that purpose. Subject to the Court’s calendar, the Court generally encourages in-person appearances for motion hearings. Permission for a Party to attend by remote means (e.g., videoconference/Zoom or telephone) may be granted, in the Court’s discretion and on a case-by-case basis, only if a Party files a motion for administrative relief at least two (2) weeks in advance of the motion hearing should the Court determine that good cause exists to excuse personal attendance and that personal attendance is not needed in order to have an effective hearing. The facts establishing good cause must be set forth in the motion for administrative relief and supported by declaration(s) under oath establishing those facts. Absent compelling circumstances, the Court will generally not grant a motion for administrative relief to appear by videoconference or telephonically for Parties or counsel who reside or have an office located within any of the Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma) or are otherwise located within 100 miles of the courthouse. In addition, the Court will not generally grant a motion for administrative relief to appear remotely made by the moving Party on any motion that is the subject of the hearing. If a request to appear by remote means is granted, the Party granted remote appearance must contact Judge Kang’s Courtroom Deputy by email for specific instructions on appearing remotely.
To ensure the quality of the record, the Parties should avoid the use of mobile phones, speakerphones, public telephone booths, or the use of laptops, tablets, or cellphones in other public places. All motion hearings are audio recorded; they are not reported by a court reporter unless

United States District Court Northern District of California counsel requests a court reporter in advance. Any matters that are taken under submission shall remain submitted until further order of the Court. If the Court rules verbally at a hearing and directs one or both Parties to prepare a corresponding order, the Court fully expects counsel for the Parties to cooperate in preparing any jointly submitted proposed order. VIII. SETTLEMENT Parties and their counsel are directed to review and comply with Judge Kang’s Settlement Conference Standing Order. Parties are encouraged to engage in or continue any ongoing settlement negotiations throughout the course of an action. The Parties shall notify chambers promptly by email at PHKsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov if their case settles, particularly if any settlement is prior to a noticed hearing, trial, or other court deadline. IX. UNREPRESENTED (PRO SE) LITIGANTS Parties representing themselves are encouraged to review the information and resources provided for pro se litigants contained on the Northern District of California website. Parties may access this information by clicking the “PRO SE LITIGANTS” link located at the top of the Court’s homepage: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. Legal assistance may also be available to unrepresented litigants through the Legal Help Center, located in Room 2796 on the 15th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse. Additional information about the program is available in the “Pro Se Litigants” section of the Court’s website or can be obtained by calling (415) 782-8982. X. MODE OF ADDRESS Litigants and lawyers may indicate their preferred pronouns (e.g., she/her, he/him, they/their) and honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Mx., Dr.) either: (a) confidentially by sending a confidential email to PHKpo@cand.uscourts.gov or mailing a confidential letter to Judge Kang’s chambers; or (b) by making such request non-confidentially by filing a request on the case docket, indicating as such verbally at a hearing or conference with the Court, or by adding such information in the name block or signature block of the pleadings. In actions in which a plaintiff is seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying that plaintiff social security payments, the Court generally

United States District Court Northern District of California uses the first name and initial of last name (or only the initials) of the plaintiff in its orders to protect the plaintiff’s privacy.
XI. COMMUNICATIONS WITH JUDGE KANG’S STAFF Unless ordered otherwise by the Court, Parties are not to participate in communications with Court staff. Parties are not to email requests seeking extensions of dates, remote appearances, or status updates on cases. Any email correspondence which is not requested by the Court will be ignored. Additionally, Parties shall not attempt to make ex parte contact with Judge Kang or his chambers staff by telephone, email, facsimile, text message, messaging app, or any other means. Parties should address all questions regarding scheduling to Judge Kang’s CRD via email at PHKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov. XII. PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE BAR The Court strongly encourages Parties and senior lawyers to permit less experienced lawyers, including lawyers from historically under-represented groups and/or First Generation lawyers, to participate actively in proceedings by presenting argument or a Party’s positions at a case management conference, motion hearing, settlement conference, pretrial conference, or at trial.
The Court is amenable to permitting a number of lawyers to present positions or argue for one Party if this creates an opportunity for such lawyers to participate. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 16, 2025

PETER H. KANG United States Magistrate Judge

Judge Kang's Discovery Standing Order

[Source: https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Final-Discovery-Standing-Order-v1.3.pdf]

United States District Court Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION STANDING ORDER FOR DISCOVERY IN CIVIL CASES BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PETER H. KANG (Effective June 1, 2023) A. APPLICABILITY OF STANDING ORDER Unless otherwise indicated by the Court, this Standing Order applies to discovery issues in all categories of civil cases assigned or referred to Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang. The Parties shall follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Northern District of California’s Local Rules and General Orders, except as expressly modified herein. Counsel shall also comply with the Northern District of California’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct, in particular Sections to of the Court’s Guidelines regarding discovery.

See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/professional conduct guidelines. Counsel shall review and be familiar with this Standing Order. Failure to comply with any of the applicable rules and orders may be deemed sufficient grounds for monetary sanctions, dismissal, entry of default judgment, or other appropriate sanctions. Plaintiff (or in the case of removed cases, any removing Defendant) is directed: (a) to serve copies of this Standing Order upon all other Parties to the action within seven (7) calendar days of the appearance of these other Parties, including any subsequently joined Parties, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 5; and (b) to file with the Clerk of the Court a certificate reflecting such service, in accordance with Civil L.R. 5-5. B. DISCOVERY - GENERAL Parties shall propound disclosures and discovery in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 and the corresponding Civil Local Rules for the Northern District of California. A copy of the Civil Local Rules is available at the Clerk’s Office and at the Court’s website. See http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. No exceptions to the limitations established in the Federal and Local Rules shall be permitted except pursuant to stipulation of the Parties or order of the Court. Parties have a continuing duty to supplement initial disclosures when required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).

United States District Court Northern District of California C. PROTECTIVE ORDER If the Parties believe a protective order is necessary, they shall, where practicable, use one of the Court’s model stipulated protective orders.

See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/model-protective-orders/. Parties shall file one of the following with their proposed protective order: (a) a declaration stating the proposed protective order is identical to one of the model protective orders except for the addition of case-identifying information or the elimination of language denoted as optional; (b) a declaration explaining each modification to the model protective order from which the proposed protective order is derived, along with a redline version comparing the proposed protective order with the model protective order; or (c) a declaration explaining why use of one of the model protective orders is not practicable and explaining in what substantive or material ways the proposed protective order differs from the most closely analogous model protective order. D. DEPOSITIONS Absent extraordinary circumstances, counsel shall confer reasonably in advance with opposing counsel and unrepresented proposed deponents to schedule depositions at mutually convenient times and places. Where an agreement cannot be reached as to any Party deponent or a deponent represented by counsel of record, the following procedure may be invoked by the Party seeking any such deposition. The Party seeking such a deposition may notice it at least thirty (30) calendar days in advance. If the noticed date and place is unacceptable to the deponent or the deponent’s counsel, then within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the notice, the deponent or counsel for the deponent must reply and counter-propose in writing an alternative date and place falling within thirty (30) calendar days of the date noticed by the Party seeking the deposition. Witnesses subpoenaed or requested to produce documents should ordinarily be served at least thirty (30) calendar days before the scheduled deposition unless otherwise stipulated, and arrangements should be made to permit inspection of the produced documents before the deposition commences. Extra copies of documents used during the deposition should ordinarily be provided to opposing counsel and the deponent.

United States District Court Northern District of California Counsel and Parties shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). During a deposition, Parties are expected to cooperate with and be courteous to each other and deponents. Absent agreement of the Parties, or unless otherwise ordered by the Court, each Party should designate one attorney to conduct that Party’s examination of a fact witness deponent. Parties should cooperate in the allocation of time to comply with any time limit set by the Court. Deposition objections shall be as to privilege or form only. Speaking objections or those calculated to coach a deponent are prohibited. Counsel may not instruct a deponent not to answer a question except when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation directed by the Court, or to present a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3). When a privilege is claimed, the witness should nevertheless answer questions relevant to the existence, extent, or waiver of the privilege, such as the date of a communication, who made the statement, to whom and in whose presence the statement was made, other persons to whom the contents of the statement have been disclosed, and the general subject matter of the statement, unless such information is itself privileged. Private conferences between deponents and attorneys in the course of interrogation, including a line of related questions, are improper and prohibited except for the sole purpose of determining whether a privilege should be asserted. If a dispute arises during a deposition which requires immediate attention by the Court, and which involves a persistent obstruction of the deposition or a refusal to answer a question in violation of this Standing Order, Parties may request a telephonic conference with the Court through Judge Kang’s Courtroom Deputy (“CRD”) at PHKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov. A Party or counsel may be subject to sanctions if they abuse this emergency discovery dispute process, or if they consistently impede, or otherwise unreasonably delay, the fair examination of a deponent. E. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION As soon as a Party has notice of this Standing Order, the Party shall take such affirmative steps as are necessary to preserve evidence related to the issues presented by the action. In responding to requests for documents and materials under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or 45, all Parties and third parties shall affirmatively state in a written response served on all other Parties the full extent

United States District Court Northern District of California to which they will produce materials and shall, promptly after the production, confirm in writing that they have produced all such materials so described that are locatable after a diligent search of all locations at which such materials might plausibly exist. It shall not be sufficient to object and/or to state that “responsive” materials will be or have been produced. To the extent reasonably feasible, each Party should retain their files and records, and copies should be produced which reproduce their original form and sequence, including file folders, and the originals should remain available for inspection by any counsel on reasonable notice. Except for good cause, no item will be received in evidence if the proponent failed to produce that item during the fact discovery period in the face of a reasonably specific and proper discovery request seeking production of that item or in the face of an obligation to disclose that item under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). F. E-DISCOVERY AND ESI ORDER Counsel for all Parties to an action shall review, be familiar with, and, to the extent reasonably feasible, follow the Court’s E-Discovery (“ESI”) Guidelines.

See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/e-discovery-esi-guidelines/. If the Parties believe an ESI order is necessary in their action, they shall, where practicable, use one of the Court’s Model Stipulated Orders Re: Discovery of Electronically Stored Info. Id. Parties shall file one of the following with their proposed ESI order: (a) a declaration stating the proposed ESI order is identical to one of the model ESI orders except for the addition of case-identifying information, the elimination of language denoted as optional, and/or the addition of text intended to be filled-in by the model ESI order; (b) a declaration explaining each modification to the model ESI order from which the proposed ESI order is derived, along with a redline version comparing the proposed ESI order with the model ESI order; or (c) a declaration explaining why use of one of the model ESI orders is not practicable and explaining in what substantive or material ways the proposed ESI order differs from the most closely analogous model ESI order. Any such declarations for the Parties shall also indicate whether aspects of the proposed ESI order are disputed between the Parties and explain the nature of the dispute and the compromises proposed by the Party on whose behalf the declaration is submitted.

United States District Court Northern District of California If the Parties agree that an ESI order is not appropriate or feasible in a particular case, they shall explain the reasons why in their initial Joint Case Management Statement to the Court. G. PRIVILEGE LOGS Counsel are expected to confer on a reasonably prompt schedule for mutual exchange of privilege logs, and in any event, sufficiently in advance of the fact discovery deadline to allow for resolution of any disputes over any assertions of privilege, if any, prior to the fact discovery cutoff. Parties and counsel have a continuing duty to supplement or correct their respective privilege logs throughout an action. Absent stipulation of the Parties or Court order on scheduling, privilege logs shall be promptly provided in response to a request for production to provide the other Party reasonably timely notice of the assertion of privilege. Privilege logs shall be sufficiently detailed and informative to justify the assertion of privilege or protection from discovery/disclosure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). No generalized claims of privilege, common interest, or work product protection shall be permitted. With respect to each communication for which a claim of privilege or work product is made, the asserting party shall at the time of its assertion identify which privilege or protection is asserted for each document or tangible thing and for that item identify: (a) the individuals making and receiving the privileged or protected communication; (b) the steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of the communication, including affirmation that no unauthorized persons have received the communication; (c) the date of the communication; and (d) the general subject matter of the communication. Absent agreement between the Parties on scheduling privilege logs or an order of the Court, failure to furnish this information at the time of the assertion may be deemed sufficient to constitute a waiver of the privilege or protection. H. DISCOVERY DISPUTES In cases for which any discovery dispute has been referred to Judge Kang and in cases that are assigned to Judge Kang for all purposes through consent of the Parties, the Parties shall follow the procedures as set forth below except as ordered otherwise. Except as specifically set forth herein, no motions regarding discovery disputes may be filed without prior leave of the Court.

United States District Court Northern District of California In the event a discovery dispute arises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that before filing any discovery motion with this Court, the Parties must comply with the following:

1. Counsel for all Parties (or third parties) involved in the dispute shall undertake reasonably diligent efforts to confer and attempt to negotiate a resolution of the dispute, such as by telephone, e-mail, teleconference, videoconference, in-person meeting, or correspondence. Counsel shall comply with the Court’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct, in particular Sections 9 to 11 regarding discovery and motions practice.
2. Only after counsel for the Parties have communicated in those efforts but remain unable to resolve the dispute, any Party may demand a meeting of lead trial counsel for the Parties involved in the dispute at issue to resolve the discovery dispute. Such meeting shall occur within ten (10) business days of the demand. If both lead counsel are located in the geographic region of the Northern District of California during the time period deadline set forth herein for the meet and confer, or if they are otherwise located within 100 miles of each other during this time period, lead trial counsel for both Parties shall meet and confer in person regarding the matter(s) at issue. If counsel are not required to meet and confer in person pursuant to this paragraph, they shall meet and confer via videoconference. The locations of the meetings shall alternate through the course of the action as succeeding discovery disputes arise, if any. The first meeting shall be at a location selected by counsel for Plaintiff(s). If there are any future disputes, the next such meeting shall be held at a location to be determined by counsel for Defendant(s), etc.
3. Within five (5) business days of the in-person meeting between lead trial counsel referred to above, the Parties shall jointly file a detailed letter with the Court which will include an identification of the matters remaining in dispute, a detailed substantive description of each side’s position on each such issue, and a description of each side’s proposed compromise on each such issue. Unless granted leave of Court, the joint letter shall not exceed five (5) pages, evenly divided between the Parties, and formatted with text at 12-point font or greater, single-spaced with reasonable margins, and line breaks between paragraphs. The joint letter shall attest that lead counsel met and conferred in person as required herein; if

United States District Court Northern District of California lead counsel did not meet in person, the joint letter shall explain why an in-person meeting was not required. The joint letter shall certify that lead trial counsel have both concluded that no agreement or negotiated resolution can be reached. Discovery joint letters must be e-filed under the Civil Events category of “Motions and Related Filings > Motions – General > “Discovery Letter Brief.” Parties are expected to plan for and cooperate in preparing the joint letter so that each side has adequate time to address the arguments. The joint letter may not be accompanied by any declarations, unless a Party declaration is needed to support a specific claim of undue burden. The joint letter may include, as an attachment, an excerpt of the specifically disputed discovery request or material; no other attachments are permitted unless the Court orders otherwise. After the Court has received the joint letter, the Court will determine what future proceedings, if any, are necessary.
The Court may resolve the dispute, request additional or more fulsome briefing, order the Parties to further meet and confer in-person at the courthouse with lead trial counsel (and/or in-house counsel) in attendance, set an in-person hearing, or otherwise instruct the Parties. A Party shall not refuse and shall not delay discovery unrelated to the subject matter of a joint letter on the basis that a dispute in that joint letter remains pending. The Court fully expects counsel to meet their obligations under this Standing Order and under the Local Rules. The meet and confer and joint letter procedures in this Standing Order apply to disputes among the Parties to an action and to disputes between Parties and third parties who have been served with subpoenas. 4. In the event that the Court orders a discovery hearing after reviewing a joint letter, lead trial counsel shall appear in person at that hearing along with any other counsel knowledgeable about the matter(s) in dispute. See infra Section I. For purposes of seeking continuances pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-7, the filing of a joint letter constitutes a filing of both a motion and an opposition. Permission for a Party or a specific counsel to attend by videoconference may be granted, in the Court’s discretion, only upon written request filed with the Court at least two (2) weeks in advance of the hearing should the Court determine that good cause exists to excuse personal attendance and that personal attendance is not

United States District Court Northern District of California needed in order to have an effective discovery hearing. The facts establishing good cause must be set forth in the request and supported by declaration(s) under oath establishing those facts. A Party may withdraw a discovery dispute raised by that Party in a joint letter.
The withdrawing Party may file and serve a notice of withdrawal without leave of the Court at any time up to seven (7) calendar days prior to the ordered discovery hearing.
Thereafter, leave of the Court must be sought. The Parties may jointly withdraw discovery dispute(s) raised in a joint letter by filing a joint notice of withdrawal without leave of the Court at any time prior to the Court’s ruling (whether at a discovery hearing or otherwise) on the dispute(s) raised in the joint letter. I.
PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE BAR The Court strongly encourages Parties and their law firms to permit less experienced lawyers, including lawyers from historically underrepresented groups and/or First Generation lawyers, to participate actively in proceedings by presenting argument at any discovery hearing scheduled by the Court. The Court is amenable to permitting a number of lawyers to argue for one Party if this creates an opportunity for such lawyers to participate. J.
NO EX PARTE CONTACT Parties shall not attempt to make ex parte contact with Judge Kang or his chambers staff by telephone, email, facsimile, text message, messaging app, or any other means. Parties should address all questions regarding scheduling to Judge Kang’s CRD via email at PHKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 1, 2023

PETER H. KANG United States Magistrate Judge

Judge Kang's Settlement Conference Standing Order

[Source: https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Settlement-Conference-Standing-Order-Finalized-v2.5-2023_05_22.pdf]

United States District Court Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STANDING ORDER BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PETER H. KANG (Effective and Last Revised May 24, 2023) INTRODUCTION This Standing Order governs cases referred to Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang for settlement. The Parties shall follow the General Orders of the Court for the Northern District of California, the Civil Local Rules, and the ADR Local Rules, except as expressly modified herein. Within five (5) business days of any Notice, Order, Stipulation, or other determination referring a case to Judge Kang for settlement, the plaintiff in such case shall serve a copy of this Settlement Conference Standing Order on all other Parties in that case.
A. PRE-SETTLEMENT PLANNING CONFERENCE In order to effectively prepare for the Settlement Conference, the Court will conduct an initial Pre-Settlement Planning Conference (“Planning Conference) with counsel of record for the Parties. A Clerk’s Notice will set the Planning Conference, which will be held typically via the Court’s Zoom Meetings link, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/peter-h-kang-phk/. Within five (5) business days of receiving the Clerk’s Notice (or any other deadline as otherwise set by the Court), counsel for each Party shall provide to the undersigned’s Courtroom Deputy (“CRD”) the names and email addresses of the attorney(s) who will attend the Planning Conference for that Party; without these email addresses, a Zoom Invitation to join the Planning Conference cannot be sent. For scheduling questions, contact Judge Kang’s CRD at PHKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov. Counsel for a Party requesting to reschedule a Planning Conference shall (1) meet and confer with counsel for the other Parties to identify at least two mutually agreeable proposed alternate dates for the Planning Conference and then (2) immediately contact Judge Kang’s CRD at PHKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov to submit the request for rescheduling and the proposed alternative dates, all to be accomplished as far in advance of the noticed date as possible. Planning Conferences are typically held on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday at 11 a.m. (Pacific Time).

United States District Court Northern District of California At the Planning Conference, counsel for the Parties shall be prepared to discuss: (1) a general discussion of the background and nature of the case; (2) proposed dates for the Settlement Conference; (3) the persons who will be present at the Settlement Conference for each Party, including identifying all persons who need to be present to have a productive Settlement Conference; (4) any ideas to improve the effectiveness of the Settlement Conference or matters that could pose impediments; and (5) any questions related to the Court’s Settlement Conference procedures, including procedures to be followed for the Settlement Conference Statements and at the Settlement Conference. The schedule for the Settlement Conference will be set during the Planning Conference, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
B. MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT FOR PLANNING CONFERENCE No later than five (5) business days prior to a scheduled Planning Conference, and prior to the preparation of their exchanged Settlement Conference Statements and Confidential Settlement Statements, counsel for all the Parties shall meet and confer (in person, by video conference, or by telephone) to discuss issues pertinent to improving the prospects that the settlement discussions will be productive. At the meet and confer, Counsel may address any subjects they feel are appropriate, but shall discuss the following:

1. Identifying at least three (3) mutually agreeable, proposed dates for the Settlement Conference to propose to the Court at the Planning Conference, where all such proposed dates shall be between 30 to 90 days after the date of the Planning Conference. Settlement Conferences are typically held on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Typically, Settlement Conferences start at 1 p.m. (Pacific Time), and the Court will discuss the start time for the Settlement Conference at the Planning Conference. In the process of discussing proposed dates for the Settlement Conference, counsel are reminded to check the Court’s general availability and criminal duty schedule.

See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/calendars/. 2. Who will attend the conference on behalf of each Party, including counsel and identification of the person(s) with full authority to decide whether any settlement offer or demand is made, accepted, or rejected (e.g., either the Party or another person(s) if full authority does not rest

United States District Court Northern District of California with that Party).
3. Which person(s) or entity(ies) must approve a proposed settlement agreement before it can be executed, the source of their authority to approve a settlement, whether such person(s) or entity(ies), or their representatives, are attending the Settlement Conference (and if not, whether they should and/or the reasons why such person(s) or entity(ies) are not attending the Settlement Conference), as well as the nature and duration of any such approval process.
4. Whether insurance is available to cover all or part of the claimed losses or to fund all or part of any Party's defense; whether tenders have been made to any insurance companies; and if insurance is available, the name and position held by each claims representative who will be attending the Settlement Conference.
5. Whether it would be useful for settlement demands and/or offers to be exchanged before the Settlement Conference is convened. 6. Whether there are particular documents or other tangible things that should be submitted jointly to the Court prior to or during the Settlement Conference (e.g., to educate the Court or to support or explain significant contentions).
7. Any unusual issues or factors that could come into play in settlement negotiations or any especially sensitive matters that other counsel should be alerted to before the conference. C. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTS No later than ten (10) business days prior to the Settlement Conference, counsel for each Party (or each individual Party representing themselves pro se) shall lodge with Chambers their Party’s Settlement Conference Statement by emailing a .pdf of their Party’s Settlement Conference Statement to PHKsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov. This email address shall not be used for other purposes unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Settlement Conference Statements shall not be filed (manually or electronically using ECF) with the Court. Hard copies of Settlement Conference Statements or their exhibits shall not be lodged with Chambers, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Counsel shall serve a copy of the Settlement Conference Statement on all other Parties.
Counsel are encouraged to share with their respective client(s) the contents of the opposing Party’s Settlement Conference Statement(s) prior to the Settlement Conference. Each Settlement

United States District Court Northern District of California Conference Statement shall comply with Civil L.R. 3-4(c) and shall not exceed ten (10) pages of text. Parties may include as exhibits any key documents and deposition excerpts. The exhibits to a Settlement Conference Statement shall not exceed twenty (20) pages. A Party’s Settlement Conference Statement must include the following:

1. A brief summary statement of the facts of the case.
2. A brief overview statement of the claims and defenses including, but not limited to, the statutory or other grounds upon which the claims or defenses are founded.
3. A brief description of the key factual and legal issues that are in dispute and a plain and concise statement of the specific evidence relevant to their determination. Portions of any exhibits relied upon by the Parties shall be referenced and highlighted.
4. A summary of the proceedings to date and any pending motions.
5. The relief sought, the basis for any damage calculations, and a description of any non- monetary relief sought or non-monetary components of any previously exchanged settlement offers or demands.
6. A list of the names, titles, and email addresses of all persons who will be attending the Settlement Conference on behalf of each Party.
7. Where a Party is a governmental or corporate entity, a description of which persons or entities must approve a proposed settlement agreement before it can be executed, whether such persons or entities (or their representative) will attend the Settlement Conference (and if not, whether they can or should), and a brief description of the nature and duration of that approval process. D. CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS No later than ten (10) business days prior to the Settlement Conference, counsel for each Party (or each individual Party representing themselves pro se) shall lodge with Chambers their Party’s Confidential Settlement Statement by emailing a .pdf of their Party’s Confidential Settlement Statement to PHKsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov. This email address shall not be used for other purposes unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Confidential Settlement Statements shall not be filed (manually or electronically using ECF) with the Court clerk. Hard copies of

United States District Court Northern District of California Confidential Settlement Statements or their exhibits shall not be lodged with Chambers, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Confidential Settlement Statements shall not be served upon the other Parties. Each Confidential Settlement Statement shall comply with Civil L.R. 3-4(c) and shall not exceed five (5) pages of text. Each Party’s Confidential Settlement Statement shall include the following:

1. Separately for each principal claim and defense, a brief, forthright evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses and likelihood that the Party submitting the Confidential Settlement Statement will prevail. Citations to any key legal authorities relied upon by the Parties as part of this evaluation shall be provided.
2. An estimate of out-of-pocket expenses, attorneys' fees, and time: (a) spent to date and (b) to be expended for further discovery, pretrial preparation, and trial. If plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs, counsel shall be prepared at the Settlement Conference to provide sufficient information to enable the fee claim to be evaluated for settlement purposes.
3. A history of any ongoing or past settlement discussions (without revealing communications, if any, whose disclosure to a settlement judge is prohibited by applicable law), a description of the principal impediments (factual, legal, or other) to reaching agreement to date, and the reasons the Parties' assessments of the settlement value of the case differ.
4. A realistic settlement figure or terms (including any non-monetary terms) that, given all the circumstances, the Party submitting its Confidential Settlement Statement would consider seriously.
5. Where the Party is insured or is a governmental entity, any foreseeable barriers to insurance coverage or approval of a proposed settlement, or special concerns that the insurer or governmental entity has raised or could foreseeably anticipate to be a topic of discussion.
6. A brief discussion of any of the subjects identified in Section B of this Order which that Party believes would be significant in the settlement dynamic.

United States District Court Northern District of California E. ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS Any counsel of record for each Party shall attend the Planning Conference. Lead trial counsel for each Party shall attend the Settlement Conference with the persons having full authority to negotiate and settle the case for each Party. 1. Corporation or Other Non-Government Entity A Party other than a natural person (e.g., a corporation or association) satisfies the attendance requirement if represented by a person (other than outside counsel) who is knowledgeable about the case and has final authority to settle the case. If ultimate authority to settle on behalf of a Party is vested in a governing board, claims committee, or equivalent outside body and cannot be delegated, that Party must designate a person with authority (a) to attend and participate in the Settlement Conference and (b) if a tentative settlement agreement is reached, to recommend the agreement to the appropriate body for approval. See ADR L.R. 7-3(a). 2. Government Entity A Party that is a government entity satisfies the attendance requirement if represented by a person (in addition to counsel of record) who (1) has, to the greatest extent feasible, authority to settle the case, (2) is knowledgeable about the facts of the case, the Parties’ contentions, that government entity’s position, and the positions and policies under which that government entity decides whether to propose terms for settlement and accept proposed settlements, and (3) has the authority, if a tentative settlement agreement is reached, to recommend the agreement to the government entity for approval. See ADR L.R. 7-3(b). If the action is brought by a government entity on behalf of one or more individuals, at least one such individual must also attend the Settlement Conference. See id. 3. Insured Party An insured Party must appear with a representative of the carrier who has full authority to negotiate and settle up to the limits of coverage. See ADR L.R. 7-3(c). A person who needs to call another person, not present at the Settlement Conference, before agreeing to any settlement does not have full authority.

United States District Court Northern District of California F. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 1. Settlement Conference discussions The Parties shall report to Courtroom F (15th Floor) for the Settlement Conference at the scheduled date and time. During the Settlement Conference, all Parties should be prepared to discuss issues in their Settlement Conference Statements, including: (1) their settlement objectives; (2) any impediments to settlement they perceive; (3) whether they have enough information to discuss settlement and, if not, what additional information is needed; and (4) the possibility of a creative resolution of the dispute. Statements made during the conference are confidential and will treated subject to ADR L.R. 7-4. 2. Continuances Any request to continue a scheduled Settlement Conference must be filed on ECF as soon as possible and as far in advance of the scheduled date as possible. A Party requesting a continuance shall (1) meet and confer with counsel for the other Parties to discuss the request and, if agreed, identify at least two mutually agreeable proposed alternate dates for the Settlement Conference and then (2) immediately contact Judge Kang’s CRD at PHKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov to submit the request for rescheduling and the proposed alternative dates, all to be accomplished as far in advance of the scheduled date as possible. The request must demonstrate a compelling reason for a continuance and state whether it is joined or opposed by the other Party(ies). The original Settlement Conference date will remain on calendar and the Parties must appear on that date unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 3. Advising the Court of Settlement The Parties are encouraged to engage in or continue any ongoing settlement negotiations throughout this ADR process. The Parties shall notify chambers immediately at PHKsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov if the case settles, particularly if any settlement is prior to the date of either the Planning Conference or the Settlement Conference.

United States District Court Northern District of California G. PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE BAR The Court strongly encourages Parties to permit less experienced lawyers, including lawyers from historically under-represented groups and/or First Generation lawyers, to actively participate in the proceedings by presenting a Party’s positions at the Planning Conference and the Settlement Conference. The Court is amenable to permitting a number of lawyers to present a Party’s positions if this creates an opportunity for such lawyers to participate. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 24, 2023 PETER H. KANG United States Magistrate Judge

View source on NDCA.uscourts.gov →