Judge Peter H. Kang AI Standing Order (N.D. Cal.): What It Requires

Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang of the Northern District of California has an AI section in his civil standing order. On AI, the short answer is this: as of October 28, 2026, his Standing Order for Civil Cases (dated July 16, 2025) requires any brief, pleading or other document whose text was created or drafted with any use of an AI tool to be identified as such, requires notice of AI-generated evidence, and tells counsel to keep records of AI use. It does not ban AI. We read the order in full today: Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, Standing Order for Civil Cases, dated July 16, 2025 (cand.uscourts.gov, read Oct. 28, 2026).

The order is posted on Judge Kang's chambers page next to his discovery and settlement conference orders. This page quotes what the order says, in its own words, and separates what it requires from what it does not. Lawyers searching for the "judge Kang standing order" usually want one of two things: whether they must disclose AI use, and what counts as AI use. Both are answered below from the order text.

What Judge Kang's Standing Order Requires for Filings

The order's Section C is titled "Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Filings with the Court." For briefs and pleadings it says: "Any brief, pleading, or other document submitted to the Court the text of which was created 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." It adds: "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."

On accuracy it says 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." Failure to confirm the accuracy of an AI-created citation "is grounds for potential sanctions." Source: Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, Standing Order for Civil Cases, dated July 16, 2025 (cand.uscourts.gov, read Oct. 28, 2026).

What Counts as an AI Tool Under the Order

The order defines generative AI as "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." For the filing duties it reaches tools "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." It also says the provisions are "to be reasonably construed as these AI tools develop further." Source: Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, Standing Order for Civil Cases, dated July 16, 2025 (cand.uscourts.gov, read Oct. 28, 2026).

What the Order Does Not Cover

The order carves out two groups. First, it says its 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)." Second, they do not apply to "traditional legal research, word processing, spellchecking, grammar checking, or formatting software tools (e.g., Lexis, Westlaw, Microsoft Word, or Adobe Acrobat)."

The order does not prohibit AI use, and in the text we read it does not name specific products or require a particular disclosure form beyond the three options above (caption, table or separate Notice). It also says parties with proposals about AI issues in their matter are "encouraged and expected" to raise them through the case management procedures. Source: Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, Standing Order for Civil Cases, dated July 16, 2025 (cand.uscourts.gov, read Oct. 28, 2026).

AI-Generated Evidence: Notice and Authenticity

The order has a separate paragraph, "AI and Evidence," for material that counsel "knows or has any reasonable basis to believe is or was created in whole by a generative AI or any AI tool." Three rules follow. First, no such material "shall be considered unless previously disclosed or produced timely in discovery" (for demonstratives, by the exchange deadline). Second, counsel must serve a Notice identifying the material with enough specificity to locate it, and AI-generated material "which does not have an accompanying Notice shall not be considered by the Court." Third, absent a stipulation or other order, the party offering it must file declarations, affidavits or sworn testimony addressing authenticity under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Exhibits and demonstratives created with the assistance of an AI tool must be identified as such in the title or caption, in a preceding table, or by a separate Notice, and counsel must keep records of which portions the tool produced. Source: Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, Standing Order for Civil Cases, dated July 16, 2025 (cand.uscourts.gov, read Oct. 28, 2026).

Confidentiality, Prompts and Case Management

Under "AI and Confidentiality," the order notes that the owner or operator of a public AI tool "may have access to, ownership of, or otherwise retain information input or submitted to such AI tool, including queries or prompts." Counsel using such tools "shall fully comply with any applicable protective order and all applicable ethical/legal obligations (including issues relating to privilege)." They must also "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."

The case management section adds that 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." Source: Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, Standing Order for Civil Cases, dated July 16, 2025 (cand.uscourts.gov, read Oct. 28, 2026).

A Practical Checklist for Filing Before Judge Kang

Step 1: Decide for each filing whether any of its text was created or drafted with an AI tool, using the order's broad definition. Step 2: If yes, add the identification to the title or caption, to a table before the body, or file a separate Notice the same day. Step 3: Keep drafting records that can show which portions the tool produced. Step 4: Check every case and record citation against the source, since the order treats unchecked AI citations as grounds for sanctions. Step 5: If AI-generated material will be evidence, produce it in discovery with a Notice and plan the authenticity declarations. Step 6: Do not put privileged or protected-order material into a public AI tool, and keep prompt records. Step 7: Raise AI issues in the joint case management statement. For how other Northern District judges handle this, see the N.D. Cal. AI disclosure rules, Judge Donato and Judge Davila, or the full judge orders directory.

The Bottom Line: Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang's civil standing order dated July 16, 2025 (read Oct. 28, 2026) requires labeling of any filing text drafted with an AI tool, notice for AI-generated evidence, no unverified citations and records of AI use and prompts. It exempts back-office AI tools and traditional research and word-processing software. Check Judge Kang's chambers page for a newer version before each filing.