The Garza Firm Successfully Thwarts USC’s Efforts to Inappropriately Intimidate and Silence Our Client
There have been several recent press articles written about a case we settled in 2023: Yi Youn Kim v. Choong Whan Park and University of Southern California, Case No. 21STCV14870 (LASC). Both Los Angeles Public Press and Annenberg Media published articles entitled (i) “USC officials weighed halting sexual assault investigation if professor left – emails reveal (The professor – accused by multiple students – agreed to retire early if the Title IX investigation was dropped. Then one student sued.)” [Los Angeles Public Press] (ii) “USC files motion to destroy documents related to 2021 sexual assault and discrimination suit (In August, USC filed a motion to destroy ‘confidential’ documents related to a settled discrimination and sexual assault lawsuit against the university and a former professor.)” [Annenberg Media] and (iii) “Judge issues tentative ruling rejecting USC’s attempt to destroy documents in sexual assault case (Records included emails showing USC offered to drop a Title IX investigation if a professor retired.)” [Annenberg Media]
The news articles address USC’s recent attempt to silence our client Iris Kim, a former USC student/employee who was sexually targeted (because she was Asian/Korean), sexually assaulted and sexually harassed by a former USC Professor. As succinctly noted by LA Public Press journalist Madhri Yehiya and captured by Annenberg Media’s Luisa Tripoli-Krasnow, “’There was no activity with this case for years, and then once I reached out [to USC] for comment on this story, Iris Kim and her lawyers were contacted saying that they’d violated a confidential order . . . and this kind of kick-started this effort on USC’s side to basically hide what happened in this story,’ said Yehiya.”
The Back-and-Forth Between USC (and Its Lawyers at Paul Hastings) and The Garza Firm
USC’s initial efforts began on April 30, 2025, with a blistering letter to The Garza Firm. [April 30, 2025] The Garza Firm responded in kind and attempted to enlighten USC that its efforts were in appropriate and for an improper purpose. Paul Hastings and The Garza Firm then exchanged final letters. As noted in The Garza Firm’s formal opposition, after the final letter sent on May 28, 2025, “The Garza Firm viewed the matter closed. However, three (3) months later, on August 25, 2025, a mere five days after The Garza Firm successfully obtained a hard-fought order to compel USC to produce documents in the Kyu Ri Kim Case [Kyu Ri Kim v. University of Southern California and David C. Kang, Case No. 24STCV21826], USC filed this Motion (asserting a breach of the Stipulated Protective Order “SPO”). The Garza Firm vigorously opposed USC’s motion, noting that the time period to seek the relief requested was time-barred, there was no violation of the SPO and that the Motion was brought for an improper purpose.
The formal documents filed in the case are linked and can be found as follows:
- USC’s Motion;
- Declaration of Brian Featherstun;
- The Garza Firm Opposition;
- Declaration of Sharyl B. Garza;
- Declaration of Iris Kim;
- Declaration of Oscar Garza;
- USC’s Reply;
- Declaration of Cameron Fox
- The Garza Firm’s Request for Judicial Notice; and
- USC’s Objection to The Garza Firm’s Request for Judicial Notice
Fortunately, the Los Angeles Superior Court Judge was able to see through USC’s improper Motion and found that, in fact, USC’s requested relief had lapsed under the terms of the SPO (as argued by The Garza Firm) and that no breached of the SPO had occurred. The Court tentatively ruled: “As a threshold matter, if construed as a motion to recall documents, the present motion is untimely under the explicit terms of the SPO. . . . Thus, the Court does not find that Defendant has shown breach of the SPO by Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is denied.”. After the Court issued its tentative on October 6, 2025, USC promptly withdrew its Motion – by email and by formal motion.