A USC professor who was sued for sexual harassment by his former doctoral student and research assistant has responded to the plaintiff’s claims he destroyed email and text message evidence in the case, saying that he had been a victim of hacking.
But the professor of international relations, David C. Kang, also says in a sworn declaration that the deletions were nonetheless wrong and should not have taken place.
“I deeply regret deleting any communications that are now the subject of plaintiff’s motion,” Kang says
The plaintiff in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit alleges that Kang retaliated with unfair assessments of her graduate work when she objected to his alleged misconduct. Her attorneys have asked Judge Barbara A. Meiers in a hearing scheduled Jan. 27 to impose terminating sanctions on Kang, which could set him on the path to a default judgment.
In redacted court papers, the plaintiff’s lawyers state that in response to discovery requests in October, Kang said that the professor acknowledged he previously had a 30-day delete function on his cell phone that had deleted text messages the plaintiff believes were potentially relevant to the case.
Kang also admitted destroying emails from his personal Gmail and Proton Mail accounts, according to the plaintiff’s attorneys’ court papers.
“Whatever the reason, Kang’s deception has now been unveiled for what it is: an indefensible fraud on the court,” the plaintiff’s lawyers further state in their court papers. “Kang’s fraud is calculated and his subsequent hurried verifications under oath demonstrate Kang’s calculated evidence destruction is further compounded by his perjurious verifications.”
Kang has lied throughout the lawsuit and those lies, along with the alleged spoliation of evidence, have compromised “the very foundation of the action,” making terminating sanctions appropriate, the woman’s attorneys state in their pleadings.
The plaintiff’s lawyers further state in their court papers that if the judge believes terminating sanctions are too severe, then other sanctions are appropriate, such as preventing him from telling a jury that he did not sexually assault, harass or discriminate against the woman.
But in his declaration, Kang says that even before he set his phone on auto-delete he was advised to do so by the USC IT department and the FBI because he was a target for hacking, including by perpetrators from a foreign government. Kang says he has frequently made public statements and written about national security related to the North Korean government.
“Around the time of one of the occasions when USC’s IT department advised me that I was a target of hacking, I set my phone to an auto-delete setting to minimize the sensitive information that would be on the device in the event of a hack.”
Kang also said he had personal communications with a therapist and confidante after the 2020 death of the professor’s wife. However, Kang also says he is not making excuses and that “regardless of intent, the deletion of communications was wrong and should not have occurred.”
Kang also says he does not recall deleting emails from is Proton Mail account.
The plaintiff names USC and Kang in the suit filed in August 2024. The woman alleges she was effectively terminated by Kang as his research assistant and he gave her a failing grade on her substantive paper for the qualifying exam — even though he previously stated it was satisfactory — because she refused to bow to his alleged sexual misconduct.
“USC held Kang out as a trustworthy and upstanding professor and mentor and USC deliberately crafted this public image of USC and Kang … in order to actively conceal the fact that it employs Kang and other sexual predators and has allowed Kang unfettered sexual access to victimize USC’s young female students and/or employees, including plaintiff, and to racially target plaintiff and other female victims … because they are Asian and/or Asian/Korean,” the suit states.
Kang, who also is Korean, was chairman of the plaintiff’s academic department and her dissertation adviser. According to the suit, he began grooming her by asking her to lunch in November 2021. Kang later hired the woman as a research assistant so he could directly supervise her, according to her complaint.
Kang sexually harassed the plaintiff by treating her in sexually stereotypical ways, including telling her that his children needed a mother, that the professor had trouble buying his daughter clothes or sanitary pads and also by asking the plaintiff to take his daughter shopping in South Korea, the suit states.
The plaintiff initially resisted Kang’s requests to take his daughter shopping, not wanting to be put in the role of his wife, but later felt pressured to acquiesce, the suit states.
Kang “made clear that plaintiff’s job duties as his research assistant included `doing stuff for me,”’ the suit alleges.
Once while they were both behind closed doors, Kang touched the plaintiff’s hair and said, “I used to have jet black hair like you,” while another time he slapped her buttocks with rolled up papers, according to the suit.
On yet another occasion, Kang had the plaintiff and other female doctorate students watch a movie, the plot of which included a teacher having an affair with his student, the suit states.
The plaintiff mustered the courage to send Kang an email objecting to his behavior, which brought a feigned apology from the professor in response, according to the suit, which further states that Kang retaliated by demeaning her doctorate work and telling her she should get a new adviser unless she was “willing to amend” their relationship.
Trial of the case is scheduled March 30.