ILG Legal Victory in Discovery: Court Orders Okta, Inc. to Pay Sanctions for “Evasive” Tactics in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Litigation is often a battle for the truth, and at ILG Legal Office, P.C., we do not allow defendants to hide it. We are pleased to announce a recent procedural victory in the Superior Court of San Francisco in the case of Hiu Ho v. Okta, Inc. (Case No. CGC-24-614584).

On November 17, 2025, the Court issued an order granting our motion to compel further discovery responses and awarded monetary sanctions against Defendant Okta, Inc.

The Dispute: Fighting for Answers

In litigation, “discovery” is the phase where we request evidence and answers from the opposing side. Large corporations frequently attempt to “stone-wall” plaintiffs by providing vague answers or boilerplate objections to avoid revealing damaging information.

In this matter, our client, Ms. Hiu Ho, served discovery requesting specific factual details regarding her employment and termination. Okta, Inc. provided responses that we deemed insufficient. Rather than accepting these non-answers, ILG Legal Office filed a Motion to Compel.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court agreed with our position. In the order filed this week, it found that Okta’s answers to several key requests were “evasive or incomplete” and that their objections were “without merit or too general.”

As a result, the Court has ordered Okta to:

1. Provide code-compliant, substantive narrative responses to our questions; and
2. Pay sanctions in the amount of $2,160.00 for the necessity of the motion.

This ruling serves as a reminder that parties cannot simply go through the motions during discovery. They must provide the transparency the law requires.

Context of the Case: Ho v. Okta, Inc.

This discovery victory is a crucial step in a larger fight for justice. ILG Legal Office represents Plaintiff Hiu Ho, a former Director of Technology Vendor Operations at Okta.

As alleged in our Complaint, Ms. Ho was a high-performing Director who was subjected to a hostile work environment, gender discrimination, and retaliation. The complaint details a troubling atmosphere where male leadership allegedly:

• Excluded female leaders from critical communications and meetings;
• Sabotaged workflows to manufacture performance issues;
• Dismissed valid complaints regarding unethical behavior and bias as “women’s issues”; and
• Ultimately utilized a Reduction in Force (RIF) as a pretext to terminate Ms. Ho and other vocal female employees.

We allege that this conduct violates the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and fundamental public policy.

Why This Matters

Securing these discovery responses is vital to proving the allegations of systemic bias and retaliation. When a firm fights hard during discovery, it ensures that the evidence required to win at trial is brought to light.

At ILG Legal Office, P.C., we have the experience and the tenacity to litigate against major tech giants. When defendants refuse to play by the rules, we do not hesitate to involve the Court to protect our clients’ rights.