Cozad v. AstraZeneca LP

Filing 65

ORDER for SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 58 . The Court finds that the interests of judicial economy and efficiency weigh in favor of granting an opportunity to Defendant to file supplemental summary-judgment briefing regarding Plaintiff's Section 12940(j)(1) claim. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that: (1) Defendant may file a supplemental summary-judgment motion regarding only Plaintiff's claim pursuant to California Government Code § 12940(j)(1) by no later than September 30 , 2016; (2) Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendant's supplemental summary-judgment motion by October 7, 2016; and (3) Defendant may file an optional reply brief in support of its supplemental motion by October 11, 2016. The Court further ORDERS the parties to include materials regarding Plaintiff's remaining claim pursuant to California Government Code § 12940(j)(1) in their upcoming filings relating to the trial in this matter. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/21/2016. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KATHERINE COZAD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-02049-SKO
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.
(Doc. 58)
ASTRAZENECA LP,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is Defendant Astrazeneca LP’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
Order Partially Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, in which Defendant
requests, in part, leave to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 58 at 13.)
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s second cause of action includes two claims: (1) a failureto-prevent claim pursuant to California Government Code § 12940(k); and (2) a harassment claim
pursuant to California Government Code § 12940(j)(1). (See Doc. 1 at 18–19. Compare id. at 18
(alleging that Defendant “[f]ailed to take appropriate action when it knew or should have known
of the unlawful harassment against [Plaintiff]”), with Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1) (“An employer
may . . . be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of
employees . . . where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of
the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.”).) The Court further
notes that Plaintiff identifies Section 12940(j)(1) as the basis for one of her claims in her

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Astrazeneca LP’s Motion for Summary
2 Judgment. (See Doc. 39 at 11.) However, in its motion for summary judgment, Defendant does
3 not address Plaintiff’s remaining claim pursuant to Section 12940(j)(1). (See Doc. 30.)
4

The Court finds that the interests of judicial economy and efficiency weigh in favor of

5 granting an opportunity to Defendant to file supplemental summary-judgment briefing regarding
6 Plaintiff’s Section 12940(j)(1) claim. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:
7

(1) Defendant may file a supplemental summary-judgment motion regarding only

8 Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to California Government Code § 12940(j)(1) by no later than
9 September 30, 2016;
(2) Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendant’s supplemental summary-judgment

10

11 motion by October 7, 2016; and
12

(3) Defendant may file an optional reply brief in support of its supplemental motion by

13 October 11, 2016.
The Court further ORDERS the parties to include materials regarding Plaintiff’s remaining

14

15 claim pursuant to California Government Code § 12940(j)(1) in their upcoming filings relating to
16 the trial in this matter.
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated:
20

September 21, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.