Hill

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TRINA HILL, Case No. 18-cv-01474-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 172 10 GOODFELLOW TOP GRADE, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. 14 Dkt. No. 172. In its reply brief, Defendant argued for the first time that “as a matter of law, three 15 alleged incidents over the course of Plaintiff’s four month employment are not sufficiently severe 16 or pervasive.” Dkt. No. 174 at 4 (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 17 (1998)). Although arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are ordinarily deemed 18 waived, see Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court may consider new 19 arguments raised in a reply brief “only if the adverse party is given an opportunity to respond.” 20 Banga v. First USA, NA, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1276 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted). Thus, 21 Plaintiff is directed to submit a…