ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 172

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Dkt. No. 172. In its reply brief, Defendant argued for the first time that "as a matter of law, three alleged incidents over the course of Plaintiff's four month employment are not sufficiently severe or pervasive." Dkt. No. 174 at 4 (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998)). Although arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are ordinarily deemed waived, see Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court may consider new arguments raised in a reply brief "only if the adverse party is given an opportunity to respond." Banga v. First USA, NA, 29 F.Supp.3d 1270, 1276 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted). Thus, Plaintiff is directed to submit a supplemental brief, not to exceed three pages, addressing whether the three alleged incidents are severe and pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim under relevant Ninth Circuit caselaw. Plaintiff may not repeat arguments raised in her opposition brief. In her sur-reply, Plaintiff should explain how the incidents in this case differ from those in Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000) and Westendorf v. W. Coast Contractors of Nevada, Inc., 712 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2013), cases in which the Ninth Circuit held the alleged misconduct did not establish sufficiently severe or pervasive sexual harassment.

Plaintiff must file the brief by November 15, 2019. No responsive filings will be permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.