ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.

The matter before the court is CRST Van Expedited, Inc.'s ("CRST") "Motion for Leave to File Brief Addressing the Impact of the Supreme Court's Ruling" ("Motion") (docket no. 447), which CRST filed on June 16, 2016. On June 20, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a Resistance (docket no. 448). On June 21, 2016, CRST filed a Reply (docket no. 449).

On June 28, 2016, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Judgment (docket no. 451), vacating its prior opinion and remanding the case for further proceedings. See also Mandate (docket no. 452). The Eighth Circuit directed that such further proceedings be "consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 136 S.Ct. 1642 (2016)." Judgment at 1.

In CRST Van Expedited, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's holding that a defendant may only be a "prevailing party" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when the defendant obtains a favorable ruling on the merits. See CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1646. After the Supreme Court granted certiorari, the EEOC "abandoned its defense of the [Eight Circuit's] reasoning" and instead urged the Supreme Court "to hold that a defendant must obtain a preclusive judgment in order to prevail." Id. at 1653. The Supreme Court declined to decide that question and expressed concern that the EEOC may have waived such argument. Id. The Supreme Court also noted that the parties contested whether the court's judgment was preclusive in nature. Id. Having resolved that it would not decide such issues, the Supreme Court left "these legal and factual issues for the Court of Appeals to consider in the first instance." Id. The Supreme Court further declined to find that failure to satisfy presuit obligations was not frivolous, unreasonable or groundless under the standard espoused in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412 (1978). Id. The Eighth Circuit did not invite additional briefing or argument on these questions on remand from the Supreme Court but instead remanded the case for further proceedings. See Judgment at 1; see also Mandate at 1.

The court finds that it is appropriate for the parties to submit additional briefing addressing the issues identified by the Supreme Court in CRST Van Expedited, Inc.1 The parties are DIRECTED to brief the following issues: (1) whether a defendant must obtain a preclusive judgment in order to qualify as a "prevailing party" under Title VII; (2) whether the dismissal of claims pursuant to the EEOC's failure to fulfill presuit requirements constituted a "preclusive judgment"; and (3) whether the EEOC waived this argument by failing to raise it until the case reached the Supreme Court.2 Accordingly, the court ORDERS the following briefing schedule:

In light of the foregoing, the Motion (docket no. 447) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.