Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02049/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02049-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHERINE COZAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASTRAZENECA LP, 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-02049-SKO

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

(Doc. 58)

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 

Case 1:14-cv-02049-SKO Document 65 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Astrazeneca LP’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment. (See Doc. 39 at 11.) However, in its motion for summary judgment, Defendant does 

not address Plaintiff’s remaining claim pursuant to Section 12940(j)(1). (See Doc. 30.)

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02049-SKO Document 65 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2