Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Hayward's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #64). The Court held oral argument on the Motion on July 30, 2009. After reviewing the parties' briefs and considering the oral argument, the Court has questions about how Defendant's custom, and Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit aut Officer Pierce's conduct, squares with both Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant's employees were acting pursuant to a policy, practice, or hority holding that a municipality may not be held 15 liable on a respondeat superior theory. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS supplemental briefing from the parties addressing these issues. In its brief, Defendant shall specifically address what applicability, if any, Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 18 (1978), and Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185-1196 (9th Cir. 2002), have in the Motion, which focuses on the reasonableness of present matter, and whether the "two paths" to municipal liability outlined in Gibson have any application. To the extent that either party intends to rely on evidence in support of its arguments, the party must attach the deposition transcript, affidavit, investigative report, etc., relied upon to 22 their supplemental brief. Defendant's Supplemental Brief shall be filed no later than August 20, 2009. Plaintiff shall file its Supplemental Response Brief no later than September 3, 2009.