Opinion
Case No. 02 C 50083
June 4, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This order addresses the motion by defendant Eric Siech to transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) (which really should be § 1404(b)). As with any motion to transfer venue, an inter-division transfer requires the court to weigh the following factors: (1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the convenience of the parties; and (3) the interests of justice. See Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1986); Concrete Structures of the Midwest, Inc. v. TRECO Constr. Servs., Inc., No. 95 C 50211, 1996 WL 67213, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1996) (Reinhard, J.). Because this is his motion, Siech bears the burden of establishing that the Eastern Division is clearly the more convenient forum. See Heller Fin. Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989).
This motion essentially boils down to the first factor — the convenience of the witnesses. All of the parties to this case are citizens of states other than Illinois — plaintiff, Paul Monfardini, is an Arizona citizen, defendant Dwight Quinlan is a California citizen, and Siech is an Iowa citizen (Compl. ¶¶ 1-3) — so the convenience of the parties is a non-issue. For this same reason, although a plaintiff's choice of forum is afforded some deference, it is given much less weight when, as here, the plaintiff resides outside the chosen forum. See Concrete Structures, 1996 WL 67213 at *3 As for the third factor, the interests of justice are usually given less weight in an intradistrict transfer because either division would face the same problems regarding choice of law, familiarity with the governing law, and the ability to subpoena unwilling witnesses. See id. at *5.
Turning to the convenience of the witnesses then, Siech attached to his reply brief his own affidavit as well as that of Quinlan. Both defendants identified several persons who they believe will be relevant witnesses in this case. Although the court agrees with Monfardini that the convenience of several of these witnesses does not really come into play because they too are citizens of states other than Illinois, three of the proposed witnesses are from this state. And all three of these individuals live in the Eastern Division. Furthermore, the affidavits make clear that the two main companies involved in the underlying dispute between the parties are both located in the Eastern Division, as are numerous important documents that may be relevant to the case.
Because Siech waited until his reply brief to file his supporting affidavits, the court allowed Monfardini to file a surresponse. In that surresponse, Monfardini argues the evidence Siech has offered is deficient in certain respects, but presents none of his own evidence to counter Siech's affidavits. Indeed, Monfardini still has not provided the court with any explanation, let alone supporting evidence, as to how this case has any connection whatsoever with the Western Division. The only reason that can be inferred from the record is that it is purely for the convenience of Monfardini's lawyer, which is not a proper consideration.
In short, compared to the complete lack of any connection with the Western Division, the court finds Siech has met his burden (just barely) of showing that the Eastern Division is the more convenient forum.
For the reasons stated above, Siech's motion to transfer venue is granted. The clerk of the court is directed to transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. This court makes no ruling on Monfardini's currently pending motion for default judgment, leaving that instead for the District Judge in the Eastern Division who is assigned to the case.