MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEGROME DAVIS, District Judge

Defendants Emerson Tool Company, Inc. ("Emerson Tool"), Emerson Electric Co. ("Emerson Electric") and Sears, Roebuck and Co. ("Sears") (collectively, "Defendants") move pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Dkt. No. 16). A district court may transfer a case to any other district where the suit might have been brought "[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). When deciding a forum non conveniens motion, the court must "consider all relevant factors to determine whether on balance the litigation would conveniently proceed and the interest of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum." Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).

The moving party bears the burden of establishing the need for a transfer by demonstrating that "(1) the case could have been brought initially in the proposed transferee forum, (2) the proposed transfer will be for the convenience of the parties, (3) the proposed transfer will be in the interests of the convenience of the witnesses, and (4) the proposed transfer will be in the interests of justice." Miller v. Consol. Rail Corp., 196 F.R.D. 22, 24-25 (E.D. Pa. 2000). Furthermore, because the plaintiff's choice of forum is to be given considerable weight, this burden is greater than a mere preponderance of the evidence. See Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970) ("It is black letter that a Plaintiff's choice of a proper forum is a paramount consideration in any determination of a transfer request, and that choice should not be lightly disturbed. . . . Unless the balance of the convenience of the parties is strongly in favor of the Defendant, the Plaintiff's choice of forum should prevail.").

The Court concludes that Defendants have failed to meet their burden. They have not presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that this action could be more conveniently tried in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Although their principal places of business are geographically closer to the Western District, Defendants must travel by air to reach either district. Moreover, Defendants have not shown or suggested, as they must, that the witnesses located in the Western District would be unavailable or unwilling to testify in this district. See Superior Precast v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 71 F. Supp. 2d 438, 445 (E.D. Pa. 1999).

ACCORDINGLY, this 9th day of July, 2004, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Dkt. No. 16), and Plaintiff's response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED.