Rinks v. Hocking

26 Citing cases

  1. Resch v. Edgar-Lindhout

    No. 22-12165 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2023)

    โ€œThe โ€˜party moving for transfer for the convenience of the witnesses must demonstrate, through affidavits or declarations containing admissible evidence, who the key witnesses will be and what their testimony will generally include.'โ€ Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Gulfstream Bus. Bank, Inc., 2013 WL 6017977, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2013) (quoting Rinks v. Hocking, 2011 WL 691242, *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011)). Defendants did no more than to state that it will be more convenient for unspecified witnesses if the case was in the Western District.

  2. Zarick v. DocVerify, Inc.

    Civil Action 3:21-cv-97-DJH (W.D. Ky. Feb. 1, 2022)

    The availability of compulsory process is closely tied to the inconvenience of non-party witnesses, to the extent that non-party witnesses are unwilling to testify. See B.E. Tech., 957 F.Supp.2d at 947 (citing In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Rinks v. Hocking, No. 1:10-CV-1102, 2011 WL 691242, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011)). Whether the availability-of-compulsory-process factor โ€œshould be given considerable weight depends on the materiality of the testimony to the resolution of the case.โ€

  3. Antony v. Buena Vista Books, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-205-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky. Oct. 1, 2020)   Cited 5 times

    Therefore, their inconvenience is not a strong consideration. See Rinks v. Hocking, No. 1:10-cv-1102, 2011 WL 691242, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011) (not giving weight to defendants' witnesses because defendants did not explain the importance of those witnesses' testimony). Material witnesses potentially reside in both Kentucky and California.

  4. Franklin v. Mich. Dep't of Corrs.-Duane Waters Health Ctr.

    Case No. 16-13587 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 14, 2017)

    D'Amato, 341 F. Supp. 2d at 750 (citing MCNIC Oil & Gas Co. v. IBEX Res. Co., 23 F. Supp. 2d 729, 738-39 (E.D. Mich. 1998)). "The 'party moving for transfer for the convenience of the witnesses must demonstrate, through affidavits or declarations containing admissible evidence, who the key witnesses will be and what their testimony will generally include.'" Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Gulfstream Bus. Bank, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-12136, 2013 WL 6017977, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2013) (quoting Rinks v. Hocking, No. 1:10-cv-1102, 2011 WL 691242, *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011)). Defendants have offered nothing more than a bald assertion that "[m]ost of the witnesses are also physically located in the Western District."

  5. MaxChief Invs. Ltd. v. Plastic Dev. Grp., LLC

    No. 3:16-cv-63 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 12, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    Maxchief also maintains that because digital discovery is available to the parties, the location of evidence in the Eastern District of Michigan "has little bearing on the transfer-of-venue analysis." [Id. (citing Rinks v. Hocking, 1:10-CV-1102, 2011 WL 691242, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011) ("The advent of modern technology, including photocopying, scanning, and electronic document production, has deprived this factor of most of its practical or legal weight."))]. Maxchief, however, supplies the Court with no precedent to support its contention that the location of prosecution-related documents for the '644 patent can serve as a counterweight to nudge the access-to-evidence factor into neutralityโ€”especially in light of the documentary evidence that Plastic Development possesses in Michigan.

  6. Cornerstone Sys., Inc. v. Prestress Servs. Indus. of Tenn., LLC

    No. 2:15-cv-02255-JPM-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Jul. 7, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    "[I]t is the 'materiality and importance of the testimony of prospective witnesses . . .' that is crucial to this inquiry." Id. (quoting Rinks v. Hocking, No. 1:10-cv-1102, 2011 WL 691242, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011)). Defendant has not offered the requisite details about the witnesses for whom litigation in the Western District of Tennessee would be inconvenient or about the materiality of their testimony.

  7. Medtech Prods. Inc. v. Ranir, LLC

    Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-02584-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 5, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Finding the location of counsel irrelevant to the ยง 1404 analysis

    "[I]t is the 'materiality and importance of the testimony of prospective witnesses, and not merely the number of witnesses,' that is crucial to this inquiry." Id. (quoting Rinks v. Hocking, No. 1:10-cv-1102, 2011 WL 691242, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011)). The Court finds that neither convenience to party witnesses nor convenience to non-party witnesses weighs in favor of transfer to the Western District of Michigan.

  8. USCO S.P.A. v. Valuepart, Inc.

    No. 2:14-cv-02590-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2014)

    In order to support a finding that this factor favors transfer, the party asserting that the forum is inconvenient for witnesses should "proffer, by affidavit or otherwise, sufficient details respecting the witnesses and their potential testimony to enable the court to assess the materiality of evidence and the degree of inconvenience." Eaton, 2011 WL 1898238, at *3 (quoting Rinks v. Hocking, No. 1:10-CV-1102, 2011 WL 691242, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Particularized information" must be raised to enable a court to determine "how much weight to give a claim of inconvenience."

  9. Flagstar Bank v. Gulfstream Bus. Bank, Inc.

    Case No. 2:13-cv-12136 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    The "party moving for transfer for the convenience of the witnesses must demonstrate, through affidavits or declarations containing admissible evidence, who the key witnesses will be and what their testimony will generally include." Rinks v. Hocking, No. 10-1102, 2011 WL 691242, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011).

  10. B.E. Tech., LLC v. Amazon Digital Servs., Inc.

    No.: 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Jul. 19, 2013)

    Further, "[t]o sustain a finding on [this factor] . . . the party asserting witness inconvenience has the burden to proffer, by affidavit or otherwise, sufficient details respecting the witnesses and their potential testimony to enable a court to assess the materiality of evidence and the degree of inconvenience." Eaton, 2011 WL 1898238, at *3 (quoting Rinks v. Hocking, 1:10-CV-1102, 2011 WL 691242, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is the "materiality and importance of the testimony of prospective witnesses, and not merely the number of witnesses," that is crucial to this inquiry.