Opinion
Civil No. 02-1811 (JRT/FLN)
February 10, 2003.
Justin L. Templin, HOFF, BARRY, KUDERER, P.A., for plaintiff.
Quentin M. Rhoades, SULLIVAN, TABARACCI RHOADES, P.C., and M. Gregory Simpson, SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER, DUFFY FOSTER, P.A., for defendant.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 6, 2003, this Court issued an Order denying defendant's motion to dismiss or transfer. Defendant has requested leave to file a motion to reconsider this Order pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g), again claiming that the Court should dismiss or transfer. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies this request.
DISCUSSION
A motion to reconsider under Local Rule 7.1(g) is the "functional equivalent" of a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DuBose v. Kelly, 187 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir. 1999). Requests to file such motions are granted "only upon a showing of compelling circumstances." D. Minn. LR 7.1(g); Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Services, Inc., 134 F. Supp.2d 1049, 1060 (D. Minn. 2001). A motion to reconsider should not be employed to relitigate old issues, but to "afford an opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances." Dale Selby Superette Deli v. United States Dept. of Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D.Minn. 1993).
Defendant argues that its request should be granted because the Court's Order of January 6 was based on clearly erroneous factual findings made in the absence of any evidentiary basis. The Court finds that defendant has not shown the compelling circumstances necessary to justify its request. Defendant's letter brief simply re-states arguments made in writing and orally before this Court on its motion to dismiss or transfer. In particular, defendant stresses a prior decision of this Court, Nelson v. Soo Line Railroad Co., 58 F. Supp.2d 1023 (D.Minn. 1999). Both parties discussed the Soo Line case in their moving papers, and this Court fully considered the relevance of that case, as well as other relevant and precedential cases before reaching its decision to deny defendant's motion to dismiss or transfer.
The Court need not revisit its decision, but takes this opportunity to amplify the rationale discussed in its January 6, 2003 Order. A defendant moving to dismiss or transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) carries the burden to demonstrate to the Court that transfer is warranted. Norval Indus., Inc. v. Superior Cox, 515 F. Supp. 895, 899 (D. Minn. 1981). Where the plaintiff has chosen to bring the litigation in its home forum, Courts are especially hesitant to transfer venue. General Committee of Adjustment v. Burlington N. R.R., 895 F. Supp. 249, 252 (E.D.Mo. 1995); Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000 WL 33915814 at *8 (N.D.Iowa October 9, 2000) (citing Kovatch v. Rockwood Sys. Corp., 666 F. Supp. 707, 708 (M.D.Pa. 1986) ("Normally, plaintiff's choice of forum will not be disturbed unless the movant for transfer demonstrates that the balance of convenience and justice weighs heavily in favor of transfer.")).
Defendant stresses, as it did in its brief and oral argument, that more potential witnesses reside in Montana than Minnesota. The sheer number of witnesses, however, is not necessarily dispositive. See In re Warwick, 70 F.3d 736, 741 (2nd Cir. 1995). Instead, the Court's analysis focuses on "whether the forum . . . is so inconvenient as to inhibit the access of one party or the other to necessary witnesses." Terra Int'l Inc. v. Mississippi Chem. Corp., 922 F. Supp. 1334, 1360 (N.D.Iowa 1996), aff'd, 119 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1997). Many of defendant's potential witnesses are employees of defendant, and therefore the Court has little doubt that those witnesses will make themselves available, no matter where the litigation proceeds. In addition, defendant has offered no evidence that the nonparty witnesses are unwilling or unable to testify in Minnesota and has not argued that offering videotaped deposition testimony would be inadequate. There is no evidence before the Court that the nonparty witnesses would be beyond the reach of discovery.
Defendant zealously argues that venue must be transferred because defendant submitted affidavits estimating the costs of bringing its witnesses to Minnesota, while plaintiff submitted no estimation of its costs if the lawsuit were transferred to Montana. The relative costs, however, is only one factor in a comprehensive analysis. See Terra Int'l, Inc. v. Mississippi Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 696 (8th Cir. 1997), (enumerating the following seven factors (1) judicial economy, (2) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (3) the comparative costs to the parties of litigating in each forum, (4) each party's ability to enforce a judgment, (5) obstacles to a fair trial, (6) conflict of law issues, and (7) the advantages of having a local court determine questions of local law). Even if the cost of litigating were as important a factor as defendant's argument contends, transfer would not necessarily follow. As a final point on this matter, the Court notes that it has reviewed again defendant's affidavit estimating costs and finds some repetition in the anticipated testimony. It is likely that as trial nears, defendants will winnow down this list.
Finally, the Court notes that defendant mischaracterizes the Court's January 6 Order, if only slightly, when defendant argues that the Court relied on the relative inconvenience of travel to deny the motion to transfer. In fact, the Court noted, "defendant has not shown that transfer would do anything but shift the inconvenience of venue from [defendant] Montana Regional to [plaintiff] Same Day." (emphasis added). The expense of travel was only one of several factors the Court considered when making its decision to deny defendant's motion to transfer.
In sum, because defendant has not shown compelling circumstances as required by Local Rule 7.1(g), the Court denies defendant's request to file a motion to reconsider.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's request to file a motion to reconsider [Docket No. 21] is DENIED.