Other related factors include the location of material events and the relative ease of access to sources of proof. See, e.g., Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F.Supp.2d 874, 876-77 (N.D.Ill. 2005); Brandon Apparel Group, Inc. v. Quitman Manufacturing Co., 42 F.Supp.2d 821, 833-34 (N.D.Ill. 1999). The "interest of justice" is a separate element of the transfer analysis that relates to the efficient administration of the court system.

The private interests include: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the witnesses; and (5) the convenience to the parties of litigating in the respective forums. Sassy, Inc., v. Berry, 406 F.Supp.2d 874, 876 (N.D. Ill. 2005). The “interest of justice” factors include: (1) the congestions of the respective court dockets; (2) prospects for a speedy trial; and (3) the courts' familiarity with the applicable law.

This is not always a determinative factor, however; its significance may be diminished if the material events occurred elsewhere. See, e.g., Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F.Supp.2d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2005). In this case, O'Connor chose to file the case in Illinois.

There is no countervailing difficulty for Plaintiff in litigating in New Hampshire. Consideration of serious health issues is appropriate in a motion to transfer venue. See, e.g., Elemary v. Philipp Holzmann A.G., 533 F. Supp. 2d 144, 153 (D.D.C. 2008) ("A moving party's medical disability can support a motion to transfer venue...") (citation omitted); Hand v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, No. 07 C 1422, 2008 WL 4365954, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2008) (transferring a case pursuant to § 1404(a), in part because the defendant was an elderly gentleman with serious health problems and there was no countervailing difficulty on the plaintiff); Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F. Supp. 2d 874, 876 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (transferring a case pursuant to § 1404(a), in part because the defendant suffered from health problems and was advised by his physician not to travel); BSB Bank & Trust Co. v. Morrison, No. 02-CV-648, 2003 WL 1797845, at *3 (N.D.N.Y., Apr. 4, 2003) (transferring a case under § 1404(a), despite a forum selection clause, because of the significant medical problems of the defendants constituted exceptional circumstances). Ott's serious health problems and his role as caregiver to his terminally ill wife, in addition to the Jones factors discussed above, result in Ott making the required strong showing needed to upset Plaintiff's choice of forum.

Thus, the Court finds the convenience of the parties weighs in favor of transfer. See, e.g., Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F.Supp.2d. 874, 876 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (transferring a case pursuant to Section 1404(a), in part because the defendant suffered from health problems and was advised by his physician not to travel). 2. Public Interests

Other related factors include the location of material events and the relative ease of access to sources of proof.” Research Automation, 626 F.3d at 978 (citing Schumacher v. Principal Life Insurance Co., 665 F.Supp.2d 970, 977 (N.D.Ind.2009); Jaramillo v. DineEquity, Inc., 664 F.Supp.2d 908, 913–15 (N.D.Ill.2009); Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F.Supp.2d 874, 876–77 (N.D.Ill.2005); Brandon Apparel Group, Inc. v. Quitman Manufacturing Co., 42 F.Supp.2d 821, 833–34 (N.D.Ill.1999)). The importance of each of these factors varies for each case and by type of case.

Also considered by courts are the location of material events and the relative ease of access to sources of proof. See, e.g., Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F. Supp. 2d 874, 876-77 (N.D. Ill. 2005); Brandon Apparel Group, Inc. v. Quitman Manufacturing Co., 42 F. Supp. 2d 821, 833-34 (N.D. Ill. 1999). A court analyzing whether to transfer a case separately evaluates the "interest of justice" as it relates to the efficient administration of the court system. See Research Automation, Inc., 626 F.3d at 978 (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 626-27, 84 S. Ct. 805, 11 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1964)).

Nalco Co., v. Envtl. Mgmt. Inc., 694 F. Supp. 2d 994, 998 (N.D. Ill. 2010). The private interests include: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the witnesses; and (5) the convenience to the parties of litigating in the respective forums. Sassy, Inc., v. Berry, 406 F. Supp. 2d 874, 876 (N.D. Ill. 2005). The "interest of justice" factors include: (1) the congestions of the respective court dockets; (2) prospects for a speedy trial; and (3) the courts' familiarity with the applicable law.

However, courts in this district have examined factors such as where material events occurred and the relative ease of access to sources of proof. See, e.g., Sassy Inc. v. Berry, 406 F. Supp. 2d 874, 876 (N.D. Ill. 2005). District courts have also differentiated between the convenience of witnesses who are not parties or otherwise associated with any of the litigants in the suit.

Defendants point to several other district court cases which have considered this factor relevant in determining convenience of the parties. See Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F. Supp. 2d 874, 876 (N.D. Ill. 2005). However, none of these cases involved ERISA actions brought in the home state of the fund, where Plaintiff's choice of forum is given considerably more weight.