Advanced Turf Solutions, Inc. v. Johns

223 F.Supp.3d 786

ADVANCED TURF SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff,

v.Greg JOHNS, Kurt Dryden, Defendants.

No. 1:16–cv–02769–JMS–MJD

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Signed November 30, 2016

Kevin Nicholas Tharp, Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.

Debra H. Miller, James R. Fisher, Miller & Fisher LLC, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.

ORDER

Hon. Jane Magnus–Stinson, Chief Judge

On November 3, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why this matter should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). [Filing No. 15 .] The parties have responded to Court's Order; Plaintiff opposes the proposed transfer [Filing No. 17 ] while Defendants support it [Filing No. 18 ]. Having considered the parties' submissions and all relevant factors, the Court now concludes that interests of justice and convenience clearly weigh in favor of transferring this case to the Middle District of Tennessee.¹

I. BACKGROUND

This matter involves allegations that Defendants, Tennessee residents, stole trade secrets while working for Plaintiff in Nashville, Tennessee, and then misappropriated the information while working for their subsequent Nashville employer. [SeeFiling No. 3–1 at 5–16 .] Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation, with locations in Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. [Filing No. 31–1 at 6.] Plaintiff markets and distributes fertilizer products to "buyers in the turf and ornamental market." [Filing No. 3–1 at 6 .]

From 2012 to 2016, Defendants worked in the sales department of Plaintiff's Nashville, Tennessee office. [Filing No. 3–1 at 6–7 .] In August 2016, Defendants resigned and left for a company that competed with Plaintiff in the Tennessee fertilizer market. [Filing No. 3–1 at 7 .] On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit in Indiana state court, alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and various state law causes of action. [Filing No. 3–1 at 10–16 .] The thrust of Plaintiff's claims is that Defendants took customer lists, pricing information, and other proprietary information with them to Plaintiff's competitor, causing Plaintiff to lose business. [Seeid. ] Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. [Filing No. 3–1 at 5–16 .]

On October 13, 2016, Defendants removed the case to this Court. [Filing No. 3 .] On November 3, 2016, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause on the issue of transfer. [Filing No. 15 .] The parties responded to the Court's Order [Filing No. 17 ; Filing No. 18 ], and the issue of transfer is now ripe for determination.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The change of venue statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), permits the Court "to transfer an action filed in a proper, though not necessarily convenient, venue to a more convenient district." Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader–Bridgeport Int'l, Inc. , 626 F.3d 973, 977 (7th Cir. 2010). Section 1404(a) provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) places the decision to transfer a case within the Court's sound discretion, based upon an "individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness." Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. , 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack , 376 U.S. 612, 622, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964) ); In re Joint E. & S. Districts Asbestos Litig. , 22 F.3d 755, 762 (7th Cir. 1994) ("[Section 1404(a) ] was clearly intended to vest in the transferor court more discretion than it had been permitted to exercise under the common law doctrine [of forum non conveniens]...."). This flexible inquiry "affords district courts the opportunity to look beyond a narrow or rigid set of considerations in their determinations." Research Automation , 626 F.3d at 978.

Here, the parties agree that this action could have been brought in the Middle District of Tennessee. [Filing No. 17 at 2 ; Filing No. 18 .] Thus, the disputed elements are (1) whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses would be enhanced by transfer and (2) whether the interests of justice would be better served by transfer. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ; Research Automation , 626 F.3d at 977–79. The convenience evaluation encompasses availability of witnesses and the parties' access to each potential forum. See Research Automation , 626 F.3d at 978. The interests of justice element includes factors such as docket congestion; familiarity with relevant law; the situs of material events; and the community's stake in resolving the controversy. Id. "The interest of justice may be determinative, warranting transfer or its denial even where the convenience of the parties and witnesses points toward the opposite result." Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff, which brought suit in this District, opposes transfer. Plaintiff argues that its choice of forum should be given deference, that the convenience factors are otherwise neutral, and that the interest of justice weighs against transfer. Defendants support transfer, and argue that Plaintiff's choice of forum warrants less deference under the circumstances; that the convenience factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer; and that the interest of justice likewise requires transfer. The Court addresses each of these issues in turn.

A. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

Plaintiff argues that its choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference in the transfer analysis. Plaintiff maintains that its choice to litigate in this District was motivated by its "strong connection to this dispute," and that this legitimate decision should be respected. [Filing No. 17 at 3 .] Defendant, in response, admits that Plaintiff's choice of forum is relevant. However, Defendant argues that where, as here, the chosen forum has little connection to the controversy, that choice is merely one factor in the larger analysis.

As a general proposition, a plaintiff's choice of forum is usually entitled to deference. In re Presto Indus., Inc. , 347 F.3d 662, 663–64 (7th Cir. 2003). The amount of deference a particular choice of forum warrants, however, depends on the forum's connection to relevant events. See, e.g. , Dunlap v. Switchboard Apparatus, Inc. , 2012 WL 1712554 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (citing In re Presto , 347 F.3d at 663–64 ; Chicago, R.I. & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Igoe , 220 F.2d 299, 304 (7th Cir. 1955) ) ("[W]hen a plaintiff's choice of forum has little connection to relevant events, its choice is entitled to little deference."); Valbruna Stainless, Inc. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. , 2010 WL 2772324, at *2 (N.D. Ind. 2010) ("Where the chosen forum is not the situs of material events, however, or if another forum has a stronger relationship to the dispute, plaintiff's selection is entitled to less deference."); cf. Research Automation , 626 F.3d at 979 & n.2 (explaining that the plaintiff's choice of forum is a "factor" to be given weight according to the context and circumstances).

As the Court will explain in greater detail below in its discussion of the other relevant transfer factors, this forum has a minimal connection to the relevant events underlying this lawsuit. Plaintiff choice of forum warrants less deference than it would if it bore a stronger relationship to this case. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's choice to bring suit in this District weighs only slightly against transfer. Cf. Valbruna Stainless , 2010 WL 2772324, at *3 ("[T]he present action, while brought in Plaintiff's home forum, is neither the situs of material events nor the forum with the strongest relationship to the dispute. For these reasons, Plaintiff's selection is but one factor among the many this Court must consider.").

B. Convenience Factors

Plaintiff argues that the convenience factors are neutral, primarily pointing to the availability of witnesses. Defendants rejoin that the convenience factors strongly favor transfer.

As explained above, the convenience factors include access to witnesses and the parties' access to the forum. In evaluating these factors, the Court is mindful that transfer is not warranted where it would merely "shift ... inconveniences among parties." Whitney v. Big Dog Holdings, Inc., 2007 WL 3334503, at *3 (S.D. Ind. 2007) (internal quotation omitted).

1. Access to Witnesses

Plaintiff argues that the access to witnesses factor is neutral. In support, Plaintiff argues that while Defendants and two nonparty witnesses are located in Tennessee, Plaintiff plans to call five witnesses from Indiana. Defendants argue that even if Plaintiff's witnesses are based in Indiana, most (if not all) nonparty witnesses are located in Tennessee. Defendants further argue that the Indiana witnesses are all Plaintiff's employees and will testify as record custodians or on uncontested matters. While Plaintiff's employees will not need to be compelled to testify by subpoena, Defendants maintain that it will rely upon nonparty Tennessee customers as witnesses to the business transactions at issue. These witnesses, Defendants assert, would be outside of this Court's subpoena power.

Of the convenience factors, the access to witnesses factor is "often deemed the most important factor in the transfer balance" and is "primarily concerned with the availability of non-party witnesses." Wabash Valley Feed & Grain, LLC v. Hust , 2011 WL 3902780, at *10 (S.D. Ind. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). The Court is generally limited to subpoenaing witnesses for trial "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A). Thus, this factor requires the Court to evaluate the "risk of ‘trial by deposition’ ...