Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
JA M ES RISEN ,etal.s
D efendants.
/
OrTransferForImproperVenue,TransferUnder28U.S.C.j 1404(a),OrDismissForFailure
(ECFNo.441.PlaintiffsclaimsarebasedonDefendantJamesRisen'sbookPayAnyPrice(the
tiBook''). Chapter2oftheBook (the(kchapter'')focuseson Plaintiff.
ln theirM otion,D efendantsassert,am ong otherthings,thatthisCourtshould transferthe
actiontotheDistrictofColumbiat'gfjortheconvenienceofpartiesandwitnesses,intheinterest
unnecessaryinconvenienceand expense.SeeVanDusenv.Barrack,376U.S.612,616(1964).
Transferiswithin ilthebroad discretion ofthetrialcourt.''M eterlogic,Inc.v.CopierSolutions,
lnc.,l85F.Supp.2d 1292,1299(S.D.Fla.2002).Courtsgenerallyapplyatwo-parttest:%d(1)
whethertheactionkmighthavebeenbrought'intheproposedtransfereecourtand(2)whether
variousfactorsare satisfied so asto determ ine ifa transferto a m ore convenientforum is
W ashington,D.C.gECFNo.52-11.Henotesthatheinterviewedsourceslocated inthe
W ashington,D.C.area.1d. DefendantRisen pointsoutthatmany ofthepastand cttrrent
governmentofficialswho haveknowledge ofPlaintiff,hisintelligenceinformation and his
reputation,and w ho w ere eitherinterviewed orotherwise referenced in the Chapterabout
Plaintiff,arecurrently,to thebestofDefendantRisen'sknowledge,located in orwithin a 100m ileradiusofW ashington,D .C. 1d.Based on theserepresentations,the Courtagreeswith
Defendantsthatthe DistrictofColum bia is also a propervenue forthis case,because a
substantialpartofthe events orom issions giving rise to the claim s occurred there. See 28 U .S.C .
j1391(b)(2);Mesa UnderwritersSpecialtyIns.Co.v.HembreeConsultingServs.,Inc.,2015
W L 5826848,at*2(S.D.Fla.Oct.2,2015)(venuecanbeproperinmorethanonedistrict).
Defendantsassertthattheinterestsofjusticeandtheconvenienceofwitnessesand
partiesstrongly supporttransfer.W ith respectto theconvenienceoftheparties,Defendants
arguethatsincethey are alllocatedoutsideFlorida,theywillbe inconveniencedby being forced
discoverydemonstratethatPlaintiffwas,andis,domiciledinW ashingtonState.(ECFNo.1191.
Based on these points,the Courttinds thatthe (iconvenience ofthe parties''factorw eighs in
favorto the D istrictof Colum bia.See Cellularvision Tech.drTelecom ms.,L.P.v.AlltelCorp.,
burdenofshowingthatotherconsiderationsmaketransferproper').
W ith respectto witnesses,Defendantsarguethattheconvenience ofthird-party witnesses
strongly favortransferto the DistrictofColum bia. Defendantspointoutthataside from Plaintiff
andhiswife,onlyfouroutof48ofPlaintiff'sotherpossiblewitnessesresideinFlorida.(ECF
No.119,Exhibit81.DefendantsfurtherstatethatnoneoftheirwitnessesareinFloridaandmost
witnessesontheparties'listsareinsubpoenarangeoftheDistrictofColumbia.(ECF No.119,
Exhibit91.Moreover,Defendantsnotethatinresponseto aninterrogatorytolistallpersons
w ith 'sknow ledge orinform ation pertaining to any factin the A m ended Com plaintorany fact
3-
D istrictofColum bia.
The Clerk isD IR EC TED to TR AN SFER thisaetion to the United States District
CourtfortheDistrictofColumbia.
TheDefendants'motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim (ECFNo.52)
rem ainspending.
Copiesprovided to:
M agistrate Judge G oodm an
A 11CounselofRecord
4-