Advanced Turf Solutions, Inc. v. Johns

Citations: 223 F. Supp. 3d 786; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164913; 2016 WL 6996219Docket: No. 1:16-cv-02769-JMS-MJD

Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana; November 29, 2016; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court ordered a transfer of a case involving allegations against Tennessee residents for stealing trade secrets while employed by an Indiana corporation, the Plaintiff, who also operates in Tennessee. The Plaintiff alleges that after resigning, the Defendants misappropriated proprietary information for a competing company. The case was originally filed in Indiana state court and subsequently removed to federal court. The Plaintiff opposes the transfer to the Middle District of Tennessee, while the Defendants support it. The Court determined that the interests of justice and convenience favor the transfer, referencing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows for such transfers for convenience and fairness. The statute provides the Court discretion to transfer the case based on an individualized assessment of the relevant factors.

The parties agree that the legal action could have been filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, leading to two main disputed issues: (1) whether transferring the case would enhance the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and (2) whether transfer would better serve the interests of justice, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The assessment of convenience considers the availability of witnesses and the parties' access to potential forums, while the interests of justice encompass factors such as docket congestion, familiarity with the law, the location of material events, and community interest in the dispute.

The Plaintiff opposes the transfer, asserting that its choice of forum should be given substantial deference, claiming a strong connection to the dispute. Conversely, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s choice warrants less deference due to the chosen forum's minimal connection to the controversy, and assert that both convenience and justice factors favor transfer. The Court recognizes that while a plaintiff's forum choice typically carries weight, the degree of deference is contingent upon the relevance of that forum to the events at issue. In this case, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's chosen forum has a minimal connection to the events, leading to the conclusion that the choice weighs only slightly against transfer. Ultimately, the action, although filed in the Plaintiff's home jurisdiction, lacks a significant connection to the material events, making it just one factor in the overall transfer analysis.

Convenience factors are evaluated in relation to the potential transfer of the case, with the Plaintiff arguing that these factors are neutral, particularly regarding witness availability. The Defendants counter that the convenience factors strongly favor transfer, emphasizing the location of nonparty witnesses in Tennessee. The access to witnesses is considered a critical factor, as it focuses on the presence of nonparty witnesses. Plaintiff claims that while they have witnesses in Indiana, most nonparty witnesses, crucial to the case's business transactions, are based in Tennessee, making them difficult to subpoena in Indiana. The court notes that it generally cannot compel testimony from witnesses located more than 100 miles away from their residence or place of business, which heightens the risk of relying on depositions if the trial occurs in Indiana. As such, the access to witnesses factor weighs heavily in favor of transferring the case to Tennessee.

Regarding the convenience of the parties, both sides acknowledge their respective locations, with the Plaintiff’s headquarters in Indianapolis and the Defendants in Nashville, Tennessee. While the Plaintiff's key personnel are in Indiana, the Defendants highlight the significant logistical distance from Nashville to Indiana and the Plaintiff's broader operational footprint, which includes Tennessee. The court emphasizes that it cannot transfer the case simply to redistribute inconveniences among the parties. Ultimately, this factor is deemed neutral in the transfer analysis.

The interests of justice factor is contested between Plaintiff and Defendant, with Plaintiff asserting that this District is more efficient and that Indiana law will apply, while Defendant argues for transfer based on various interest of justice considerations. Key factors in this analysis include docket congestion, familiarity with relevant law, and community interests.

1. **Docket Congestion**: Plaintiff presents statistics showing that cases are resolved faster in this District compared to the Middle District of Tennessee, citing a median resolution time of nine months here versus twelve months in Tennessee from April 2015 to March 2016. However, Defendant challenges the significance of this difference and notes that this District has a higher average caseload per judge and is experiencing a judicial emergency due to a vacancy. The Court agrees with Defendant, emphasizing that a transfer to a district with clear personal jurisdiction over the defendant would conserve judicial resources, particularly given the pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Thus, this factor slightly favors transfer.

2. **Familiarity with Relevant Law**: Plaintiff claims that Indiana law governs its causes of action, while Defendant contends that Tennessee law will apply, referencing Indiana’s choice of law rules that typically favor the application of the law of the jurisdiction where the last act occurred leading to liability. Both states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act relevant to Plaintiff's trade secrets claim. The Court recognizes that under Indiana law, the presumption is to apply the law of the location of the tort, which may support Defendant's viewpoint.

Overall, while Plaintiff argues against transfer based on efficiency and familiarity with Indiana law, the Court finds that the factors of docket congestion and jurisdictional clarity favor transferring the case.

The alleged tort occurred in Tennessee and is closely linked to that state, suggesting that Tennessee law would likely apply, although the parties have not fully briefed the issue. The court expresses confidence in applying Tennessee law if necessary, especially since both Indiana and Tennessee follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which slightly favors transferring the case. 

The plaintiff argues for the Indiana forum based on its corporate presence there and defendants’ remote access to its computers. However, defendants counter that the case is fundamentally Tennessee-centric, as they, residents of Tennessee, allegedly harmed the plaintiff's business in Tennessee by misappropriating trade secrets to another Tennessee employer. The court finds that Tennessee has a significant interest in resolving the dispute, while the plaintiff's connections to Indiana do not impact the core issues of the case. 

Overall, both the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice strongly favor transferring the case to the Middle District of Tennessee, with no significant factors opposing the transfer aside from the plaintiff's forum choice. Consequently, the court orders the transfer of the action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court notes that it can initiate a transfer sua sponte, provided the parties are given an opportunity to respond, as demonstrated in prior cases.