because he was injured while working for his cook county employer through the negligence of waste management cook county company and its employees is self that the defendant bears the burden on a motion to transfer for for my convenience and then order to justify transfer they must show exceptional circumstances strongly favoring transfer to another form which you tell us what this case you do with cook county show your honor a couple  factors significant factors first of all mr bailey was working for his cook county employer a motor carrier at the time he was injured and that's probably good for venue owners with him well for it gives cook county it an interest in the factors another significant factor is that waste management safety director rich profile ski lives in cook county he's a cook county resident he's responsible for a safety for the entire midwest group office of waste management the plaintiffs were injured in texas and arizona a but the company motorola had identical facilities that would have suffered from the same problems here in illinois and again the court considered that as giving the county  local interest in the matter well generally in terms of the form not of convenience analysis cook county certainly is the most convenient form for of the witnesses that have been identified when twenty six worse imo only interviewed two of them to even see if they had information relevant to the lawsuit so the suggestion certainly is that there would only be three white psych county witnesses that one there's nothing within the record that suggests those witnesses won't be necessary in terms of for instance the albert transfer witnesses there were four witnesses identified from melbourne transfer the district manager and three other individuals all at least two out of those three other individuals were interviewed to see if they had information relevant to the lawsuit so there's certainly a suggestion that those witnesses would be necessary in terms of the medical treatment providers  is not giving as much weight in some instances and i don't think that's really the case here the concern obviously is that plaintiffs can choose his treatment right or in choose a doctor who will be in a form that he finds more preferable the reason they give is because the plaintiff and go out and seek cook county doctors in order to fix for me a found and that's just not the situation we have here he was directed to those doctors by his for county lawyer he didn't choose those surgeons and so certainly not a situation where he went out and picked a doctor so that he could receive treatment and then try to fix for me the county he was directed there that the situation worked out with and so i don't think it's a factor that should be given less way more recently that the most recent supreme court case on on the topic final gave the medical treatment providers equal weight as any other witnesses they were located in defendant sho certainly certainly not significant sun well it's still if it's some deference given to him and the case talk of always talk about the plaintiff being the one that has an interest in choosing the form where his rights will be adjudicated  and when we really add again when we look at the final case they talked about that was an interstate transfer and they talked about if illinois had any interest any practical interest in this very very strange messages to us depending on what the authors recent years are well i think certainly if you look at lincoln horse and you look at fennell there is a lot of consistency in final obviously it was a case with a very extreme facts and actually that some of the extreme facts in final run through a lot of the other cases in which transfer is either up held or ordered by this court and that is that you have a pla final as well as most of those cases and you have concerns over either the compulsory process to obtain witness testimony as they did in fact know there were multiple witnesses in mississippi the vast majority of witnesses in mississippi that the parties would not be able to subpoena for trial in illinois oh you have a concern which i don't think was explicitly race in final but it but has been raised in a lot of cases where transfer was allowed but the form would be that the the local work would be applying the law before and jurisdiction and you simply don't have those factors in this case and so when when you look at kind of the the common themes in the cases you know this case doesn't fall under those parameters there's there's witnesses that are scattered throughout multiple counties in northern illinois most of which are adjacent booked du page lake  of discretion in transfer me case if witnesses are scattered among multiple counties with no with no one location dominating i think that's a factor we certainly have in this case where again  the if we look at this thirty four witnesses twenty four of them are in or closer to cook county and those ten witnesses really only three have been identified as potentially having relevant information to the case but i think to back up a little bit when we talk about does white side interest have those white said county have an interest in resolving the case certainly they have an interest and more often than not the the proposed form will have an interest in resolving the case but you know most recently this court in doubt earlier in two thousand and two in chong the court addressed that factor preset simply when they talked about certainly that form has interest but cook county has an interest as well and the burden to transfer perform not being ins is a very high one and that is to show factors strongly favoring because you've got a couple of factors you've got mr bailey was working for is the county employee or a nonparty and b i at the time of the accident you have identical so that was identified in brown as a factor that can be think they are when you talk about a cook county employer its employee being injured as a result of the conduct of a defendant who has a registered agent in cook county a defendant with a six corporations do  truck there's three separate theories basically run it is that waste management on it on a corporate level as a whole didn't have a system in place to make sure that trucks were fully loaded so sometimes trucks would be overloaded sometimes they under loaded date waste management out of corporate level is responsible for regulating that system so that they have enough or not too much material at any time secondly the allegation which goes to the i think it is because there's there's more facilities located in cook county than whiteside county for one you know waste management has more facilities here also when we talk about you know the issue of regulating the activity of waste management that's certainly something that's done on a higher on a corporate level that would be done by a cook county resident mr bush asking so i think the county does have that interest because it has that strong interest because there are those identical facilities here in the county and certainly the if waste management is found liable because of the failure to have fall protection in place or any of these other failures you know the failure to load properly the failure to warn the driver that he's not loaded properly that is going to a fact the facilities they have here in cook county i mean certainly not going to only a fact but the facilities in white site county and so again when we look at doubt when we look at it's not whether this court i would have counts the various factors private and public differently than how the trial court stuff getting flanagan and whether or not court finds that there is no other your i broke down in a call from the first national versus kareem case that really goes to what your honour's talking about and that's the for my convenience law is it me admittedly not clear that's the supreme court of  apologize for that because really that's not all that helpful and i would suggest that those cases that are helpful for this court decide how they should you should vote today is looking at those cases in which a fortnight for his case was granted and then either a firm or reversed there's actually very few of them there is a one that was mentioned by opposing counsel very quickly and that is the trunk case but the case involved a finite greenspace being granted and then reversed all that was a medical malpractise case and it just so happened that there were four surgeries that took place in cook county before all from which the case had been transferred the court looked at that and said you know people those are the traitors in cook county are entitled the location of the county is a little different the witnesses are three point two miles closer to white's i don't have to cook but we do have is where we have eight witnesses here one being a party that isn't white so i county and i would say that they would then like a white side county has the overriding local interest much more than any interest that cook county may have now posing council suggested facilities in cook county that are the same or that's not the case there are no mean a small solid waste landfills in cook county worth the ease of access to proof and she looked at all the witnesses and decided in her discretion that all things considered it was easier to have the witnesses for trial and whites like county and i wasn't book shelf to look at the cost of bringing witnesses to cook orderly manner i anit in a six page opinion and i would suggest that there really is no way to say that there is no that that was completely unreasonable i mean and based on that it would ask for this court to affirm flip side in final there was over first of all of the trial court's discretion so certainly abuse of discretion is deferential but the burden for form not convenience is very high as well and so i think when we look at those two factors the defendants in this case did not meet their burden along those lines to get a little bit more specific you know but the one of the findings of the trial court was that the witnesses from melbourne transfer lived up bit closer to cook county than whiteside county well when we look at the facts we've got two witnesses who lived heard me twice as close to cook county as they do with whites i count run witness who was thirty miles closer to cook county than whites i counted and another witness who was twenty miles closer to cook county and whites account that is witnesses and counsel cited the subpoena statute in response the problem with that in this case is those whiteside county witnesses the three or even if you call it eight that will be called are not going to be subpoenaed witnesses these are employees of the defendant who will testify at trial as ordered by their employer there's no issue of an increased cost in bringing themselves five because of the subpoena statute anyways so that is certainly not a basis and there was indeed no evidence in the record as to additional costs and that leads me finally to a point that i began to me earlier and that comes to the area of affidavits of inconvenience there was one affidavit been comedians in this case came from a defendant it did come from a defendant but there was no explanation given to write it would be inconvenient i mean he gives his home address he gives his business address but there's no explanation why he lives in in but that that factor alone does not mean that the trial is going to be inconvenient in that affidavit doesn't add anything to the court's analysis which is the way to way to sufficiency if after an affidavit but i think more importantly is the fact that there aren't any affidavits from any other witness from the defense especially perhaps aren't necessary or that they don't need the same kind of detail as the summary judgment and they certainly don't need to say money details a summary judgment after that's explicit and costs and costs says they are not again they are not the critical factor so a trial judge cannot deny motion simply because there's not an affidavit but i think that's kind of the problem where this case develops as we look at the factors and there's this attempt to break the factors down individually and say well that doesn't weigh this much or this doesn't weigh that much but when you look at them all together there are a lot of factors of favoring a kind which isn't even the standard the standard is really whether the factors strongly favor transfer so it's really the the totality of the circumstances here that have to be looked at but i think when we talk about you know witnesses who aren't likely going to be called they're out whiteside county and we talked about witnesses that likely will be called in caning temple county who live much closer to cook county and who didn't supply affidavits think you mean yes you know i think that's an important factor to be discussed and again getting back to the abuse of discretion those are issues that were bans by the plaintiff and not ruled out by the trial court thirty four zero now that again the thirty four figure assumes ten witnesses in or closer to a white sect out one mr worse not only i interviewed two of those witnesses to even see if they had information that would be relevant to the answers to derive tori's so i think you know really that the number we're looking at is twenty seven and twenty four of those witnesses are in closer to worry for distance from the coun