specialist if it is as alleged either at work or doing remodelling in mercer iraq allentown it also shows mr or mrs ballard here incurred what damages they claim here in this case in mercer or rock allen county and it shows the other relevant relatives and exposure witnesses who have identified by plaintiff or located in mercer county in contrast mr mrs bower never lived in mclean county asking you to answer that question directly isn't it true that it would just transfer your case not that i'm aware ok so you have to wait and see how many other parties either there or there are transfer this well in and how many of them would there have to be before he would transfer this the reigning or clay county case again i would transfer the case i would i would i would go through the factors i would understand the gulf oil test i would quiet and say this case doesn't belong there are both public and private factors to consider most notably when we get to the public factors and i shouldn't be trying case  rejected it you want to go into the third district yes sir because even if that was a fact even if it would at most be a minor one and i would submit when we get to the public interest factors in this case what you would be telling the court is if mr wilder and his firm can keep repeating this conspiracy count whether the person ever worked in mclean county or not whether they ever work in our county or not you would be allowed to make this this argument repeatedly over and over again and set up a supreme court's analysis in gulf oil which sets out what to consider you don't just hold your finger in the air and decide what's convenient you don't just throw in the towel and say well there's thirty nine fenice no worst convenience you go through the gulf o except when the plant is not a resident form and then the plaintiff gets less stuff so there's the relative ease the access of sources of proof that's testimonial that's documentary that's evidentiary and we have an exhibit  of present which we believe takes any issue of balancing that issue out of out of consideration there is simply no factual connection between this case and the exposure and the bollards and where he lived and more and mclean county there is the availability of compulsory process which is admittedly not a factor here there is the cost which we believe in da you know other cases it's presumed when the plaintiffs when the three witnesses identified by the plaintiffs in the medical care on that county that the cost is a consideration in our favor and there's all the other practical problems that make trial the case easier more expeditious and less expensive more importantly here and ten significantly more importantly in my pain there are other public factors to consider there are the administrative difficulties when litigation is piled up this is the spring course words not mine in congested counties instead of being handled at its core it's commonly called litigation centers there is jury duty imposed upon a community on a case where there is no factual relationship to that to that for there is a recognition at very basic level that local cases should be tried locally and then finally there's occupation for law from out of state which again is that middle east not a factor here because it's interesting for not giving up smoking so those are the basic principles and that is considered as i understand two things one she she essentially said no worse convenient and two she focused on this conspiracy claim that was made what about the fact  portion of the evidence is documented and she referred to that as well she may have your own you have the right are we so supposed to assume that i mean this is an abuse of discretion stand is it not it abuse her discretion not winning the factors a particular what i mean the way you want them to i mean your position is the factors are clear and should have been transferred just or she didn't agree with you and not residents and some of the cases including supreme court suggest that there's even for shopping when the plane files in a county that's not there form that i can go through fax at link but the bottom line is mr bauer was born county there are the witnesses identified by the point which are relatives and exposure with this witness is that plaintiff answered in a rather tourist hussein these witnesses would be called to testify as to mr bowers employment and exposure opinions may be sought as to the time distance and dusting as of the work conditions all three witnesses are for mercer county there is the medical care in this case there is the medical care in this case that is all commercial county and then there's the plaintiff's own admission at the trial court level in a memorandum in opposition which says in quotes it is true that pla cite for everything else the trial court might very well given that this is a i think always a role to really close question to say i've got multiple parties here and i've got this one case and if i grant the motion only some defendants have raised this we're going to be splitting this and that makes no sense and i i don't know and i say this very question asher there since i'm not under no s the obligation to move this if the trial court they tell court were to reverse mate and then we have a situation where i have to wait and see what the other defendants are going to do and i suspect you probably i don't know off the record shows a certain but i suspect that the other defendants probably know of your having filed this motion at the trial court and if they wanted to join you could have divided up there's nothing to be gained by it if i grant the motion for change of form one convenience here or then on during this time i still got this case and i've now inflicted the same case upon maybe especially the people who are the civil conspiratory defendants particularly don't want to leave the fourth district if you're talking about going to trial courts in the third district so why isn't the specter as i view articulate anything counts and so you want to impose your former trial judges here we understand how this process works and secondly your honor which is why i would emphasize again the whole case goes he doesn't belong there and that's what with directions to transfer the case this case what's going to happen with the other defendants is there any reason to believe that they are going to make a motion for for mountain view this is what i believe the court with your directions to transfer will transfer i do not understand why this this one is different but is there any authority that stands for the proposition that our granting your motion by reversing the trial court automatically moves this entire case to wherever the trial court in mclean county two says to transfer to either rock island or mercer county is there any authority that says trial judge you know what i just moved all of the cases not just the r you may have is one of the one of the considerations that not all defendants joined in this but you cannot simply say i don't win because i didn't get a universal appeal thank you for answering my question my question is is there any a why these public considerations are so important because this is this is a simple matter of respect for the court and court system when we get into situations where we have litigation in congested matter how many times rejected by cases they're not your time's expired but even if that does come up on that side i'll let you make additional argument oh you're not limited in what they say but we would also for the jury the second thing is regarding a laverty case counsel was asked if this was exactly the same situation and in that case thirty five of the thirty eight defendants joined in the transfers inappropriate where potential witnesses are scattered and there is no single or dominant form a superb sprint's when i use the word principle as not my word that's the word of the that the form is inconvenient to the plant for that's exactly what the defendant has done here and defend has not met either one of those principles the witnesses in this case are indeed scattered across not only counties in illinois but around the country and these are just plants where this is these are witnesses disclosed by the defense and those include witnesses in the plainest chosen form including a defense witness then that's just is only appropriate to the most appropriate single form now in this case the defendant has proposed to alternate one and by the on lot by their own logic if two different forms  just as good then there is not one single word on it form the form not convenience doctrine already if you supposes that there could be many different venues the question in the case law says transfer is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances where the factors strongly favor a transfer to one different county in a dark case same thing most appropriate now the second principle is that the defendant must show the plants chosen form is inconvenient to the defendant and so far there's been no evidence no affidavits no testimony nothing in the briefs nothing in the motions nothing from the oral argument that we just heard that mclean county is inconvenient to the to the defendant r j reynolds the defendants were attempting to move the case to the defendant employee's home county now here the defendant's home county is in north carolina i was moving the case farther west from north carolina more convenient for the battle company in north carolina the can't be and they doubt even tried to explain how it could be and that was brought up in the dope case recently from the first district in which the court pointed out you know that was a defendant from britain a plant from  sore doctor was in venezuela and other witnesses were in venezuela but the court said well wait a minute that relates to the convenience of the planet and the plants as a afford a difference i was with the plaint her witnesses where they reside how does that affect you as a defendant how does that affect your convenience it doesn't and the defendant hasn't shown how the fact that you know mr bowers son mr about brother and his doctors which isn't bloomington but i'd be more convenience if we went to the user of the counties that doubt the plaintiff or that we've proposed and that has not happened and so even so the the fenice failed on those two basic principles you know in the green case it was really actually i think kind of stunning in that case where the the supreme court said and said look we're getting all these  requests for supervisory orders and in the end of that case there's space to seventy six they say so to clarify the doubt that's what they said in other words listen up litigants this is what we're telling you to clarify the doctrine if witnesses are scattered including witnesses in the plaintiff's chosen forum and there's no one single county where the has the litigation it is an abuse of discretion to transfer it so actually i think if the court had allowed the trial court in this case had allowed the motion this notion it would have been an abuse of discretion to allow it and you know if you read between the lines there the policy that gore is trying to do an ounce is there and this is mention  but as i was saying the policy is that what we don't want is we don't want a defendant to you know filed a mistake a motion without any sort of evidence at all that the case is inconvenient to them pose a couple you know this venue that could be many counties where venue proper pros a couple of them from a couple of them up the law make a chart and say you know we should do this sent by justice kilbride said what seems to be happening here is not that transfers more convenient or that this is a more convenient forum for the defendants but it's scheduled on the trial docket of february which of twenty six teams this case should be over by now so in that respect the defendant's strategy or tactic if you will has worked he was exposed many different places so there's no really that the local flavor of this case is diminished in those spaces the that the factor of you know it is more proposed two different counties and where the case law really says you have to advocate for one particular  say if i have any time left that also that the issue of a site visit which was brought up some time a little bit in briefs that's really not important here the only site identified by the defendant was wind power plant which is surely undergone say what's more convenient for the two parties and thirty nine to finish you go through the private factors you go through the public factors that's how you figure out what's we're convenient it's not a colloquial late at night over a beer what's more convenient it's a it's a consideration of public and private factors and when you go through that the public factors are to maintain the integrity of our court system to maintain the integrity of our litigation system to prevent litigation centers and procedures for handling the specification is to prevent jurors from nudging each other but in the when the jury is picked and say what i hear why why why is mr power here over mclean county doesn't live over in the quad cities that's the public considerations and that's what i would have poor you to take into consideration when we when we think about this case and and and whether it should be transferred or not on the the witness that a point of says is from bloomington is a defense expert witness which the cases groups say should not be a significant situation anyway but the fact remains it's not even in the record nor are the a case in rock island or or mercer county and then it was in bloom again attests to the consideration of the public and private factors and those are the things that are important if in fact who ven the individual witnesses is the issue then i would expect an affidavit and that would be one part of many factors analysis to be described here but when we get to a situation where the record  i would implore you to transfer this case to where belongs not only for the private factors they consider before the public factors that are much more important have much more consideration here i will tell you a look at the larry case  court deems we should be transferred then transfers recordings the entire case should be transferred which i really believe the trial court has the power to do on our motion concerning all factors i think the entire hay should be transferred but one thing i know for certain is we should not be in mclean county on this case you cannot explain to all rational person who reads this case law why were mclean county other than that the plaintiff i was there and the judge denied the motion there is no other explanation other than that's the way it is because when you go into go and when you go into the public and private stands you can't get away from the fact that this is a case that is  county you cannot get away from you cannot get away from the fact that when you consider the public factors that are supposed to be the center of your fight this court to maintain the integrity of the sest of that this case got no business in the point count that supposed that we're supposed to prevent litigation centers not encourage that we're supposed to vote to have cases follow locally where they belong and that jury duty on the clean county again jury duty on the plane county what in the world are