Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): District of Texas which are typical of, and essential to, both parties’ ordinary business operations. In addition, Plaintiff offers evidence that much of the alleged anticompetitive conduct at issue in this case was, and is, directed to and impacts consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. II. LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING 1404(a) MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE Section 1404(a) provides, “[f]or 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.” Under section 1404, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating to the Court that it should, in its sound discretion, decide to transfer the case. See Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the decision to allow attorney fees rests with the trial judge and that decision may only be reversed for an abuse of discretion (B) recognizing that the privilege of being a heard amicus rests solely within the discretion of the court (C) holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the court (D) holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion (E) holding that whether dismissal or transfer is appropriate lies within the sound discretion of the district court
Output (English): holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion